0.3 Angelle, a., wilson, n., & Mink, g. (april 2011). building  (Page 3/10)

The relationship that is established between school districts and universities must be one of mutual respect and benefits. Goodlad (1998), as cited in Dyson (1999), noted that the purpose of school-university collaboration is to allow the strengths of both entities to benefit the whole while also allowing for the goals of each partner to be met. However, as the partnership is initiated, Goodlad (1993) suggested that lessons learned from professional development school endeavors should be heeded. Cultural differences in school systems and university systems are vastly different. Schools are more regimented in time, schedules, and space where universities have greater freedom in scheduling and time for research and investigating problems of interest. While universities approach problems from the perspective of inquiry and pondering, the approach of schools holds a more immediate need for action (Goodlad, 1998). Each side of the partnership should be aware of and sensitive to the perspectives from which the other will approach the partnership.

Kersch and Masztal (1998) cautioned that even without problems, the tasks of initiating a partnership will take more time and effort than anticipated. These researchers also note that change comes slowly, particularly for those who are being asked to change. An analysis of collaborations prompted Kersch and Mazstal to recommend a written commitment from the partners which should include a timeline, a list of responsibilities of each partner, and an evaluation. The written commitment must emanate from the shared vision of all partners, a vision founded on communication and compromise. Partnerships will rarely be sequential but evolving.

Instruction from both university professors and school practitioners

Instruction from both university faculty and practicing school and district level administrators provided aspiring leaders the theory-to-practice connection critical to understanding work in the field (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007; Devita, et al., 2007). The big picture of theory with the application to schools provided students of leadership with improved problem solving skills.

The application of theory to the world of schools is critical to preparing aspiring leaders for the real work of principals. Quinn (2005) supported the creation of “a problem-based, real world program of instruction” to “encourage universities and principals to seek innovative approaches to the leadership curriculum” (p. 16). This can be accomplished with exemplary principals working with professors on syllabi, course activities, and formative assessments. Quinn further recommended on-site delivery of instruction to increase accessibility of practitioner partners and district personnel. Convenient access to the instructional site may motivate practitioners to participate in the instructional component of the partnership.

Background

The university in this study has entered into partnerships with 26 school districts, in the geographical area surrounding the university. These partnerships are formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by both the Dean of the College of Education and each district’s Superintendent of Schools. This MOU spells out the responsibilities of the university and the school district, including membership on the Educational Leadership Program Steering Committee (SC). This committee includes one member from each partner school district and faculty representatives in the Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department (ELPS). The SC: (1) is the partnership decision-making body; (2) establishes goals based on district-level data and needs; (3) develops a plan for collaboration and for ensuring successful implementation of the leadership preparation program; and (4) develops and plans for evaluation of the partnership.