The Evolution of the School-University Partnership for Educational Renewal

Gifford, Bernard R.

doi:10.1177/0013124586019001006

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The university codirector of the project was able to be nearly full time in the school during two quarters of the crucial first year of implementation because she had been granted a sabbatical in the setting. University faculty becoming part of the everyday life of the school contributed to leveling the status hierarchy and diminished challenges associated with the positioning of faculty as the "experts" (Barnett, Anderson, Higginbotham, & Gatling, 2010;Chan, 2015;Gifford, 1986;Hattrup & Bickel, 1993;Hayes & Kelly, 2000;Teitel, 1998). While faculty certainly had areas of expertise, which we drew on, teachers had expertise of their own that was valuable for both teacher educators and interns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating Synergies for Change

Carney

Chu

Green

et al. 2019

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Context The challenges documented in the literature on research–practice partnerships and similar school–university collaborations are outlined in the literature review in this issue. Yet only a collaboration among multiple educational and community organizations could create a synergy powerful enough to achieve the multifaceted goals of this project: (1) enhance instructional practices to better meet the needs of diverse learners; (2) better prepare teachers and teacher candidates to engage families in support of their children's success; (3) develop a community of practice in which preservice teachers, teacher educators, in-service teachers, administrators, and other educational and human service professionals participate in ongoing, collaborative professional development; and (4) recruit and retain more teacher candidates from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This study analyzes features and outcomes of a six-year school–university partnership funded by a large state grant. Project goals included developing innovative models for closing the achievement gap in an elementary school with a high percentage of English language learners and high-poverty measures. Using an inquiry-action model, the partners worked to better engage and support families as they enhanced teacher preparation and professional development. Research Design This case study uses mixed methods research to analyze how one research–practice partnership navigated the challenges inherent in such collaborative work. Data Collection and Analysis Data sources included student standardized testing data, teacher and intern surveys, semistructured interviews, a formative assessment of partnership processes, student and intern work samples, and observations in classrooms and teacher professional development activities. Conclusions/Recommendations This partnership avoided or overcame many of the challenges typical of school–university partnerships. Four factors appeared to be significant to the project's success. First, all the key coordinators of the partnership, including the school principal and teacher education faculty, remained in place for five years. Similarly, there was very low turnover among teachers in the school, which meant that professional development was sustained. Second, the personal and professional characteristics of the people involved in the partnership were the right mix for the task. Shared meaning was fostered and school–university status hierarchies leveled as late-career university faculty spent large amounts of time in the school, participating in professional learning communities with teachers and teacher candidates. Third, trusting relationships were fostered within the school by the principal; there was a high level of trust from the outset. Fourth, both school and university leaders waited for indications of “readiness” among teachers and faculty, drew on expertise within the team, and demonstrated a commitment to organic evolution.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Creating Synergies for Change

Carney

Chu

Green

et al. 2019

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When partners' beliefs and values were not articulated ahead of time, partners worked at cross-purposes in their attempts to achieve their shared goal, including the goal of professionalizing the teacher's role in the classroom (Bartholomew & Sandholtz, 2009;Richmond, 1996;Snyder & Goldman, 1997), engaging students through active learning pedagogy (Collins, 1995;Hasslen et al, 2001;Hayes & Kelly, 2000;Penuel, Coburn, & Gallagher, 2013), and conducting action research on specific curricular issues (Gifford, 1986;Kuriloff, Reichert, Stoudt, & Ravitch, 2009;Noffke, Clark, Palmeri-Santiago, Sadler, & Shujaa, 1996).…”

Section: Building Organizational Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This struggle is further exacerbated when partners have different personalities and interaction styles (Freedman & Salmon, 2001;Hasslen et al, 2001;Noffke et al, 1996;Snyder & Goldman, 1997). See Table 2 for a summary of the challenges to building shared meaning Bartholomew & Sandholtz, 2009;Collins, 1995;Edwards, 2012;Gifford, 1986;Hasslen et al, 2001;Hayes & Kelly, 2000;Kuriloff et al, 2009;Noffke et al, 1996;Penuel et al, 2013;Richmond, 1996;Snyder & Goldman, 1997 Use Different Discourses Without Translating or Bridging Them Carlone & Webb, 2006;Fenwick, 2004;Goldring & Sims, 2005;Martin et al, 2011;Yamagata-Lynch & Smaldino, 2007;Yuan & Mak, 2016 Use Different Interaction Styles When Talking About Differences Freedman & Salmon, 2001;Hasslen et al, 2001;Noffke et al, 1996;Snyder & Goldman, 1997 BUILDING TRUSTING RELATIONSHIPS Building trusting relationships is particularly difficult when partners hold negative perceptions of one another before the collaboration even begins. This includes the perception from teachers that the work of university faculty is irrelevant to the daily realities of their classroom, and the perception that university faculty are mostly interested in partnerships to further their own careers or funding opportunities.…”

Section: Building Organizational Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They found that of the 16 teacher partners interviewed, 14 began their partnerships suspicious that the university professors wanted to "fix" them or use them to secure grants and funding. Fears and suspicions of being judged, being fixed, and being exploited were prevalent in many partnerships (Firestone & Fisler, 2002;Freedman & Salmon, 2001;Gifford, 1986;Goldring & Sims, 2005;Grossman et al, 2001;Hasslen et al, 2001;Heckman, 1988;Johnston & Kerper, 1996;King, 1997;Lancy, 1997;Martin et al, 2011;Noffke et al, 1996;Osajima, 1989;Singh, Märtsin, & Glasswell, 2015;Snyder, 1994;Snyder & Goldman, 1997;Ulichny & Schoener, 1996).…”

Section: Building Organizational Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, and as previously mentioned, building trust is difficult if partners maintain a status hierarchy. Status hierarchies can take a number of forms in insider-outsider partnerships, including situations in which researchers position teachers as in need of their expertise (Barnett et al, 2010;Chan, 2015Chan, , 2016Gifford, 1986;Hattrup & Bickel, 1993;Hayes & Kelly, 2000;P. Miller, 2006;Teitel, 1998); teachers position researchers or teacher candidates as servile assistants (Johnston & Kerper, 1996); or school administrators position collaborators as working under them (Martin et al, 2011).…”

Section: Building Organizational Infrastructurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Challenges of Bridging the Research–Practice Gap through Insider–Outsider Partnerships in Education

Phelps

2019

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Partnerships between schools and universities are increasingly advocated as a way to bridge the research–practice gap in education. Empirical research has revealed a wide variety of benefits that these partnerships can bring to merging research and practice. Yet, empirical studies also demonstrate that merging research and practice through partnerships at local sites is neither straightforward nor a guaranteed process. Rather, it is a fragile process fraught with tension that often stems from the relationship between the school and university partners. Purpose Kornfeld and Leyden reflected that if schools and universities are to successfully partner, they “should be ever mindful of … the infinite complexities and potential pitfalls in the relationship.” The purpose of this literature review is to document these complexities and pitfalls more fully so that schools and universities involved in partnerships can have more realistic expectations of the demanding work entailed in maintaining healthy relationships. Realistic expectations can help school and university partners to more successfully navigate the fragility of their work. Furthermore, the research literature suggests that when partners work collaboratively to address these challenges, they will strengthen their relationships. Research Design A literature review was conducted using an intellectual social network analysis and an extensive database search. A total of 56 studies were selected for analysis using relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria. Findings The 56 studies reveal that challenges to maintaining partnerships emerge from the differences in schools and universities along three high-level categories: organizational structures, discourse practices, and power relations. Yet, schools and universities can mitigate these challenges by working together to collaboratively build organizational infrastructure, shared meaning, and trusting relationships. Recommendations Schools and universities that partner to close the gap between research and practice at local sites should be mindful of the ways that their differences in organizational structures, discourse practices, and power relations can complicate their work together. At the same time, schools and universities can strengthen their relationships by intentionally working to collaboratively build organizational infrastructure, shared meaning, and trusting relationships. By working to reconcile the differences between themselves, schools and universities can better learn how to navigate the fragility inherent in their partnership.

show abstract