Collaboration in Education

Judith J. Slater, Ruth Ravid

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781136992421
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Collaboration in Education establishes a needed framework for school/university collaborations that will be critical for others wishing to reproduce and participate in these partnerships. The contributors explore the elements necessary for sustainable collaboration in order to provide a frame of reference for others doing this work. This volume will help readers to ask the correct questions in thinking through school/university collaboration, such as: Does this collaboration make a true change in the way each parent organization operates in the future? Does it meet the needs of a more complex and changing work environment for universities and schools? Does it impact beyond the participant institutions and inform the field by producing knowledge of use to others? This volume also includes extensive analyses of ongoing school/university projects in the United States, Asia and Europe.

Part I
Professional Development Schools

The first category listed in Slater’s School/University Collaboration Matrix is Professional Development Schools (PDS). The rationale for placing this first is because it is the simplest type of collaboration and the least complex to understand. The reason for this is that PDS partnerships are formally arranged and/or contractually designed and understood by participants before undertaking such an endeavor. As such, roles, responsibilities, and rewards are clear. Often, the state designates the parameters of a PDS and both the university and school system administration agree up front to the guidelines that they must follow in the contract signed by designees from each institution; therefore, high mutuality is a built in dimension.

Most PDS encompass some configuration of preservice teacher training, inservice, university course development and delivery, peer training and teaching, and opportunity for research and development on the part of the university faculty involved. Resources, personnel, and access to the public school and to the university are part of the project, and it is known up front what the limits of such involvement will be.

The first example in this volume of a PDS is a retrospective look at 18 years experience with two long-term PDSs provided by Catelli. In her words, the aim of the projects she was a part of was “holistic–organic partnerships.” The aim is clear: to improve K–12 education and professional education (higher education degrees for teachers). Most importantly, her analysis of the projects provides invaluable lessons to those embarking on this type of collaboration, and is particularly candid about the perils of untenured faculty using their time to do something which may not be valued by the university community, a theme also echoed in Slater’s 1996 work, Anatomy of a Collaboration. In addition, untenured faculty are often powerless to make decisions within their own institution, as well as in the school system, whereas more power resides with the teachers used as adjuncts by the university to deliver coursework.

Catelli likens the process of this type of partnership to a “dance of the PDS” to keep it going. She offers valuable suggestions for leadership, funding, and institutionalizing successes. Catelli’s story also illuminates the importance of the support of those in power at both the school and the university.

The second example of a PDS is provided by Henning, Hawbaker, Lee, and McDonald. They describe a 2-year project involving two community schools and a university where the first year of the project was its pilot year. In order to have buy-in from the stakeholders, a governing committee serving as a power base was formed to steer the development and activities of the project. One of the lessons learned from that pilot year was that change had to be made in small incremental steps. As with all change strategies, cultural elements of each organization must be understood by all participants as to why things are done the way they are done within each of the organizations. Big changes are short lived, and must be gradually introduced in order to become institutionalized. The pilot also found that open and clear feedback was necessary for all participants to feel informed and participatory. Along with this was the need for transparency so that resistance to innovation from any source was reduced. Bringing into the decision- making phase those who might have objections to the partnership also reduced potential resistance.

The second year of the project was formalized contractually with a clear statement of mission and purpose, the contribution and responsibility of each organization, the roles and responsibility of participants, the governance, and commitment of each of the three partners. This is one of the defining factors in PDS; that these elements are clearly stated and agreed upon by administration. For this project, the result of having a pilot led to more involvement, such as site coordinators, teacher incentives, and courses for mentoring preservice teachers.

Time for teachers balanced with their institutional demands, and time for faculty involvement, along with resource allocation and funding are major elements that impact on PDS success. It is clear that PDS is a collaborative model that can help foster the goal of “culture building” for school/ university activities so that they become the norm and impact in positive ways on student success.

Some of the PDSs start organically, such as Catelli’s example, and some start as the result of the work of a task force. In both cases, small incremental change in the way the institutions and individuals work together to implement change, highlight the need to manage the innovations. Lessons learned are to deal with individual negative feeling, involve those who object to elements in the operation and make them active partners in process, and listen to all concerns so that everyone feels that their voice is heard and taken seriously. PDSs also follow a long-term sequence moving from planning to piloting to articulating a formal agreement as in the Henning et al. example, and time must be both available and managed so that there is continuous progress. As shown in the Catelli project, participants need perseverance, and some associations can last as long as the five teachers she has worked with over 18 years.

PDSs can strive and succeed because they benefit both sides—the university and the schools. Each partner has different goals, needs, and cultures, but they can nicely compliment each other. The positive tone of the Henning et al.’s chapter and the long-term record of collaboration described in the Catelli’s chapter are testimonies to the difficulties, as well as the positive outcomes to all participants.

1
When a Look Back Can Be a Step Forward

An Analysis of Two PDS Partnerships for Education Change and Improvement

Linda A. Catelli

This essay focuses on two longitudinal school–college/university partnerships I have initiated and directed. The first one was at Queens College of the City University of New York (CUNY), and operated for 18 years under the title of Project SCOPE I (1980–1998). The project targeted the school’s curriculum and the college’s preservice and inservice teacher education programs, and then integrated them to effect change and improvement in K–18 education. The belief that fundamental change in education occurs through a holistic–organic approach to partnerships was an integral part of Project SCOPE’s conceptual framework and theory. Aspects of that partnership were institutionalized and still exist today at Queens College.

In the latter part of 1998, Project SCOPE’s holistic approach to education change was expanded and relocated at Dowling College and three school districts on Long Island. The project went under the title of Project SCOPE II–School–College Operation in Partnership Education. It included the core subject areas of an elementary-school curriculum, such as science and language arts. Project SCOPE II has been in existence since 1998 and continues to have a vibrant relationship with one of the original three school districts—the North Babylon School District (NBSD). In 2006, the Belmont Elementary School of the NBSD became a Professional Development School (PDS). It adheres to the essentials and standards for PDSs, as well as the basic tenets of a holistic–organic partnership. Both Project SCOPE I and II are categorized as PDS-type partnerships in that their goals are to improve pre-K–12 education, professional education (16–20), and student learning in a coordinative fashion. Grade levels 16 through 20 refer to master’s and doctoral degree programs in education.

In this essay, I analyze and compare the two partnerships with reference to the major elements of the Slater’s School/University Collaborative Matrix. Also, I comment on the type of relationship (symbiotic or organic) among the participants, the sources of power and influence, and how such factors impacted the partnerships. Finally, writing this essay has given me the opportunity to look back and reflect on my many years of partnership work. It has helped me to identify the important lessons that I have learned in directing these partnerships. The essay is written in my voice and from my perspective as the professor-director of two small PDS partnerships that envisioned a new integrative K–20 education system.

PROJECT SCOPE I AND II: DESCRIPTIONS AND ANALYSES

Organizational Involvement and Type of Agreement

In 1980, Project SCOPE I began at Queens College/CUNY. The partnership involved 15 teachers with me as its director. A handshake and a two-page description of the teacher’s role in the partnership was our basic contract. At that time, I was an untenured assistant professor. I initiated the partnership with cooperating teachers who had agreed to work with one another in a partnership arrangement. Our purpose was to improve K–12 education and teacher education. Although I had subsequently received tenure years later, the 15 teachers and I were not able to influence important decisions that were made at the higher levels within the system. Nor were we in positions of power to deter some of the blows that came from CUNY’s financial problems and restructuring efforts. At the time, much of my work with the 15 teachers took me off campus for a good part of the week. Subsequently, this prevented me from developing the type of social capital one often needs to survive well during adverse situations at a university. First lesson: Be aware of how important it is to network, and how important developing social capital is to your survival. Second lesson: Make sure you and your dean are on influential committees to provide the benefits of partnerships so that the partnership can ride the political waves during a crisis.

The teachers represented schools from New York City, Westchester County, and Long Island. The schools included two high schools, two middle schools, and three elementary schools. Two of the schools were private institutions and the others were part of the public education system. The mixture of grade levels, systems, and settings (urban and suburban) was important for providing Project SCOPE I with what it needed to conduct its experimental work and research. Also, the mixture provided diversity in terms of philosophical and curriculum viewpoints. Such diversity was the partnership’s strength along with the fact that the 15 teachers knew what it meant to work together as a team and resolve conflicts in order to reach a common goal. There was no power play among the teachers. Their respect for one another’s position and mine as director prevailed in many of our debates and monthly discussions. As adjunct employees of the college the teachers were by contract in positions to influence course content, and to make decisions about student grades. They were part of the CUNY system. This was by design. I, on the other hand, did not have a contractual position with the schools. This limited my influence and involvement in the schools’ curriculum. Regardless, for most of the 18 years there was an esprit decorps among members. Eight of the 15 teachers remained in the partnership for all of its 18 years. A more organic type of relationship among all involved had developed.

Project SCOPE I consisted of 15 teachers representing their schools with their principal’s approval. I represented my department and one teacher education program at Queens College. The program was in a subject that was considered by some as having low status in the world of academe— health and physical education. Influence and power sometimes reside in an academic discipline. We often wondered if we would have suffered as many blows when the budget cuts came if the partnership were in mathematics or science. However, we were able to sustain the partnership for three reasons: One, we were cost effective. Two, we had by that time established trusting, organic-type relationships. And three, SCOPE I was part of a larger formal partnership agreement that the college had with two schools. One of the two schools was a high school located on the campus of Queens College— the Townsend Harris High School. The other was a middle school based in the Borough of Queens, the Louis Armstrong Middle School (LAMS–IS 227). Each of the now nationally-recognized schools had formal written agreements with Queens College that were signed by the College’s president and the chancellor of New York City Board of Education.

The then-president of Queens College, Saul Cohen, was an avid proponent of school–college partnerships. He had artfully designed contracts with the NYC Board of Education to begin LAMS, and to resurrect the Townsend Harris School on the Queens College Campus. SCOPE I operated within these two larger contracted projects. As director, this afforded me some influence and power in the early years to make important decisions. Also, I was asked by the president to serve on committees responsible for designing the new Townsend Harris School. Thus, in addition to a handshake with the teachers, there were two formal agreements between the college and the NYC Board of Education signed by the top CEOs. My work at both schools, coupled with the president’s interest in partnerships, had contributed to my receiving tenure, and to securing resources. It is no secret that an active and visible college president and dean in partnership work are key factors for success. However, the bottom line is the teachers’ involvement. The tangible benefits to them in their classroom, as well as the financial benefits they receive, are important to sustaining their involvement. In 1985, Saul Cohen left Queens College. Partnerships in education at Queens College lost their position as a top priority item. Lesson learned: Power and influence are fluid. They change when leadership changes. Timing is, indeed, everything. Therefore, one should capitalize on the good times; make significant strides and innovations as an investment in sustainability; and push for strategic planning in the partnering institutions to favorably position the PDS partnership.

Which institution’s strategic plan do you operative from? Open conversations among partners and a detailed annual contract that includes such information are critical to answering that question. Ideally, the partnership should appear in both the college and the district’s strategic plans. If not...

Table of contents

• Routledge Research in Education
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I Professional Development Schools
• Part II Consultation
• Part III One-to-One Collaboration
• Part IV Multiple Configurations
• Part V Postsecondary
• Part VI Technology Projects
• Part VII Interagency Collaboration
• Contributors
• Index