![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The purpose of this section is to put together the lessons learned from each of the school-university partnerships. The selection criteria ensured that each case was indeed a variation of the same phenomenon -- a school-university partnership engaged in comprehensive reforms that address the entire teacher education continuum, from preservice preparation to the ongoing learning and working conditions of experienced teachers. Each site has a commitment to inquiry, reflection, and research, and the partnerships have developed new ways of working that have become mainstream activities for their member organizations. In addition, each partnership had been in existence for at least five years, long enough to learn from their efforts.
The task of the cross-case analysis is to identify the similarities and differences that will be instructive to future collaborative reform efforts. The best way to learn how systems were created to address local needs and circumstances is to read the individual cases (Volume II).
The analysis begins with the descriptive findings, organized around the seven elements of reform identified in the conceptual framework: the vision guiding them; the leadership driving them; the knowledge and research/inquiry foundation upon which they are built; the strategies used to implement them; the opportunities for learning needed to sustain them; the mechanisms for communication used to coordinate them; and the organizational arrangements designed to support them. Each independent variable is addressed in terms of general findings across sites and then by the specifics of each site.
When people truly share a vision they are connected, bound together by a common aspiration. Personal visions derive their power from an individual’s deep caring for the vision. Shared visions derive their power from a common caring (....) A shared vision is a vision that many people are truly committed to, because it reflects their own personal vision. (p.206)
A consistent theme observed across each partnership and its member organizations is a dominant shared vision that goes to the heart of what educators do -- they are teachers, committed to improving learning for all those they teach. In each initiative, there is a focus on developing lifelong learners, first among teachers, with the expectation that teachers will instill the same values and behaviors in their students. The emphasis on reform in teacher education is directed toward the same mission. The degree to which these goals are integrated across organizations varies across sites.
Consistent with the vision of the Consortium, the vision within FEUT is to strengthen the faculty’s capabilities in field-based research and practice, and to make partnership with schools a way of life (Faculty of Education, University of Toronto, 1995). FEUT is attempting to strengthen the teacher education curriculum with the addition of new faculty who have strong research skills, subject matter expertise, collaboration skills, and who are committed to field-based applied work. This vision is more specifically spelled out in the elementary Learning Consortium Preservice Program, where the vision focuses on the creation of strong professional communities based on collaboration and reflection.
Similarly, in the affiliated districts, the visions are focused on student learning, to educate every child by turning the organization chart upside down, placing students at the top and reorganizing central services and resources to provide direct support for learning in individual schools. Within the two districts studied, the most dynamic schools were focused on putting the needs of the students first, and empowering students to develop as lifelong learners.
The new teacher education program is based on the belief that "[e]ffective teaching is grounded in knowledge, experience, critical reflection, and a commitment to preparing children and youth for the future (....) Teachers and students together foster a lifelong pursuit of learning which encompasses personal growth and global awareness" (College of Education, University of Southern Maine, 1994). This focus for teacher learning is directly tied to student learning in Gorham, where a primary aim of the program is for each intern to develop a personal vision of teaching and learning. The site coordinators want interns to know their students and how they learn. The coordinators guide the prospective teachers’ development by emphasizing the inclusion of student work in intern portfolios. This requirement also serves to build a "body of evidence," documenting the interns development as a teacher.
In the schools studied, the focus on student learning is a dominant theme. Teachers know each child and their learning needs. Their love of teaching is apparent in their interactions with students, in staff meetings, among colleagues before and after school, and in their commitment to continuous learning, as evidenced by their participation in a wide variety of professional learning experiences.
Not only does there not appear to be a shared agenda among the university and the school faculty, there is also a significant difference between the university and the schools who own the vision. Within the schools, there is shared ownership and commitment to the schools’ visions. Within the HR&E, a shared vision is currently lacking. In the beginning of the project, there was substantial excitement and participation in the redesign effort, but enthusiasm has diminished. The "official vision" on paper is not owned by the faculty. Most faculty were unable to define a clearly articulated vision of the college or its teacher education program.
Across the sites, the importance of multiple leaders among the various organizations and shared leadership within the partnership organization were prominent themes. In Toronto and Southern Maine, leadership has spread within the partnership organization, the member districts, and partner schools. Dispersed leadership has strengthened shared ownership of the partnership’s mission, enhanced commitment to the goals, and expanded the network of expertise from which all partners benefit. In Southern Maine, the emergence of a broad base of leaders has enabled the partnership to thrive even in the face of substantial turnover of leaders. The numerous leadership changes occurred in West Virginia prior to the development of leadership across organizations proved to be highly disruptive.
Two examples demonstrate the role of these characteristics in leadership, one at the individual level and one at the organizational level. The dean of the faculty of education played a prominent role in the establishment of the Learning Consortium. In the first year of the partnership, he attended all of the Planning Committee meetings, took an active role in the first Summer Institute, generously shared with board representatives his own writings and those of other scholars, and played a significant role in shaping the vision and direction of the partnership. As the other partners in the Consortium developed a strong shared sense of direction, they increasingly assumed leadership in developing the Consortium agenda, and leading its initiatives. While still an important presence in the partnership, the dean has been able to "fade" into the background.
A shared vision of school improvement is now evident in the partnership organization. The Consortium itself has provided leadership in the development of professional development models for a range of teacher development efforts: cooperative learning, conflict management, induction, change management, evaluation and assessment, antiracist education, etc. The collective expertise of Consortium partners developed the initial models. When substantial additional expertise had been built within the individual boards, district personnel took over subsequent development. In this way, Consortium-related developments have been interwoven with board initiatives by integrating or adapting LC initiatives to enhance board priorities. The result has been greater coherence of staff development programs and integration of staff development with broader board goals.
The attention of the Consortium to local needs and priorities of its members has helped to create commitment to the partnership and to encourage local initiative. Each of the boards brings to the partnership its own areas of expertise, and many leaders have emerged to spearhead initiatives. In addition, a strong nucleus of leaders has developed within the boards (many of whom were part of the original cohort who participated in the LC’s Training of Trainers Program) to steward district programs.
It is important to note, however, that while leadership has spread, the association with high-profile "famous people," who also are accessible and effective in working with constituents, has been an important psychological association for the Learning Consortium. There is always a danger that when a charismatic leader departs, the vision and energy will dissipate. The partnership has not been subject to that test yet, but participants in each member organization questioned the longevity of the partnership if such an event was to occur.
A good example can be seen at White Rock School, where the principal had a lot of faith in the teachers and was really committed to empowering them. According to the teachers, the principal would not make decisions; he made them make them. He would always tell them, "It’s only going to work if you work it out." Teachers remarked that, "Sometimes it was really frustrating, but it was good for us. We really grew. It encouraged discussion and we learned how to work together." When they learned that they won’t have a principal next year due to budget cuts in the district, there was no panic. When asked if they needed one, they said, "No. The teachers already run the school."
What has been important in these situations goes beyond individual characteristics to the development of people with knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary for sustaining the partnership and fulfilling its mission. Effective leadership was characterized by a consistent vision, providing direction within one’s own organization, as well as building bridges between organizations with similar goals. This required attention to local norms and local concerns and building structures within the partnership that were responsive to the needs of all members. Effective leaders developed extensive networks and worked at strengthening those relationships to increase both commitment to the cause, and the potential for securing additional resources. Commitment was developed by providing opportunities for all sectors to be involved in a substantive way, ensuring reciprocity of benefits, and encouraging leadership development in others. Individual leaders, while major influences, were able to "fade" into the background once they had established new norms and behavior patterns to routinize new ways of working within and across organizations. And yet, they were also astute enough to recognize when it was necessary to step back into leadership roles to maintain a focus on the goal, or to establish new directions.
Within the PDS sites, leadership has expanded with the emergence of a number of teacher leaders. While the building administrators in each of the schools are committed to change and are actively involved, many teachers have assumed significant leadership roles within the school, in the cross-site organization, and on university committees.
Within the Benedum Project, efforts were made to establish shared leadership by setting up governing bodies with representation from all stakeholders and norms of shared decision making. However, those governance structures each managed particular aspects of the reform initiative, while administration of the overall project operations remained centralized within the Project staff. Eventually the lack of communication and understanding of the project’s long-range plans and course of progress resulted in such strong dissatisfaction with the Project leadership among some sectors within the HR&E faculty, that the project director and associate director eventually resigned. New governance structures for the project are being developed, and a search has begun for a new director. During the difficult transition period, the lack of visible leadership has resulted in frustration and low morale.
-###-
[Cross-Site Analysis: Descriptive Findings (part 2 of 4) ]