Page 184 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 184 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
175
cultural model; however, the parental engagement spectrum and the number of
parents involved in the school is still limited. During Year Three, the partnership is
taking a major step forward in its efforts to expand the parent role through the
planning and funding through the Ford Foundation Grant.
Recommendations
Recommendations for UEAT in its Fourth Year and Beyond:
1. Create an addendum or clause in the MOU that allows for the students,
teachers and classified staff to have a voting representative of some type on
the Board of Directors.
2. The data reveal that the partnership’s underexposure contributes to limited
community involvement. The absence of explicit structures within the
partnership suggests that UEAT needs to create clear pathways of
communication between stakeholders and become more visible in the
community. The Executive Director should be the steward of this exposure
initiative in ensuring that UEAT becomes a brand that is recognized within
the community.
3. Create and communicate clear goals for the partnership by multiple means.
The lack of defined goals leads to stakeholder speculation, which then places
unrealistic expectations on the network partners. Ultimately, placing
unrealistic expectations on the partners serves more as a hindrance to UEAT
than an asset because it makes those who are impacted by the work of the
partnership (i.e. teachers, classified staff) feel as though the partnership is not
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 184 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 175 cultural model; however, the parental engagement spectrum and the number of parents involved in the school is still limited. During Year Three, the partnership is taking a major step forward in its efforts to expand the parent role through the planning and funding through the Ford Foundation Grant. Recommendations Recommendations for UEAT in its Fourth Year and Beyond: 1. Create an addendum or clause in the MOU that allows for the students, teachers and classified staff to have a voting representative of some type on the Board of Directors. 2. The data reveal that the partnership’s underexposure contributes to limited community involvement. The absence of explicit structures within the partnership suggests that UEAT needs to create clear pathways of communication between stakeholders and become more visible in the community. The Executive Director should be the steward of this exposure initiative in ensuring that UEAT becomes a brand that is recognized within the community. 3. Create and communicate clear goals for the partnership by multiple means. The lack of defined goals leads to stakeholder speculation, which then places unrealistic expectations on the network partners. Ultimately, placing unrealistic expectations on the partners serves more as a hindrance to UEAT than an asset because it makes those who are impacted by the work of the partnership (i.e. teachers, classified staff) feel as though the partnership is not |
