![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
A Culture of Inquiry -- Tracing backward from outcomes, the factors that contributed to the development of cultures of inquiry in schools were building leadership in establishing this expectation, the intensity of professional development opportunities available, teacher leadership opportunities, and the collaborative development of site-based teacher education programs. Critical supports for each of these factors were the availability of funds to provide the time and opportunity to learn; district resources, for example, additional training, consultants, and substitutes; as well as similar resources from the partnership organization.
Within the partnership organization itself, the critical factors that contributed to the development of a culture of inquiry were their strong client orientations, which stimulated ongoing assessment of the services provided, the collaborative culture and commitment to shared decision making they had developed within the organization. The foundation for these developments was the shared vision guiding the partnership’s work reinforced by the leadership from all sectors--the university, the districts, and the partnership organization.
Within the universities’ teacher education program, the development of a culture of inquiry was affected by several factors. One significant factor was through the linkages established with schools in the renewal of teacher education programs, as well as collaborative work among the university faculty in the design of new programs. In all sites, leadership was important for establishing both formal and normative expectations emphasizing field-based research, and the infusion of new personnel who were committed to working with schools, and to support the development of a more collabortaive culture within the university.
In the preservice programs, the dominant tools for socializing future teachers into a culture of inquiry were portfolios, reflective writings in journals or class papers. Joint professional development experiences with experienced teachers was also an important mechanism, as was the practical experience in schools that had a strong culture of inquiry, where experienced teachers modeled these practices on a daily bases.
These same factors also account for the development of continuous teacher development and collaborative cultures. In Southern Maine, a significant factor shaping all three outcomes was the strong reflective culture that had been established in the early days of the Southern Maine Partnership. One of the reasons that these norms became so pervasive was because of the broad-based participation of teachers, and school and district administrators in the Partnership. In West Virginia, the establishment of a governing body with representation from schools and the college, and a commitment to being inclusive -- giving everyone a voice -- was significant in the development of collaborative cultures.
Extensive professional networks have been developed over time in all sectors. Significant factors that have stimulated this development are the intensity of cross-organizational linkages that have occurred through professional development experiences, collaborative research projects, district renewal efforts, and the collaborative development of teacher education programs. There is also the sense that success breeds success, and as each of these partnerships has developed and their accomplishments have grown, so has their reputation. Other reform initiatives and organizations have made connections with these partnerships, extending their professional networks. The connections and reputation of leaders within these partnerships have also been a significant factor in establishing new contacts. In West Virginia, the less extensive network development may in part be due to the geographical location, but may also be due to its shorter life span. The development of professional networks continues to grow there for both school- and university-based educators.
A strong client orientation was quite high across all organizations, as a commitment to improving the learning experiences of everyone in all educational institutions was a strong motivator for undertaking these ambitious reforms. The intensity of school-university interactions seemed to be critical for developing a broader perspective of the clients that each organization served. Still, there remains within the university different perspectives as to who their clients are. Many have yet to see an intersection between what they do and what school-based educators do.
Toronto has had amazingly stable leadership in all organizations during the life of the partnership. The one significant change was in the position of Director of the Learning Consortium. This change was not disruptive for several reasons. The vision and direction remained consistent, the norms of operation remained the same, and significant shared leadership had emerged within the organization, which continued with the new leadership. The current director does not describe her role in terms of leadership, but rather as the worker who answers to six different
masters -- the representatives of the six different partners. Although it was not a factor during the course of this study, an issue of concern in the Toronto area schools is the tendency to move building principals frequently. In the schools studied, the building principal was critical in the development of the culture of the school, establishing norms of collegiality and continuous learning. Whether the culture has been sufficiently ingrained to sustain the departure of the principal is an open question.
In Southern Maine, there has been significant turnover of individuals in a number of leadership roles, but there has been little disruption. Here too, leaders have emerged across the partnership from all sectors, but especially among teachers. Again, the consistency in vision and norms of operation continued when the individuals changed, enabling smooth transitions. The number of teacher leadership opportunities developed in Southern Maine certainly contributed to the broad expansion of educators assuming leadership roles, suggesting that leadership can be developed. In fact, the master’s degree programs in Instructional Leadership and Education Administration at USM were designed to develop leadership among classroom teachers without forcing them to leave the classroom to assume leadership roles. The respect for teachers demonstrated by university faculty seems to have contributed significantly to developing knowledge and self-confidence among teachers, and to the emergence of teacher leaders. This site would be a fertile place to study the development of leadership qualities among educators.
West Virginia has experienced the most extensive changes in leadership of the three sites, and the changes have been a major source of disruption. Many of these critical changes came early on in the project’s development, before any substantial dispersion of leadership had developed, to ensure that the infrastructure of the partnership was firmly in place. Then when the new leadership represented significant departures from the norms of operation that had been established, members of the partnership experienced difficult adjustments. However, the excitement of the early work and the vision that had been created appears to be sufficiently strong within the project to enable the partnership to endure the changes. A major reorganization is currently under way, with some new and some "old" members stepping into new leadership roles.
While the monetary costs can be modest, they are not inconsequential. In all three sites, the impact of sustained, ongoing, intensive professional development opportunities, which are supported by modeling, coaching, and collective problem solving, has been significant. These kinds of learning opportunities need to become part of professional practice to sustain ongoing improvement. In all three sites, the challenge remains to find ways of generating the necessary funding to sustain the ongoing work of the partnerships.
Beyond the monetary investments, the investment of human resources has been substantial in all three sites. Tremendous amounts of time and energy have been invested in these initiatives, far more than the amount of time for which compensation may have been received. Beyond an incredible moral commitment to these efforts, a strong motivator appears to be the personal growth and satisfaction gained through working and learning with others. For example, many cooperating teachers noted that they would mentor student teachers even if they didn’t get paid, because they felt they gained so much personally and professionally from the experience.
The Southern Maine experience (elaborated in Figure J.4 in the Appendix) is the most obvious example. The extensive network of professional learning opportunities developed through the Southern Maine Partnership, supplemented by district and building initiatives, connections with professional networks, and the partnership with the University of Southern Maine’s ETEP Program, has resulted in significant developments in child-centered educational programs, aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices; substantial teacher leadership opportunities; and strong cultures of inquiry and collaboration within schools.
Similar results can be seen in Toronto and West Virginia in individual schools that have benefitted from substantial professional development opportunities provided by the partnerships and the ongoing support for learning from the district, in addition to collaborative work with university faculty in developing preservice learning experiences. In Toronto and West Virginia, these collaborations have also produced significant changes in curricula and instructional practices. While the intensity of linkages clearly has contributed to the professional development of teachers, the contribution of building leadership was also critical in establishing an environment where teachers are encouraged to seize these opportunities. It is difficult to disentangle the contribution of each factor, or determine whether it is possible to achieve similar outcomes if one of the two factors is missing. In the small sample studied, they tended to co-vary.
An essential ingredient required for successful partnerships is a merger between two or more parties that have distinctive differences that complement one another. The capabilities and strengths of one party supply resources the other lacks and vice versa. Those exact differences that make the partnership advantageous can also present major challenges.
The most obvious differences between the members in each partnership are the substantial differences in cultures between higher education and public schools. In higher education, an integral part of an academic’s work is to stay current with research, engage in research, and write. While school-based educators recognized the professional benefits of these practices, they are not expectations built into one’s job responsibilities. The well-established hierarchy that has developed as a result of credentials obtained, and assumed expertise among university faculty, can be a barrier to collaboration from both parties’ perspectives. Recognition of the expertise of practice and the knowledge to be gained from experienced teachers often goes unrecognized by academics. Unless mutual respect for the knowledge and skills of all parties develops, productive collaborations are difficult to achieve.
In Southern Maine, where the development of the ETEP program was a highly collaborative process, substantial tension developed among university faculty who didn’t want to relinquish control of course content and pedagogy. It violates valued norms of professional autonomy and academic freedom. In Toronto, where the educational system is traditionally much more conservative and hierarchical, there has been very little input from the schools into the design of the new teacher preparation program. There is a constant tension between the desire for "academic integrity" and the need to develop practical skills for effective classroom practice. These tensions may never be completely overcome, but by working together school-and university-based educators in Maine have demonstrated that there are reciprocal benefits to be gained.
The importance of personal and professional relationships can be seen in all three partnerships throughout their development, within and between each member organization. The strength of the institutional relationships has been built largely on a number of individual connections that were initiated for a range of purposes, from developing individual courses, to schoolwide missions, to district strategic plans. Sustaining these relationships required developing shared leadership structures that encouraged a balance of power and influence that is both equitable and flexible. The shared visions of the partnerships have fostered commitment to common goals, while allowing independence to pursue individual goals. In so doing, the partnerships have developed symbiotic relationships, where the association with the partnership is mutually advantageous to all members.
Developing relationships between school and university faculty has required a sustained investment of time and energy. In each case, the partnerships required time to overcome a history of animosity to develop trust and respect for the expertise that each partner brings to the enterprise. In all three sites, the development of partnership was facilitated by university leaders who demonstrated an appreciation and understanding of local needs and goals in each of the member organizations. In Southern Maine, the site-based ETEP program has been particularly successful in developing mutually beneficial relationships between schools and the university. The attitudes and time commitments on the part of both university- and school-based coordinators have been major factors in their successful partnership. Similarly, successful collaborations have been established with individual schools in both Toronto and West Virginia. The size of those two programs presents additional challenges. The amount of time that will be required to develop relationships with the number of schools needed to support their entire preservice programs exceeds the capacity of the human resources current availability.
While strong personal and professional relationships provide a foundation upon which to build the partnership enterprise, they are not substitutes for the development of structural mechanisms to reinforce changing practices within and between organizations. At the school level, Southern Maine has made significant changes in their organizations to support continuous renewal. Schools and school districts have built into their regular work schedules time for ongoing professional learning activities by restructuring their school day. The districts have also built into their budgets support for teacher leadership positions such as teacher-scholars, site developers, and co-site coordinators for preservice training, which had originally been created with support from external grants.
In West Virginia, the cross-site steering committee was a new organization created to coordinate the development of professional development schools. This structure has been an important vehicle for communication across sites and between PDSs and the college. This organization’s function has, however, been supported by external funds that provided release time (substitutes) so that representatives could attend meetings during regular work hours. The function has yet to become part of the school’s budget.
In Toronto, there has been substantial reorganization of districts to support implementation of Consortium and district initiatives at the building levels. Resource people have been established to provide facilitation and assistance to individual schools and classroom teachers.
At the university level, the University of Southern Maine has assumed funding for school-based site coordinators and a full-time director of the ETEP program, positions that had originally been supported with temporary external funds. In West Virginia, the faculty liaison role has now been built into faculty teaching loads, to support the time commitment that PDS development requires. In all three universities, the issue of workload and recognition of time-intensive fieldwork is being discussed, and the traditional reward structure within academia is being questioned. Some progress has been made at all three sites, but it remains a challenge, particularly for young faculty members who do not have tenure.
-###-
[Assessment of Resources Required to Implement]