Page 185 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 185 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
176
fulfilling its responsibilities, when in actuality those responsibilities have not
been clearly identified. There may be a mismatch between the expectations
and the goals that they identified.
4. Ensure that the partnership has at least one, and preferably more than one,
critical bridge person. The findings demonstrate that a critical bridge person
is essential in perpetuating the process of co-construction and dialogue
among diverse stakeholders.
5. Create non-traditional forums for parent participation. The research team’s
data, and the literature, demonstrate that parent participation is oftentimes
limited to meetings and conferences focused on student performance. In
order to move towards a new cultural model for parental engagement, parents
need to have formal roles on school level decision-makings teams (i.e.
Instructional Leadership Team, Professional Development Committee, etc)
and informal roles designed by the parents themselves.
6. The network partners need to ensure that they engage in a process of dialogue
with one another and not solely with the school. Thus, they need to
intentionally create structured spaces for dialogue in which they regularly
engage in dialogue with one another. The data collected from the Year Two
research team suggests that the partners moved away from a practice of
dialogue with one another but still maintained a pathway of communication
with the school, although it was not totally co-constructive. Furthermore, the
evidence of mutual/shared learning from the first two years was weak and
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 185 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 176 fulfilling its responsibilities, when in actuality those responsibilities have not been clearly identified. There may be a mismatch between the expectations and the goals that they identified. 4. Ensure that the partnership has at least one, and preferably more than one, critical bridge person. The findings demonstrate that a critical bridge person is essential in perpetuating the process of co-construction and dialogue among diverse stakeholders. 5. Create non-traditional forums for parent participation. The research team’s data, and the literature, demonstrate that parent participation is oftentimes limited to meetings and conferences focused on student performance. In order to move towards a new cultural model for parental engagement, parents need to have formal roles on school level decision-makings teams (i.e. Instructional Leadership Team, Professional Development Committee, etc) and informal roles designed by the parents themselves. 6. The network partners need to ensure that they engage in a process of dialogue with one another and not solely with the school. Thus, they need to intentionally create structured spaces for dialogue in which they regularly engage in dialogue with one another. The data collected from the Year Two research team suggests that the partners moved away from a practice of dialogue with one another but still maintained a pathway of communication with the school, although it was not totally co-constructive. Furthermore, the evidence of mutual/shared learning from the first two years was weak and |
