![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
The development of life long learners is highly dependent on the extent to which the organizations within these partnerships have developed a culture of inquiry (Section J.1.1). It also depends on opportunities to learn -- the availability of regular occasions for exposure to new ideas, reading, discussing, experimenting, getting feedback, and reflecting. This requires that time is allotted to make these activities habitual practices in the professional lives of educators.
School Level
In all three sites, the partnerships have invested heavily in teacher development as a strategy for improving student learning in schools, providing numerous opportunities for professional learning. Only in Southern Maine have structural changes been made to build in time for professional development on an ongoing bases. The districts and individual schools have extended their regular school day to build in release time each week for professional development activities. This time is used to address both building and district reforms, and relies heavily on the culture of critical reflection within each school, where interaction among peers is the dominant source of professional learning. Learning, therefore, is part of teachers’ regular work. The educators have translated opportunities to learn into career-long learning. In addition, numerous teacher leadership opportunities have been developed (teacher-scholar positions, site developers for district initiatives, ETEP co-site coordinators, co-instructors for ETEP courses) to foster individual growth and provide collegial support to fellow educators.
Professional development in all three sites has become more building-based, concentrating on issues of concern in individual school improvement plans. Assistance from outside experts in the district, university, or professional networks has been an important source of conceptual input (Huberman, 1995), stimulation, and guidance. Building-based leadership has been a critical factor in fostering reflection and continuous learning. In Toronto, where there is strong leadership, the schools use available times such as team meetings, planning time, and staff meetings for sharing and discussing new ideas to learn from one another. In the schools that have had the most intense experience in Learning Consortium initiatives through summer institutes, follow-up support from the district, and involvement with faculty and student teachers in the preservice program, and where there is strong building leadership, a culture of continuous learning is evident. For example, one student teacher observed that Roland Michener appeared to be a building of teachers who epitomized the notion of "life long learners." They are all avid consumers of professional development. The board provides numerous professional development opportunities, and they look to their colleagues in the building to learn new strategies, and for ongoing support.
In West Virginia, the two schools studied have seized available opportunities for professional development during the first five years of the initiative. The impact is a significant change in collegial relationships, where it’s now accepted and valued to challenge one another to develop new skills. In the high school, the impact is most notable among a core of enthusiastic faculty who gently, but energetically, urge others to get involved. For some teachers, the opportunities provided by the Benedum Project have stimulated desires for continuous learning and professional development; for others, increasing receptiveness to change is a significant first step.
Partnership Level
Because each partnership has made teacher development a major focus of its enterprise, in each case the partnership has substantially increased the availability of professional development opportunities so that educators can learn the substance of reform. In Toronto, professional development provided by the Consortium supplements substantial staff development offerings from the district at a low cost to its members. In Southern Maine and West Virginia, additional learning opportunities were made possible largely with the support of temporary external funds, and strong facilitation and support from the partnership staff.
University Level
While ongoing learning -- staying up to date with the research literature and current thinking -- is an expectation of life in the academy, formal mechanisms for faculty development are not part of the tradition. In fact, the notion challenges traditional norms of academic freedom and faculty autonomy.
Changes among faculty within colleges of education have been largely the result of changing normative expectations -- that partnerships will be developed with schools, and that research programs integrating fieldwork will be required. Greater understanding of adult learning (Loucks-Horsley & Stiegelbauer, 1991: Lieberman, 1995) has been used in each of these partnerships to develop high-quality learning opportunities for teachers. Little attention has been invested in developing high-quality learning experiences for university faculty. A common harsh reality experienced by new assistant professors is that they are often recruited and selected for faculty appointments based on their research record, only to find that most of their job responsibilities involve teaching -- an activity in which they may have little experience or training. Similarly the new expectation of working with schools may be new to many, and the additional need to blend their fieldwork with a developing research agenda is another new role for which few graduate programs prepare future faculty members. Furthermore, once they join a university faculty there is little guidance or mentoring in how to do this.
In all three sites, for those university faculty who have invested in working with schools, interaction with experienced K - 12 educators has been a major source of professional learning, creating greater appreciation for the "wisdom of practice" (Shulman, 1987). The infusion of new faculty who have both practical experience and strong research skills is slowly beginning to change the culture in each institution. Finding or developing a sufficient number of faculty with the skills and competencies to implement the demanding new programs will be a continuing challenge given the scarcity of graduate programs that emphasize this development.
Preservice Level
Where there are strong school-university relationships, student teachers in each of the sites have been socialized into the practices and structures of ongoing professional learning through immersion in schools where this is the norm. Students learn to expect career-long learning from participation in school and district renewal efforts. Little of the university training incorporates these practices either in the teacher education program or in participating schools. The value of early socialization makes the selection of exemplary schools for field placements critical to the preparation of future teachers. Although the selection of cooperating teachers is problematic in Toronto, the elementary pilot program there is the only example whereby teacher preparation incorporates structured ongoing learning through peer collaboration in the course work and in the schools. The program includes formal joint professional development opportunities for teacher candidates and cooperating teachers throughout the year.
To what extent are the characteristics of successful collaboration found in the three school-university partnerships studied here? And how did they develop? Robinson and Darling-Hammond (1994) note that these skills of collaboration, and shared decision making are not common in contemporary teacher education or in schools, nor are they common in graduate programs where university faculty receive their training. Each characteristic is examined in turn across the three sites.
The strength of each school-university partnership appears to be its commitment to collaboration as a means of reform. Each of the characteristics listed above is present in each of the sites to some extent. These characteristics can be found in the original structure, process, and leadership style established within the partnership organization. Mutual self-interest and common goals provided the motivation for joining together in the collaborative venture in the first place. Each party could further its own institutional goals, while together achieving some shared goals that would benefit every organization (e.g., improved teacher preparation programs that would lead to stronger educational programs in the future).
Mutual trust and respect form the bedrock for individuals or organizations with diverse interests to be able to work together. An appreciation of what individuals can contribute to one another’s education and professionalism is essential for developing professional relationships. Where relationships are strong, mutual respect for the unique knowledge, perspectives, and roles of all parties is a recurrent theme.
Shared decision making reinforces the existence of mutual respect. Each party has to feel that it has a voice in the direction of the partnership. Yet, shared decision making alone cannot sustain a partnership. Research has shown at the school level that while the governance structures may have changed to site-based management, "empowering" teachers to share in decision making, there has been little effect on the teaching and learning processes and outcomes they were intended to improve. (Fullan, 1994, Fullan & Steigelbauer, 1991; Smylie, 1994; Wolfstetter, Smyer, & Mohrman, 1994) Unless the partnership has a clear focus, the other characteristics are unlikely to yield results. The consistent shared vision prevalent in each partnership is the focus on improving the quality of learning for everyone in each organization, but particularly to continually improve student learning in schools.
Whether or not these partnerships have undertaken a manageable agenda is open to question. Although they have taken on the ambitious challenge of restructuring multiple institutions simultaneously, they have approached it realistically. Each partnership began with a clear focus on teacher development throughout the career continuum by linking reforms in preservice education with the ongoing learning of practicing educators within a context of school reform. They started with manageable pieces, and then, with realistic pacing (and patience), assessed the readiness to expand or take on greater challenges.
In West Virginia, the partnership allowed schools to explore ideas and develop a plan for restructuring their own school. When schools had sufficient experience and were ready to focus, the partnership developed more specific requirements for strategic planning and grant opportunities. In Southern Maine, several years of informal, low-pressure discussion groups contributed to the development of a strong knowledge base, a reflective culture that stimulated desires for change, and prepared participants to implement innovations in their own classrooms. In Toronto, the Consortium began with summer institutes which were held to promote effective instructional strategies. When the boards were ready, they focused on developing the infrastructure to support continuous improvement through a Training of Trainers course, leadership training, and later through preservice and induction programs.
In all cases, there was commitment from top leadership in initiating these partnerships. There was support from the university administration for improving the teacher education program. There was support from each of the Deans of Education for enhancing teacher preparation and for working in partnership with schools. There was support from district superintendents and building principals for engaging in these joint renewal efforts. There has also been a huge commitment to school renewal on the part of educators in all three sites in terms of time and energy.
In particular, each partnership has also had the benefit of fiscal support for these initiatives, often because of the commitments of top leadership to reallocate resources, underscoring the priority of the partnership. External sources have also supported the partnerships at different points. Toronto had some additional funds from the Ministry to cover start-up costs, but the members of the partnership have made the most significant investments. Each member contributes $20,000 annually to the Consortium. Similarly, in Southern Maine, the Partnership began with an annual commitment of $1,000 as a requirement of membership, with gradual increases in dues by mutual agreement over its ten-year history.
In contrast, in West Virginia, individual schools, school districts, and the College of Education, however, made no monetary investment. The university did invest substantial internal funds to support campuswide involvement in the redesign of teacher education. School Districts committed to providing support to individual PDSs through matching funds, substitutes, buses, etc. Their commitments have largely been in terms of human resources, in the commitment of time and energy. The college also provided facilities for the Project. The foundation has generously supported the Benedum Project.
Clearly there is a long-term commitment in each of these initiatives. They have already been working at this for six to ten years, and the University of Toronto and West Virginia University are just beginning to implement their new designs for teacher education. A long-term perspective and understanding of the change process, as well as the time and energy required to implement change, are critical for sustaining momentum. The dynamic nature of these initiatives is evident. Such large-scale comprehensive reforms are rare. In many ways, these reformers are pioneers. Although many of the specific aspects of these initiatives have been successfully implemented in other places, the challenge is in coordinating multiple initiatives among several diverse parts of the larger system. Change is inherently uncertain and there is no road map for how to do this. As a result, it requires recurring assessment of where they are now and where they are headed. Changing social and political climates shape the journey and create different needs.
Information sharing is at the core of each partnership, as knowledge and information are the principal commodities to be exchanged among the partners. The schools gain knowledge and expertise from university faculty, and the university gains knowledge and expertise from the schools’ professionals. Student teachers benefit from both sources of wisdom. Schools also benefit from the exchange of information from other schools. This is more so the case in West Virginia and Southern Maine, where there are structures to facilitate direct interaction among school-based educators, such as the teacher networks and representation on steering committees. In Toronto, similar efforts are developing through a teachers’ union’s sponsorship of an on-line computer network (Bascia, 1994). The Consortium is also trying to incorporate more sharing opportunities among teachers through more informal sessions, featuring "best practices" within their more formal staff development programs at workshops and institutes.
Partnership Level
The partnership organizations have set the standard for each of these characteristics found to be necessary for successful collaboration by creating norms for working together. In each site, a "trickle down" effect can be seen. The greater the level of involvement, the greater the influence. Consequently, within each partnership the development of collaborative cultures is more visible in the schools and the partnership organization itself, than within the university.
In Toronto, there is high level of collaboration among the planning committee members who develop the plan of work for the partnership. They share information liberally, respect each member’s areas of expertise, use one another as resources, and disseminate and facilitate the implementation of what they have learned on a wider scale within their own boards. In cases like Durham, which has concentrated on leadership skills and instructional strategies, board personnel have also created mechanisms for disseminating and supporting the implementation of these two initiatives in individual schools. In schools where there has been active participation in Consortium initiatives, ongoing board programs, such as Leading the Cooperative School or the Learning Consortium preservice option program, the schools have developed the same culture of collaboration that is characteristic of the partnership organization.
In Southern Maine, the nonhierarchical, collaborative culture of the Southern Maine Partnership is prominent in the schools studied, all of which have a long history of active involvement in the Partnership discussion groups and restructuring initiatives, as well as in the development of the university’s site-based preservice program. The relationships between the schools and the university are also highly collaborative, built on a foundation of mutual trust and respect.
In West Virginia, the Benedum Project’s staff commitment to collaboration established norms of mutual respect and equality among the partners. The partners in this collaboration sometimes jokingly referred to the project’s informal operational agreements that had become the norm for project work groups as "The Big C" or "The Benedum Way" (Phillips, Wolfe, & Delaney, 1994). These norms were established as the mode of operation in the Cross-Site Steering Committee, the governing body for PDSs, chaired by one school-based faculty member and one university faculty member. Through the consistent modeling of these norms, school-based steering committees adopted similar processes. These norms of behavior had been so well established, that the perceived violation of them by university personnel in the recent difficult transition period have been a major source of anger and disillusionment, because the trust had been violated.
In each of the preservice programs, a cohort model is used, where preservice students share the university and practical school experience together. Student cohorts have been used to foster the development of collaborative cultures among future teachers. Preservice teachers in each program found the cohort to be an important support structure, both emotionally and academically, for navigating their teacher preparation program. In places where an emphasis was placed on team building and cooperative learning among peers, the power of the cohort model was especially strong. Developing a strong sense of cohort support was more of a challenge at the secondary level, where the subject specialization resulted in fewer shared classes and practical experiences. Merely placing a group of teacher interns in the same school did not ensure that collegial relationships would develop unless activities were structured to encourage interaction, and demonstrate the benefits of collaboration.
Where there are strong relationships between the university and individual schools, there was shared ownership of the preservice program, and the coordination and operation of the field experience was collaborative. Although in each site the stipend for cooperating teachers is considered "trivial" by the teachers, it was not an issue in most schools. In fact, many cooperating teachers found the experience so valuable that they suggested they would do it even if they didn’t get paid. On the other hand, when there had been no investment in developing collaborative relationships with the schools, feelings of exploitation were common, and teachers were resentful of the "insulting" token amount of the stipend.
Within the university, norms of professional autonomy remain dominant. The collaborative effort invested in designing new teacher education programs has led to greater appreciation for interdisciplinary cooperative efforts.
Professional networks, as conceived here, include teacher networks but extend beyond formal teacher networks to include cross-sector participation in national reform efforts, standards and assessment projects, and individual contacts with experts on a range of issues: assessment, curriculum reform, instructional strategies, action research, and the process of change.
Each of the reform efforts has benefitted from interaction with external networks of professionals, and one of the outcomes of the reforms has been the extension of professional networks of educators. The success of these reform efforts and the dissemination of their work has brought recognition and established connections with a wider range of education professionals. Partnership members have also benefitted from personal and professional contacts made by leaders within the partnership and the university. In Toronto, those contacts have been predominantly at the upper administrative levels of the member organizations. In Southern Maine, consistent with its grassroots tradition, involvement in professional networks is very strong among school-based educators as well. A partial list of the professional networks in which teachers in Southern Maine participate demonstrates the extensive professional learning opportunities that have been developed: Goodlad’s Network of Educational Renewal, The Coalition of Essential Schools, Foxfire Teacher Outreach Network, local educator discussion groups through the SMP, Project Zero, Comer’s School Development Program, a portfolio assessment network, district curriculum committees, NEA, Maine’s State Restructuring Program, and more.
School Level
The commitment to the education of all children and youth is dominant in the visions of the schools studied, in the focus of their reform efforts on student outcomes and the development of lifelong learners, in the time and energy invested by teachers to improve their practice, and in their interactions with students in their classrooms. Teachers’ strong moral commitment is the energy source fueling their investment in educational renewal. It is also the reason for their commitment to working with future teachers, to ensure strong teachers for future generations of students.
More and more schools are beginning to view a broader community as their clients, including parents and businesses. However, the dominant feeling is that if they are serving the needs of their primary clients, they will also be serving the needs of society as well.
Partnership Level
The partnership organization has many clients, although ultimately the client they share with each organization is the student in K - 12 classrooms. In addition, the partnerships’ clients are the faculty and administrators in each of the member institutions, charging the partnership with being responsive to, and supportive of, the memberships’ individual and collective visions. This requires that the partnership be flexible and adaptive to the changing needs of multiple stakeholders. In each of these partnerships, their work has been most directly focused on addressing the learning needs in the K - 12 system, and less actively focused on changing the culture of higher education. Less is known about the needs of university faculty, and it will require more active university faculty participation in the partnership to shape the direction of the partnership so that it addresses their needs as well.
University Level
Similarly, the colleges and faculties of education have to respond to multiple clients, most directly to the future teachers they teach and to the research community. By entering into these partnerships, the universities have also made a commitment to contribute to continuous improvement of teachers, schools, and their own faculty.
Overall, perceptions of university faculty in all three (four including OISE) institutions have improved as a result of their interactions with school-based educators through partnership activities, and working together on collaborative research and curriculum projects and in the preservice program. In Southern Maine, the small teacher education faculty (eight faculty members) and those faculty who have been active participants in the Southern Maine Partnership have earned reputations for listening to and valuing the wisdom of expert teachers. Similarly, in Toronto and West Virginia, a core group of faculty are admired and respected by school-based educators, those who have invested time and energy into developing meaningful, sustained relationships. These relationships have largely been the result of individual faculty initiative, and represent a small proportion of university faculty.
Preservice Level
In the preservice program, student teachers are the clients of both the university and the schools. Where strong relationships have been built between the university and partner schools, there is shared ownership of the preservice program. In these cases, teacher interns felt they were treated as colleagues, valued for the knowledge and skills they bring to the classrooms. In one elementary school, the recognition of student teachers as valuable assets to the schools was demonstrated by the inclusion of all of their names on their staff roster.
Where there were not strong relationships between the university and the school, student teachers felt isolated, and relegated to subordinate roles. Cooperating teachers did not invest in socializing these students into the culture of the school or the teaching profession. Student teachers did not feel safe discussing problems with their cooperating teachers, and often felt the need to co-opt their own learning to gain a favorable evaluation from their cooperating teacher. This was especially true in Toronto, where the official evaluations carry so much weight in a very competitive job market.
These outcomes on the dimensions of professionalism are summarized by site in Table J-1. Outcomes were assessed based on the extent to which these practices have been established to date within the three major strands in each site: within the schools or school districts; within the partnership; and within the university (college of education). Admittedly these ratings are subjective. What is high in one person’s judgment may be low in another’s. The judgments were also shaped by comparisons across sites, and comparisons to accounts of what was before in each site.
|
Toronto |
Southern Maine |
West Virginia |
|
|
Culture of Inquiry |
|||
|
• Within Schools |
Mod-High1 |
High |
Mod-High |
|
• Within Partnership |
High |
High |
High |
|
• Within University |
Moderate |
Mod-High |
Moderate |
|
Ongoing Teacher |
|||
|
• Within Schools |
Low-High |
High |
High |
|
• Within Partnership |
High |
High |
High |
|
• Within University |
Moderate |
Mod-High |
Low |
|
Collaborative Culture |
|||
|
• Within Schools |
Low-High |
High |
High |
|
• Within Partnership |
High |
High |
High/D.K. |
|
• Within University |
Mod-High |
Mod-High |
Low |
|
Extending Professional |
|||
|
• Within Schools |
High |
High |
Mod-High |
|
• Within Partnership |
High |
High |
Moderate |
|
• Within University |
High |
High |
Moderate |
|
Strong Client |
|||
|
• Within Schools |
High |
High |
High |
|
• Within Partnership |
High |
High |
High |
|
• Within University |
Mod-High |
High |
D.K. |
1 The hyphenated ratings indicate variation across schools or within an institution. (Some schools are high, while others have moderate levels.)
Key
High
Moderate
Low
D.K. = Don’t Know (insufficient data)
The table suggests that high levels of educator professionalism have developed in each site, with level of "professionalism" directly correlated to the length of existence of the partnership. Southern Maine has been working at this the longest, and has achieved the highest level of professionalism across all organizations. Another consistent observation is that the partnership organization and the schools have achieved higher levels on these dimensions than are observed within the university faculty. This is not a surprising finding given that at least two of these dimensions, ongoing teacher development and collaborative cultures, have only recently been discussed in relation to university faculty. Perhaps the surprising finding is the only moderate ratings on developing a culture of inquiry among university faculty (Fullan, 1993; Goodlad, 1994; Sarason, 1993). It is important to remember that none of these institutions have a strong research tradition, and it was in the university programs where the least amount of self-reflection was evident. Few faculty are critically examining their own curricula and instructional practices.
-###-
[Assessment of Outcomes: Overview of General Findings: Professionalism and Institutionalization (part 3 of 4)]