Page 166 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 166 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
157
Singh doing it [co-construction].” However, within the interviews, Dr. Singh was
not heavily identified as a critical bridge person to the same extent as Dr. Key.
Summary of Critical Bridge Person Findings
The Year Two research team’s observation of Dr. Dr. Key being a critical
bridge person coincides with the findings from the Year One research team, who
clearly identify her in this role as a person who constructs important relationships
between stakeholders in the partnership’s first year of operation. According to
Gillenwaters, a member of the Year One research team, “Dr. Key was very
instrumental in establishing cross-organizational trust among members of UEAT’s
different stakeholder groups. Dr. Key was respected and trusted by members of each
stakeholder group.” The aforementioned mirrors the statements found in the UEAT
Business Plan (2008), which identified her as a critical bridge person during her
tenure as the interim Executive Director. Ms. Bryant, the school’s principal, noted
that Dr. Key “is an educator who knows the LA system and knows the school [Prep],
and so that foundation that they laid in the planning process was pretty well done, so
it was something to build on.” Thus, during the first year of the partnership, Dr. Key
was integral in serving as a critical bridge person.
However, during Year Two, Dr. Key was absent from the partnership and
there was no evidence of anyone replacing her within that role. As a result of this
vacuum, the research team asserts that there was a regression in the use of the role of
the critical bridge person as a strategy to overcome a persisting barrier. Although
the Year Two research team’s data revealed that there was a regression in the use of
Object Description
| Title | Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two |
| Author | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Author email | SavinaW@aol.com; savinaw@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rousseau, Sylvia G. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Stowe, Kathy Huisong Marsh, David D. |
| Abstract | Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools. This study the second and third year of one co-constructed community-school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one urban high school.; The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also, the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership. This study will also identify the methods in which the community-school-university partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest of school transformation. |
| Keyword | partnership; co-construction; urban school; transformation; parental engagement |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3759 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Woodyard-4509 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Woodyard-4509.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 166 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 157 Singh doing it [co-construction].” However, within the interviews, Dr. Singh was not heavily identified as a critical bridge person to the same extent as Dr. Key. Summary of Critical Bridge Person Findings The Year Two research team’s observation of Dr. Dr. Key being a critical bridge person coincides with the findings from the Year One research team, who clearly identify her in this role as a person who constructs important relationships between stakeholders in the partnership’s first year of operation. According to Gillenwaters, a member of the Year One research team, “Dr. Key was very instrumental in establishing cross-organizational trust among members of UEAT’s different stakeholder groups. Dr. Key was respected and trusted by members of each stakeholder group.” The aforementioned mirrors the statements found in the UEAT Business Plan (2008), which identified her as a critical bridge person during her tenure as the interim Executive Director. Ms. Bryant, the school’s principal, noted that Dr. Key “is an educator who knows the LA system and knows the school [Prep], and so that foundation that they laid in the planning process was pretty well done, so it was something to build on.” Thus, during the first year of the partnership, Dr. Key was integral in serving as a critical bridge person. However, during Year Two, Dr. Key was absent from the partnership and there was no evidence of anyone replacing her within that role. As a result of this vacuum, the research team asserts that there was a regression in the use of the role of the critical bridge person as a strategy to overcome a persisting barrier. Although the Year Two research team’s data revealed that there was a regression in the use of |
