![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The revised figures and accompanying explanation for each of the sites are presented below. Summary instructions for reading these networks are provided in the introductory remarks.
The network begins with antecedent variables on the left, which led up to the formation of the Partnership. The intermediate or intervening variables describe the evolution of reform. The outcome variables are arrayed in the far right column. The outcomes of interest in this analysis were five different dimensions of educator professionalism: a culture of inquiry, teacher development, collaborative culture, professional networks, and client orientation. In addition there was concern for the durability or "institutionalization" of these reforms.
Critical boxes (variables) are rated high, moderate, or low. These indicate level of development on those variables, and are intended to help understand the impact of those variables in the causal network and ultimately on outcomes. The strength of relationships in the network is denoted by the thickness of connecting lines. Plain lines indicate a positive relationship, dashed lines indicate a weak relationship, and thick bold lines indicate particularly strong relationships.
There are three dominant streams in the flowchart. The stream along the top of the figures has most of the college/teacher education variables. The stream along the bottom has most of the school district and individual school variables. The middle stream contains the variables that describe the Partnership.
The partnership’s focus on teacher development began with an emphasis on the professional development (11) of experienced teachers. The attention to instructional strategies supplemented existing district renewal (13) efforts to support individual school development. The partnership’s professional development efforts (11) contributed significantly to building the capacity of districts (13,17) to provide assistance (19,22) to individual teachers and schools (20,21,23,25). Within three years, the infrastructure of the partnership was sufficiently developed so that neither a leadership change (12) nor a membership change (16) was disruptive. The ethos of the partnership (11), of using the partnership to further each member’s organizational goals, contributed directly to the development of a collaborative culture (28) among its members, and a strong client orientation (30). The cumulative expertise of partnership members enhanced all members’ knowledge base and appreciation for research (26), and extended and strengthened professional networks (29), while having a significant impact on teacher development (27) through a variety of direct professional development experiences (11) sponsored by the Learning Consortium.
The partnership’s impact was reinforced by the district’s support (19,22) of partnership initiatives. The realignment of district resources (13,17) further enhanced the districts’ ability to provide assistance (19,22) in the form of instructional specialists and consultants to work with individual schools (20,21,23,25), and has institutionalized the availability of such assistance (31). The availability of district resources to support individual school improvement plans (20,21,23) produced significant levels of knowledge and skill (26,27) among teachers, created collaborative cultures (28) in some schools (20,21,23), and strengthened an already strong client orientation (30). The sustained support from District A (19) over six years to strengthen instructional strategies and building leadership (18) has also resulted in substantial institutionalization (31) of cooperative-learning practices.
District B (17), (depicted along the bottom of the chart) which has a shorter history with the partnership (16), was also a progressive district (4) with strong leadership (5), and brought significant resources to the partnership. The shorter duration of involvement and the broader scope of district renewal initiatives have produced inconsistent implementation to date, largely dependent on building leadership (24) and the individual school’s receptivity to change. Assistance (22) is available but not always sought (25). Where there is strong building leadership (24) and receptivity to change, significant progress toward creating a culture of inquiry and an appreciation for research (26) has developed and contributed to teacher development (27), and the development of collaborative cultures (28), professional networks (29) and a strong client orientation (30). Each of these factors has contributed to substantial institutionalization (31) of new instructional practices and collegial working relations within the school.
Reform of Teacher Education (along the top of the chart) has proceeded to a large extent independently of the partnership, but with significant interaction with the partnership in some instances. The assessed inadequacy of teacher education (1) provided the basis for the new administration (3) to launch reforms. The hiring of new faculty (9) signaled a change in focus, with a greater emphasis on research and inquiry (26) and the development of partnerships with schools (8). Two pilot programs were developed in partnership schools (20,25) that aligned the focus of preservice teacher development with the professional development foci of both the partnership and the district. The impact of this alignment in one program, where there was a strong relationship (bold line) between the university faculty and the school faculty, was a high level of teacher development (27) and the growth of collaborative cultures (28) among both preservice and experienced teachers. In the second pilot, while there was some alignment of the pilot’s focus and the partnership’s focus, there was low implementation of the instructional practices in the partner school (25). In addition, there was little contact and no relationship had developed between the university and the school, and the result was little effect on teacher development of experienced teachers and an indifferent to negative attitude (dotted line) toward the university program.
A third site-based preservice program, not affiliated with the partnership but located within a partner district (23), is codirected by one university- and one school-based teacher educator. It was one of several "options," or pilot programs developed in the teacher education reform efforts (10). Both the district (17) and the school (23) have made a substantial investment in the preservice program, while the university investment of staff and resources has been limited. Significant differences in philosophy of preservice education have inhibited the development of strong relationships (dotted line). Nonetheless, the presence of and involvement in the preservice program in the school has yielded additional professional development opportunities (27) for experienced teachers by mentoring future teachers. For preservice students, the immersion in the school has provided meaningful learning experiences (27), as well as socialization into the collaborative culture of the school (28).
The impact of the school-university partnership is most evident in the school/district stream, particularly in District A (13). The consistent focus and intensity of involvement from the district (13), the partnership (8), and the university preservice program (10) have produced substantial results, which have been reinforced by organizational changes (13,20) to institutionalize new practices. The impact in District B (17) is noticeable in pockets, but less pronounced (depicted along the bottom of the chart) — a result of the shorter length of involvement (16) in the partnership. The effects of the preservice teacher education reform stream is more dispersed, the result of three different pilot programs represented in the chart (20, 23, 25), each with varying levels of school-university collaboration (width of lines) and consistency of implementation. Any discussion of institutionalization of the teacher education reforms is premature, as these are "pilot projects" and the development of new preservice practices are very much in process. (See Figure J-3.)
The reallocation of district resources (8) in conjunction with administrative support from the university (9) helped to solidify the partnership, which created a shared vision (11) and a strategy (12) for achieving school reform. The vehicle developed turned out to be a powerful force in this renewal effort. The label "professional development" may be parsimonious, but it obscures the variety and intensity of learning opportunities that have yielded such significant outcomes. A more elaborated chart features those components. The "blow up" in Figure J.4 highlights the extensive network of professional development experiences. The Partnership began with educator focus groups (A), which established norms of reflection (13). These norms became so pervasive that they became the modus operandi for all professional learning, whether sponsored by the SMP or among colleagues within individual schools.
Numerous and varied professional learning opportunities are available to members of the Southern Maine Partnership. District reforms in Gorham (inspired and encouraged by Partnership discussion groups) led to the creation of teacher scholar positions (B) in each school, districtwide curriculum committees (C), resulting in new teacher leadership opportunities (23). The joint venture with USM in site-based teacher educators created additional leadership roles as ETEP site coordinators (H), and ETEP course instructors (I). Later the ATLAS project (24) extended the range of learning experiences through districtwide committees and summer institutes, conference presentations (K), and the establishment of ATLAS site developers (J) in each building. In SAD #72, similar opportunities have developed through the ARISE project (28), in the role of teacher leaders (M).
The Partnership itself provided complementary and supplementary learning opportunities through outside speakers (D), renewal assistance projects such as Foxfire (F), the Assessment Mini-Grant Program (G), as well as direct assistance in individual school renewal projects. The partnership also played a critical role in developing an extensive network of external contacts (L), such as Goodlad’s Network of Educational Renewal, Maine’s Innovative Education Grants Program, Maine State Restructuring Program, NEA, Project Zero, The Foxfire Network, the Coalition of Essential Schools, the School Development Program, and more.
These multiple professional development opportunities have accumulatively contributed to increasing professionalism via a greater appreciation for research and establishing a culture of inquiry (29), substantial teacher development in both knowledge and skills (30), a strong collaborative culture in the educational community (31), the development of extensive professional networks (32), and strong client orientation, whether the clients are colleagues in one’s own building or in other schools, student teachers, parents, or the students in their own classrooms.
The Partnership’s strong foundation (11,12,13) that met the needs of educators, not only survived a leadership change (18), but the consistent vision (11) helped the organization continue to thrive. The stimulation and support from the partnership (11) along with the availability of temporary external funds (5), and strong building leadership (14) resulted in significant school development (15,16,17). The partnership (10), with leadership from the university (9,18), began to address reform of preservice teacher education (20). Temporary external funding (19) and significant input from school-based educators (21,22) helped shape the direction of teacher education (20), and produced strong ownership of the program (ETEP) in each district. The ETEP program in each district (21,22) benefitted from the district (6) and school development (15,16,17) that occurred before ETEP, and the schools (15,16,17) benefitted from the interaction with university faculty and student teachers (21,22). Both of the district renewal efforts created teacher leadership opportunities (23). These collaborative efforts have contributed significantly to developing a culture of inquiry (29), teacher development (30) among both school and university teacher educators, the development of strong collaborative cultures (31), and a strong client orientation (33) with an emphasis on the learning needs of K - 12 students and future teachers.
The role of the partnership (10) in both district (6) and school renewal (15,16,17) was to channel the energy of new leadership (4) and initial steps toward renewal (1,5,6) by focusing the vision (11) and providing the vehicle (12,13) to promote educator learning (30). Temporary external funds (19) obtained by the partnership (10) provided motivating learning opportunities (12,13) to support educators’ school development (15,16,17). Leadership changes in both districts (25,27) did not disrupt renewal efforts, and in one case (27) provided new opportunities for district renewal (28). The professional contacts (32) developed through the Partnership (10) facilitated the acquisition of additional temporary external funds (19) to further district renewal (25,28) that supported continued individual school development (15,16,17). In addition, the mutual development of site-based teacher education programs (21,22) provided reciprocal benefits to both preservice education (20) and teacher development (30) in the schools (15,16,17) through significant teacher leadership roles (23). The intensity of involvement in school development (15,16,17) from multiple sources (10,12,19,21,22,23,24,27,1,5) has contributed to developing a sound research foundation and culture of inquiry (29), substantial teacher development (29), collaborative cultures within schools, districts, and teacher education (31), with a strong client orientation (33), as well as enhanced professional networks (32). Most significantly, these continuous efforts over a nine-year period have resulted in the institutionalization (34) of many professional development opportunities (12,13,21,22,23,24,28), which are now built into district and university budgets, and the culture of schools and university-school relations have changed to where collaboration is now a way of life (13,31).
The teacher education reform has followed a similar path, with many of the same factors playing a significant role. Political support for reform from the State (1), combined with the forum for addressing change in the Partnership (10), and input from schools, stimulated the leaders in the College (9,18) to initiate teacher education reform (20). Assistance from temporary external funds (19) enabled the development of site-based teacher education programs (21,22). These school-based partnerships were a significant source of professional development (12) and leadership opportunities (23) for both university-based and school-based teacher educators, and have produced strong collaborative cultures (31) and a strong client orientation (33). New leadership in the College (26) is also beginning to stimulate a greater appreciation for and involvement in research (29). Substantial institutionalization (34) of this innovative site-based program has been achieved as the costs have been subsumed within the College’s budget.
The complexity in the chart tends to blur two major streams: district and school renewal, and teacher education reform. The lack of distinct paths is an accurate depiction of these renewal efforts, as can be seen in the considerable overlap in each strand’s development. The two efforts have become so integrated into the lives of educators that they no longer view them as separate programs, but rather as essential components of their own professional and school development. This integration speaks to the strength of the partnership (10) — less to the organization itself, than to its spirit (13). This can be seen in the resiliency of this renewal effort through several leadership changes (18, 25, 26, 27), and in its substantial institutionalization (34), changing educational practices in all parts of the system. (See Figure J-5.)
The shared vision (10) that was collaboratively developed by the partnership was endorsed by a commitment of district support (5) via the reallocation of internal funds (6) and in-kind services to support school development (12, 13). The partnership provided assistance (8) in the form of professional contacts, technical assistance, and a variety of professional development opportunities (14). A collaborative governance structure was established (15) to coordinate the partnership’s development of Professional Development Schools (PDS). The shared vision (10), commitment to assistance (8), and collaboration (24) produced strong relationships between the Partnership coordinators and individual schools (bold lines). In each case, school development (12, 13) was facilitated by strong building leadership (9). The establishment of a site-based teacher education center (16) in School A (12) and the cross-site steering committee (15) provided additional teacher leadership opportunities (17) for experienced teachers by mentoring future teachers. This innovation contributed to the evolution of teacher education reform (11) and strengthened relationships between the school and the university’s preservice program (bold lines). Although viewed as the prototype for the new teacher education program, the critical site coordinator role has yet to be institutionalized (27), as it still funded with temporary external funds (3).
The relationships with the university through the partnership organization (7) and the extensive professional development opportunities (14) provided for school-based educators contributed to developing an appreciation for research and inquiry (22), substantial individual teacher development (23), and the foundation for collaborative ways of working (24) between the schools and the university, and among colleagues in their own school and with other schools (15). These experiences also facilitated the development of professional networks (25), while maintaining a strong client orientation (26). The institutionalization of these outcomes is somewhat problematic (27). While a few structural changes have been implemented, and these attributes of professionalism have significantly changed the instructional practices and professional lives (23, 24) of the educators in School B and a core group in School A, these learning opportunities are still highly dependent on temporary external funds (3).
The other half of the shared vision (10), the creation of an exemplary teacher education program (9), was forged over several years of collaborative committee work. It stimulated and was stimulated by some experimental programs or courses developed in collaboration with school-based educators (16). This work produced a plan for a new teacher education program, which has been approved by the Faculty Senate, giving it a level of institutional permanence (27). However, it has yet to be implemented.
Several leadership changes (18) during the course of this renewal effort initially slowed progress on the redesign work (11 dotted line) and eventually grew into significant organizational conflict (19). Changes in leadership style from the collaborative decision-making norms (24) that had been established raised uncertainty of the vision (10, dotted line) of reform, and to the dissolution of the original partnership organization, and the reorganization (20) of the teacher education reform efforts. New faculty (21) hires have been infused in the reorganization who bring substantial knowledge (22) and skill in working with school-based educators (23), and they are beginning to rebuild some of the relationships between the university and the schools (24, dotted line). There remains, however, significant skepticism on the part of schools.
As depicted in the chart, there has been more extensive development within the Professional Development Schools stream (lower half of the chart) than within the university teacher education reform efforts. Most of the outcomes have been produced within the school sector. The lack of stability in the project’s leadership (not just in terms of individuals but in the function, vision, and style of leadership) has disrupted progress. Few of the developments on the university side have been implemented, and as a result their durability is unknown.
-###-
