of ABSTRACT
Title Document:
COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP Teresa Ann Via, Ed.D. 2008
Directed By:
Professor Hanne B. Mawhinney, Department of Education, Policy, and Leadership
This qualitative case study examined collaborative processes in the Professional Development School (PDS). Although often cited in literature as central to successful PDSs, collaboration in PDS development and maintenance is not yet fully described. Thus, collaboration processes were this studys focus. This study examined participants perceptions in one Maryland PDS Partnership. The Partnership included participants from one university, one suburban school district, and three elementary school sites. Analysis of transcripts from structured interviews with 22 participants, PDS documentation, and other artifacts was conducted. PDS participants described collaboration processes embedded throughout PDS development and maintenance. The studys findings provide detailed descriptions and indicate focal points when participants commented most frequently about each collaboration process. Central to PDS collaboration are the people and how they are involved in the Partnership. All processes
contribute to developing and maintaining capacity for these participants to engage in collaboration. Communication is essential and forms a foundation on which other collaboration processes build. Collaboration is embedded in decision making, communication, and, ultimately, reform. Leaders may find further examination of collaboration beneficial in promoting PDS and reform goals. This studys findings suggest that there is a connection between the participants perceptions of collaboration and their involvement in PDS-related activities and processes. Their targeted involvement contributes to PDS development and maintenance. Suggestions for future research include exploring ways to educate PDS participants about the collaboration process. Other areas of future research might include studies that further explore connections between collaboration processes and participant involvement. Research that provides further description of the continuum from cooperation to collaboration and the details of their appropriateness to various PDS scenarios will extend professional knowledge of collaboration in PDSs.
COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES OF A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP
By Teresa Ann Via
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education 2008
Advisory Committee: Professor Hanne Mawhinney, Chair Professor David Cooper Professor Patricia Richardson Professor Thomas Weible Professor Donna Wiseman
Copyright by Teresa Ann Via 2008
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge the unwavering support of my husband, Allen, and my children, Katie and James. Without their love and encouragement, this work would not have been possible. I thank the many colleagues and friends who have helped me on this journey. I appreciate the numerous hours you have willingly donated by assisting me with interviews, collecting data and documents, and serving as critical friends throughout the process. I am grateful to the members of the PDS Partnership for allowing me to conduct this study and to the members of my research cohort for encouraging me during the research process. My dissertation committee has offered invaluable feedback and support. Dr. David Cooper, Dr. Patricia Richardson, Dr. Thomas Weible, and Dr. Donna Wiseman have each enlightened me with their experience and expertise. I extend special appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Hanne Mawhinney, who believed in me, encouraged me, and guided me. I appreciate your dedication and insights more than I can describe.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ...........................................................................................................x List of Figures ..................................................................................................... xiii Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................1 Overview of the Study .......................................................................................1 The Studys Context ..........................................................................................2 Topic and Purpose........................................................................................5 Framework and Research Questions..................................................................9 Study Significance ...........................................................................................11 Limitations .......................................................................................................12 Definition of Terms..........................................................................................12 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature......................................................................16 National Reform Context.................................................................................16 Beginnings of the Professional Development School................................17 PDS Literature Review ....................................................................................19 Defining a PDS ..........................................................................................20 Reviews of the Literature and Anecdotal Reports .....................................22 Research Findings......................................................................................28 Teacher Attitudes .......................................................................................30 Culture of Collaboration ............................................................................32 Roles of PDS Participants..........................................................................39 Preservice Education..................................................................................44 Inquiry........................................................................................................47 Why Collaboration Models? ............................................................................50 Collaboration and Collaborative Alliances................................................56 Collaboration Theories of Gray and Wood......................................................59 Preconditions for Collaboration.................................................................61 The Collaborative Process .........................................................................62 Capacity for Collaboration.........................................................................64 Communication..........................................................................................64 Coping With Change..................................................................................65 Negotiating.................................................................................................66 Coping With Power and Politics................................................................67 Structuring..................................................................................................68 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity ..........................................68 Layered Collaboration Alliances ...............................................................69 Thomsons Key Dimensions of Collaboration ................................................70 PDS Partnerships and Collaboration Models...................................................72 UniversitySchool System Partnership......................................................74 Context for State-Level Reform.................................................................75 Maryland PDS Policy ................................................................................77 Summary of the Problem ...........................................................................84 Chapter 3: Research Methods ...............................................................................89 Introduction......................................................................................................89
iii
Case Context ..............................................................................................89 Rationale for Qualitative Research ............................................................90 Rationale for Case Study ...........................................................................94 Case Study Design ...........................................................................................95 Case Selection............................................................................................96 Definition of the Case ................................................................................97 Data Collection ................................................................................................99 Interviews.................................................................................................100 Participant Observation............................................................................103 Documents ...............................................................................................106 Other Data Sources ..................................................................................108 Summary of Data-Collection Activities...................................................108 Data Analysis .................................................................................................110 Using Data-Management Software .........................................................111 Coding......................................................................................................112 Conceptual Framework and Coding ........................................................114 Research Questions and Coding ..............................................................115 Coding Specifics ......................................................................................116 Context Codes..........................................................................................116 Codes for Collaborative Processes...........................................................117 Event Codes .............................................................................................117 Descriptive Coding ..................................................................................120 Analytic Coding .......................................................................................120 Analysis Plan .................................................................................................121 Level of Involvement Hypotheses ...........................................................122 Involvement at Different Phases..............................................................124 PDS Development or Maintenance..........................................................124 Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation ........................124 Patterns of Participants Involvement in Collaborative Processes ................127 Collaboration by Site ...............................................................................128 Development of Data Displays ................................................................128 Standards of Quality and Verification ...........................................................129 Triangulation of Data...............................................................................132 Decisions to Conclude Analysis ..............................................................133 Chapter 4: History of the PDS Partnership .........................................................134 Context ..........................................................................................................134 Timeline of the PDS Partnership .............................................................134 Context for Reform: Prelude to the East Coast University/Suburban Schools Partnership..................................................................................138 Creating a Culture of Change in Suburban Schools ................................142 Maryland Emerges as a Leader in the PDS Movement ...........................143 Structure of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership .........146 Memorandum of Agreement....................................................................146 PDS Participants ......................................................................................148 East Coast University...............................................................................150 Interns ......................................................................................................151
iv
Suburban Schools.....................................................................................152 Selection of School Sites .........................................................................154 Mark Twain Elementary ..........................................................................155 Greenview Elementary.............................................................................157 Glen Grove Elementary ...........................................................................157 Beginnings of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership .......................................................................................158 Roles of Participants ................................................................................161 History of the Partnership ..............................................................................164 Development of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership .......................................................................................164 Establishing the Planning Group .............................................................165 Initiating the Governance.........................................................................167 Marketing the Reform..............................................................................167 Structuring the PDS .................................................................................168 Maintenance of the PDS ................................................................................170 Identifying Resources ..............................................................................170 Creating Institutional Norms....................................................................173 Continuous Improvement of the PDS ......................................................173 Removal of Greenview ..................................................................................174 Transitioning to a New PDS Partner........................................................177 Development of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership ..............................................................................................179 Maintenance of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership ...............................................................................................181 Change Is in the Wind..............................................................................182 Key Events in the History of the PDS ...........................................................182 The Processes of PDS Development and Maintenance .................................188 Participants Involvement in the PDS Partnership.........................................188 Involvement Across Sites ..............................................................................189 Collaboration Phases................................................................................189 Overview of Collaboration Phases and Processes in PDS Development and Maintenance .....................................................190 Problem Setting in PDS Development.....................................................193 Direction Setting in PDS Development ...................................................193 Implementation in PDS Development .....................................................193 Problem Setting in PDS Maintenance......................................................194 Direction Setting in PDS Maintenance ....................................................194 Implementation in PDS Maintenance ......................................................194 Collaboration Processes ...........................................................................194 Participants Frequency of Responses by Site ...............................................198 Participants Responses by Site for Collaboration Processes ..................199 Developing Capacity for Collaboration ...................................................199 Negotiating...............................................................................................201 Structuring................................................................................................202 Communication........................................................................................203
v
Coping With Power and Politics..............................................................204 Coping With Change................................................................................205 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity ........................................207 Commitment to Involvement .........................................................................208 Leaders in the PDS...................................................................................209 Involvement in PDS Collaboration Is an Overarching Theme ................212 Chapter 5: FindingsCollaborative Processes ....................................................213 Chapter Overview ..........................................................................................213 PDS Collaboration .........................................................................................214 A Model of PDS Collaboration......................................................................216 Commitment to Involvement ...................................................................217 Commitment to Relationships and People...............................................218 Commitment to Resources.......................................................................219 Processes of Collaboration.............................................................................220 Capacity for Collaboration.............................................................................221 Overview..................................................................................................221 Capacity for Collaboration in PDS Development and Maintenance .......222 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................222 Collaborative Problem Solving................................................................223 Shared Understanding of the Problem .....................................................224 Promoting and Marketing the PDS ..........................................................227 Relationships............................................................................................228 Trust .........................................................................................................229 Ensuring or Enhancing Participants Credibility .....................................232 Personal Credibility .................................................................................232 Credibility of the Conveners and Leaders ...............................................234 Credibility of Institutions.........................................................................238 Adopting Standards..................................................................................238 Documenting Success ..............................................................................240 Aspects of Relationships..........................................................................244 Mutuality..................................................................................................244 Mutual Interest .........................................................................................245 Mutual Goals............................................................................................247 Participants Perceptions of Shared Goals...............................................249 Expected Goals That Participants Did Not Mention................................254 Mutual Commitment................................................................................254 Mutual Benefit .........................................................................................257 Communication in Relationships.............................................................260 Relationships Vary by Type and Level....................................................260 Professional Relationships .......................................................................261 Relationships at the Partner Institution Level..........................................262 Fostering Relationships............................................................................265 Structuring......................................................................................................266 Overview..................................................................................................266 Structuring in PDS Development and Maintenance ................................267 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................267
vi
Representation, Governance, and Administration ...................................268 Steering Committee Meetings in the PDS Partnership ............................270 Representation, Joint Decision Making, and Joint Planning ...................272 Roles, Responsibilities, and Rights..........................................................273 Joint Planning ..........................................................................................274 Leaders in the PDS...................................................................................277 Identifying and Monitoring Resources ....................................................277 Monitoring Progress.................................................................................280 Formal Versus Informal Structures..........................................................282 Participants Involvement in PDS Structuring ........................................283 The PDS Is Site-Specific .........................................................................284 Negotiating.....................................................................................................285 Overview..................................................................................................285 Negotiating in PDS Development and Maintenance ...............................285 Participants Responses by Site ...............................................................285 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................286 Resolving Disputes ..................................................................................287 Understanding Differing Expectations and Negotiating Common Ground ...................................................................................288 Coping With Power and Politics....................................................................292 Overview..................................................................................................292 Power and Politics in PDS Development and Maintenance ....................293 Participants Responses by Site ...............................................................293 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................293 Agenda Setting and Representation at Meetings .....................................293 Monitoring Resources..............................................................................294 Promoting the PDS Concept to School Communities .............................296 Involvement .............................................................................................297 Examining Involvement Expectations and Levels by Site ......................297 Involvement Levels at Sites .....................................................................299 Coping With Change......................................................................................308 Overview..................................................................................................308 Coping With Change in PDS Development and Maintenance ................308 Participants Responses by Site ...............................................................309 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................309 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity ..............................................313 Overview..................................................................................................313 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity in PDS Development And Maintenance ...............................................................................314 Voices of the Participants ........................................................................315 Accessing and Monitoring Resources......................................................316 Monitoring Progress and Effectiveness ...................................................316 Coordinating Efforts ................................................................................317 Communication..............................................................................................322 Overview..................................................................................................322 Communication in PDS Development and Maintenance ........................322
vii
Voices of the Participants ........................................................................323 Collaboration and Communication Are Closely Linked .........................325 Aspects of Communication......................................................................326 Listening ..................................................................................................327 Reflecting.................................................................................................328 Reflective Teaching and Information Sharing.........................................328 Preventing Misinterpretations by Communicating Through PDS School and Site Liaisons........................................................................332 Timing of Communication Processes ......................................................335 Written and Oral Communication............................................................336 Other Types of Communication...............................................................337 Understanding Differing Cultures............................................................338 Good Faith Negotiations ..........................................................................339 Summary of Findings.....................................................................................339 Chapter 6: Discussion, Conclusion, and Implications ........................................340 Overview........................................................................................................340 Review of the Problem and Study .................................................................340 Discussion and Interpretation of Findings .....................................................343 PDS Collaboration Model..............................................................................343 Marylands Unique Context......................................................................346 Developing Capacity for Collaboration ...................................................347 Structuring................................................................................................349 Coping With Change................................................................................351 Coping With Power and Politics..............................................................353 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity ........................................354 Negotiating...............................................................................................357 Communication........................................................................................358 What Was Not Found.....................................................................................359 Contributions and Implications......................................................................361 Contributions and Implications for Research and Literature.........................361 Support for Assumptions of Study...........................................................362 Study Findings and Collaboration Theory...............................................362 Support for Gray and Woods Collaboration Theories............................363 Support for Thomsons Collaboration Theories ......................................364 Governance ..............................................................................................365 Administration .........................................................................................365 Organizational Autonomy........................................................................366 Mutuality..................................................................................................366 Norms.......................................................................................................366 Support for PDS Research .......................................................................367 Findings That Differ From What Theory Anticipated.............................369 Contributions and Implications for Practice ..................................................370 Practices to Foster Collaboration in the PDS Partnership .......................371 Action Research Practices........................................................................372 Teacher Preparation Practices..................................................................372 Professional Development Practices........................................................373
viii
Communication Practices ........................................................................375 Data-Collection Practices.........................................................................378 Responding to Change .............................................................................379 Contributions and Implications for Policy ....................................................380 Policy for School Districts .......................................................................380 Policy for Resource Allocation................................................................381 Policy for Professional Development in the PDS ....................................383 Policy for Universities .............................................................................384 Promotion and Tenure..............................................................................384 Boundary Spanners ..................................................................................385 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................385 Suggestions for Future Research ...................................................................386 Closing Note ..................................................................................................388 Appendices...........................................................................................................390 Bibliography ........................................................................................................495
ix
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Developing the Research Questions .....................................................86 Table 3.1 Development of Interview Questions ..................................................100 Table 3.2 Study Participant Interview Dates .......................................................102 Table 3.3 Linking Research Questions, Concepts, and Focus for Participant Observation ..............................................................................................104 Table 3.4 Linking Document Review to Research Questions, Codes, and Data .......................................................................................106 Table 3.5 Research Questions and Data Collection.............................................108 Table 3.6 Coding for Collaborative Processes and Related Codes......................118 Table 3.7 Linking Initial Coding Schemes to Concepts and Research Questions .................................................................................................119 Table 4.1 East Coast University PDS Participants ..............................................150 Table 4.2 Interns ..................................................................................................151 Table 4.3 Suburban Schools PDS Participants ....................................................153 Table 4.4 Mark Twain Elementary PDS Participants..........................................156 Table 4.5 Greenview Elementary PDS Participants ............................................157 Table 4.6 Glen Grove Elementary PDS Participants ...........................................158 Table 4.7 Job Position Titles................................................................................161 Table 4.8 Roles in the PDS ..................................................................................162 Table 4.9 Multiple Roles of Participants in the PDS ...........................................163 Table 4.10 Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation Participant Response Totals for PDS Development and PDS Maintenance Across Sites ........189
x
Table 4.11 Frequency of Participant Responses in PDS Development or Maintenance Phases............................................................................190 Table 4.12 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Development .........196 Table 4.13 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Maintenance ..........197 Table 4.14 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Development .........197 Table 4.15 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Maintenance ..........198 Table 5.1 Participants Responses Related to Aspects of Credibility..................232 Table 5.2 Frequency of Participants Responses of PDS Goals ..........................249 Table 5.3 Total Site Responses Compared Across Sites .....................................299 Table 5.4 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Mark Twain Elementary ..........................................................................302 Table 5.5 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Greenview Elementary.............................................................................302 Table 5.6 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Glen Grove Elementary ...........................................................................303 Table 5.7 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Suburban Schools.....................................................................................303 Table 5.8 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: East Coast University...............................................................................304 Table 5.9 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Interns ......................................................................................................304 Table 5.10 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Mark Twain Elementary ..........................................................................305
xi
Table 5.11 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Greenview Elementary.............................................................................305 Table 5.12 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Glen Grove Elementary ...........................................................................306 Table 5.13 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Suburban Schools ....................................................................................306 Table 5.14 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: East Coast University...............................................................................307 Table 5.15 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Interns ......................................................................................................307 Table 5.16 Purposes and Frequencies of Documents ..........................................335 Table 6.1 Researchers Findings on Collaborations Benefits.............................341 Table 6.2 Research Findings Confirmed by My Studys Findings......................367
xii
List of Figures
FIG. 1.1 Collaboration Framework. page 6
This framework presents the studys initial collaboration heuristic as derived from research. The framework includes the phases of collaboration (problem setting, direction setting, implementation). It also includes processes of collaboration (capacity for collaboration, enhancing control and reducing complexity, coping with power and politics, communication, negotiating, structuring, coping with change). Collaboration also is categorized according to Thomsons (2001) key dimensions of collaboration. FIG. 1.2 Conceptual Funnel. page 8
The conceptual funnel uses a funnel metaphor to illustrate how the research question developed. The large end of the funnel represents the general concepts. The focus narrows to illustrate the need for additional PDS research that describes collaborative processes. FIG. 3.1 The PDS Partnership. page 98
This figure shows the basic structure of a PDS Partnership. The partners are the university and the school system. Two schools are site partners within the PDS Partnership. FIG. 3.2 Data Analysis Map. page 110
This figure displays the techniques used for data analysis, including coding, use of data management software, reflective memoing, data displays, using patterns, and interpretation. xiii
FIG. 4.1
Timeline of the Development and Maintenance of the PDS Partnership.
page 135
This figure displays an overall timeline of the context for this PDS Partnership. FIG. 4.2 The PDS Partnership as Described by PDS Participants. page 147
This figure shows the revised PDS Partnership structure based on case study participants descriptions of their Partnership. FIG. 4.3 Key Events in the History of the PDS Partnership. page 183
This figure displays a timeline of key events in the history of the PDS Partnership. FIG. 4.4 Collaboration in a PDS Partnership. page 192
This figure displays a summary of graphs in Appendix JJ. It includes data for collaboration processes during problem setting, direction setting, and implementation for PDS development and maintenance. Fig. 4. reveals that unequal participant response levels during the different collaboration processes. FIG. 4.5 Capacity for Collaboration in PDS Development and Maintenance. This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to developing capacity for collaboration. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.6 Negotiating in PDS Development and Maintenance. page 201 page 200
xiv
This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to negotiating. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.7 Structuring in PDS Development and Maintenance. page 202
This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to structuring. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.8 Communication in PDS Development and Maintenance. page 204
This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to communication. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.9 Coping With Power and Politics in PDS Development and Maintenance. This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to coping with power and politics. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.10 Coping With Change in PDS Development and Maintenance. This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to coping with change. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 4.11 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity in PDS Development and Maintenance. page 207 page 206 page 205
xv
This figure displays data patterns of participants responses related to enhancing control and reducing complexity. Data are arranged by site and by collaboration phases for PDS development and maintenance. FIG. 5.1 PDS Collaboration. page 215
This figure displays my model of PDS collaboration as described by the study participants. FIG. 5. 2 Communication as a Foundation for Collaboration. page 324
This figure displays the relationship of communication processes and PDS collaboration. FIG. 5.3 Communication and Collaborative Processes During Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation. This figure displays the foundation of communication to the collaboration processes that occur during problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. FIG. 5.4 Collaborative Processes and Aspects of Communication. page 327 page 326
This figure elaborates on communication as a foundation for collaborative processes by providing aspects of communication developed from participants descriptions. FIG. 6.1 PDS Collaboration. page 344
This figure displays my model of PDS collaboration (also noted in Fig. 5.1).
xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction
Serving as a Professional Development School (PDS) site liaison was an exciting, yet perplexing, experience. Along with other PDS participants, I was charged with promoting collaboration, but I did not feel confident that there was a shared understanding of what collaboration in a PDS looked like. As PDS participants, we agreed collaboration was a good thing that was essential to our PDS Partnership. However, there was little discussion as to collaborations nature or its relationship to PDS development or maintenance. Motivated by personal experiences as a PDS site liaison, I conducted this study to explore the collaborative nature of the PDS Partnership. In this introduction, I first present an overview of the qualitative case study. Next, I describe the studys context, topic, and purpose. I then present a collaboration framework that grew from related literature and initially drove the study. This framework served as a heuristic for aspects of the studys design and data analysis. I conclude with a discussion of the studys significance and limitations, and I provide definitions for key terms used throughout the study. Overview of the Study In this study, I present a detailed view of PDS collaboration as described by the Partnerships participants. The research and historical contexts provide background for the case. In chapter 2, I fully describe the national and state reform contexts, explain PDS characteristics, and present opinions, policy, and research related to the PDS movement. Next, I discuss the need for a collaboration model to apply to the PDS context. Using the collaboration research of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001) as the main aspects for a discussion framework, I relate my initial perspective used 1
as a heuristic for examining the PDS Partnerships collaborative processes. In chapter 3, I present the case study methodology and case description. In chapter 4, I detail the Partnerships history and context. In chapter 5, I present the studys findings. Finally, in chapter 6, I discuss these findings and present implications for research, policy, and practice. The Studys Context In the last decade, there have been numerous calls for increased accountability that have propelled reform efforts in the educational arena. These reform efforts targeted various aspects of education with the goal to improve the educational experience and ultimately impact student achievement. PDSs represent one such reform. PDSs aim to invigorate teacher education and professional development, thus initiating school renewal. At the most basic level, professional development schools are about partnership formation (Teitel, 2003, p. 9). The PDS Partnership connects university institutions, which are mainly responsible for developing and supervising teacher education programs, and the school systems, which host them. Collaboration is central to Partnership development and, thus, to all strands of the PDS reform. The PDS Partnership promotes collaboration processes as the means to stimulate reform by improving teacher education and professional development. Collaboration offers a potentially powerful tool for transforming our environment (Dickens, 2000, p. 37). Educators often describe collaboration as the solution to many complex problems. Although collaboration is most often presented in a positive light, it can be a seductive concept and may lure participants into relationships that they are poorly prepared to enter (Dickens, 2000, p. 37). It is important to examine the nature of collaboration to
2
prepare PDS participants for the realities they may experience and to give them the skills to succeed in their endeavor. PDS proponents advocate collaboration as a means to link theory to practice in teacher education. PDSs start with the premise that the additional time and effort to try to work across two or more organizations is worthwhile compared with trying to achieve the same goals internally (Teitel, 2003, p. 9). Johnston (2000) asks: Is cross-institutional collaboration a viable model for long-term reform? (p. 1). Examining collaboration processes in PDS Partnerships may help address this question. Professional educational organizations such as The National Staff Development Council (2001) also have called for collaborative professional development programs. PDS Partnership advocates promote collaboration as a means to elevate professional development programs in school systems. However, there is little professional development with the aim to educate PDS participants as to the nature of collaboration or to develop participants collaboration skills. Working together as participants in a PDS, the university and school system can support reform efforts aimed at improving student achievement. To achieve this goal, PDS Partnerships must not ignore their institutions affective domains. Teitel (2003) claimed, the history of collaborations between schools and universities is filled with unmet promises, differing expectations, and misunderstandings (p. 11). Partnerships must find ways to transform challenges into opportunities. Hoy and Miskel (2005) asserted, the affective state of an organization has much to do with how it interprets challenges (p. 177). Challenges are inherent in reform initiatives such as PDSs. To help them address
3
challenges, PDS Partnerships strive to promote positive affective states through collaboration. In a PDS Partnership, collaboration is an essential component. Partnership participants promote collaboration as a means to improve teacher education, professional development, student achievement, and schools in general. However, the term collaboration is often overused or misused in descriptions of PDSs, and a collaborative partnership is often an unfamiliar concept to educators. Johnston (2000) asserted, there are few proven models and most participants have had little personal experience with this kind of organizational structure (p. 3). A review of the PDS literature offers some support for these views and indicates a consistent need to specify terminology and fully describe processes. Dickens (2000) further noted how the use of imprecise terms reinforces the notion that there are no clear distinctions of their constitutive processes and values (p. 23). By clearly communicating expectations through precise language, PDS participants may clarify values and processes and therefore strengthen their Partnership. In my study, I address the need for additional description of collaborative processes. I utilize collaboration theories of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001) as a framework for viewing collaborative processes at work within the PDS Partnership. The studys qualitative focus is necessary to reveal the nuances of interpersonal relationships that build and shape PDS collaboration. In my case study, I describe collaborative processes within the one PDS Partnership. The selected Partnership included three elementary schools: Mark Twain, Greenview, and Glen Grove. At the time of the study, these schools represented an established PDS site, a site that did not continue as a PDS, and a novice site, respectively.
4
Data collection included interviews of 22 PDS participants at each of the three schools and review of over 100 PDS-related documents. Data-analysis techniques included coding, searching for patterns and themes, and use of data displays. Data-management software also was employed to facilitate the data-analysis process. Initial data-collection and dataanalysis efforts were guided by the conceptual framework presented in Fig. 1.1. However, as data patterns began to reveal descriptions and relationships among PDS collaboration processes, it became necessary to reframe the concepts to reflect the perspectives and experiences of the studys PDS participants. I developed a new framework for PDS collaboration, and I present this framework in chapter 5. Topic and Purpose The topic of the studycollaborative processes in a PDS Partnershipdeveloped from the related literatures knowledge bases. Figure 1.2 illustrates the process of sorting concepts for development of the studys conceptual framework. It shows the inquiry path undertaken to develop the researchs specific focus. It shows the processes of conceptualizing and framing the study that ultimately led to the research question. Reviewing the PDS reform context was challenging because PDS goals reflect a crosssection of multiple educational fields and institutions. Many of the hottest issues in the larger societyteacher quality, retention, and reduction of the achievement gap are issues that are central to professional development schools (Teitel, 2003, p. 19). The PDS initiatives multipronged approach reflects its complex underpinnings. Noting common reform threads helped me to focus the study. Despite seeking various goals, PDS participants shared a commitment to change. Partnership participants advocated collaboration as the means to enact those changes.
5
FIG. 1.1 Collaboration Framework.
This collaboration framework combines elements of the research of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001). It illustrates collaboration phases, processes, and categories that may occur in a PDS Partnership. Arrows indicate collaborations fluid nature.
6
PDS promoters described collaboration as highly valued and attributed a variety of benefits to schooluniversity collaborations. Some researchers criticized the broad, positive claims and noted that, falling frequently into hyperbole, some enthusiastic proponents describe school university collaboration as a change-enhancing, moraleboosting process (Dickens, 2000, p. 23). Reviewing reports of how early PDSs grew and developed indicated a growing nationwide trend to quickly adopt PDSs, although they had not yet been recognized as a proven reform and there were few guidelines as to how to develop a collaborative partnership. Hoy and Miskel (2005) offered one explanation for organizations rapid adoption of such unproven innovations, noting that institutions sometimes uncritically mimic innovations in order to appear progressive, prestigious, or successful. For the PDS reform to gain credibility a critical review of its main components and processes is necessary. Thus, collaboration, reflecting the heart of PDS Partnership, became the studys focus. Further review of the educational literature describing reform movements and PDS development revealed a need to examine the specific processes involved in collaboration. Although the PDS literature described PDS characteristics, development, and goals, it did not fully describe the underlying collaborative processes necessary to reach PDS goals. Neither did the PDS literature provide sufficient explanation of how collaborative processes are involved in maintaining and institutionalizing the PDS reform. Thus, the scope of my literature review was extended to fields outside of education to tap collaboration theories.
7
FIG. 1.2 Conceptual Funnel.
National Emphasis on Accountability Phenomenon of Educational Reform Development of Professional Development Schools
Participants in PDS Partnerships are committed to change. Guidelines and standards for PDSs are evolving. Focus on collaboration in PDS Partnerships Theories of collaboration Limited PDS research about collaborative processes within the PDS
Research Question: How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership?
8
The studys purpose was to describe collaboration processes in PDS Partnerships. Collaboration theories comprised the framework to examine these processes during PDS development and maintenance. The qualitative case study relied on interview data, document review, and participant observation. Although the guiding conceptual framework served as a heuristic to develop interview questions, categorize data, and initiate data analysis, the emergence of the data patterns and the studys findings led to the development of a new framework for viewing PDS collaboration. My findings will prove meaningful to educational practitioners who desire a deeper understanding of PDS collaboration. Framework and Research Questions I developed a conceptual framework from the review of the PDS literature and theories of collaboration. This conceptual framework, previously presented as Fig. 1.1, guided my study. The framework blended the collaboration theories of Gray (1989) and Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b) with the dimensions of collaboration noted by Thomson (2001). Gray and Woods stages of collaboration are represented as they link to various processes of collaboration. These stages are problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. The processes of collaboration are capacity for collaboration, enhancing control and reducing complexity, coping with power and politics, negotiating, structuring, and coping with change. Each of these stages and processes is described in Fig. 1.1. These stages and processes are not linear. The graphic design represents collaborations fluid nature. The research questions were derived from the conceptual framework. Datacollection efforts were designed to link to the concepts presented in the framework and
9
research questions. Data analysis used the framework as a guide for interpretation. Each aspect of the study was linked to this initial framework. The studys research questions also were based on a review of the literature in the field of collaborative processes and PDSs (including their development and maintenance). Merging these two fields, the questions that guided this study reflect the special collaborative nature of the PDS innovation. As Yin (1994) suggested, the complete research design embodies a theory of what is being studied (p. 28). The beginnings of this theory development directed the initial case study research. Although some qualitative methods suggest entering the field with no preassigned codes or theoretical perspective, Yin (1994) argued that theory development prior to the collection of any case study data is an essential step in doing case studies (p. 28). The concept map in Fig. 1.1 displays the case studys initial working theory. The processes and stages of collaboration, as well as the key dimensions, guided exploration in the study. The indicators of a collaborative subprocess (bulleted items in Fig. 1.1) also provided direction for the development of the research questions. In addition, Thomsons (2001) research provides indicators of each of her key dimensions of collaboration. Some of these indicators helped focus interview questions to highlight collaborative processes. The main research question is: How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership? In this study, additional subquestions were posed to address other aspects of collaboration as indicated by the research of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001). How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance or administration of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS
10
Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing organizational autonomy, mutuality, or norms for the partnership? Appendix A, Case Study Questions by Category, lists and categorizes the studys subquestions. Study Significance The study has significance for educational theory, policy, and practice. It extends Thomsons (2001) research on collaboration and elaborates on the work done by Gray (1989) and Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b). This study contributes to the bodies of literature for collaboration, PDS, and professional development. By exploring how PDS Partnership participants described collaboration processes, this study highlights the application of collaboration theories to the PDS setting. This case study of PDS collaboration processes has significance for educational policy. PDS Partnerships are developed amid a myriad of policy. National, state, and local policymakers all have input into PDS development and maintenance. Understanding the collaboration processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership can guide policymakers in planning and monitoring PDS initiatives. The studys findings also offer implications for allocation of resources within a PDS. For PDS practitioners, my findings detail the collaborative processes necessary to develop and maintain the PDS. I examined how collaborative processes applied to the educational setting and revealed the PDS participants lived experiences and perspectives. Findings also offer direction for practitioners as to possible avenues for timely professional development for PDS participants. My study also offers a view into practitioners experiences regarding the Partnerships coherence or fragmentation. These are current issues in relation to attempts
11
to institutionalize PDSs and maintain the reforms momentum. Some critics view collaboration as a fragile process on which to base a reform agenda because it is easily subverted and depends on relationships that must be nurtured and attended to in ways that more hierarchical arrangements do not (Johnston, 2000, p. 3). To combat potential pitfalls for collaborative partnerships, PDS participants must do more than claim that collaboration is the heart of the PDS. Participants must gain understanding and skills in collaboration to fully benefit from the promise of the PDS reform and the realization that Collaboration can bring coherence and reduce fragmentation to better focus on students (Teitel, 2003, p. 24). Limitations The study was limited by its design and qualitative nature. Being a case study of only one PDS Partnership, the findings may not be generalizable in a statistical sense. The findings are specific to the case studied and bounded by the sites and participants of the selected PDS Partnership. The study also was bounded in time and reflects a specific historical framework. Chapter 4 details the PDS Partnerships context to provide an understanding of these case-specific historical dynamics. Although the studys findings are limited to the context of the studied Partnership, they may highlight similar dynamics that may exist in other PDS Partnerships. Another limitation of the study is that it was conducted by a single researcher. Research conducted by a single researcher limits the perspective through which the study was viewed. Definition of Terms
12
Redesign of Teacher EducationAuthored by the Teacher Education Task Force and formally endorsed by the Maryland State Board of Education and by the Maryland Higher Education Commission in 1995, this report is the guiding document for reform efforts in teacher education throughout the state of Maryland (Maryland State Department of Education, Professional Development School Network website, July 21, 2007; Available: http://cte.jhu.edu/PDS/glossary). PDSA Professional Development School is a collaboratively planned and implemented partnership for the academic and clinical preparation of interns and the continuous professional development of both school system and Institution of Higher Education (IHE) faculty. The focus of the PDS partnership is improved student performance through research-based teaching and learning. A PDS may involve a single or multiple schools, school systems and IHEs and may take many forms to reflect specific partnership activities and approaches to improving both teacher education and PreK12 schools (Maryland State Department of Education, Professional Development School Network website, July 21, 2007; Available: http://cte.jhu.edu/PDS/glossary). PDS ParticipantsMembers of the PDS Partnership who engage in PDS activities such as planning, decision making, funding, mentoring, interning, or serving on committees that influence the PDS development or maintenance. Study descriptors of PDS participants included job position titles (principal, assistant principal, school system PDS liaison, school system PDS coordinator, university coordinator, teacher, and student), PDS roles (convener, intern, mentor teacher, PDS site liaison, and steering committee member), main site affiliation (Suburban county employee, East Coast
13
University, Mark Twain Elementary, Greenview Elementary, Glen Grove Elementary, and intern), and level of involvement (low, minimal, moderate, and high). ConvenerParticipants who have the inspiration to collaborate and to initiate the partnership. The convener may invite, persuade, or use power to induce others to participate. This power may derive from holding a formal office, from a longstanding reputation of trust, or from experience and reputation as an unbiased expert on the problem. Conveners appreciate the value of collaborating, envision a purpose to organizing the domain, and propose a process by which this purpose can be carried out (Gray, 1989). Participant ObservationServing as a PDS liaison, the researcher was a PDS participant. The studys data collection included observations of events recorded as documents such as journal entries, e-mails, or reflections. DocumentsWritten communication related to PDS activities or the Partnerships development or maintenance that was used for the studys data collection. Data collection noted documents date, origin, purpose, or content (state level, school system document, university, steering committee, mentor meetings, university coordinator communication, professional development opportunities, portfolio reviews, action research, math/tech grant, reflections newsletters, summer institute, and national conference). Level of InvolvementThe degree to which participants reflect their PDS engagement by their number of study responses and the number and significance of roles and
14
responsibilities they assume. Total coded participants responses were tallied and categorized to reflect high, moderate, minimal, or low levels of involvement. To examine whether a participants number of responses are higher than average compared to the other participants at that site, the percentage for equal shares was calculated based on the number of participants interviewed at that site. If a participant responded a significant amount more than the average share of responses, then he or she was considered to have a high number of responses. Five percent was used as the basis for determining significance. Thus, the average range of responses was the average number of responses plus or minus 5%. A higher than average number of responses was defined as greater than the average range. A lower than average number of responses was less than the average range. Codes also were created to note participants perceived PDS involvement in general. Participants involvement levels were coded by considering whether a participant held multiple roles in the PDS, had longevity of association with PDSs or this specific Partnership, had high visibility in the PDS, and/or held significant responsibility, accountability, or decision-making power in the PDS Partnership. Focal PointAreas of high frequency of participants coded responses. Participants responses were tallied across sites. Percentages of the total number of responses were calculated. Of the six possible participant response categories (problem setting, direction setting, and implementation associated with either development or maintenance PDS phases), the categories with the three highest percentages were included as focal points for each of the collaboration processes.
15
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
National Reform Context Calls for reform of teacher preparation and professional development programs are not new in the educational arena. However, a renewed national emphasis on school improvement stimulated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, coupled with growing concerns regarding current teacher shortages, serve as an impetus for a review of programs currently in place. Although in the 1990s new paradigms for collaborative professional development began to emerge as well as calls for systemic reform (Hawley & Valli, 1998), change has been slow. McGowan and Powell (1990) described how this new wave of school reformers rejected the machine metaphor, maintaining instead that education is an intensely personal, interactive, evolutionary experience (p. 113). Emerging practices began to challenge existing and established professional development (Pajak, 1993). Despite the slow pace of development, some progress was seen as these emerging models seem to cluster around shared characteristics, as noted by Joyce and Showers (1995): demonstration and modeling of the content repeated practice of new learnings under simulated conditions collaboration for problem solving, analyzing, and program evaluation constructivist approaches. (p. 110)
Other researchers support these commonalities as well. Examples include studies by Whitworth (1999), Whitmore (1972), and Goodell, Parker, and Kahle (2000) that supported the call for repeated exposure and practice. Research by Kerrins, Cushing, Grant, and Veitch (1990) and literature reviews by Allington and Cunningham (1996)
16
supported the need for collaboration and collegiality. Hawley (1993) proposed that prospective teachers should learn the elements of effective collaboration and cooperative behavior (p. 30). Goodlad (1988) described schooluniversity collaborations that had mutually beneficial relationships as those that held the most promise. The qualitative research of Bainer and Wright (2000) supported the positive impact of using constructivist approaches. Although these studies represent a few examples, there is a fair amount of agreement in the literature on the emergence of a new paradigm and the fading of traditional methods of professional development. Various efforts have begun to integrate these emerging practices. Beginnings of the Professional Development School One model that proposed to integrate elements of this new paradigm for professional development is the Professional Development School (PDS). Book (1996) reviewed the PDS literature and presented PDS characteristics based on Murrays (1993) article entitled All or None Criteria for Professional Development Schools. This set of criteria matches many of the aspects of the new paradigm for professional development as described earlier. In various locations across the nation during the 1990s, PDSs were developed as a response to public criticisms of inadequate teacher preparation programs and concerns regarding the effectiveness of traditional professional development models. In 1986, two reportsA Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession) and Tomorrows Teachers (Holmes Group)specifically called for the development of PDSs (Hallinan & Khmelkov, 2001; Teitel, 1996). Woloszyk and Davis (1992) predicted professional developments schools will be at the core of
17
restructuring education (p. 4). The following sections present a review of PDS literature to provide further information on the nature of these collaborative partnerships. According to Abdal-Haqq (1989), Professional Development Schools can be viewed as both a product of the current educational reform movement and a means to achieve some of its goals (p. 1). The PDS can be a means to reinvent professional development by integrating practice with research and connecting K12 school communities and universities (Hallinan & Khmelkov, 2001). The PDS represents an intervention designed to initiate change across several traditional educational arenas. Fountain (1997) promoted PDSs as a promising strategy for inter-institutional change and educational reform because it addresses the need for systemic and simultaneous change across the various levels of the educational enterprise and is coupled with authentic collaboration across institutional boundaries (p. 2). PDSs are generally engaged in the process of restructuring (Abdal-Haqq, 1992b, p. 2). Berkeley (cited in Neapolitan Proffitt, Wittman, & Berkely, 2004) presents the PDS as a symbol of how systemic change can be brought to bear to assure the highest level of learning during a time when a strict accountability requires the best possible teaching of our nations children (p. vii). PDSs addressed calls to enact a comprehensive set of changes in school organization and management that will provide the conditions in which teachers can use their knowledge much more productively to support student learning (National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996, p. 17). This national climate, which appeared conducive to educational change, set the stage for similar changes at the state level. PDSs provided opportunities for increased professional judgment and autonomy for educators. However, in recent years, this climate of decentralization has shifted to one characterized by
18
increased centralization, accountability, and standards (Hoy & Miskel, 2005). Thus, PDS standards emerged at state-levels. The following sections examine the history of this growth and development of PDSs as noted by professional literature. PDS Literature Review Published research on PDSs is somewhat limited because it is still an emerging aspect of professional development. Although this field for research is growing, most of the literature related to PDSs is still anecdotal and observational and exists in the informal reports of local school systems and universities. Woloszyk and Davis (1992) described the uniqueness of the PDS model: While it is a site for schooling, it is not representative of the typical school culture; while it is a site for teacher education, it is not representative of the typical research culture. It is a unique social institution in its own right; it will develop its own culture distinct from the traditions of schools, teacher education institutions, or research universities. (p. 4) Woloszyk and Davis (1992) describe PDSs as new institutions that are places of change (p. 4). Shroyer, Yahnke, and Heller (2007) describe PDS partnerships as ideal settings in which to initiate and sustain renewal efforts (p. 195). Thus, as the PDS model developed and the partnership institutions grew, PDS descriptions evolved. The following sections present these descriptions. National and state policy statements described and defined the PDS model. Research reviews and anecdotal reports presented general descriptions of the PDS nature and its defining characteristics (Book, 1996; Neubert & Binko, 1998; Teitel, 1996). Although limited in number and scope, some studies address specific aspects of PDS settings. Sections present a review of PDS characteristics as shown in policy, opinions, and anecdotal reports and a review of research findings.
19
Defining a PDS The PDS model is a new educational perspective because it changes the organizational structure of the school to bring together various aspects of education into one model (Holmes Partnership, 2001). Organizational structures may be changed by the PDS as it attempts to increase collaboration, decrease fragmentation, and restructure organizational factors that have impeded institutional change (Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K16, 1998). Named by the Holmes Group (1986) in their publication Tomorrows Teachers, PDSs are broadly defined as: A P-12 school, which supports a multidimensional program collaboratively designed and managed by a school-university partnership (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2002, p. 1). Based on 2002 published survey data collected by the Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, it was estimated that there are more than 125 such PDS Partnerships and more than 600 PDS sites in existence in 38 states (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2002), including Maryland. Among these partnerships, there are various interpretations and implementations of the earlier general definition of a PDS. The composition of PDSs varies because each instance is the result of negotiations among a school, a school district, and a university (Ross, 1995, p. 195). Each PDS Partnership represents its own unique vision, goals, processes, and products that make up the multidimensional program. In addition, these partnerships are variously defined and enacted. Abdal-Haqq (1989) pointed to the lack of clarity in describing the nature of PDSs: Although many projects are underway nationwide to establish clinical schools, it appears that at present there is neither a fully realized Professional Development School in the country nor a consensus about the mission of such schools. (Olson, 1989, p. 1)
20
It is necessary to further examine the nature of these partnerships to fully understand the PDS context. The PDS model as presented on the national scene strongly advocates that a collaborative partnership is the heart of the PDS. The fact that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) incorporated collaboration as part of the NCATE Professional Development School Standards in 2001 reflects its importance to the PDS. Collaborative processes impact each of the major goals of the PDS. Collaboration is involved in efforts to support student learning, provide pre- and inservice teacher education, and foster research and inquiry into practice. Most PDS definitions recognize that collaborative processes must be part of a PDS mission. The Holmes Group definition also calls for a program that is collaboratively designed and managed. How individual PDS Partnerships actually accomplish this goal directly impacts the nature of each PDS. However, in the PDS-related literature, there is no agreed-on definition of collaboration or the collaborative processes needed to develop and maintain a PDS Partnership. Hargreaves and Dawe (1990) explained part of this dilemma as stemming from preexisting ambiguity as to the nature of collaborative professional development: Given the contradictory meanings and interpretations that we see surround the process of collaborative professional development, it is not surprising that the intentions and implications of collaborative initiatives are often misunderstood. (p. 230) Exploring and describing the collaborative processes of the PDS context must be a central aspect of new research efforts in the PDS, and this issue is discussed at length in this paper.
21
Understanding these processes can contribute to the development and maintenance of PDSs. Nationally, the PDS movement is relatively young: Most PDSs have been in existence for less than 20 years. However, in this short time span, numerous PDS initiatives have developed in a variety of settings. Abdal-Haqq (1995, 1998) reported that the number of PDSs in a 7-year span beginning in 1991 grew from approximately 80 to more than 1,000. Researchers have noted the diversity in institutions entitled PDSs, and they do not all agree on the definition of a PDS that would distinguish it from other professional development. It is often unclear which specific definition a PDS study supports and to what standards the PDS aspires. It is hard to know which of these hundreds of articles pertain to more developed PDSs, which to less, and which to institutions that, in truth, are PDSs in name only. The lack of clear criteria does not just affect researchers who study about professional development schools, but anyone who works in or advocates for a PDS. (Teitel, 1996, p. 3) The lack of consistent, measurable standards and the scarcity of research or evaluative data regarding the quality, value, and outcomes of PDS endeavors have raised concerns that the reform effort may be developing a poor reputation. (Reed, Kochan, Ross, & Kunkel, 2001, p. 190) Therefore, to clarify what distinguishes a PDS from other professional development initiatives, further discussion of PDS characteristics is needed. Reviews of the Literature and Anecdotal Reports Several researchers reviewed the PDS literature and offered their interpretations. Generally, these reviews provide a mixture of policy, observation, and anecdotes that describe a complex picture of the PDS. Dickens explained the value of these reviews: From these stories, we can begin to learn what successful school/university collaborations look like, what changes they have fostered, and what those changes mean to the educators and organizations who experience them. If we listen to those stories carefully, we will, in addition, detect the silences that also tell us about the
22
challenges of collaboration. (cited in Johnston, Brosnan, Cramer, & Dove, 2000, p. 24) PDSs provide opportunities for a new vision for universities and public schools (Beasley, Corbin, Feiman-Nemser, & Shank, 1997; Reed et al., 2001). They serve the needs of both preservice and experienced teachers by combining teacher education with professional development in efforts to restructure schools (Dodd, 1996). Higher education institutions have begun to redefine knowledge development in teacher preparation programs (Sykes, 1997; Thiessen, 2000,). Supervision of student teachers is changing from the traditional models to more collaborative relationships (Teitel, 1996). Some claims have been made as to the collaborative nature of the PDS. Robinson and Darling-Hammond (1994) propose that PDSs grow out of and depend upon collaboration for their very existence (p. 203). Burstein, Kretschmer, Smith, and Gudoski (1999) claimed developing a collaborative culture contributed to redesigning teacher education programs that reflected shared responsibility. Neubert and Binko (1998) reviewed the literature and reported that anecdotal results show that partnership participants have a positive experience in collaboration. Ambrose, Natale, Murphy, and Schumacher, 1999) claimed that when a university and public school join in a truly collaborative partnership, everyone wins (p. 296). McGowan and Powell (1990) noted that the university and the public school do not determine the success of a collaborative venture; rather, the individual participants from those institutions contribute to the success or failure of the process (p. 114). Bullough, Kauchak, Crow, Hobbs, and Stokes (1997) emphasized the importance the PDS context to its success. McGowan and Powell (1990) described a partnership as an interconnected web in which collaboratives approach problem solving in an organic, evolutionary
23
manner (p. 114). Bradley (1993) claimed PDSs could prove to be powerful levers for breaking down the walls between teacher-education programs and the realities of todays classrooms (p. 6). However, McBee and Moss (2002) remain unconvinced that PDSs are the only contexts promoting professional interactions, inquiry, and a culture of collaboration. Although there are many positive claims, the focus areas of the PDSs are diverse, and these anecdotal reports are general in nature (Neubert & Binko, 1998). Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) also recognized that the documentation of successful schooluniversity collaboration is sporadic at best, offering little guidance for identifying criteria for a comparative and evaluative analysis (p. 298). Bullough et al. (1999) emphasized that the partnership literature is filled with positive statements written during the formative stages of partnership development (p. 381). Bullough et al. (1999) studied partnership development after initial enthusiasm fades (p. 381) and found participant involvement was important for maintenance. In his studies of educational innovations, Miles (1983) found that: The enthusiasm, skill, and effectiveness of the innovation are insufficient conditions for institutionalization. Making clearcut changes in organizational structure, rules, and procedures seems essential both to stabilize the innovation and to buffer against turnover. (p. 19) Fullan (2000) also noted how there has been strong adoption and implementation of educational reforms, but not strong institutionalization (p. 581). These themes appear in educational partnership literature. However, studies are needed to reveal how they apply specifically to PDS Partnerships and their collaborative design. Examining PDS collaboration further describes these educational partnerships and their potential to achieve reform. There are claims that opportunities for collaboration are
24
increased (Dodd, 1996; D. B. Jones, 2002). Lieberman (1986) claimed that collaborative work enhances teacher professionalism. Teitel (1996) suggested that preservice experience also is enhanced by focusing on collaborative relationships. Silva and Dana (2001) described positive experiences generated by using a collaborative model of supervision in a PDS context. They claimed that a collaborative model establishes links of theory and practice and facilitates teachers professional growth by cultivating teacher inquiry (Silva & Dana, 2001). Trachtman and Levine (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) described how PDS leaders pass the lead around and accept leadership from all participants, not only those in traditional leadership roles (p. 82). Trachtman and Levine explain how leaders must find new and different ways to lead and supervise in a PDS setting. McGowan and Powell (1990) emphasized that it will be impossible to establish a partnership unless the members posses the ability to be open-minded and flexible, and can communicate effectively (p. 116). Previous interactions affect the development of relationships in the Partnership (Lefever-Davis, Johnson, & Pearman, 2007). Other researchers also noted the importance of communication in PDS Partnerships. Reed et al. (2001) claimed that there is evidence of increased communication between partners and increased opportunities for providing input into decisions (p. 200). Some PDSs participated in networks, PDS institutes, and national conferences. Profitt et al. noted: The outcomes of PDS institutes were impressive. The participants received substantial information while interpersonal networking conferred a sense of validation about the meaning of the community of learners, in turn creating opportunities for sharing professional expertise and psychological support beyond the walls of an individual school. (cited in Neapolitan, Proffitt, Wittman, & Berkely, 2004, p. 12)
25
Metcalf-Turner and Smith (1995) also reported that the PDS environments foster better communication. Boyd (1994) described how the partnership provided us with a safety net. We shared resources, strategies, materials, and gave each other support and confidence (p. 137). Levine (2002) also claimed benefits of pooling resources such as participants knowledge and skills. Ambrose, Natale, Murphy, and Schumacher (1999) noted the greatest benefit of our partnership may not lie in hard data but in the less tangible but perhaps more important arena of developing human connections (p. 296). McGowan and Powell (1990) described how the collaborative process forces participants to take risks and build trust (p. 115). After taking needed time to get acquainted and develop trust, participants in PDS Partnerships become familiar with the expectations each brings to the PDS (Reed et al., 2001). However, studies by Bullough et al. (1999) found that communication was poor because faculty did not have sufficient time to invest. Harris and Harris (19921993) also reported teachers perceptions that their suggestions for improving the partnership were not taken seriously by the university (p. 6). Hoy and Miskel (2005) described the importance of trust in a school culture: Trust is a little like air; no one thinks much about it until it is needed and it is not there (p. 179). Participants need time to develop trusting, communicative relationships (Wasser & Bresler, 1996). McGowan and Powell (1990) claimed that time is the least available, but the most productive resource that any partnership can control (p. 116). Other anecdotal findings cite benefits such as more individualized attention for children and opportunities for action research that support school improvement efforts (Teitel, 1996). Dodd (1996) claimed that partnerships among all stakeholders can foster learning for everyone. King (1996) advocated including children in school change.
26
Jones (2002) explained another benefit of PDS Partnerships is that they enhance linkages vertically (across grades) and horizontally (within and across schools and with higher education). Other reports emphasized that reflective practices and perspectives of lifelong learning are highlighted in a PDS (Dodd, 1996). Jones (2002) also noted PDSs are inclusive and embrace diversity. Individual PDS sites also have made various and general claims about increasing student achievement. Although supporting learning is a goal of the PDS movement, Teitel (1996) reviewed the literature and concluded that the research does not clearly support the establishment of PDSs leading to improvement in student achievement. The evidence that the PDS schools increase student achievement is weak (Ross, 1995, p. 197). Some studies are beginning to examine student achievement data in PDSs, but have not found significant differences between PDSs and matching schools (Gilchrist, Salgado, & Holloway, 2005). Based on survey data in a newly established PDS, King (1996) reported that the children showed little awareness of the schools new designation as a professional development school or the ways in which the schools reorganization related to the changes they noted (p. 33). Teitel (1996) described how much of the literature is linked to establishing school climate and teacher growth, rather than student achievement. Teitel indicates that it is difficult to separate student achievement goals from other PDS goals. PDS literature does not yet indicate clear connections among improving student achievement, teacher quality, and PDSs. In her review of the literature, Book (1996) noted that many of the PDS studies do not address the impact of the restructuring efforts on student achievement. Yet teacher quality is seen as a PDS benefit (Jones, 2002).
27
The PDS has an evolving nature, and it is necessary to recognize the small successes as a means of facilitating reform (Reed et al., 2001, p. 196). Reed et al. also concluded from their observations that partnership progress varies greatly based on each groups focus, support, resources, and geographic barriers (p. 203). Kelchtermans (2006) review of the literature recognized that collaborations benefits are not always self-evident and that the school context must be considered in order to understand how collaboration contributes to teachers development or students learning. Yinger and Hendricks (1990) surveyed 50 institutions about planning and program changes and found that many universities had established new organizational conceptions and frameworks that encourage collaborative partnerships, but that these new structures vary widely depending upon the goals they set out to accomplish (p. 25). McGowan and Powell (1990) also noted that collaborators must evolve courses of action appropriate to the time and place in which they operate (p. 117). However, the common purpose sustains the partnership in its later stages, after the initial burst of activity and enthusiasm has yielded to the realization that solutions to complex educational problem come at great cost (McGowan & Powell, 1990, p. 117). The durability of PDSs is unknown (Ross, 1995, p. 200). Most of the information found in a PDS literature review reflects participants observations, informal interviews, PDS progress reports, and other anecdotal information. There is a variety of claims made about the success of individual PDS goals as well as the growth of the PDS reform movement. These broad claims need further consideration. Research Findings Examining research findings helps assess claims made in the general PDS literature. Reflecting the essence of the PDS is a complex task. There is a sense of interrelatedness of
28
the various goals of the PDS movement (Teitel, 1996). The innovation of the PDS incorporates numerous educational aspects. In a review of related literature, Fountain (1997) found that, the professional development change model is grounded in five theoretical bases: educational reform and collaboration literature; the systemic change and change process literature; constructivist orientation to learning and its impact on standards of practice; the effective schools literature, cultural diversity, and the work related to teachers work and school culture; and the development of teacher expertise and professional standards. (p. 4) The multitude of intervening and related variables makes it difficult to prove direct connection in research studies. Leithwood, Aitken, and Jantzi (2001) captured this research dilemma: It is impossible to learn anything meaningful about cause-and-effect relationships when multiple causes (innovations) are being tried simultaneously! (p. 31). Book (1996) further explained the specifics of this problem as related to PDSs: Inasmuch as professional development schools are integrally tied to reforms in teacher education, reforms in teaching and learning, and reforms in the organization of schools, it is sometimes difficult to separate research in PDSs from these other more discrete reform efforts. One of the recurrent problems in examining the research in and about professional development schools is that a PDS is an example of where the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. It is extremely difficult for a researcher to capture or even reflect the complexity of the interactions that occur in a PDS and the impact of those interactions on the outcome of the variable(s) being studied. Thus, any of the research about PDSs may not provide a comprehensive representation of all of the many factors that make up a PDS and may not be the only viable vehicle for understanding the whole concept or process called a PDS. (p. 196) Schwartz (2001) explained that the unique characteristics of the PDS partners result in a wide variety of experiences and thus all reviewers can cite evidence for their position (p. 1). Wiseman and Knight (2003) also noted challenges that stem from temptations to provide a dog and pony show of results, accentuating only the positive aspects and outcomes of collaboration (p. 8). Variables within each partnership add to the PDS
29
complexity and ambiguity. Some studies present research findings on relationships among variables in the PDS context, but understanding these findings is complex because the research terrain of one variable often overlaps that of another. Grouping related categories of research findings is one way to tackle the research and look for trends in the findings. Based on her literature review of PDSs, Book (1996) suggested a way to organize research findings: The research emanating from PDSs focuses on: (1) teachers attitudes within or about PDSs, (2) creating a new culture through collaboration, (3) new roles for the K-12 and university faculty involved in a PDS, (4) preservice education in PDSs, and (5) inquiry in PDSs. (p. 194) These categories are used as a guide to review the following PDS research studies. Teacher Attitudes Research claims that teachers generally have positive experiences as participants in a PDS (Fountain, 1997). In a University of Kentucky satisfaction survey of PDS participants, Jones (2002) reported that there were high levels of satisfaction among all participants. The survey also noted that teachers reported improved quality of instruction, higher student achievement levels, and increased participation in sustained professional development activities (Jones, 2002). King (1996) also reported positive changes in teachers morale and relationships with colleagues, but noted that changes did not extend to changes in their teaching strategies (p. 35). In contrast, in Berry and Catoes (1994) studies, teachers reported changes in the way they reflected on practice, their conceptions of collegial work, and their teaching practices. Comparing PDS and campus-based programs, Sharpe, Lounsbery, Golden, and Deibler (1999) reported changes in PDS undergraduate students practices indicating more effective instruction. Rosselli et al. (1999) found systematic organization of effective strategies and
30
constant communication, problem-solving and team spirit that resulted from the collaboration found on the PDS sites (p. 8). Kochan (1998) reported renewed relationships and enhanced levels of trust and understanding (p. 4). Using attitude surveys, other researchers confirmed an increase in teachers perceptions of their efficacy as mentors and teachers (Ambrose et al., 1999; Benton & Richardson, 1993; Morris & Nunnery, 1993; Woloszyk & Hill, 1994). Yopp, Guillaume and Savage (19931994) reported that there was a sense of teacher empowerment that is generated by involvement in the preparation of the future of the profession (p. 31). Snow and Marshall (2002) found the new roles for teachers in these PDS initiatives have resulted in feelings of enhanced professional fulfillment (p. 484). Ross (1995) reported increases in PDS teachers self-respect (p. 197). Teacher attitudes appear to change in several ways. For example, in an attitude survey of teachers who were PDS graduates, Cobb (2001) reported that teachers see themselves as change agents and colleagues view them as reform agents. McGowan and Powell (1993) found that teachers desire for control over their environment increased through their participation in the PDS (p. 3) and that teachers hoped for the time to create and the freedom to try new things (p. 22). Mebane and Galassi (2000) reported PDS participants increased satisfaction in shared leadership collaborative inquiry groups. Other attitude changes are noted by Woloszyk (1992) in reports from a school climate survey taken in 1986 (prior to the school being a PDS) and again in 1991 (after becoming a PDS). Woloszyk used these survey results to conclude that the PDS impacted teachers views toward organizing the school as a community of learners, seeing the school as a place where
31
both adults and children are taught and making inquiry and reflection central to the school. Changes in teacher attitudes reflect one aspect of the impact of the PDS reform initiative. Culture of Collaboration The PDS culture also is a growing field of research. Eaker, DuFour, and DuFour (2002) emphasized the need to shift from a culture of teacher isolation to a culture of deep and meaningful collaboration (p. 10). Boles and Troen (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) claimed that the PDS has established a new subculture in the schools that supports risk-taking, values leadership, and simultaneously maintains the norms of equality and inclusion among teachers (p. 68). Various studies highlighted different aspects of collaborative climates reflecting the multipronged approach of the PDS initiative. Researchers connected a culture of collaboration to several different outcomes. Some studies examined PDS goals to enhance student achievement. Mariage and Garmon (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) found that building a culture of collaboration . . . paved the way for improvements in student achievement (p. 67). Cowart and Rademacher (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) also noted that the PDS collaboration yielded positive results for students as indicated by improvement in students passing rates on a statewide exam. Trathen et al. (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) also reported improved students reading scores. However, Cooper and Corbin (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) described a gap in the empirical demonstration of the bottom-line effects of the PDS, as few published reports of student achievement in PDSs are to be found in the current literature (p. 71). Cooper and Corbin explained that, although an increasing expectation in the PDS arena, it may be unrealistic to expect student achievement gains in classrooms where interns, the most inexperienced of novice teachers, are placed for a 1- or 2-semester practicum. Nonetheless, while the results of our analysis fail to show a positive relationship between PDSs and student
32
achievement, there is also no evidence of a negative relationship between placement of interns in classrooms and student achievement. (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003, p. 84) In contrast, Brown et al. reported that students who were struggling with reading benefited greatly from the additional interaction they received from teachers and interns, from increased one-on-on time and attention with an extra adult in the classroom. (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003, p. 110) Thus, research studies do not yet provide consistent findings as to the relationship of the PDS culture of collaboration and student achievement. Some researchers described how a collaborative culture impacted PDS staff. Participants reports were generally positive regarding the partnerships collaboration (Loving, Wiseman, Cooner, Sterbin, & Seidel, 1997). Knight, Wiseman, and Cooner (2000) described positive outcomes of collaborative teacher research used to develop writing and mathematics interventions. Cowart and Rademacher (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) connected PDS schools improved teacher attendance and retention to positive student outcomes. Rafferty (1993) identified a collaborative and cooperative climate as a critical attribute in fostering teachers professional self-efficacy and development as change agents. Berry and Catoe (1994) claimed: What is most profound about the transformed learning culture is the teachers own growing interest in teacher professionalism and the self-discovery of becoming more responsible for the education of future educators. (p. 187) In an environment that invites exchange, collegiality, and self-esteem, teachers are confident, generous, and creative (Grumet, 1989, p. 24). These collegial environments were desirable, yet required substantial effort to achieve. Creating collaborative environments included focusing on shared visions, values, and identities. Hoy and Miskel (2005) explained that the goal is to create a belief among
33
teachers and students that there is something special about their school, that it has a distinctive identity or unique culture (p. 215). Collaboration helps to achieve this goal. To foster collaboration, PDS participants must invest time developing relationships and communicating with each other. Increased collaboration requires increased communication between all members of the partnership (Loving et al., 1997, p. 31). Bullough et al. (1999) reported that if more time were available for discussion and relationship building, faculty believe a common vision could be created to guide restructuring (p. 386). Mawhinney (1993) noted a need for processes that allow participants to develop shared values. Higgins (1999) described how participants developed a new collective identity characterized by a sense of oneness in our collaboration (p. 230). To build relationships that foster common visions, values, and identities requires trust. Walker (1999) found the building of trust based on personal relationships is at the heart of collaboration (p. 302). Bullough, Draper, Smith, and Birrell (2004) summarized that ultimately, the aim of collaboration brings with it a moral claimto give more than one receives; to invest more in the relationship than one expects of the other (p. 521). These personal relationships help create the PDS institutional context. The institutional contexts within which teachers and professors work are laden with counterproductive norms and expectations (Johnston & Kerper, 1996, p. 1). The PDS context builds upon established contexts in school sites and universities. Rosselli et al. (1999) explained how the PDS collaborative culture represents a break from traditional relationships between schools and colleges of education. Levine (in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) also described how the realities of interinstitutional collaboration was an obstacle to creating changes at the core (p. 3).
34
Challenging traditional relationships through collaboration is time intensive for PDS participants. Yopp, Guillaume, and Savage (19931994) explained that collaboration does take considerable time and energy (p. 33). Robinson and Darling-Hammond (1994) claimed that the issues of time for collaboration have surfaced in every PDS studied (p. 206). Participants needed time to engage in reflection and dialogue (Johnston & Kerper, 1996; Rosselli et al., 1999; Rushcamp & Roehler, 1992; Snyder & Goldman, 1997; Witnitzky, Stoddart, & OKeefe, 1992). Participants need to openly discuss tensions between theory and practice (Wiseman & Cooner, 1996). Johnston and Kerper (1996) reviewed the literature and found abundant references asserting that trust, parity, and shared decision making are required for collaboration (p. 6). However, Levine (in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) cautioned that it is difficult to mandate what is important in a PDStrust, communication, and mutual respect (p. 9). PDS collaboration builds on participants commitments and relationships. Researchers described aspects of PDS relationships. Book (1996) reported on several studies and identified the recurrent themes of needs for time, trust, communication, collaboration, and curricular restructuring in PDSs. Robinson and Darling-Hammond (1994) asserted that open dialogue about issues of practice allows colleagues to recognize each others strengths and needs so that professional collaboration can occur and supportive norms can be established (p. 211) and that establishing efficient means for members of the collaboration to communicate within and across institutional boundaries is essential to success (p. 216). Ambrose et al. (1999) found that common goals, mutual respect, interdependency, sharing of talents and resources, sharing planning and execution, sharing
35
successes and failuresthese descriptors apply to a successful PDS (p. 298). Berry and Catoe (1994) described some challenges in crossing institutional boundaries: Those at the school level have difficulty seeing (or have time to see) the big picture while those at the district and university level have difficulty seeing (or no time to see) the small picture. (p. 195) PDS participants need to devote attention to their developing relationships. Lemlech and Hertzog-Foliart (1993) claimed, intensive interaction that promotes trust, commitment, and responsibility is the critical component for collegiality to develop (p. 26). Yopp, Guillaume and Savage (19931994) emphasized that trust is not something that happens automatically; its development must be a primary focus (p. 33). Dickson and Bursuck (cited in Wiseman & Knight, 2003) reported trust between partners as the most important lesson (p. 144). Dufour (cited in Eaker, DuFour, & DuFour, 2002) also emphasized the need for leaders to model their priorities to build trusting relationships in collaborative settings. Researchers described how trusting relationships took time to nurture. Rosen (1993) explained that, in schools operating under a collaborative model, it may be years before anyone really knows how well things are working (p. 38). Driscoll, Benson, and Livneh (1994) reported that there was a significant need for sensitivity to the history of relationships (p. 66). Relationships colored PDS climate. A PDS culture of collaboration stimulated change. Woloszyk (1992) concluded that the PDS climate fostered collaboration and stimulated new ways to think about school climate. PDSs need to allow time for such changes to occur (Dixon & Ishler, 1992; Winitzky, Stoddart, & OKeefe, 1992). Whitford (1994) reported that tensions occurred in bringing about changes in culture, and the PDS model exposed prevailing patterns of relationships, roles, and organizational rules. Little (1982) claimed that situational norms
36
supporting professional development are built and sustained over time (p. 337). Walker (1999) noticed that it takes as long as 1 year before participants begin to understand fully the benefits of collaboration (p. 301). PDS participants must invest time in their relationships to impact climate and culture. Developing and changing relationships highlighted other changes as well. Researchers commented on changes to traditional roles and boundaries. Rushcamp and Roehler (1992) also reported that teachers struggled within a PDS to change roles and enhance collaboration. Walters (1998) found that the experience of working together on difficult issues has blurred traditional boundaries between school and university (p. 95). Bryant et al. (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004) commented that as traditional roles become blurred, the expectation is these two distinct cultures will blend somehow. This nave idea has appeared in the teacher education literature in job descriptions of faculty from both cultures simultaneously exposing a deep divide between the traditional roles of P12 teachers and higher education faculty. (p. 108) Addressing changes to institutional boundaries presented challenges to PDS participants. Some participants also discovered that developing collegial relationships was challenging. Many of these challenges reflected difficulties in investing the time needed to communicate and establish relationships. Lemlech and Hertzog-Foliart (1993) found that the development of collegiality necessitates a commitment of time (p. 26). Lemlech and Hertzog-Foliart noted that time needed to establish collegial relations between school and university faculty is frequently miscalculated (p. 27). McGowan and Powell (1993) reported PDS participants comments that participation seemed to be an overwhelming experience, but one they judged to be worth the effort (p. 25). In presenting a PDS principals viewpoint, Cramer and Johnston (2000) explained challenges posed by the time needed for true collaboration: We dont have time for all this talking, we have to do school
37
(p. 55). Communicating with the numerous and various stakeholders in a PDS Partnership was time consuming and presented challenges within the current educational hierarchies. In a review of collaboration literature, Johnston and Kerper (1996) found, Many assert that collaboration is difficult to accomplish within the traditional hierarchical relations of schools and universities (p. 7). Walker (1999) noted, conflict is an inevitable byproduct of collaboration (p. 303). Collaboration raised issues of power, influence, professional identity, and integrity (Austin & Baldwin, 1992, p. 2). Borthwick, Stirling, Nauman, and Cook (2003) noted teacher resistance as the greatest disadvantage of school-university partnerships (p. 353). Maloy (1985) explained dilemmas that result from taken-for-granted assumptions in school-university collaborations. Maloy stated: School and university planners, it appears, assume that they share some common reasons for collaboration. Not unlike partners in a love affair, both collaborating parties leave such assumptions unnoticed and unscrutinized, thus giving rise to multiple realities in their relationship. (p. 341) Dickens also commented, it may be that we lack of significant insights into collaboration without perspective as they are informed by various cultural influences (cited in Johnston et al., 2000, p. 36). Participants held differing insights, realities, needs and expectations. Schedules for staff time were one specific example of PDS participants differing needs and expectations. Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) found that course release time is critical for faculty involved in the PDS reform agenda (p. 295). Walters (1998) also noted that time was a major issue for all individuals. Both school and university coordinators felt that they were spread too thin (p. 99) and that they struggled with conflicting demands (p. 100). Walters (1998) elaborated, because of the amount of time spent in the field, university site coordinators reported fewer opportunities to interact informally with
38
university colleagues (p. 101). Case study analysis by Dixon and Ishler (1992) noted relationship aspects as important to collaboration. Winitzky et al. (1992) studied PDS facultys workload and reported struggles with balancing their university and PDS requirements. They note collaboration to be a promising yet not fully realized achievement in that such obstacles were unresolved (pp. 1718). Bullough et al. (1999) summarized, inadequate effort to articulate similarities and differences between the school and university cultures has been made to identify those areas where difference is desirable (p. 388). Hargreaves and Dawe (1990) also noted concerns that, within bureaucratically driven systems, contrived collegiality may be little more than a quick, slick administrative surrogate for more genuinely collaborative teacher cultures, cultures which take much more time, care, and sensitivity to build than do speedily implemented changes of an administratively superficial nature. (p. 238) Collaboration requires a more concerted effort at conversation and comprehension of multiple interpretations (Johnston & Kerper, 1996, p. 22). Teitel and Abdal-Haqq (2000) emphasized that changes in the belief structurethe philosophy that underlies the teaching and learning and leadership practicesare as important as the actual changes in classroom practices (p. 6). Additional research is needed on the potential for tensions to arise in the creation of a culture of collaboration and the possible impact of these tensions on the PDS Partnership. Roles of PDS Participants The PDS model implies changing roles for participants. Roles need to be examined within the contexts of relationships. Although people occupy roles and positions in schools, they are not merely actors devoid of unique needs; in fact, human needs and motivations are key elements in determining how individuals behave in organizations (Hoy & Miskel, 2005,
39
p. 127). New research studies are beginning to focus on roles and relationships within the PDS. Teitel (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) claimed that PDSs challenge the status quo and bring into question entire sets of assumptions about who is responsible for teacher education (p. 115). In a review of case studies, Murnane and Levy (1996) suggested that the PDS program provides a new role and a leadership opportunity for experienced teachers, reducing the isolation that leads many talented teachers to leave the classroom (p. 158). Although some researchers noted mainly positive role changes in collaborative partnerships, other researchers noted the tensions that result from status differences for some PDS participants. Boles and Troen (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) described issues of power and explained that seeing some teachers do something new and different, getting attention and respect, intensifies feelings of turf protection and powerlessness in others. This brings up what is probably the most important obstacle of all to the institutionalization of teacher leadership. (p. 56) Although issues of power exist in the PDS, participants generally valued new collaborative roles. Walters (1998) found the value of collaboration is clear to participants and that, successful partnerships are based on new roles and organizational structures (p. 105). True collaboration changes the traditional power structure in schools (Rosen, 1993, p. 39). In their studies of changing PDS roles, Hartzler-Miller and Wainwright (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004) claimed that, it is precisely because we are defining our professional selves, rather than accepting the definitions imposed by others, that professional renewal does challenge existing power structures (p. 67). Murnane and Levy (1996) reported from case study research that in successful situations a collaborative learning community is established, leadership opportunities are
40
available, and teachers are seen as change agents. Hartzler-Miller and Wainwright (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004) described how veteran teachers felt energized because they see the PDS as a venture into new professional territory, an opportunity to create new roles for themselves (p. 59). PDS participants roles also changed because of their involvement in collaborative research. In their study of collaborative research in a PDS, Galassi, White, Vesilind, and Bryan (2001) found that when public school personnel were given greater responsibility to influence selection of a research question, it would reflect meaningful practitioner problems. Kirschner, Dickinson, and Blosser (1996) found that participants in collaborative action research must constantly define and redefine how they work together, what roles they play, and who will play which roles, when, and how (p. 212). McCarthey and Petersons (1993) case study of two elementary teachers in a PDS supports the notion that there is a process of gradual assumption of leadership and professional initiative. Pasch and Pugach (1990) recognized the role confusion and lack of agreement at all sites on the role of a professional development school and the relationship between the university and the schools (p. 138). PDS participants experienced differing role changes. Cooperating teachers have changed their role from helping with knowledge transfer to working more holistically with the preservice teachers (Teitel, 1997a). College supervisors felt a new sense of belonging (Walters, 1998), modified supervision styles, invested more time in developing stronger personal connections, and worked more collaboratively with teachers (Teitel, 1997a). However, Snyder (1994) indicated that there were difficulties in overcoming historical roles, responsibilities, and perspectives, and this issue may represent a challenge to the PDS
41
development. Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) commented that the cornerstone of the collaborative partnership between PDS faculty and K-12 professionals is the trust and roles that each has grown accustomed to (p. 296). In a 5-year follow-up study of PDS Partnerships, Teitel (1997a) concluded that PDSinspired approaches and the structures that support them have been slow in becoming institutionalized. Teitel pointed to confusion in roles in interinstitutional relationships and equity issues as some of the challenges for maintaining PDSs. Some states have made attempts to reduce such confusion. Huggins and Kenreich (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004) described Marylands efforts to circulate a glossary of PDS terms, but found that stakeholders in various settings employ terms differently (p. 87). Huggins and Kenreich propose that with a shared language, there will be a better understanding of aims, activities, and roles within a PDS (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004, p. 87). PDS roles have been shaped by participants interactions and involvement. Stanulis (1995) reported participants needs for sustained interactions, shared professional responsibility, and respect (p. 343). Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) noted, the stability of the partnership is threatened when key participants are no longer actively involved (p. 296). Lyons, Stroble, and Fischetti (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) explained that the school reform knowledge gained in PDS partnerships is a fragile kind of knowledge, easily lost if someone leaves a site, goes on sabbatical, or decides not to continue as a PDS coordinator (p. 97). Hoy and Miskel (2005) explained that changing leaders produces naturally occurring instabilities in the organization (p. 385). Staff turnover can thus be a challenge during PDS maintenance.
42
Bullough et al. (1999) also reported challenges sustaining partnerships: Getting a partnership off the ground is relatively easy; sustaining one over a long period of time is not (p. 388). Reporting on a failed PDS venture, Snyder and Goldman (1997) explained how the negotiation of evolving power relationships was a particularly virulent unresolved conflict, which festered into an open wound (p. 258). New PDSs may address some of these concerns and conflicts. Researchers described new PDS roles such as boundary spanners designed to address some of these issues. Hoy and Miskel (2005) explained the boundary spanning process as one that creates internal roles to cross organizational boundaries and to link schools with elements in the external environment (p. 247). Typically, PDS boundary spanners participated in both partnership institutions and served as liaisons. Proffitt, Field, Hinkle, and Pilato (1996) claimed, while these roles and responsibilities are continuing to evolve and credibility is being established, all evidence appears to indicate that these boundary spanners are effective in institutionalizing the partnerships at individual sites as well as in developing and strengthening the network. (p. 5) Boundary spanners must appear credible to all participants. Time and experience are instrumental in bridging the credibility expectations for the institution within the partnership (Morgan & Eustis; cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004, p. 92). The boundary spanner must maintain credibility across the university and public school cultures. There are some challenges associated with the boundary spanner role and with changing roles for university faculty. Rosselli et al. (1999) found some concerns that boundary spanners are often junior faculty who lack tenure and that they were expected to simply add their PDS responsibilities to their existing faculty load (p. 4). Some aspects of university culture inhibit the faculty involvement in school affairs that is called for in PDS
43
collaboratives (Abdal-Haqq, 1992b, p. 3). Bowen and Adkison, 1996) claimed the career demands for university personnel added to environmental turbulence (p. 23). Rosselli et al. (1999) recognized challenges posed by traditional promotion and tenure structures and claimed, faculty from the university that select to work in PDS environments often do so at the risk of their progress towards promotion and tenure (p. 5). Clemson-Ingram and Fessler (1997) explained that the reward system penalizes professors of education if and when they devote time to activities which are not related to research (p. 3) and faculty in professional schools are at a distinct disadvantage (p. 3). Berry and Catoe (1994) reported similar concerns with tenure and promotion systems, citing it as a major barrier to investing the time and effort inside K-12 schools (p. 193). Berry and Catoe also reflected educators concerns that university faculty have not been willing to change to a reward system that could indeed support PDSs (p. 193). PDSs can begin to address some of these challenges by refining the expectations for the boundary spanner position and revising the existing university reward systems. Reflecting on their own experiences as boundary spanners, Morgan and Eustis (cited in Neapolitan et al., 2004) suggest that extending the scope of the boundary-spanning concept will foster the sustainability of the PDS partnership and that the increased active involvement of full-time faculty in PDS work is a great step in that direction (p. 104). Preservice Education The PDS model makes several changes from traditional teacher preparation programs. Abdal-Haqq (1992a) predicted that, ultimately, the major contribution of PDSs to the professionalization of teaching may come from public confidence that the interns who leave PDSs have been rigorously prepared and confidence that the practices have been
44
validated by the PDS have been rigorously tested (p. 3). Teitel (1997a) found common PDS features included expanded roles for on-site supervisors, clusters of student teachers, and seminar courses taught at the PDS site by university faculty. Preservice teacher preparation has been the main focus for PDSs. Kochans (1999) studies found preparing preservice teachers to be the most successful of the PDS goals. Studies identified various contributing factors. Teaming had a major impact for student teachers of the PDS (Teitel, 1997a). Teitel (1997a) reported that college faculty used feedback from PDS site teachers to modify sequencing or delivery of preservice courses. Researchers found PDSs impacted interns attitudes, perceptions, and expectations. Fountain (1997) noted that PDS experiences positively impacts the confidence levels of interns (p. 23). However, Loving et al. (1997) reported a downside for preservice teachers who felt accountable to many different people in a partnership setting (p. 34). Loving et al. also noted that preservice teachers experienced frustration in situations where there were a greater number of people collaborating and a greater opportunity for miscommunication, different rules, and different expectations of what the preservice teachers should do (p. 34). Other studies found specific benefits for interns. Using multiple measures in a study of PDS effectiveness, Stallings (1991) indicated that student teachers reported an increased interest in urban school settings. Yerian and Grossman (1993) reported that student teachers were significantly more positive about the supervision and support they received as PDS participants and that these students felt better prepared for teaching. Comparing PDS graduates to non-PDS graduates, Reynolds, Ross, and Rakow (2002) found PDS graduates felt more satisfaction with their preparation program. Trachtman (cited in Levine &
45
Trachtman, 1997) noted that student teachers valued of the PDS climate of trust. Runyan, Sparks, and Sagehorn (2000) indicated that PDS teacher candidates had a higher perception of their developmental needs than traditional teacher candidates. Darling-Hammond and Baratz-Snowden (2007) claimed, studies of highly developed professional-development schools have found that teachers completing long-term student teaching in such programs feel more knowledgeable and prepared to teach and are viewed by supervisors as better prepared than other new teachers (p. 125). In addition, some PDSs provided standards of practice intended to impact the quality of teaching (Heller, 2007). Some researchers examined interns transitions into the workforce. Latham and Vogt (2007) found that PDS preparation fostered entry into and persistence in teaching. Ridley, Hurwitz, Hackett and Miller (2005) compared PDS-prepared and campus-prepared cohorts and found that PDS-prepared teachers were rated higher on teaching effectiveness during their first year of teaching. Castle, Fox, and Souder (2006) reported benefits for PDS versus non-PDS candidates at the point of licensure and claimed PDS candidates demonstrated greater sophistication in applying Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) standards. Teachers involved in the preservice education also experienced benefits. Schwartz (2001) noted, one important benefit of involvement in a PDS for public schools is the presence of additional personnel who can perform many useful functions (p. 1). In a study of three PDS sites, Teitel (1992) claimed that teachers feel they benefit in their enthusiasm and individual professional development due to the deep engagement of PDS participants in the teacher preparation process. Yendol-Hoppey (2007) also noted the benefits of approaching mentoring as co-inquirers. Teachers have renewed energy from cutting-edge
46
practice (Kochan, 1998, p. 3). Driscoll, Benson, and Livneh (1994) reported that participants gained an understanding and appreciation of the complexity and magnitude of the process of teacher education and an awareness of the enormity of the collaborative planning process and accompanying demands and accommodations of participants (p. 66). Inquiry One PDS goal is to foster inquiry. Ideally, PDS cultures will establish discourse communities where members are co-equal and knowledge is mutually constructed (Stanulis, 1995, p. 332). Researchers such as Moore and Hopkins (1993) found that participants desired joint research by university and public school personnel (p. 221). However, some studies have reported this goal to be the least successful of PDS goals (Kochan, 1999). In addition, some researchers have claimed that, few PDSs have significant dollars to support inquiry efforts (Trachtman, 2007, p. 201). Several studies note aspects of these PDS activities. Cobb (2001) found that the PDS culture encourages reflection, inquiry, and action research. PDS involvement appears to have created enhanced and expanded research activities (Kochan, 1998, p. 4). Yopp, Guillaume and Savage (19931994) noted that the model provides a vehicle for reflective practice (p. 32). Nihlen (1992) found that one of the best ways for them [classroom teachers] to get at the questions they had concerning their classrooms was to learn how to do research themselves (p. 5). Burbank and Kauchak (2003) emphasized the need to develop collaborative venues for debate, reflective analysis, and discussion as key to teacher reflection in the action research process. Driscoll, Benson, and Livneh (1994) reported that, through collaborative reflections and inquiry, school district personnel and university faculty became significant contributors to the professionalization of teaching (p. 67).
47
Ambrose et al. (1999) claimed that one of the major benefits to a university faculty who coordinates a PDS is the opportunity for cutting-edge research (p. 295). In a study of the collaborative research practices in one PDS Partnership, Galassi et al. (2001) reported that, although participants claimed they placed a positive value on collaborative research, more time was needed to achieve the stage of a common understanding and valuing of research by all PDS participants (p. 82). They further explained that traditional mind-sets toward research, the need for a common research language, lack of sufficient time to conduct research, and the need to understand school culture were barriers to the collaborative research mission (Galassi et al., 2001). Deppeler (2006) also noted that time was needed to build and sustain high quality collaborative inquiry partnerships. Pope (2002) noted that collaborative action research necessitated the development and maintenance of long-term relationships. Collaborative inquiry participants needed time to develop common understandings. Educational research in the PDS environment was different from the universitys traditional approach (Rosselli et al., 1999). There were differing relative values for inquiry among school- and university-based personnel (Stallings, Wiseman, & Knight, 1995). Driscoll et al. (1994) also found that the reflection and inquiry process demanded much more time than originally anticipated (p. 65). Ambrose et al. (1999) noted that a disadvantage that causes many university education faculty to shy away from PDS projects is that they are not recognized as academic endeavors by faculty outside education, and participants of PDSs are often penalized during their tenure process (p. 295). Breaking down the barriers that discourage collaboration by faculty is probably the most needed reform (Austin & Baldwin, 1992, p. 2).
48
Some researchers have noted parity problems as creating challenges for PDS inquiry (Trachtman, 2007). Trachtman (2007) explained that even in well-developed PDSs, longstanding perceptions of who holds the knowledge and skill continue to prevail (p. 202). Wiseman and Nason (1993) noted that university faculty have mainly guided the PDS research attempts even in contexts attempting to engage in collaborative research. However, Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, and Watson (1998) reported that most of the research in PDSs was conducted by preservice teachers or teachers engaged in graduate courses, and university research faculty had minimal roles. Because PDSs have reflected a variety of configurations for engaging in collaborative research, it is difficult to generalize their nature. Mebane and Galassi (2003) emphasized the study of small-group dynamics and its relevance to PDS inquiry. Understanding the context of PDS inquiry is important to discussing its relevance. Research in this area is still limited. It is difficult to determine the impact that a PDS has on fostering inquiry because some of the research conducted in PDS schools may have occurred even had the school not been identified as a PDS. Examples of possible scenarios include the graduate work of teachers and studies conducted as part of preservice programs. More information about the link between the PDS innovation and increased or improved inquiry experiences is needed. The PDS literature provides numerous and varied claims about its intended outcomes. For example, Yopp et al. (19931994) list benefits to include: improving teacher education programs through the utilization of the skills of both teachers and higher education faculty; building a bridge between theory and practice; keeping higher education faculty sensitive to the needs of teachers; and facilitating the professional growth of teachers through contacts with higher education faculty. (p. 29)
49
Many of these claims are based on the assumption of collaboration established as part of the PDS Partnership. The process of collaboration is mentioned frequently in the literature, but it is rarely described in adequate detail. After studying programs at 50 institutions, Yinger and Hendricks (1990) concluded, successful university and school collaborations require answers to complex questions, such as How can relationships be developed for teacher education that are truly collaborative and mutually beneficial? (p. 26). The development and maturation of PDSs were not a linear process (Stanulis, 1995, p. 303). PDS participants must address the nature of collaboration in their Partnership. Collaboration is necessary to change teachers attitudes, change school climates, improve preservice experiences, and foster inquiry. It is an essential element of all aspects of the PDS and warrants increased attention. Why Collaboration Models? The PDS reflects a crossroads among many education-related topics, theories, and research. An abundance of testimonial and favorable opinion exists to support the PDS movement, and numerous studies in related areas support PDS goals and methods. Bodies of literature in fields such as teacher preparation, professional development, effective schools, systemic change, student achievement, and instructional leadership have influenced the initiation of the PDS movement and continue to influence its progress. Yet there is still a need for further PDS-specific empirical research. Despite that research in this field is currently increasing as the PDS movement expands, there seems to be a gap in the relevant literature. Publications or discussions of the details or underlying issues between schools and universities are rare to nonexistent (Teitel, 1998, p. 85). Collaboration offers a problem solving approach in which problems
50
and conflicts are seen as challenges. Differences are confronted and ideas and information are shared. There is a concerted effort to find integrative solutions, those in which everyone wins (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 233). Understanding collaboration can provide a vehicle for understanding underlying issues of the PDS movement. Collaboration, although deemed essential by its frequent mention in numerous PDSrelated documents, is not adequately addressed in PDS research. Houston (1979) argued that collaboration reflected a trend in American education (p. 332) and that this trend was based on assumptions about the effectiveness of group problem solving. Wasser and Bresler (1996) claimed that the term collaboration has become a buzzword and if something is collaborative, we believe it to be good (p. 12). Wasser and Bresler also argued that collaboration is unexamined (p. 12). Rice (2002) noted that the word collaboration is frequently used to describe any situation in which people work together to promote change (p. 56). Cohen (1995) explained: Professional values and commitments do not subsist in a social vacuum. Teachers cannot be expected to dramatically improve instruction in the absence of the social resources that support it (p. 15). Barksdale-Ladds (1994) studies indicated that teachers did not understand collaboration, although they expressed a willingness to work collaboratively (p. 110). Pasch and Pugach (1990) noted that few teachers have received any training in collaborative methods or experienced them (p. 139). Rice (2002) observed that much of the time and energy of PDS members was spent in discussing ways to secure resources for the collaboration rather than in the specifics of their working relationship (p. 59). Rice further commented that, to implement and sustain the collaboration process in PDSs, individual participants must have the relational skills to work with others. Without these skills, the
51
collaboration process is plagued with power, leadership, trust, and communication issues. (p. 66) Understanding collaboration processes may help educators build social awareness needed for educational reforms such as PDSs. Regarding collaborative efforts in general, Lieberman (1986) claimed, The scope and variety of these collaborative efforts attest to pervasiveness of the collaborative ideal. But little is known about what these collaborations look like, the forms they take, and how they come about (p. 6). Houston (1979) claimed that the paucity of research on collaboration is astounding (p. 333). In her review of school/university collaboration, Dickens explained, part of the difficulty in reviewing this literature is determining just what researchers and practitioners mean by collaboration (cited in Johnson et al., 2000, p. 22). Common research themes included the newness of collaborative ventures in educational settings and the variability in the levels of understanding among researchers and practitioners (Book, 1996; Fountain, 1997; Maloy, 1985; Teitel, 1997a ). Stallings et al., Wiseman, and Knight (1995) explained, a constant appraisal of collaborative processes and products is necessary in order to determine the progress the partnership is making toward stated goals (p. 139). Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) noted, collaboration between education faculty and public school professionals is in an evolutionary stage of development; the concept is valued, yet questions remain about how to practice, sustain, and recruit more participants (p. 293). Moore and Hopkins (1993) predicted that the road to collaboration will be hard and mistakes will be made (p. 222), but advocated collaboration in professional development schools as an opportunity to improve the structure of teacher preparation (p. 222). Olson (1997) recognized that collaboration shows promise for
52
reshaping the relationships between research and practice, but notes that collaborative relationships are relatively new to the educational landscape (p. 13). Olson further suggests that developing collaborative relationships calls for a monumental shift in the traditional version of epistemology which is implicitly lived within present social contexts of educational institutions (p. 13) because collaboration goes against the grain of traditional beliefs about what counts as knowledge and whose knowledge counts (p. 15). Collaboration as parity that requires mutuality and caring relations is a tall order (Johnston & Kerper, 1996, p. 8). If indeed, as Abdal-Haqq (1989) noted, One hallmark of Professional Development Schools is collaboration between university and school personnel (p. 2), then it is imperative that PDSs recognize and nurture this defining feature of the PDS Partnership. Abdal-Haqq (1998) also noted the multipronged PDS mission and the collaborative approach to achieving the goals that derive from the mission (p. 4) as distinguishing factors for PDSs. In addition, collaboration processes are important because each element nourishes and replenishes the other, and the entire enterprise is crippled by neglect of one or more elements (Abdal-Haqq, 1998, p. 4). Abdal-Haqq further claimed that collaboration is an enabling condition, which makes it possible to fulfill the mission and that we can see the importance that PDS implementers attach to meaningful collaboration in the formal agreements that many partnerships have crafted to enable their work (p. 6). However, many studies have failed to conceptualize the PDS in terms of the collaborative processes that form the heart of its existence. Collaboration models are a needed perspective to review the PDS Partnership. Collaboration is a process embedded in the PDS model and is utilized at every level of
53
Partnership interaction. Wiseman and Nason (1995) suggested a need to understand interactions within partnerships and examined necessary conditions for collaboration. Andrews and Smith (1994) advocate multiple levels of collaboration in PDSs. Pasch and Pugach (1990) explained that work in professional development schools proceeds in a multidirectional and multidimensional manner and that it is a contextual process (p. 141). PDS collaboration processes are an essential piece to this context. Engaging in collaboration may be the key to spurring new knowledge and thus fostering educational reform. The quality of the collaboration with its unique ability to synthesize the ideas, the practice, and the emotional investment of a diverse group with diverse goals becomes key to the success of PDS programs and other restructuring efforts (Dixon & Ishler, 1992, p. 33). Olson (1997) proposed that it is the diversity of knowledge expressed in a collaborative situation which makes reconstruction of knowledge possible (p. 23). Clark (1995) called for continuous collaboration among partners (p. 5) and embedded expectations for collaboration within all areas of the standards for partner schools participating in the National Network for Educational Renewal. Collaboration holds the potential for a deeper level of conversation and understanding of ourselves and that the struggles to do this particular kind of work produced relationships, professional development, and institutional change that did not occur in less collaborative work (Johnston & Kerper, 1996, p. 22). Yet little attention has been given to collaborative processes within the PDS context. For many, the dream of collaborative reform may result in temporary change owing to sleepwalking rather than the wide-awakeness needed to forge lasting mutually beneficial results for all involved (Snow & Marshall, 2002, p. 482).
54
Additional consideration of the collaboration processes is necessary to make the best use of the resources already at hand. Universities and school districts need to learn how collaborative practices can enhance their PDS Partnerships. If Teitels (1997a) claims are true that most PDSs grow up on the margins of their respective institutions (p. 313), then an institutional complexity unique to the PDS exists that must be further explored for the PDS Partnership to carry out its mission: We should be able to study the process of an alliances transformation from a temporary to a relatively permanent structure, shifts in the relative importance of the common, domain-level interests of participants versus the organization-level interests of the alliance itself, and shifts in the environmental context over time. (Gray & Wood, 1991a, p. 19) Book (1996) cautioned that the complexity and cost of creating and maintaining PDSs may ultimately undermine the longevity of these innovations (p. 205). She described part of the difficulty in maintaining the PDS: The clash of cultures of the schools and the universities and the difficulty in overcoming different goals, reward structures, time commitments, and perspectives on teaching and learning make collaboration difficult (p. 205). It is often unclear how community building through collaboration evolves over time (Fear, Edwards, & Rohler, 1991, p. 5). Houston (1979) identified challenges because collaboration requires people to extend themselves into unknown and less comfortable areas (p. 341). Fountain (1997) also noted barriers to PDS progress that included miscommunication, difficulties creating shared cultures, identifying and monitoring resources, negotiating, and coping with change. These barriers are common themes associated with collaboration models. Fountain advocated the creation of new collaborative structures and cultures as an educational linchpin that is necessary to
55
successfully transform practice, preparation, and the profession (p. 25). Houston (1979) cited collaborations benefits to include improved educational programs, increased power, and decreased costs (p. 344) and noted, the interaction of increased benefits and decreased costs provides the basic rationale for collaboration (p. 345). Using collaboration models as a perspective to view the PDS Partnership can help demystify its complexity and provide direction for navigating obstacles and issues of implementation. Collaboration and Collaborative Alliances Collaboration and collaborative alliances are described in many areas of literature. Each area lends its unique perspective to the goals and processes of collaboration. Thomson (2001) conducted a general review of this literature and found at least twentysix different definitions or perspectives on collaboration (p. 69) representing great diversity. They included perspectives such as negotiated order theory, network analysis, interorganizational relations, and strategic management and social ecology (Thomson, 2001). The concepts of collaboration and cooperation can both be found in a general review of the literature. Distinguishing between them is necessary to enhance an understanding of collaborative processes in a PDS Partnership. Hord (1986) provided models of cooperation and collaboration that describe the different expectations of each process. Hord claimed that each model serves a unique purpose, requires different types of input, and gives different outcomes. Hords comparison of these models draws attention to the fact that, The necessity for clarifying expectations is of paramount importance--not only the expectations of rewards, but expectations of goals, of commitments from each sector, and of procedures. These decision points frequently become the critical dilemmas that force a choice of the cooperative mode rather than the more demanding collaborative one. (p. 25)
56
Hord suggested that these decisions are made related to the beginning process, communication, resources/ownership, requirements/characteristics, leadership/control, and rewards. Hord also suggested that collaborative processes are more demanding than cooperative ones: A greater amount of time is required for collaboration than for cooperation, since activities are shared rather than allowed (p. 26). In addition, Hord (1986) stated that collaboration is highly recommended as the most appropriate mode for interorganizational relationships (p. 26). Although her models provide a needed distinction between cooperation and collaboration and serve as a beginning point for discussion, Hords theories provoke further inquiry. Lieberman (1986) agreed that we need to understand not only the variety of collaborative activities and arrangements, but what people get from these relationships and what it takes to sustain them (p. 6). Whitford, Schlechty, and Shelor (1987) also distinguished between cooperation and collaboration. They described cooperative interactions as short term, with less emphasis on reciprocity, and proposed that collaboration begins with mutual agendas and joint ownership of innovations or issues. Whitford et al. categorized collaboration as cooperative, symbiotic, or organic. Appley and Winder (1977) defined collaboration as a value system that includes shared goals, conceptual frameworks, and relationships characterized by caring, concern, and commitment. Trubowitz (1986) presented stages of collaboration based on experiences in a schoolcollege partnership in New York. Trubowitz argued that partnerships begin with hostility and skepticism (Stage 1) and that to overcome this stage participants must listen actively and with empathy. Stage 2 is characterized by a lack of trust among stakeholders.
57
Trubowitz suggested that shared experiences through collaboration can help participants gain mutual confidence. Stage 3 represents a period of truce. Stage 4 is one in which participants begin to gain each others approval. Stage 5 is when collaboration enters a period of stability and there is acceptance (Trubowitz, 1986, p. 20). Stage 6 is one of regression. At this stage, there may be institutional changes or the original vision may be blurred. Trubowitz emphasized that greater efforts are needed to maintain what has been accomplished, and any extensive plans for new school programs need to be postponed (p. 21). At Stage 7, renewal is possible with the influx of new staff or an outside influence to reenergize the established institution. Last, at Stage 8, there is continuing progress, and the partnership shows forward movement toward goals. Although they are based on the experiences in one case, these stages build awareness that collaborative partnerships involve processes and one cannot be certain of progress. Trubowitz claimed that it is possible to reach a plateau at any of the stages (p. 19). Hackman and Schmitt (1995) also described steps or stages of a collaborative change process. They presented a six-step process starting with awareness, readiness, and commitment and continuing over 3 years. Step 2 marked the establishment of school improvement goals. Steps 3 and 4 included development, approval, implementation, and monitoring of a plan. Step 5 represented evaluation, and step 6 included reassessment of the 3-year plan. Hackman and Schmitts studies described how a partnership involved in the change process must have collaboration and meaningful support (p. 26). The PDS Partnership needs to understand ways to progress through collaboration stages and build capacity for undertaking collaborative processes. Dixon and Ishler (1992) discovered the difficulty of turning cooperation into collaboration at the individual and
58
institutional levels (p. 29). Viewing collaboration as a stage-based process also may provide some insight into a possible plateau effect noted by PDS researchers such as Teitel (1997a). However, neither Trubowitz nor Hackman and Schmitt provided the necessary elaboration on collaborative processes. The quality of the collaboration determines our ability to accept the conflicts, failures, lapses in commitments, and most important, the erratic nature of progress toward the ultimate restructuring goals (Dixon & Ishler, 1992, p. 32). More extensive research on the nature of collaborative processes has been undertaken by Gray and Wood (1991). Collaboration Theories of Gray and Wood Gray and Wood (1991) and Gray (1989) provided a useful framework for understanding the dimensions of collaboration. They developed a theory as to how collaborative alliances are formed that can be readily applied to PDS Partnerships. The partnership is created with the intent to advance a shared vision and serve the collective good of all PDS participants. Gray (1989) claimed that, to successfully advance a shared vision, a radically different approach to organizing and managing is needed (p. 9). Grays collaboration theories are useful in understanding how a partnership can identify and coordinate the efforts of stakeholders outside of the traditional types of hierarchical authority to which many organizations are accustomed. Organizations that seek to participate in a collaborative partnership must look for new ways to reach their shared goals. The interdependence of stakeholders, combined with different levels of expertise and different access to information, create a complex situation for which existing problem-solving processes may be inefficient. Gray (1989) proposed a
59
model of organizing these processes based on collaboration among the parties involved, defining collaboration as: A process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (p. 5). Gray and Wood (1991) also distinguished collaboration from cooperation. Collaboration is viewed as a more complex task that involves more time, equal participation among participants, equal contribution of resources, and equal benefits. Gray and Wood did not claim that collaboration is better than cooperation, but, like Hord (1986), suggested that each process is different and should be used for different reasons. Distinguishing between cooperation and collaboration is an important task for the PDS Partnership. The PDS literature overwhelmingly uses the language of collaboration. However, it seems that the PDS Partnership does not overwhelmingly use the actions of collaboration. It seems there may be a disconnect here. The PDS functions on many levels in both cooperative and collaborative modes. It is possible that the disconnect occurs when the expectations for the PDS Partnership only reflect collaborative modes. An understanding of the differences between cooperation and collaboration is key to the development of a collaborative alliance such as a PDS Partnership. Research is needed that undertakes comparative studies of the various ways of interrelating: cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and so on (Hord, 1986, p. 25). Development of a school-college partnership is a fluid process with no absolute endpoint. Changes are inevitable (Trubowitz, 1986, p. 20). Recognizing the complexity inherent in the PDS Partnership and realizing that the innovation of a PDS is being implemented amid a sea of institutional change, it becomes clear that the climate is one of turbulence. Gray and Wood
60
(1991) proposed the formation of collaborative alliances as a significant strategy for coping with this type of turbulent environment. If a collaborative alliance is to be formed by the PDS Partnership, it also must be clearly defined. Gray and Wood (1991) defined a collaborative alliance as an interorganizational effort to address problems too complex and too protracted to be resolved by unilateral organizational action (p. 4). The PDS Partnership represents an interorganizational effort to address complex educational issues such as teacher preparation, professional development, school improvement, and institutional renewal. If one organization, working alone, cannot fully address these issues, which overlap organizational boundaries, a collaborative alliance may be formed. Developing an awareness of how to work together in the interorganizational effort of the PDS Partnership can help participants move the PDS forward in accomplishing its mission. Preconditions for Collaboration The organizational climate must be conducive for collaborative alliances to arise. Thomson (2001) argued that, As a process, collaboration occurs over time as organizations interact formally and informally through repetitive sequences of negotiation, development of commitments, and execution of those commitments (p. 72). Certain preconditions must exist for this process to occur. Stakeholders must elect to form the alliance and be motivated to participate (Gray & Wood, 1991). Motivation can occur based on a variety of factors such as high organizational interdependence, high stakes, a shared vision as to how to collectively respond to a problem, or the need to pool resources (Gray & Wood, 1991). Although not a necessary precondition, the presence of a convener can facilitate the formation of an
61
alliance. The convener uses various forms of authority to identify and persuade stakeholders to participate (Gray & Wood, 1991, p. 149). Conveners can encourage partnerships to form and facilitate maintenance. Gray and Wood (1991) also claimed that partnerships are encouraged when organizational boundaries are blurred. As the university and school system join to create the PDS Partnership, aspects of each organization are incorporated into the new venture. Participants in a PDS Partnership must be motivated to share resources, contribute to solutions, and recognize the interdependence existing between the university and school district. Each party does not have an equal stake in every aspect of the collaborative alliance. Therefore, each party may have a different motivation for participating in the alliance. Thomson (2001) recognized that organizations enter collaborative agreements to achieve their own goals and collaboration involves bargaining (p. 72). Thomson further proposed that retaining individual organizational autonomy is a necessary requirement for successful collaboration. These preconditions represent an awareness of the need for collaboration. However, Despite powerful incentives to collaborate, our capacity to do so is underdeveloped. We have begun to develop the right instincts about the value of collaboration, but there are also compelling forces that cause those who try to collaborate to fall short. In order to capitalize on the potential, we need to understand much more about the fundamental assumptions underlying collaborative processes and the practical dynamics of how these processes unfold and can be managed. (Gray, 1989, p. 54) The Collaborative Process Gray (1989) described collaboration as an emergent process and presented three phases of collaboration: problem setting, direction setting, and implementing. It is important to view collaboration as a process, not a specific state of being. By viewing
62
collaboration as a process, it becomes possible to describe its origins and development as well as how its organization changes over time (Gray, 1989, p. 15). This perspective is intended as a way to capture the complex and dynamic nature of a collaborative alliance. In Phase 1, the problem-setting stage, conveners of the collaborative alliance need to meet and agree on a common definition of the problem. They affirm their commitment to collaboration and identify the stakeholders involved. Gray (1989) suggested that there be dialogue to establish the legitimacy of stakeholders and identify resources. In Phase 2, the stakeholders establish ground rules, set agendas, and organize subgroups. Gray named this phase direction setting because the participants work to explore their options, search for needed information, and reach an agreement as to the direction the alliance takes to solve the identified problem. Phase 3, implementation, involves developing structures to carry out the agreement. This phase may involve building support for the plan and determining the means to monitor the agreement. Gray (1989) identified this stage as crucial and cautioned that collaboration is especially susceptible to collapse during implementation (p. 92). Collaborative alliances must create structures that enable them to respond to change in the organizational environment and solve new challenges that arise. These structures may help the alliance negotiate a path to implementation and allow them to continue to pursue their joint vision. Throughout her discussion of the stages of collaboration and in her work with Wood (1991), Gray (1989) revealed several strands or themes related to the progression among the stages. Each of these themes deserves consideration at each phase of implementation. The manner in which the organization negotiates these aspects of the
63
collaboration process can build capacity for collaboration or serve as a challenge to its progress. Capacity for Collaboration Basic to each phase of collaboration is the organizations capacity to interact. Some of the aspects of creating capacity for collaboration are related to the preconditions previously discussed. Some aspects are related to the culture of each institution involved in the collaborative alliance. Institutional cultures within organizations also pose formidable obstacles to the wider acceptance and use of collaboration. Here the inertial forces of institutional culture come into play (Gray, 1989, p. 254). If the institutional culture is not receptive to collaboration and overcoming these inherent obstacles is not feasible, the probability of a successful collaborative alliance is low. Conveners can help increase this probability by using their influence to negotiate a shared understanding of the problem domain and establish and use collaborative problemsolving processes (Gray & Wood, 1991, p. 152). Characteristics of the convener facilitate capacity building for a collaborative culture. Credibility of the convener is key to changing the institutional culture to present a favorable climate for collaboration. Communication Communication processes also are central to collaboration at every phase. Stakeholders must proceed in good faith negotiations throughout all phases of the collaboration. To do so, stakeholders must be skilled in developing interpersonal relationships. Gray (1989) noted that: Often signals are misinterpreted and parties act in ways that are unwittingly affrontive to other stakeholders. It is important to catch and resolve these misunderstandings when they occur and to maintain a climate in which violations of trust work to the disadvantage of all parties. (p. 266)
64
Conveners can prevent misinterpretations and foster communication. Conveners may use knowledge of stakeholder interrelationships and personal charisma to persuade stakeholders to participate (Gray & Wood, 1991, p. 153). Once stakeholders are in agreement to participate in the Partnership, there must be ongoing communication to facilitate the initial agreement. Communication is a complex concept and directly depends on its immediate context. Participants in a Partnership must be sensitive to the dimensions of communication and the need to match the form, function, and amount of communication to the situation at hand. Communication processes are embedded in each of the three phases of Grays theory of collaboration. Gray (1989) discussed process factors that conveners, mediators, and participants can utilize to guide the collaboration process. Parties must agree on the scope of the collaboration because differing expectations can stall the effort. While it may be important to include a large number of stakeholders, they may not all participate to the same extent or at the same time in the process (Gray, 1989, p. 69). They must ensure that the timing is right for discussions and negotiations. Attention must be given to the process to ensure it is appropriate for the context. Coping With Change Gray (1989) also proposed that participants attend to the process of anticipating change and promoting flexibility. Conveners and participants should encourage frequent dissemination of progress to constituents and alert parties to the possibility of renegotiation of agreements to satisfy constituent concerns (Gray, 1989, p. 267).
65
The process of collaboration is temporary. It needs to be an interactive process in which an opportunity exists for change throughout the Partnerships duration. Coping with change is especially important at the implementation phase. Often by the time that Partnership reaches the point of putting its plan in place, there have been changes in staff members, related policy, and other specific aspects of the environment. Gray (1989) described this obstacle: The number of actors in these partnerships is often extensive and changing, and comprehensive documentation of processes and results is either not available or is buried in the personal archives of the participants (p. 260). Organizing the collaborative Partnership with an awareness that change is inevitable is important to maintaining the Partnership. Part of this effort should include attention to processes for negotiating conflicts, coping with power and politics, and structuring to foster collaboration. Negotiating Negotiating a successful path through conflicts that occur at each phase of the collaborative alliance is important to the Partnerships success. Unexpected obstacles to the original Partnership agreement may occur at any point in the collaborative alliance and require special skills to overcome. These may be site-specific disputes that center around participants personal interests or may involve disputes regarding technical issues. Obstacles also may occur when participants have different expectations about the Partnership or different levels of confidence in the process. Participants interpersonal skills are essential to negotiation. However, the Partnership must deliberately plan ways to anticipate and respond to conflict within the new institution created by the collaborative alliance.
66
The Partnership connects the values and work cultures of different institutions. Conveners and participants must work to negotiate common ground where there can be a merger of these values. Gray (1989) described the difficulty of these collaborative ventures as connected to the fact that there are no formal authority to induce compliance and standard operating procedures to ensure coordination (p. 196). Participants in the Partnership must determine ways to negotiate conflicts that are conducive to the success of the collaborative alliances goals. Recognizing and attending to issues of power and politics, as well as creating structures within the Partnership that will support processes of collaboration, are essential. Coping With Power and Politics In a partnership, parties must share power and coordinate information and resources. However, this process cannot be taken for granted. Even when collaboration is initiated in order to advance a shared vision, stakeholders are anxious to advance their own interests (Gray, 1989, p. 112). Although the partnership is based on shared power, there are ongoing challenges to this view. Shared power is a component of a collaborative alliance that warrants discussion in the planning of the Partnership and requires monitoring throughout the implementation phase. Gray (1989) clarified the notion of shared power: This does not mean that parties to a collaboration are equal in power, that those in positions of power must relinquish it in order to collaborate, or that all the resources that are brought to the table are distributed equally. (p. 119) It does mean that power dynamics are open to change. Collaboration processes open access to power through increased participation by a wider range of stakeholders. Participants in the Partnership may have more access, influence, and input into agendas.
67
Power dynamics may shift during any (or all) of the three collaboration phases. Gray (1989) urged that designers of collaborative efforts cannot ignore the larger context within which their efforts are embedded (p. 129). Structuring When the collaborative alliance seeks to make changes to promote a shared vision, as does the PDS, there is a need for extensive implementation plans. Gray (1989) explained the process of structuring as the gradual institutionalization of the agreements reached by the Partnership. Precise agreements are reached about each partners responsibility (Gray, 1989, p. 88). For these agreements to become institutionalized, they must reflect some ability to change. Structures need to be put in place to help the Partnership monitor progress toward the shared vision or agreement. Responsibilities for those charged with monitoring must be clearly articulated. Building agreement as to how implementation and monitoring are to proceed enhances the collaborative alliance. Because these implementation agreements are carried out over the long term, new decision-making methods also must be considered to maintain the original agreement. Formal structures may be established to manage the decision-making processes and allow the alliance to respond to change. Gray (1989) argued that, in a self-regulating Partnership, participants need to create long-term structures to support and sustain their collective appreciation, a forum for future problem solving, and a regulative framework for the domain (p. 90). This process will help the collaborative alliance regulate the ongoing relationship. Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity
68
The Partnership also must address ways to reduce uncertainty in the organization. Gray and Wood (1991) suggested that three areas be examined: access to resources, efficient use of resources, and collective rules governing resource use. These efforts to gain control can lead the Partnership to joint governance, as is the case in many PDS Partnerships. Gray and Wood (1991) explained that, in collaborative alliances, there must be a process of building a joint appreciation. This process enables all stakeholders to increase their understanding of the problem by learning the desired and intended actions of others. Such joint appreciation forms the basis on which agreements are reached about which actions, if any, will be taken, and by whom they will be taken. This enables stakeholders to purposefully coordinate their activities. (Gray & Wood, 1991, p. 160) A high level of coordination of efforts surrounding resource management can make collaboration processes smoother and have a positive impact on the Partnership. These coordination efforts need to be incorporated into the Partnerships structures. Layered Collaborative Alliances Increased complexity of collaboration results when the organizational structures of the partners increase in complexity. Gray and Wood (1991) introduced the notion of layered collaborative alliances. In this case, smaller collaborative alliances appear within the context of the first alliance, creating a layered collaborative alliance. This concept is still quite undeveloped. Gray and Wood (1991) explained that The dynamics of layered collaborations are even less understood than are the simpler forms of collaborative alliances. Further research and theory is needed to examine the extent to which and the conditions under which such layered arrangements occur, as well as their effects on the processes and outcomes of the collaborations. (p. 154)
69
Although this theory is still evolving, thinking of the PDS Partnership in this manner may offer additional insight into the complexity of the collaborative process that occurs within this realm. Thomsons Key Dimensions of Collaboration Thomson (2001) was significantly influenced by Gray and Woods theories as she developed her own framework for determining how collaboration might be defined and measured. In her studies of collaboration among organizations, Thomson found that a wide gap exists between the normative assertions about the nature of collaboration and empirical realities of actually doing it (p. 11). Thomsons research built on the models presented by Gray and Wood and others. Her review of the literature led to the development of five key dimensions of collaboration: governance, administration, mutuality, norms, and organizational autonomy. Thomson (2001) describes governance as the joint creation of rules and structures. The actors determine how they will interact and how they will solve shared problems. Governance is characterized by joint decision making and negotiation. Governance can occur at different levels and can be viewed as informal or formal. Thomson associated some distinguishable phrases with the dimension of governance. Examples of these phrases included: joint ownership of decisions, joint decision making, explicit agreement on rules, mutual monitoring or mutual problem solving (p. 249). These phrases were linked with describing collaboration within the dimension of governance. Thomson (2001) describes administration as jointly creating ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together (p. 94). There are levels of coordination, including how tasks are assigned and how roles and responsibilities are defined. Processes
70
such as monitoring, sanctioning, and resolving conflicts are associated with administration. Thomsons distinguishable phrases included: shared resources, joint use of resources, coordination of tasks, and goal oriented behavior (p. 249). Organizational autonomy reflections the notion that actors retain their independent decision-making powers even when they agree to abide by shared rules resulting in an intrinsic tension between self-interest and the collective interest (Thomson, 2001, p. 94). As organizations strive to retain autonomy, they set boundaries to define their organization. Working collaboratively with another organization, these boundaries are tested. Thus, tension can be created as organizations struggle to maintain boundaries or negotiate tradeoffs. Thomsons (2001) distinguishable phrases included: stakeholder autonomy, voluntary participation, and tensions between self-interested behavior and cooperative behavior (p. 249). Thomson (2001) describes mutuality as the ways that organizations benefit from their associations with other organizations. The interaction benefits the organization in ways they would not had they been working alone (Thomson, 2001, p. 94). Organizations have a mutual interest, but different levels of interest may exist. Thomsons distinguishable phrases included: mutual benefit, win-win solutions, non-hierarchical inter-organizational relationships, shared risks, stakeholders achieve own objectives better than they could alone (p. 249). Thomsons (2001) final key dimension involves norms, which are described as internalized, but widely shared beliefs for what are appropriate actions in broad types of situations (p. 94). Norms of trust and reciprocity are typically addressed. Thomsons phrases to distinguish this dimension included:
71
increased public value, common values, shared goals, shared beliefs about desirability of collaboration, common perceptions, broad consensus on problems and intervention strategies, normative behavioral expectations, reciprocity, trust, information sharing, and respect for others perceptions. (p. 249) The examples of distinguishable phrases provided are not a comprehensive listing, but an illustrative sampling of Thomsons distinguishable phrases. The dimensions of governance and administration are described as structural dimensions. Mutuality and norms are described as social capital dimensions. Organizational autonomy is categorized as an agency dimension. Thomson (2001) used these dimensions to define and measure collaboration. Thomson suggested that collaboration is an interactive process between organizations that involves (sometimes simultaneous) negotiation, development and assessment of commitments, and implementation of those commitments (p. 82). Thomson built a definition of collaboration incorporating (a) the key dimensions, (b) a process framework similar to that of Gray and Wood, and (c) a theoretical context of aggregative and integrative traditions. Thomsons (2001) research utilized this combination approach to measure interorganizational collaboration. By questionnaire and interview, Thomson developed indicators for measuring each of the five key dimensions of collaboration. Thomsons key dimensions and indicators of collaboration were useful in this study to show ways that collaboration processes may be involved in the development and maintenance of the PDS Partnership. Thomsons study offers a model for empirically studying processes of collaboration and significantly furthers the research in the field of collaboration. PDS Partnerships and Collaboration Models
72
Grays (1989) model of collaboration and her work with Wood (1991) provides a useful theoretical perspective for examining PDS Partnerships. As Gray argued, we must recognize the limitations inherent in the current mechanisms we use for solving complex problems. They are not suited to managing interdependence; instead, new models of organizing are needed. Collaboration is proposed as a viable means for organizing across organizations to manage interdependence. (p. 270) These theories on collaboration should be applied within the local context of the specific PDS Partnerships being considered because each partnership develops and is shaped by the state policy and guidelines. Thomsons theories extend the works of Gray and Wood to provide additional lenses for viewing the collaborative processes within the PDS Partnership. All aspects of Thomsons five dimensions can be applied to the organization of the PDS Partnership. Each dimension can be viewed alone or in combination with others. All collaboration processes or phases of collaboration do not need to be present for collaboration to occur within any of these key dimensions. These five dimensions provide a useful means to categorize events and processes to make sense of the complex nature of collaboration in a PDS Partnership. Using a combined perspective of the collaboration perspectives of Thomson (2001) and Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b) offers a means to understand the collaboration that occurs within a PDS Partnership. Figure 1.1 displays an assimilation of Thomsons (2001), Grays (1989), and Gray and Woods (1991a & 1991b) frameworks. The model incorporates Grays stages of collaboration (problem setting, direction setting, and implementation), as well as collaborative processes that may occur at any stage (capacity for collaboration, enhancing
73
control and reducing complexity, structuring, communication, negotiating, coping with power and politics, and coping with change). Indicators of each of these processes are bulleted items in Fig. 1.1. All of these subprocesses do not need to be present for collaboration to occur. The framework represents the dynamic nature of collaboration in that some of the subprocesses may occur at any given phase. This fluidity fosters various collaborative alliances as described by Gray and Wood (1991a). This model also recognizes the value of viewing collaborative processes within the key dimensions proposed by Thomson (2001). As shown in Fig. 1.1, the various collaborative subprocesses may occur at each of the three stages and within any of Thomsons five key dimensions of collaboration. Figure 1.1 represents the complex interactions involved in aspects of the process of collaboration as it may occur within a PDS Partnership. Thomsons (2001) indicators used to categorize actions, observations, and perspectives into these key dimensions for her research study also may serve as a guide to understanding the actions and perspectives of collaboration in a PDS. UniversitySchool System Partnership The PDS Partnership is a product of collaboration among stakeholders, mainly institutions of higher education and local school districts (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2001). Advocates of collaboration in schools are numerous (Book, 1996; Clair, 1998; Cobb, 2001; Davies, Brady, & Rodger, 1999; Dodd, 1996; Jones et al., 2000; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Moir & Gless, 2001; Neubert & Binko, 1998; Silva & Dana, 2001; Stoddart, 1993; Teitel, 1996). Silva and Dana (2001) suggested that the structure of the PDS provides a context in which the relationships, time, and space exist for all partners to co-engage in reflection and inquiry as job-embedded forms of professional development. Although adopting this type of collaborative supervision presents many challenges, PDSs and collaborative supervision offer a vehicle for
74
challenging the disparate nature of these two culturesuniversities and public schools. Collaborative supervision founded on close relationships between school and university faculties has the ability to create a new professional culture. (p. 321) Many other PDS advocates make similar claims about the value of collaboration in the PDS Partnership. However, few studies examine the PDS as a complex system attempting to reach multiple goals in multiple settings across institutions. There is a need to explore this complexity and the processes essential for managing it. The following sections examine the context in which Maryland PDS Partnerships evolved. Context for State-Level Reform Taking a cue from national trends and publications such as Tomorrows Schools (The Holmes Group, 1990), which elaborated on the new concept of PDSs as a focus for providing professional development for both novice and experienced educators, states across the nation began to explore the potential for developing a PDS model. Advocates of most PDS models advanced the following three major purposes for the PDS (Sedlak, 1987): 1. 2. 3. to improve education of prospective and practicing teachers; to strengthen knowledge and practice in teaching; and to strengthen the profession of teaching by serving as models of promising and productive structural relations between teachers and administrators. States were prompted to establish PDSs as a means to concentrate reform efforts from these various strands into one interorganizational structure aimed at overall school improvement. The promise of the PDS was to simultaneously improve teaching preparation programs and instigate school renewal (Teitel, 1996). Targeting professional development would help the PDS recognize and appreciate the value of teachers. Allington and
75
Cunningham (1996) asserted that teachers need to be viewed as substantial resources, and providing professional-growth opportunities for the teaching staff must be recognized as a long-term investment in maintaining high-quality instruction (p. 172). School improvement efforts were a growing focus for Maryland educators. It is important to recall that this study occurred during the years just prior to the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation on January 8, 2002. During this time period, PDSs were evolving in the State of Maryland and were mainly targeting preservice teacher education and professional development issues. Although currently, some 6 years since NCLB, there is increasing focus on the connection of PDSs to student achievement, it is not yet reflected in the main goals of early PDS programs. Although student achievement has always been an area of concern for PDSs, it has been addressed indirectly as an outcome of effective teaching. It is within this pre-NCLB context that this study occurred. At the time of the study, the points of interest were creating a climate of reform for teacher education programs and for schools. The PDS model gained the interest of Maryland educators seeking school reform. Hawley and Valli (1998) noted that improvement of schools requires the improvement of teaching (p. 128), proposing that school improvement cannot occur apart from a closely connected culture of professional development (p. 129). Furthermore, the authors asserted that the logic of investing in professional development, then, is straightforward: there is no more effective way to change schools substantially (p. 129). Professional development is seen as critical to enhancing teacher performance and effectively changing schools (Hawley & Valli, 1998). The PDS model was promoted as a means to achieve these goals.
76
Dodd (1996) heralded PDSs as the most promising of all new teacher education practices (p. 31). PDSs enhance teacher learning through learning by teaching, doing, and collaborating. Buying into these claims for simultaneous renewal and school improvement, state educational leaders advocated the development of PDS Partnerships for school districts and institutes of higher education. In many states, including Maryland, this advocacy translated into policy. Maryland PDS Policy Guided by claims that PDSs foster school improvement, state policymakers called for the establishment of PDSs. In Maryland, policymakers published The Redesign of Teacher Education to provide direction to school districts and universities for PDS development. More than 200 people made substantive contributions to its content (Clemson-Ingram & Fessler, 1997, p. 9). This report of the statewide Teacher Education Task Force for the Maryland Higher Education Commission (Maryland Higher Education Commission, 1995) was formally adopted in May 1995 and endorsed by the Maryland State Board of Education in June 1995. It echoed national reform calls for teacher preparation and professional development. The Redesign presented teacher preparation programs as part of the broader context of school improvement and called for sustained, intensive internships within a PDS (see Appendix B, Executive Summary of the Redesign of Education). Shortly after the Redesign was issued, the Maryland PDS Consortium released a compilation of Common Understandings About Professional Development Schools (see Appendix C). Recommendations of the Redesign and the guidelines established by the Consortium put
77
the PDS at the forefront as a means to stimulate and support school improvement efforts and other statewide reform initiatives. The PDS movement continued to strengthen and grow in Maryland following the publication of the Redesign. The State Department of Education, in close collaboration with the Higher Education Commission, received a $1.2 million federal grant and designated state funds specifically to develop and evaluate pilots (Clemson-Ingram & Fessler, 1997, p. 13). However, as a reform movement still in its infancy, specific parameters for establishing a PDS and the benefits of implementation were not yet documented. Despite the uncertainty as to the processes needed to develop and maintain a PDS, questions as to PDSs effectiveness, problems with partial institutionalization of early PDS efforts, and unstable funding, state policymakers sustained interest in promoting PDS efforts, and the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) remained committed to the PDS concept. Taking action on its commitment to the PDS model, Maryland mandated PDSs by adopting the Redesign as policy. The Redesign, serving as Maryland policy, stated that: every teacher candidate . . . do an extensive internship in a specially designed Professional Development School (p. 1; see Appendix B). Although the Redesign called for PDS establishment, it did not specifically define the PDS. According to the Maryland State Department of Education (2002) Professional Development School Network, a PDS is: A collaboratively planned and implemented partnership for the academic and clinical preparation of interns and the continuous professional development of both school system and institutions of higher education (IHE) faculty. (MSDE PDS website, http://cte.jhu.edu/PDS) Local school districts modified this basic definition for the missions of the specific PDS Partnerships. Although missions are specific to each PDS Partnership, as a reform, the
78
PDS generally aimed to transform schools through the development of this collaborative Partnership. Various stakeholders championed the PDS as a means to school improvement. Following the release of the Redesign, Maryland business leaders engaged in discussions of how these recommendations might be developed. The Maryland Business Roundtables Committee on Professional Development created a statewide strategic planProfessional Development in Marylands Public Schools 19962000. This comprehensive plan was formally adopted by the Maryland State Board of Education in 1996. It represented obvious interest in the topic, visible leadership from the private sector, and a desire by Marylands business community to accelerate the pace of institutional change. The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning was created to develop strategies for strengthening K16 connections, standards, competencies, assessments, professional development of educators, and community engagement of educational activities" (Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning Factsheet and Partnership Statement, April 1997). The Partnership included leaders from MSDE, the University System of Maryland (USM), and the MHEC. They stated their shared values: In a bold departure from traditional education reform, the three institution heads agree that the education of Marylands citizens is a shared responsibility of the three institutions. The three institutions share a sense of urgency to increase student achievement K16, a belief that bold educational leadership is required, and a vision of the strength of collective strategies. (Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning Factsheet and Partnership Statement, April 1997) Workgroups and subcommittees investigated ways to strengthen K16 connections. The subcommittees included a committee on professional development, on which study participant Jim Orlando served. This committee included 27 designees of MSDE, UMS, and MHEC, as well as private/independent colleges, community colleges, local school
79
districts, and businesses. A leadership council comprised of 24 business and educational advisors was created. The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K16 (1998) gave several recommendations in its Final Report: Professional Development Design Team (2/17/98), reaffirming the interests of Maryland leaders and providing continued support for the Redesign. They recommended that, beginning in 1998, MSDE, MHEC, and the Board of Regents of the USM should request incentive funding to establish stability for institutions, including PDS sites. The Final Report also stated that Both the Maryland State Department of Education and the Maryland Higher Education Commission regard the Redesign of Teacher Education as state policy guiding teacher preparation (p. 2). The Final Report continued in its recommendations: The Maryland Higher Education Commission and the Maryland State Department of Education should immediately reassert to all segments of education that the Redesign is state policy guiding the initial preparation and continuing education of teachers in Maryland and must, therefore, be fully implemented. (p. 3) The Final Report recommended implementing PDSs in Maryland and suggested that school districts immediately implement the PDS initiatives presented in the Redesign. State leaders worked to build capacity for collaboration and establish a climate conducive to change. During the next few years, PDSs spread throughout the state. As the Maryland PDS movement gained force, it became necessary to provide more focused direction for PDS Partnerships. Maryland State Department of Education (2001) created Developmental Guidelines for Maryland Professional Development Schools, which were adapted from the Draft Standards for Identifying and Supporting Quality Professional Development Schools developed by NCATE. These guidelines provided an overview for partnerships as they progressed through the stages of beginning, developing, at standard,
80
and leading. The Developmental Guidelines for Maryland PDS Standard II: Collaboration is included in Appendix D. Each standard is described by means of the various purposes of the PDS (teacher preparation, continuing professional development, action research, and student achievement). In this document, PDS Partners are defined as follows: Professional Development School (PDS) partners include the Institution of Higher Education (IHE) and school faculty and staff and the interns participating in the extensive internship (Maryland State Department of Education PDS website 2002). This resource offers basic descriptions of the stages of development for a PDS and ways that the collaboration might be utilized at each stage. Examples of scenarios for collaboration are given. Although these descriptions can set the stage for the PDS Partnership, each school district and institution of higher education or university must negotiate their own individual partnership agreement and determine ways to maintain it. The participants need to tackle the everyday obstacles associated with the development and implementation of a complex innovation such as a PDS. In a review of the documents that describe the East Coast/Suburban Schools PDS Partnership, it seems that the logistics of the Partnership (dates, numbers of interns, etc.) are more prominent than guidelines for collaboration processes. Although the local PDS Partnership documents mention collaboration, the process is not adequately defined, and there is no elaboration as to processes needed to develop a collaborative alliance or maintain the PDS. The collaboration guidelines presented by MSDE offer a starting point for discussion and do not yet reflect the complexity of the collaboration process within the
81
PDS Partnership. PDS Partnerships need a collaboration approach that promotes deep thinking and increased discussion about the nature of PDS. The school system and university have partnered to promote the vision of the PDS. Thus, they must continue to work together to realize that vision and actively pursue its maintenance. The school district and university are organizations that share mutually desirable ends. Both institutions have a shared vision for improvement of teacher preparation and professional development programs. Both institutions also have a vested interest in taking an active role in school improvement. Establishing a collaborative alliance becomes possible when the institutions involved are motivated to participate and some basic preconditions for collaboration are met. Models of collaboration help show how and why PDS Partnerships might develop. These theories are useful to describe the processes and structures for PDS development and maintenance. Viewing PDS Partnerships as collaborative alliances, such as described by Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), helps promote a discussion of the collaborative processes needed to institutionalize and sustain the PDS innovation. Using the key collaboration dimensions established by Thomson (2001) can provide additional means to study collaboration processes. Using a combination of the perspectives offered by Gray and Wood as well as Thomson offers a comprehensive approach to begin to study and describe the fluid, temporary, and complex nature of collaboration. Studying collaboration in this way helps participants in PDS Partnerships look inward to examine the processes at work within institutions to progress forward in achieving PDS goals. Research in this area needs to examine the collaboration processes specific to the PDS Partnership as described in Fig. 1.1. The overall process begins with an impetus for
82
change. Educators have decided that they will pursue PDS development as a means to bring about desired change. Seeking innovation and problem solving, conveners initiate the PDS Partnership and begin the problem-setting phase. As the development process proceeds, conveners and PDS participants need to determine the focus for their collaborative efforts. The type of collaboration activity reflects the immediate goal in the process of developing the Partnership. For example, collaboration may occur to determine governance or establish administrative procedures. Direction-setting processes may further the development of the PDS Partnership, and other collaborative processes may evolve as the need surfaces. This flexibility and fluidity also may be reflected in the implementation and institutionalization of the PDS Partnership. If the collaboration process produces a satisfactory outcome for the development of the PDS Partnership, the participants may progress toward the implementation stage. Participants may spend some time working through this cycle until the development of the partnership is satisfactory and the implementation phase can begin. Once the partnership progresses to implementation, the participants may move through a similar process as in the development phase. Again participants may spend some time in the implementation phase, selecting and working through various collaboration processes to refine the implementation. If participants work through this implementation phase with satisfaction, they may then seek to maintain the partnership. To achieve this goal, the PDS Partnership needs the flexibility to respond to changes that occur over time. The participants may seek to refine, reinforce, redevelop, or renew the partnership in some way. This desire becomes the
83
impetus for further change. Thus, seeking change, the participants return to the starting point in the process. They may seek to make innovations within the PDS or convene a new partnership. The collaboration model in Fig. 1.1 represents a recursive process for the PDS Partnership as it grows. It shows the nature of collaboration processes involved in the PDS Partnership and implies the need for a high investment of time to progress through them. Finally, the framework attempts to capture the complexity of collaboration and provide a model for examining the PDS Partnership and describing PDS development and maintenance. Summary of the Problem A closer look at the collaboration processes at work in a PDS Partnership is an important next step. A case study of a PDS Partnership is needed to identify collaborative relationships embedded in the PDS context and provide information as to how participants view the PDS Partnership. Examining the collaborative processes involved reflect how participants might influence and shape their PDS. The promise of a collaborative PDS Partnership may not always be perceived as a reality by some PDS participants. Although the PDS Partnership seems to encourage collaboration in its design and documentation, the actual implementation seems to indicate that the collaborative processes in this PDS case might be underdeveloped. If so, the PDS Partnership also might be viewed by participants as underdeveloped. Hallinan and Khmelkov (2001) reviewed the work of Fullan et al. (1998) and noted: a gap between rhetoric and reality regarding the extent to which PDS were able to incorporate the characteristics outlined in Tomorrows Schools. For example, they observed little local teacher participation in the design of the courses and programs which remained the domain of the university faculty. This and other studies
84
suggest that universities and schools have usually remained vastly different organizations, with little actual involvement or collaboration across the settings. (p. 182; see also Valli, Cooper, & Frankes, 1997) Based on reflections of my experience as a participant-observer in the studys PDS Partnership, the previous scenario rings true. The PDS Partnerships reality does not seem to match the ideal as proposed in the PDS literature or the Partnerships design documents. The Partnership participants are the PDS guiding force. Clearly, there is a need for research that will uncover the collaborative nature of the PDS Partnership. In addition, there is a need for research that examines collaborative processes. Thomson (2001) argued that her study offers an opportunity to build on this work by refining and testing the scale on other samples and in different problem and policy domains (p. 196). This study builds on Thomsons work. This qualitative case study describes PDS collaborative processes. How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining the partnership? Table 2.1 displays a summary of the research, theories, and concepts that describe the problem for study as it relates to this research question. In this study, PDS participants identified collaborative relationships that influenced and shaped events related to the Partnerships growth. They worked collaboratively to develop an initial agreement. In this agreement, participants jointly planned activities and noted specific items to be provided by each partner. For example, the school district will provide clinical settings for preservice teachers or the university will provide assistance to inservice teachers. The agreement detailed specific plans for enrollments of interns and described benefits for the professional development of the school staff. Although specific
85
Table 2.1 Developing the Research Questions _____________________________________________________________________ Problems Limited description of specific collaborative processes in PDS Partnerships NCATE and MSDE standards for PDS collaboration too general Limited description of possible links of types of collaborative processes utilized with stages of PDS development and maintenance How can Thomsons (2001) dimensions of collaboration apply to the PDS Partnership? Research Theories Collaboration theories: Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001) PDS Literature culture of collaboration: Book (1996), Murnane and Levy (1996), Rafferty (1993), Woloszyk (1992), Whitford (1994), and Rushcamp and Roehler (1992) Concepts Partnership development; PDS development; problem-setting stage; directionsetting stage; capacity for collaboration; enhancing control and reducing complexity; coping with power and politics; communication; coping with change; Negotiating; structuring; governance; administration; organizational autonomy; mutuality; norms; implementation Research Questions How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership?
____________________________________________________________________ outcomes such as these are clearly noted, the agreement seemed to assume that collaboration would occur. There was little mention as to the specific collaboration processes to utilize in accomplishing the Partnerships goals. The Partnerships design also seemed to assume the existence of collaborative processes that would support the achievement of goals. However, these processes were not clearly described at the onset of the reform initiative. This research
86
may foster dialogue as to how collaborative processes impact achievement of the PDS Partnerships mission. Using guidance from collaboration models of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a & 1991b), and Thomson (2001), this study highlights the ongoing collaborative processes that impact PDS development and maintenance. Using collaboration models as a perspective may uncover the PDS participants experiences and perceptions. Increased understanding of the processes involved in developing and maintaining the PDS Partnership promotes discussion among PDS participants. Discussion may also assist in recognizing the viewpoints and needs of the participants as they strive toward excellence in teaching and learning. Better understandings may help educators fulfill the PDS promise for simultaneous renewal and school improvement. These issues deserve to be the topic of reflection by policymakers as they make decisions regarding educational investments and negotiate trade-offs for selecting one professional development investment over other options. As PDS processes, standards, and endeavors are clarified through additional research, PDS Partnerships can be clearly identified, improved, and strengthened. This also allows for evaluation of PDS sites and better assessment of the PDS movement as a reform. There is a need to understand the collaborative processes that PDS Partnerships might utilize in their daily work of implementing a PDS model. The interinstitutional arrangements must foster the building of relationships to allow collaboration to flourish (Silva & Dana, 2001). Although there seems to be much discussion in the literature about the need for collaboration and some initial attempts to provide examples of collaborative activities, additional research is needed to provide practical directives that specifically address the development and implementation phases of
87
the PDS innovation. How might a PDS Partnership allow and encourage collaboration to flourish? An examination of a specific PDS Partnership and how it implements the PDS model provided insight into how collaborative processes help the Partnership achieve its mission. For example, in one school district, the PDS mission was stated as follows: PDSs are designed to employ collaborative resources of school systems and universities to promote achievement of rigorous standards by all students; to provide extensive and intensive internship opportunities for teacher candidates; to provide a mechanism for simultaneous renewal and professional development of pre-K-12 and higher education faculties; to serve as centers for the identification and documentation of best practices in teaching and learning through inquiry, research and reflection; and, to support efforts to achieve school system goals. (Howard County Public School System, 2002 p. 1) The mission prompts complex questions as to how it will be implemented. Participants in the PDS Partnership need to have clear direction as to how to coordinate the employment of resources and work collaboratively to succeed in the PDS mission. To develop this understanding of how to work collaboratively through the implementation phase, participants need a deeper understanding of what efforts are needed to facilitate this collaboration and encourage progress for the PDS. This study examines the collaborative processes in a PDS Partnership and aims to increase the level of understanding of these processes for PDS participants.
88
Chapter 3: Research Methods
Introduction This chapter describes the studys research methods, including the case context, the rationale for qualitative research and the case study method, and the studys assumptions. After presenting the case study design, the chapter details data-collection and data-analysis strategies. Finally, chapter 3 examines how this study meets standards of quality and verification. Case Context This case study presents participants descriptions of the collaboration processes by which a Professional Development School (PDS) Partnership is developed and maintained. PDSs are described in educational literature as an answer to calls for reform in teacher preparation and professional development (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Goodlad, 1990; The Holmes Group, 1990; Levine & Trachtman, 1997; Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning, 2003). In his review of the literature, Teitel (1996) described how interest and support for PDS grew among organizations: The PDS movement has been promoted by a range of organizations: the Holmes Group (1986, 1990, 1995), the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy (1986), the National Network for Education Renewal (Goodlad, 1994), the American Federation of Teachers (Levine, 1992), the National Educational Association (Robinson and Darling-Hammond, 1994) and initiatives sponsored by the Ford Foundation (Anderson, 1993). (p. 6) PDSs began to develop as a reform initiative. Current teacher preparation and professional development requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act have spurred the rapid development of PDSs nationally. New levels of accountability for school districts and universities created increased interest
89
in PDSs. For example, the teacher preparation and professional development focus areas of PDSs address quality issues. Entering into PDS Partnerships is desirable for school systems and universities because these issues are shared domains. Advocates of the PDS movement promote the assumption that a PDS is a collaborative partnership between universities and school systems (Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1986; The Holmes Group, 1990; Stallings, Wiseman, & Knight, 1995). As noted in chapter 2, PDS literature promotes collaboration as essential to the PDS, but does not provide a full description. Therefore, PDS participants need additional information about the nature of the collaborations and the processes necessary to sustain them. Using a combination of the collaboration models of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001) as guiding orientations, this qualitative case study describes collaborative processes involved in the development and maintenance of a PDS Partnership. How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining the partnership? Rationale for Qualitative Research The type of research in this study was based on a definition of qualitative research provided by Creswell (1998): An inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that explore a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex, holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conduct the study in a natural setting. (p. 15) The qualitative characteristics of the research are that: (a) it was focused on observations conducted in the field, (b) the researcher was the key instrument of the data collection, and (c) the data was collected mainly as words. Additional characteristics include the focus on the participants perceptions, perspectives, and interpretations. This qualitative study
90
explored the field of education, specifically a PDS Partnership, to provide a holistic picture of processes that occur within this setting. Qualitative methods were selected because they are most useful when trying to understand a process by which events and actions take place (Maxwell, 1996). Marshall and Rossman (1999) recognized the strength of qualitative research as a means to explore processes. Qualitative methods are an appropriate research perspective for a study of collaborative processes. In addition, Marshall and Rossman (1999) asserted that qualitative methodology is useful for research on innovative systems. The PDS was an innovation within established educational organizations. Qualitative approaches are valuable in recognizing the informal and unstructured linkages and processes in organizations (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). These assets of the qualitative approach were directly relevant to this study that describes relationships and processes in the complex organization of a PDS Partnership. Selecting a qualitative case study provided an appropriate research forum for including the detailed setting description needed to best reflect this organizational complexity. Qualitative methods are also valuable for research that involves real, as opposed to stated, organizational goals (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 57). This study captured the PDS Partnership experience as related by its participants. The participants described their perspectives as to published Partnership goals and how these organizational goals were adapted to their specific PDS. One strength of qualitative inquiry is the emphasis on searching for a deeper understanding of the participants lived experiences of the phenomenon (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 60). The study described the participants perceptions and
91
understanding of the collaborative processes as they were experienced during PDS development and maintenance. These experiences occurred within the contexts of organizational cultures. Qualitative methodology suits examination of an organizations cultural aspects. Selecting the case study approach allowed an in-depth look at the organizational culture of the PDS Partnership and helped demystify some of the complexities. Conducting a qualitative case study provided recognition for the participant observation data-collection method, which strengthened the case portrayal by including an insiders perspective. Stake (1995) argued the benefits of explaining the role of the researcher and making values known: Research is not helped by making it appear value free. It is better to give the reader a good look at the researcher. Often, it is better to leave on the wrappings of advocacy that remind the reader: Beware. Qualitative research does not dismiss invalidity of description and encourage advocacy. It recognizes that invalidities and advocacies are ever present and turns away from the goal as well as the presumption of sanitization. (p. 95) A qualitative case study can be a means to present a well-rounded case description, which does not sanitize the modes, experiences, intentions, or feelings of the participants, including the researcher. Qualitative methodology supports the researchers immersion in the setting and was therefore most appropriate for this study. Selecting qualitative case study methods has allowed full and in-depth exploration of this particular case. Rice (2002) explained qualitative research methods have been used most frequently in PDS research and are appropriate because they seem to capture the uniqueness of each PDS partnership (p. 55). Stake (1995) argued that the emphasis on interpretation is qualitative inquirys most distinctive characteristic. In a qualitative case study, the researcher tries to preserve the
92
multiple realities and contradictory view of what is happening (Stake, 1995, p. 12). Using this approach to data analysis strengthened the case study. Maxwell (1996) recognized qualitative methods as having more potential for informing practitioners in education. The studys findings have direct relevance to PDS programs that prepare our future teacher workforce and invigorate our current teachers with meaningful professional development. The study informs practice in the educational field. Maxwell (1996) further claimed that qualitative research has an advantage in generating results and theories that are understandable and experientially credible, both to the people you are studying and to others (p. 21). Creswell (1998) also advocated qualitative approaches as a means to emphasize the researchers role as an active learner who can tell the story from the participants view rather than as an expert who passes judgment on participants (p. 18; italics original). Sharing the participants views is an important means to gaining the acceptance of practitioners in the field of education. By being a practitioner and study participant, the researcher was able to better reflect colleagues perspectives and the organizational changes that establishing a PDS created. Because the educational organizations undergo changes as the PDS innovation is introduced, a research approach that reflects and respects the change process was utilized. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) asserted the value of qualitative approaches for practitioners who are involved in changes: Since it is the people in the setting who must live with the change, it is their definitions of the situation that are crucial if change is going to work. These human aspects of the change process are what the qualitative research strategies study best. (p. 211) A qualitative case study provided the means to augment the presentation of the human aspect of change.
93
The research process reflected methodological decisions related to qualitative studies, case studies in particular. The context of the study has been examined in detail, and theoretical bases from the field of collaboration have provided a framework for exploring the PDS Partnership. Rationale for Case Study The selected research approach was a qualitative case study. This approach best fit the nature and complexity of the case, allowing for emphasis on the processes involved in a complex organization. Yin (1994) asserted that a case study may be the most appropriate research method for appreciating the complexity of organizational phenomena (p. xv). He further explained that: In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when how or why questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context (p. 1). This study revealed collaborative processesor the how of the development and maintenance of a PDS Partnership. The PDS Partnership existed in the real-life context of schools and school systems. PDS is a contemporary innovation in education for which more information is needed. The case study allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Yin, 1994, p. 3). Describing the real-life events and collaborative processes that make up the PDS Partnership was central to this research. The strengths of the case study approach match this focus. Kochan (1999) states that, most of the research on PDSs has involved case studies and presents some evidence that promotes case studies as the preferred method for understanding these endeavors (p. 175).
94
The PDS Partnership reflected a complex organization. To fully mirror and describe this complexity, a comprehensive data-collection approach was necessary. The case study methodology allowed a variety of data-collection techniques. Yin (1994) asserted that the case studys unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidencedocuments, artifacts, interviews, and observations (p. 8). The PDS Partnership existed among several complex organizations (elementary schools, a university, and the school system). The case study approach provided the structure necessary to reflect this level of complexity while highlighting the particulars of the PDS Partnership case. It was important to select a research approach that would reflect how the PDS Partnerships context was unique to its participants and setting, and how the PDS Partnership was constantly evolving within the other contexts in which it was embedded. Strauss (1987) suggests that researchers give a great deal of data, allowing it to speak for itself (pp. 215216). This case study produced a great deal of data that highlight participants voices. Yin (1994) suggested the case study method because you deliberately wanted to cover contextual conditionsbelieving that they might be highly pertinent to your phenomenon of study (p. 13). The case study method helped review the PDS Partnerships contextual conditions, such as collaborative processes involved in the development and maintenance of the PDS. Marshall and Rossman (1999) summed up the appropriateness of the case study: Case studies take the reader into the setting with a vividness and detail not typically present in more analytic reporting formats (p. 159). Rich description was an outcome of this study. Case Study Design
95
This section details the case studys design elements. These elements include the case selection rationale and a description of the selected PDS Partnerships structure. Case Selection This case was selected based on purposeful as well as convenience sampling strategies. This PDS Partnerships purposeful selection was an attempt to highlight differences among settings. The purposeful sampling of this PDS Partnership allowed comparisons of how the three school sites used collaborative processes in developing and maintaining the PDS Partnership. The East Coast University/Suburban Schools PDS Partnership founded at the Mark Twain and Greenview school sites was one of the early PDS Partnerships formed at the elementary level in Suburban Schools. By virtue of its longevity at the Mark Twain Elementary site, this PDS may be considered an established partnership. This study provided an opportunity to study a PDS that would be considered mature at a time when there were limited numbers of mature PDSs in existence locally. This particular Partnership also offered the opportunity to observe the path of PDS development and maintenance. The PDS Partnership included three school sites during the studys time period. Mark Twains school partner was Greenview Elementary. However, a significant event suddenly ended this Partnership. After the removal of Greenview Elementary, Glen Grove became a new addition to the PDS Partnership. Chapter 4 presents the PDS Partnerships full history. At this point, it is important to note that participants at these three schools reflected different perspectives and experiences. Including Glen Grove in this study allowed an opportunity to examine a developing PDS site. Studying the PDS Partnership at these three school sites provided a unique opportunity
96
to examine a developing PDS site, an established PDS site, and the processes and structures that linked them in a collaborative partnership. This arrangement also provided an example of how a PDS Partnership had to respond to significant change. Convenience was one of the practical reasons for selecting this particular PDS Partnership. This case-selection aspect was important in that it fostered access, allowed for participant observation, maximized use of resources, and ultimately made the studys completion more likely. Stake (1995) provided an additional rationale for selection of cases based on convenience: Our time and access for fieldwork are almost always limited. If we can, we need to pick cases which are easy to get to and hospitable to our inquiry, perhaps for which a prospective informant can be identified and with actors (the people studied) willing to comment on certain draft materials. (p. 4) Selection of this PDS Partnership was influenced by these considerations. Definition of the Case The PDS Partnership was the case studied. It represented a bounded system set within an educational context. The basic structure of the PDS Partnership consisted of two elementary school sites, the school system of these two schools, and the university (see Fig. 3.1 for a basic representation of the PDS Partnerships organization). Figure 3.1 shows the school system and the university as the partners. However, included in the school systems
97
FIG. 3.1 The PDS Partnership.
PDS Partnership
University
School system
Site A
Site B
domain are the two school sites (A and B) that host the PDS. Figure 3.1 provides the general structure of the PDS Partnership and the basic partnership arrangement between educational institutions. Participants descriptions of how closely this general structure matched the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University Partnership are presented in chapter 4 and explains the changes to this structure that resulted from the removal of Greenview and the addition of Glen Grove to the Partnership.
98
The case was bounded by the locations of the school systems geographical boundaries, the university location, and the school site locations at Mark Twain Elementary, Greenview Elementary, and Glen Grove Elementary. It was bounded within time in that the case history begins when the PDS Partnership was created with Mark Twain and Greenview, and the studys data collection concludes with the end of the first year of development of the Partnership with Glen Grove Elementary. Although the Partnership continued to evolve, the case study had a definite, specific, and manageable time frame. Setting this endpoint shows how Glen Grove developed over 1 year and provided sufficient opportunity to examine the collaborative processes established as part of the PDS Partnership. Data Collection This section describes the case studys data-collection methods. First presented are recommendations from case study researchers. Next, the section provides descriptions of the studys specific methods for data collection from interviews, participant observation, and documents. For case studies, Yin (1994) recommended extensive, multiple sources of information, such as documentation, archival records, interviews, participant observations, and physical artifacts. Data collection from each of these categories was used to develop the studys case description and to describe the PDS Partnerships collaboration processes. Data-collection efforts were directly connected to the studys research question. In an effort to provide rich description, as indicated by the case study tradition, the research subquestions were organized into broad categories to reveal various aspects of the case.
99
Other data-collection efforts were aimed at responding to questions about the collaborative processes, development, or maintenance of a PDS. Still other data-collection methods reflected inquiries into the PDS participants perspectives. These categorizations are described in Appendix A and reflected in the interview protocol. Interviews Interviews were structured. The interview protocol is included in Appendix E. However, each participant was approached somewhat differently according to the research situation to ensure that each participant felt comfortable and relaxed. The goal was to ask questions to fit the situation and explore the unique thoughts and feelings of each interviewee. Thus, although the interview varied somewhat from participant to participant, the main interview questions directly connected to the case studys research questions. Interview questions noted in Appendix E connect to the five key dimensions of collaboration (Thomson, 2001) and the process of collaboration (Gray & Wood, 1991a). These questions also were designed to gather background data about and elicit descriptions of the PDS Partnership that place the collaboration processes in context. Table 3.1 presents the development of interview questions as they are related to concepts of collaboration and the studys research questions. Table 3.1 Development of Interview Questions ________________________________________________________________________ Interview Questions Concepts Research Subquestions (see Appendix E) ________________________________________________________________________ Development: Questions D 1-11 Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b): Problem setting stage; Direction setting stage; How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing the
100
Maintenance: Questions Ma 1-34
Governance: Questions G 1-20
Administration: Questions A 1-24
Capacity for collaboration; Enhancing control and reducing complexity; Coping with power and politics; Communication; Coping with change; Negotiating; Structuring; Thomsons (2001) Key dimensions: Governance; Administration; Organizational autonomy; Mutuality; Norms; Implementation; Thomsons (2001) Distinguishable Phrases
partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in administration of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing organizational autonomy for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing mutuality for the partnership?
Organizational autonomy: Questions O 1-14
Mutuality: Questions Mu 1-20
Norms: Questions N 1-15
How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing norms for the partnership? _____________________________________________________________________ Approval by the universitys review board was received in 2003. A key aspect of receiving the school system approval was the agreement of the principals of the schools in
101
which the research would occur. The principals gave their agreement, and Suburban Schools also approved the study in 2003. Study participants gave permission to be interviewed by signing the University of Marylands Informed Consent Form (see Appendix F). All participants were assured confidentiality. Interviews were tape recorded with participant permission, transcribed using word processing software, and stored as computer files that were entered into the data-management software program. Printouts of the transcripts also were stored in binders. Interviews were conducted with PDS participants from August 31, 2003, to November 2, 2004. Participation in member checks was offered to all participants. Eightytwo percent of interviewees participated in the member check process. Those who declined cited personal reasons that were unrelated to the PDS. Dates for received consent forms, initial interviews, and member checks are listed in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Study Participant Interview Dates ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Institutional Review Date of Initial Date(s) of Member Pseudonym Board Informed Interview Check (if Consent Form applicable) Signed* ________________________________________________________________________ Allen Barnes Hannah Berger Amelia Brown Wendy Davidson Anita Quinn Alice Hayes Jim Orlando Raina Hunt Irene Rose Ron Mitchell Nora Kramer Sheri Lohmann 6/29/04 6/11/03 7/12/04* 9/24/03 6/30/04 7/21/04 11/2/04 10/28/03 9/20/04 4/30/04* 10/28/03 10/20/04* 6/29/04 8/31/03 6/25/04 9/24/03 6/30/04 7/21/04 11/2/04 10/28/03 9/20/04 8/31/03 10/28/03 10/19/04 Declined 9/15/03 6/28/04; 8/24/04 10/29/04 7/5/04 10/10/04; 11/12/04 11/30/04 Declined 9/30/04 9/23/03 11/30/03 10/27/04
102
Ann Hu Jennifer Marks Sophie Michaels Allison Moore Kate Caplan Albert Owens George Grayson Natalie Ronaldi Penny Sawyer Cathy Tobiason
4/23/04 4/23/04 5/15/04 7/20/04 7/22/04 9/13/04 2/16/04 2/16/04 4/19/04 9/23/03 4/15/04 10/25/04; 11/15/04 7/22/04 7/22/04 Declined 1/5/04* 12/15/03 Declined 7/28/04 7/28/04 10/8/04 7/20/04 7/20/04 10/22/04 9/23/03 9/23/03 10/15/03 9/23/03 9/23/03 10/17/04 *Second form signed due to typographical error on first form. _____________________________________________________________________ Participant Observation I served as a PDS participant at Mark Twain Elementary site from 1999 to 2003. During school years 20012002 and 20022003, I was a member of the steering committee and served as one of the Mark Twain PDS site liaisons. As school system employee, I followed published regulations for conducting research in the workplace, in addition to adhering to University of Maryland institutional review board regulations (see Appendix G for Application for Initial Review of Research Using Human Subjects). I had direct, daily contact with Mark Twain participants and regular, ongoing contact throughout the school year with other key members of the PDS Partnership. I attended meetings designed to make decisions about the nature of the PDS Partnership and its day-to-day operations. This inside perspective enhanced my description of collaborative processes. However, being an insider required strict attention to confidentiality issues. Assuring participants of confidentiality and anonymity was essential to establishing rapport and gaining trust. Anonymity also was a required aspect of gaining approval to conduct research in the selected school system. Pseudonyms were used for all participants and
103
institutions to protect anonymity. Participants were given the opportunity to withdraw from the study, ask questions, participate in member checks, and request copies of the published report. Although I made every attempt to make assumptions apparent and indicate potential for bias, there were always concerns that unintentional biases may be imposed on the interpretations due to the very personal nature of the process of participant observation. However, I am confident that the use of member checks and reflective memos has reduced the impact of researcher bias. The reflective memos included observers comments, thoughts on the research process or progress, internal dialogue regarding ethical dilemmas and conflicts, or the participant-observers frame of mind. During data analysis, these reflective memos indicated direction for additional data collection, revealed emerging themes, or provided points of clarification. A sample reflective memo is included as Appendix H. My experiences as a participant-observer helped me to paint a portrait of the setting, people, actions, and conversations. Table 3.3 lists how the focus for observations links to the studys research questions and related concepts. Table 3.3 Linking Research Questions, Concepts, and Focus for Participant Observation ________________________________________________________________________ Research Subquestions Concepts Focus for Participant Observation How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing the partnership? Convening; problem setting; direction setting; building capacity; establishing common ground; developing agreements. Glen Grove year 1 development; steering committee meetings; Mark Twain communication with Glen Grove; Glen Grove assumption of new PDS responsibilities.
104
How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in administration of the partnership?
Developing structures; negotiating; coping with change; communication; coping with power and politics. Joint ownership of decisions; negotiating; joint ownership of decisions; mutual monitoring and problem solving. Shared resources; joint action; coordination of tasks; communication; shared knowledge; goal oriented.
Steering committee meetings; mentor training sessions; informal meetings of steering committee members. Steering committee meetings; formal and informal negotiation.
Budget meetings; steering committee meetings, formal and informal negotiations.
How do participants in a Stakeholder autonomy; PDS Partnership describe cooperative behavior vs. the collaborative processes self-interested behavior. involved in establishing organizational autonomy for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing mutuality for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing norms for the partnership? Mutual benefit; winwin solutions to conflict; inclusive interaction; achieve own objectives better than could alone; lateral relational communication. Common values develop; shared goals; common perceptions; reciprocity; trust; information sharing; respect for others perceptions.
Steering committee meetings.
Steering committee meetings.
Formal and informal negotiations; steering committee meetings; informal interactions with participants.
Artifact memos (see sample in Appendix I) were used to organize and summarize notes. Observations of meetings were the main type of observation. Artifact memos also were entered as data in HyperRESEARCH 2.0.
105
Documents Documents included any materials that supplemented observations and interviews such as archival records, calendars, memos, agendas, minutes of meetings, data collected for grant documentation, brochures, and a variety of other items generated by the PDS Partnership, university, or school system. Documents were used to corroborate data from participant observations and interviews. Documents also provided the PDS history and context and illustrated some instances of collaboration. Documents revealed or confirmed the participants involved in a collaborative endeavor and the timetable in which it took place. The initial plan for linking information from documents to the research questions, codes, or other data collected is listed in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Linking Document Review to Research Questions, Codes, and Data ________________________________________________________________________ Research Question Document Codes/Data ________________________________________________________________________ How do participants in a Meeting agendas; Development=D PDS Partnership describe meeting minutes. Conveners; problem-setting; the collaborative identifying stakeholders; processes involved in identifying resources; developing the direction-setting; establishing partnership? ground rules; exploring options; capacity for collaboration. How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership? Meeting agendas; meeting minutes. Maintaining=M Implementation; developing structures; coping with change; negotiating; communication; enhancing control and reducing complexity; Coping with power and politics.
106
How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in administration of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing organizational autonomy for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing mutuality for the partnership?
Mission statement; brochure; meeting agendas; meeting minutes.
Governance=G Communication; structuring; negotiating; enhancing control and reducing complexity. Administration=A Communication; negotiating; coping with change; enhancing control and reducing complexity; structuring.
Meeting agendas; meeting minutes; budget; technology grant.
Meeting agendas; meeting minutes.
Organizational Autonomy=O Coping with power and politics; communication; negotiating
Meeting agendas; meeting minutes; brochure; mission statement.
Mutuality=Mu Capacity for collaboration; coping with change; coping with power and politics, negotiating; communication.
How do participants in a Meeting agendas; PDS Partnership describe meeting minutes the collaborative processes involved in establishing norms for the partnership?
Norms=N Capacity for collaboration; coping with change; coping with power and politics; negotiating; communication.
________________________________________________________________________ Documents were summarized using the artifact memo format presented in Appendix J. Artifact memos were entered into HyperRESEARCH 2.0 as data and coded, including notations as to the documents perceived purpose and intended audience. For additional reference, convenience of access, and comparisons, artifact memos also were organized in word processing folders according to their major content areas. Artifacts 107
related to topics such as, action research, graduate course offerings, grants, portfolio review events, and summer institutes. A summary sheet was developed to provide a comprehensive list and organize these artifact memos (see Appendix K). Other Data Sources Some quantitative data were used to support descriptive information about the PDS Partnership, partner institutions, and participants. For example, school profiles as listed on the school system website were used to provide data about the individual schools demographics. These additional data sources helped to provide a full picture of the PDS settings as well as supported descriptions of the Partnerships history. Some of these data were gathered from the grant writing and documentation process conducted by the PDS Partnership. For example, as part of a technology grant awarded from the university, the PDS Partnership recorded and reported certain data that were useful as a supplemental data source for this study. In addition, some data from the schools School Improvement Plans was used to support school site descriptions. Summary of Data-Collection Activities A summary of data-collection activities as they are related to the research questions and the collection method is presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5 also notes the necessary data to support each research question as well as the methods used to collect it. Data-collection activities occurred through interviews, participant-observation, and a review of PDS-related documents. Each of these methods helped to provide the necessary data to inform various Table 3.5 Research Questions and Data Collection ________________________________________________________________________ Research Question Necessary Data Method of Data Collection ________________________________________________________________________
108
How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in administration of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing organizational autonomy for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing mutuality for the partnership?
Description of development of the partnership; history of PDS at Mark Twain and PDS development at Glen Grove. Description of implementation; description of collaboration. Description of how rules and structures are created; decision making; negotiation. Coordination; division of labor; communication.
Interview; participant observation; documents.
Interview; participant observation; documents.
Interview; participant observation; documents.
Interview; participant observation; documents.
Shared rules; independence; tension of self vs. collective interest; trade-offs.
Interview; observation; documents.
Mutual benefit; interdependence; complementarity; shared interests.
Interview; participant observation; documents.
How do participants in a PDS Shared beliefs; trust; Interview; participant Partnership describe the reciprocity. observation; documents. collaborative processes involved in establishing norms for the partnership? ________________________________________________________________________
109
facets of the research question. Collecting data by these three methods resulted in a comprehensive view of collaboration in the PDS Partnership and a substantial amount of data for analysis. Data Analysis Data-analysis strategies used were compatible with the data collected and the case study tradition. An important goal of this data-analysis process was to provide an integrated, coherent, and comprehensive system in which data were confidently connected to the design and fully addressed the research question. Figure 3.2 displays a summary of general data-analysis techniques. This section provides an overview of the qualitative datamanagement software HyperRESEARCH 2.0. Next, the section presents recommendations FIG. 3.2 Data-Analysis Map.
Data-Analysis Techniques to Be Used in the Case Study
Coding
Data Displays
Participant Observation Relective Memoing
HyperResearch Data Analysis Software
-Categorical Aggregation -Using Patterns -Direct Interpretation -Developing Naturalistic Generalizations
110
from case study researchers and descriptions of the studys specific techniques for coding and organizing data. The section that follows presents the full analysis plan used to illustrate hypothesis exploration and decision making. Using Data-Management Software Interview data were uploaded into the qualitative analysis software HyperRESEARCH 2.0 and coded. Appendix L provides the comprehensive coding list. The software was used for storing and organizing files, noting codes and themes, and searching through documents to locate related text. Within the data-management software program, some data entries were assigned multiple codes, and some codes overlapped. The software capabilities fostered comparisons utilized in the data analysis. Software functions that were utilized included memoing, code annotations, descriptions, and code mapping. The programs flexibility allowed for exploration and testing of various interpretations of the data and assisted in the practical management of the multitude of data. HyperRESEARCH 2.0 software was helpful to identify relationships among data. It facilitated a variety of searches, explorations of hypotheses, and comparisons. Documents reviewed for this study also were entered into the HyperRESEARCH 2.0 software program and coded. Because PDS-related documents included items such as implementation manuals that were hundreds of pages in length, all of the documents were first summarized as an artifact memo (see Appendix I). Condensing the documents as artifact memos allowed for their essence to be entered as data in a manageable way. Over 100 documents were reviewed, summarized, and entered as data. See Appendix J for a sample completed, coded artifact memo.
111
Summative reports were run using the data-analysis software. These reports listed all instances of material for a specified code. These summative reports helped to examine how different participants commented on similar aspects of collaborative processes. Appendix M provides a sample HyperRESEARCH 2.0 summative report. Reviewing these summative reports periodically during the coding process also helped to ensure consistent coding. Coding Stake (1995) suggested four types of data analysis and interpretation for case studies. These are categorical aggregation, direct interpretation, using patterns, and developing naturalistic generalizations, which Stake (1995) defined as conclusions arrived at through personal engagement in lifes affairs (p. 85). Categorical aggregation was used in the coding schemes and as a means to group relevant issues and search for emergent themes. Direct interpretation also was employed to develop meaning from specific situations and single instances. A search for data patterns revealed connections among codes, themes, or categories. In this case study, I interpreted data patterns to describe aspects of the collaboration processes. Pattern-matching logic was used to compare predicted patterns with those surfacing in the study. If the patterns coincide, the results can help a case study strengthen its internal validity (Yin, 1994, p. 106). This process also helped address rival explanations. Some patterns emerged from the examination of frequency counts of participant responses. Areas of high frequency of responses indicated direction for further exploration and analysis. As Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested, the idea is to tell you how much
112
there is of something, not what that something means (p. 106). The sections that follow describe how frequency-count patterns guided the analysis plans search for patterns. Examining patterns of participants comments helped me develop interpretations and meaning for the findings. Data displays also were used to identify patterns. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested using displays such as chronologies, event listings, and other time-ordered displays. Developing summaries, tables, and graphs helped to make trends apparent. Patterns also emerged from recurring themes from the participant quotes. Various relationships were explored by creating visual displays to organize the data in different ways. Appendix N represents an example of one such display that was used to organize the data by time period and related category. It provided a quick view of who reported the data, identifying PDS participants perspectives. Appendix O presents other sample data displays. Data displays also were used to present the data in several formats. Bar graphs were useful to compare data across sites (see Appendix P). These graphs helped to visualize trends of frequency of participants responses across sites. Tallying the numbers of participants responses related to a specific collaboration phase or process created these frequency totals. These totals were useful in representing topics of frequent participant response. Thus, they were indicators of aspects of collaboration that PDS participants deemed important enough to comment upon. Participant experiences, including those of the participant-observer, offered opportunities for exploring naturalistic generalizations. Stake (1995) suggested that, to assist in the validation of naturalistic generalizations, the researcher describe the case and
113
methods using ordinary language and provide adequate raw data prior to interpretations so that the readers can consider their own alternative interpretations (p. 87). Readers who desire to develop their own interpretations will find the case description in chapter 4 and raw data in the appendices. The beginnings of data analysis were conducted in the field as participantobservations, observers comments, and reflections were being made. These efforts of ongoing analysis were opportunities to document hunches or record insights that developed as data were collected. This process was an important piece of the data analysis because it stressed critical thinking while the observations were fresh in the researchers mind. Conceptual Framework and Coding Figure 2.1 represented a conceptual framework that guided initial coding attempts. Codes noted whether participants comments were within the context of PDS development or maintenance. Codes also reflected the collaboration phases (problem setting, direction setting, or implementation). For example, attempts by PDS participants to agree on a definition of a problem within the PDS Partnership might be coded to represent the problem-setting phase of collaboration. The indicators below each heading, as shown in Fig. 1.1, also were concepts used as codes. The collaboration processes, which can occur at any phase, were used as guides for coding. For example, attempts by PDS participants to develop precise agreements about roles and responsibilities within the PDS Partnership were coded as roles or responsibilities. In addition, these same participant comments also might have been coded to represent the process of structuring. In Fig. 1.1, the indicators below each heading for the collaboration processes were guides as to which code was assigned. Because these
114
processes occurred within the three phases of collaboration (Gray, 1989), an event may have been coded to represent both phase and process. For example, communication activities of the conveners who are engaged in the PDS Partnerships development might have been dually coded as problem setting and communication. A third level of coding also indicated whether the context of the response was PDS development or maintenance. Another aspect of the coding scheme that related to the conceptual framework was the categorizations based on Thomsons (2001) five key dimensions of collaboration. Collaborative activities were categorized by their purpose within the organization. Structural dimensions of collaboration may have been coded as governance or administration depending on their goal or outcome. Social dimensions of collaboration in the PDS Partnership may have been coded to reflect aims to develop mutuality or establish norms. Finally, Thomsons category of organizational autonomy was used as a code for activities that reflect a partners need to maintain a distinct organizational identity. The aim of the studys coding was to illuminate the specific collaborative processes present in the PDS Partnership. The framework in Fig. 1.1 was an initial guide for coding and helped indicate distinctive differences between collaborative processes. Although a comprehensive list of codes used in the HyperRESEARCH 2.0 software is included as Appendix L, the sections that follow describe additional code development to reveal the logic of the interpretations and analysis. Research Questions and Coding The research questions that stem from the collaboration framework presented in Fig. 1.1 and described in Appendix E served as a means to code, sort, and organize data. Thomsons (2001) work to establish indicators of the five key dimensions of collaboration
115
and the indicators of collaborative processes described by Gray (1989) provided a basis for this organization. As noted in chapter 2, Thomsons (2001) distinguishable phrases (p. 249) were useful in providing direction for the studys coding and analysis. Thomson created these phrases from her review and synthesis of the collaboration literature and used them as a basis for developing her five key dimensions of collaboration. Data gathered in the first steps of data collection informed the next steps. Repetitive phrases began to emerge from the PDS participants interviews. For example, several participants referred to something they called true collaboration. Thus, this concept emerged as a direction for further analysis and is described in chapter 5. Coding was a major aspect of the data-analysis and data-reduction strategies. Coding Specifics Coding specifics evolved from several considerations related to the nature of the case. Subcodes were developed to indicate further analysis within a category of a specific code. Code categories included context codes, codes for collaboration process, event codes, descriptive codes, and analytic codes. The following sections describe each of these categories. Context Codes It was necessary to note setting or context codes (see comprehensive code list in Appendix L). These codes indicated the specific setting or context in which an observation or interview occurred. In addition, context codes provided information as to the point in the Partnerships history being referenced by a participants comment. A review of the settings in which PDS activities and collaborative processes occurred helped to provide the rich case description. These context codes guided coding an event or comment as related to
116
PDS development or maintenance. They helped connect other codes to the collaboration phases and processes. Codes for Collaborative Processes Codes for collaborative processes (see Appendix L) also were used. Use of these process codes was consistent with the following description provided by Bogdan and Biklen (1998): Process codes are words and phrases that facilitate categorizing sequences of events, changes over time, or passages from one type or kind of status to another. In order to use a process code, the researcher must view a person, group, organization, or activity over time and perceive change occurring in a sequence of at least two parts. Typical process codes point to time periods, stages, phase passages, steps, careers, and chronology. In addition, key points in a sequence (e.g. turning points, benchmarks, transitions) could be included in the family of process codes. (p. 174) Process codes were initially used to organize data. Bogdan and Biklen (1998) explained that process coding schemes are commonly used to organize data in organizational case studies (p. 174). Although the process codes were useful in identifying collaborative processes, they also were used to reflect the participants perspectives or certain situational aspects. Based on collaboration theories and the conceptual framework, each of the collaboration processes served as a category for organizing other related codes. The categorization of codes is presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.6 shows the organization of codes and how subcodes supported the concepts of the collaborative process codes. Event Codes Event codes were used to note activities unique to the PDS Partnership or that fulfilled its purposes. These event codes were developed based on PDS Partnerships history and repeated major events that became PDS traditions.
117
Table 3.6 Coding for Collaborative Processes and Related Codes ________________________________________________________________________ Collaboration Process Related HyperRESEARCH 2.0 Codes ________________________________________________________________________ Developing Capacity for Collaboration Capacity, definition of collaboration, promotion and tenure issues, shared goals, credibility, leading by example, national conference event, staff survey, action research, shared understanding of problem Negotiating Structuring Negotiating, resolving disputes, understanding differing expectations Structuring the PDS, decision making, governance, joint planning, East Coast field trip, PDS as school reform, PDS is site specific, roles, portfolio review events, shared responsibility Wide range of stakeholders, power and politics, monitoring resources Communication, information sharing, relationships, trust, preexisting relationships Responding to change, institutionalization and creating norms
Coping With Power and Politics Communication
Coping With Change Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity
Enhancing control, boundary spanner, math tech grant, identifying resources, joint coordination of tasks ________________________________________________________________________ Each type of code was necessary to begin the task of meaningfully organizing, coordinating, and analyzing the data. A list of initial coding schemes and their relationships to the research questions and concepts related to the study are listed in Table 3.7. A full list of codes is included as Appendix L.
118
Table 3.7 Linking Initial Coding Schemes to Concepts and Research Questions ________________________________________________________________________ Coding Schemes Settings Locations of events Contexts for observations Concepts Rich description of case Contexts for collaboration Structuring Type of collaboration Categorization Structuring Communication Contexts for collaboration Public vs. private Research Questions How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in maintaining the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in governance of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in administration of the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing organizational autonomy for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing mutuality for the partnership? How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in establishing norms for the partnership?
Process Collaboration dimensions Collaboration processes Collaboration phases Events
119
Descriptive Coding Additional codes were created to describe the participants, context, and PDS history. To describe participants, codes indicated information such as sex, site affiliation, job position, or PDS role. Document descriptions included the documents origin, purpose, or content. Examples of these descriptive codes included identifying whether the documents were generated at the national, state, university, school system, or PDS Partnership levels. Codes noted the dates of documents or dates of events. These codes were useful in constructing a chronology (see Appendix Q) and a sample timeline of PDS major events (see Appendix R). Content analysis resulted in the formation of chapter fours PDS history, the case description, and background. Analytic Coding Key words and phrases were coded from the participants interviews. Interpretative categories were developed from these relevant participant comments, and patterns and themes emerged from these categories. These interpretive categories formed the sections noted as Voices of the Participants in chapter 5. Codes also were created to note participants perceived PDS involvement based on criteria used as decision rules for coding. As Miles and Huberman (1994) noted: If you have some rough ideas about some key variable and some first components of it, you can begin and then amplify the display as you learn more (p. 108). Involvement codes provided a starting place to explore PDS participation in collaborative processes. Codes indicated involvement as minimal, low, moderate, or high. Participants involvement levels were coded by considering if a participant held multiple roles in the PDS, had longevity of association with PDSs or this specific Partnership, had high visibility in the
120
PDS, and/or held significant responsibility, accountability or decision-making power in the PDS Partnership. Involvement codes coded as high indicated participants who met these criteria. These codes were used to explore hypotheses about participants expected levels of involvement compared to their frequency of responses. Participant involvement codes represented decisions influenced by participant observations and the degree to which participants demonstrated these involvement aspects. At various analysis stages, I considered these participant involvement codes and compared them with other involvement aspects. The sections that follow elaborate on these comparisons as part of the analysis plan. Analysis Plan After completion of initial coding of all data from interviews, documents, and participant-observation and exploratory searches, a detailed analysis plan was written to foster a systematic data review and analysis. Appendix S presents sample pages from the analysis plan. This section describes the analysis plan developed to illustrate the decisions made for organizing data and exploring hypotheses. This section also explains data display development and examination of themes and patterns. Definitions for all terms used in the analysis plan were previously noted in chapter 1. In the studys analysis plan, data were first organized by type: PDS participant interview, document, or participant observation. The data-management softwares case selection criteria function was used to select the PDS participant interview data from the other two types. Searches were completed using this interview data as related to PDS development or maintenance. Documents and participant-observation data were used to confirm findings from the participant responses.
121
Once the data from participants interviews was sorted from the full data set, it was explored for patterns. Based on Grays (1989) proposal that, while it may be important to include a large number of stakeholders, they may not all participate to the same extent or at the same time in the process (p. 69), aspects of participants levels of involvement were explored. Level of Involvement Hypotheses Considering participants involvement levels was an initial analysis step because in order to be a participant, one must participate in an endeavor. Merriam-Websters on-line dictionary defines involve as to engage as a participant (Available online: www.meriamwebster.com, November 5, 2007). Thus, the level of involvement was used as an initial proxy for participation of PDS participants. Considering this connection between involvement and participation led to several analytic explorations. For example, if participants were coded as having a high level of involvement (based on the previously noted criteria), it seemed likely that they would reflect their high level of participation by sharing their PDS experiences during the interview process with a high number of coded responses. Thus, searches compared participant involvement codes to the participants frequency of responses. I present these findings in chapter 4. Another means used to determine whether a given participants frequency of responses would be considered a high number, was comparing the number of responses to those of the other participants at that site. If all site participants contributed equal amounts, this would be considered equal shares. Thus, a percent for equal shares was calculated based on the number of participants interviewed at a site. Participants who responded a
122
significant amount more than the average share of responses were considered to have a high number of responses. Five percent was used as the basis for determining significance. Ranges for high, average, and low were created. Thus, the average range of responses was the average (or equal shares) number of responses plus or minus 5%. A higher than average number was defined as greater than the average range. A lower than average number of responses was defined as less than the average range. Each sites table lists these ranges because they are specific to that site. These comparisons provided an analysis tool for guiding additional analysis efforts because reviewing each table led to additional analytic questions and hypotheses, which then spurred a variety of data searches. An example of this process was the exploration of relationships between level of involvement and the participants job positions or PDS roles. It was theorized that participants whose job positions or roles were closely aligned with PDS Partnership goals would participate more often, be more involved, and would comment more frequently. Involvement at the sites also was compared. Summary tables are presented in the appendices, and findings are described in chapter 5. Later sections further describe how these beginning searches informed the data-analysis process to direct more focused searches of participant involvement levels. Exploring potential connections among participants level of involvement, frequency of responses, role, and job position provided direction for further analysis by revealing general data patterns. These beginning analysis steps did not take into account the quality or content of the participant responses. Participants responses were selected to include the participants voices to the findings. The participants actual words convey the
123
tone, context, and flavor. Their responses reveal themes describing the participants perspectives of PDS collaboration processes. Involvement at Different Phases Based on initial searches of involvement levels that did not reveal strong overall trends, it was hypothesized that participants involvement might vary during different PDS or collaboration phases. Because the research question inquired about participant perceptions of collaborative processes in PDS development or maintenance, and data had been organized by coding for either PDS development or maintenance, these phases provided the first level of data sorting. Thus, from that point, the steps of the analysis plan were completed once for the PDS development phase and again for the maintenance phase. The analysis plan was applied to each phase of PDS development or maintenance. The data-analysis plan examined collaborative processes in both phases using the same steps for each data set. PDS Development or Maintenance This section describes how the analysis software was used to provide initial sorting by PDS development or maintenance. The data-management softwares function for case selection criteria was used to select PDS participants interviews at each site, and the code selection criteria function was used to select responses coded PDS development or maintenance. Further differentiation of participants responses was needed to address collaboration phases. Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation Collaboration, as described in Fig. 1.1 occurs in phases of problem setting, direction setting, and implementation (Gray, 1989). These phases provided a starting point for
124
examining the nature of collaboration in the PDS. How does collaboration in a PDS differ within these three collaboration phases? First studied were participation data patterns across the multiple sites. Response frequency represented participants involvement. Frequency counts of participant responses allowed comparisons across sites to determine general participation data trends. These early explorations led to consideration that there might be additional factors influencing participant involvement in collaboration processes that might be revealed by further analysis. It was thus hypothesized that a participants site affiliation might be one factor influencing involvement. For each site, a frequency-count report was generated. A ratio was developed to compare individual participants number of responses to the total number of site responses. Level of involvement codes were added to continue to explore relationships between involvement and responses coded as related to PDS development or maintenance. Summary tables are presented in the appendices. Using the conceptual framework from Figure 2.1, coding reflected collaboration phases for problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Using the HyperRESEARCH 2.0 search functions to identify participants who shared related responses, reports were created to represent participant responses, by site, for each collaboration phase. Tables (see Appendix U) were created for each report to show the frequency counts of responses in each phase and to compare the number of responses to the site totals. These reports indicated which participants were commenting during which phases of collaboration. Numbers of responses for each collaboration process during each
125
phase also were totaled. These totals were used to highlight which collaboration processes were active during which phases based on the frequency of participant responses. Each of the intersections of combinations of collaboration processes and phases were examined individually. Using the data-management software, reports were created to explore which participants at which sites were commenting when. Twenty-one such combinations were examined. As an example, those for problem setting in PDS development are noted below: Problem Setting and Capacity Problem Setting and Negotiating Problem Setting and Structuring Problem Setting and Coping With Change Problem Setting and Communication Problem Setting and Coping With Power and Politics Problem Setting and Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity
This pattern of analysis was repeated for direction setting and implementation combinations. Tables were created to report each site participants number of responses and percent of the site total. Similarities and observations within each site were noted. Actual participant responses were included in the tables. Themes of participant responses were noted on the site tables. Thus, six tables were generated for each of the 21 possible combinations by collaboration phase and process. A site sample table is included as Appendix V.
126
In addition, tables were generated to present the totals from each site and their percentage of the total across the sites. These were created to show which sites had higher or lower response levels compared to the other sites. Similarities and observations also were compared across sites. A sample table comparing sites for collaborative processes in PDS development is included as Appendix W. The sections that follow describe patterns of participants involvement in collaboration processes. Patterns of Participants Involvement in Collaborative Processes I conducted several searches for patterns of participants involvement in collaborative processes. For example, I looked to see if participants described involvement in all collaborative phases for both PDS development and maintenance. I also compared collaborative processes to identify any differences in participants response frequency across sites. Examining involvement in this way helped to target instances when certain collaborative processes might become highlighted for participants. It was also helpful to examine extremes of low involvement. Examining the lowest areas of participant responses also provided description of PDS collaboration by revealing what participants did not discuss at certain points in PDS development and maintenance. This may provide some indication at to lack of involvement or lack of participants perceptions about certain collaboration processes. It may also reveal participants lack of information or unwillingness to discuss certain topics. Participants silences or absence of comments are also presented in the findings in chapters 4 and 5. Comparing the data across sites also gave indication as to which sites had the highest or lowest percentage of responses. Participant responses also were compared as to their content. The analysis plan indicates the theme associated with each response by bold
127
print. These qualitative comparisons took the form of compiling the themes from each site. Totals for each theme are listed at the end of each sites data in the analysis plan. Totals also were listed for all sites. These totals are noted at the end of each section of the analysis plan (see Appendix Y for sample Themes Totals). These steps to develop comparisons highlighted the patterns of themes within the collaborative processes of PDS development or maintenance. Collaboration by Site This section explores how patterns of participants responses related to collaboration processes by site. Based on high numbers of participants responses, certain collaboration processes may show more activity than others. For this analysis, these collaboration processes were considered to be activated by participants when they were among several processes that had the highest numbers of responses. These patterns of activated processes pointed to areas of activity or interest for PDS participants and thus were necessary areas to include in descriptions of PDS collaboration. I present these findings in chapter 4. These searches of participants responses sparked additional questions about the nature of leadership in the PDS. Because it would be assumed that leaders are those who direct others, the question became: Did leaders of a PDS site respond when other participants did not? For the purposes of this search, the leaders were considered to be the site participants who held the highest position of power at their site. I created data displays to examine patterns of leaders responses and these findings are presented in chapter 4. Development of Data Displays
128
The patterns noted in involvement, phases and processes of collaboration, and themes in participant responses were utilized to create data displays. Additional bar graphs representing the collaborative processes that have high numbers of responses at certain phases of development are included in the appendices. In addition, chapter 5 further illustrates themes generated from participant responses. Standards of Quality and Verification This section examines case study quality standards. First presented are standards noted by case study researchers. Included in the discussion of each recommendation is an explanation of how this case study meets that standard. The section ends with a discussion of triangulation of data and how it was determined that sufficient data had been collected. Yin (1994) asserts that case study tactics, such as using multiple sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence, and having key informants review draft reports, help address construct validity. This study used multiple data sources that provided sufficient evidence for findings. The analysis plan detailed the inquiry path, the exploration process, and data interpretation procedures. Key informants, the PDS participants, reviewed data as part of the member check process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A majority (82%) of participants completed accuracy checks of their interview transcripts. A few participants requested minor changes to transcripts such as adding or deleting words or phrases. Some participants added further explanation to their original comments. Most participants made no changes to the transcripts. Participants also received updates and feedback via during the course of the data-analysis process. They corroborated emerging themes and findings.
129
A critical friend, who was a PDS participant in another Suburban Schools partnership, also reviewed the research once participants pseudonyms were assigned and findings began to emerge from data analysis. This critical friend reviewed initial findings and critiqued their representativeness (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 263) for PDSs in the studied school district. She corroborated my studys PDS findings. The critical friend also checked for researcher bias that might be connected to participant observation methods. To address internal validity, Yin (1994) recommended using pattern-matching, explanation-building, and time-series analysis during the data-analysis phase of the study. These strategies were useful in developing the findings that are detailed in chapters 4 and 5. To enhance external validity, Yin (1994) suggests that the research design define the boundaries of the case and establish the scope and possibility for generalizations of the findings. The case was defined as the PDS Partnership and was bounded by time and location. The generalizability, as described by Yin, is limited because this is a single case study. To address reliability, Yin (1994) recommended data-collection procedures that adhere to case study protocol and attempt to minimize the errors and biases in a study. This study followed data-collection procedures appropriate for case study methodology as described by Yin. The prior terms addressing standards are those used by Yin. However, other case study researchers such as Creswell (1998) suggested that the qualitative researcher writing a case study employ terms such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (p. 77; italics original). These terms were used for this study. Terminology
130
and methodology associated with the case study tradition are used, as well as those associated with qualitative research in general. Lincoln (1995) identified eight standards of quality to serve as guidelines for qualitative research. For this case, the standards set in the inquiry community are the guidelines set for case study researchers as well as guidelines for education research by practitioners. The standard of positionality was addressed by openly presenting the relationship of the researcher to the case and the positions or stances held by the researcher. This case study addressed the standard of community because it acknowledged that the research must be directly related to the PDS Partnerships settings and contexts. This study is an example of qualitative research that gives voice to the participants. In studying the case of the PDS Partnership, multiple voices of a variety of participants were recognized. As part of the studys qualitative approach, assumptions have been noted, as well as the potential for researcher bias. Reflective memoing made apparent the researchers selfawareness or reflexivity throughout the study needed to meet the critical subjectivity standard also described by Lincoln (1995). Maxwell (1996) explained the concept of reflexivity, based on Hammersley and Atkinsons (1983) first use of the term to describe how the researcher is inextricably part of the phenomena studied. For this case study, I was bound to developing a high level of self-awareness in addition to maintaining confidentiality. The studys design promoted interaction between the participants and the researcher. Mutual trust and sharing were advocated. These characteristics were especially important to this study of collaborative processes. As a participant-observer, maintaining this trust and respecting the researcherparticipant relationship was of utmost importance to
131
ensure the studys success. It was also a professional necessity for the researcher, as a Suburban Schools employee. The standards of reciprocity and sacredness of the relationships as described by Lincoln (1995) were important to this case study. Sharing of privileges also was incorporated into the perspective of respect, trust, and cooperation. Creswell (1998) suggested prolonged engagement and persistent observation. A significant presence by the researcher was important to establish the rapport, trust, and cooperation needed for this study. Extensive field research also allowed me to fully understand the educational culture and contexts of the PDS so that a realistic picture may be related. Triangulation of Data Triangulation of the data was an important aspect to the studys data collection and data analysis. The use of many different sources aided in the corroboration of ideas and the comparison of event descriptions from different participants. Triangulation was used to search for ways that data converge around a theme and to fully develop and validate themes or perspectives. The review of documents and the insider perspectives offered by participant observation were a means to confirm findings. The study made use of member checks to provide credibility of interpretations. Stake (1995) said that participants should play a major role directing as well as acting in case study research (p. 115). By conducting member checks, participants reviewed the research and had the opportunity to provide alternate perspectives or interpretations. Stake explained that, by choosing co-observers, panelists, or reviewers from alternative theoretical viewpoints, we approach what Denzin (1989) called theory triangulation (p.
132
113). Because interpretations are subjected to member checks, the developing theory may be substantiated or a rival theory may be discredited. Decisions to Conclude Analysis Analysis was concluded once there were sufficient data to support a finding and alternatives had been ruled out. The analysis plan provided direction for exploration of hypotheses and yielded the studys findings. These findings are presented in the next two chapters. Chapter 4 provides the history of the PDS Partnership and a description of its background and context. Chapter 5 details findings related to collaborative processes in PDS development and maintenance.
133
Chapter 4: History of the PDS Partnership
Context When conducting a case study, an understanding of the studys context is essential. Thick, rich description provides a reference point for the findings, establishes parameters for their application, and adds credibility to the study. Context also gives guidelines for generalizing the studys findings. This overview of the PDS history and context is especially important to this study of collaboration in a PDS. Collaboration, as a process, occurs within a specific context. To understand collaborative processes, it is necessary to situate them within their specific setting. PDS Participants perceived collaboration as connected to their specific experiences. Hence, participants voices are featured in this study to highlight their perceptions. The case study method provides the format to present contextual conditions that may influence collaborative processes during the PDS development and maintenance. Timeline of the PDS Partnership Many of the study participants described their experiences of their involvement in the PDS Partnership over time. Because they discussed their involvement in the PDS Partnership in relation to its historical context, it is necessary to understand this background. PDS participants described the development and maintenance of the PDS Partnership as connected to the types of activities occurring during certain time periods. The PDS Partnership history was thus considered in relationship to four main periods of time: Context for Reform,
134
Development of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership,
Maintenance of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership, and
Responding to Change and the Development of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership.
Figure 4.1 presents an overall timeline of the context for this PDS Partnership. First, the four main time periods are briefly presented. Next in the sections that follow, each of these time periods is examined in detail. Reviewing this historical context provides a means for situating the studys findings and starting point for addressing the studys research question: How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership? FIG. 4.1 Timeline of the Development and Maintenance of the PDS Partnership.
Amidst an atmosphere of reform in the state of Maryland, the local PDS initiative was born. This PDS Partnership originated because the conveners and key stakeholders of the PDS Partnership had been involved in shaping state policy and PDS guidelines. These early efforts to increase the capacity for PDS development occurred from 1993 to 1998. Although these early efforts occurred prior to the case study, it is necessary to examine events from this time period to develop a full picture of the context of reform.
135
The development of the PDS Partnership examined in this case study occurred during the years 19971999 for the Mark Twain Elementary and Greenview Elementary school sites. In this study, the development phase is associated with this time period and is characterized as follows: The PDS Partnership was in its beginning stages. Various PDS activities were initiated. Participants were involved in creating the structures and guidelines to allow for full functioning of the PDS. Participants were solving problems, negotiating solutions, and setting goals for the PDS. There is some overlap in the time periods designated as Context for Reform and Development of the Partnership. Although an agreement to develop a PDS was signed in 1997 for the Mark Twain/East Coast/Greenview University PDS, it was signed in the midst of ongoing state and local school district reform efforts. The early participants of the PDS Partnership took some slow steps toward development as they responded to the rapidly changing state and local expectations for PDS Partnerships. The PDS Partnership was beginning as guidelines, and standards were evolving. The participants were developing the partnership as the definition of a PDS was being created by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). For Glen Grove Elementary, the development phase is associated with the timeframe of May 2002June 2003. This was Glen Groves first year as a PDS partner. During this year, many of the same types of activities occurred as during the 19971999 time period for Mark Twain and Greenview. The participants were engaged in decision-
136
making activities to develop the new alliance between Glen Grove and Mark Twain. Although the participants at the Mark Twain site now had 5 years of experience as a PDS partner, they had to regroup to include a new school-site partner. Thus, this time period focused mainly on activities associated with developing the PDS. The development phase for the Mark Twain/East Coast/Glen Grove Partnership took 1 year, whereas for Greenview it took 3 years. This contrast is likely because at the time Glen Grove joined the Partnership, the PDS already was fully developed. When Glen Grove replaced Greenview as a school site, Mark Twain participants already had most PDS structures in place and could then adjust them to meet the needs of the new partner. This took less time than the original creation of those PDS structures. By 2000, the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership was in the maintenance phase, which is characterized as follows: The PDS was fully developed. Most aspects of the PDS were at the implementation phase. Participants were responding to the challenges associated with full implementation. Participants made revisions to structures, policies, and activities and responded to the effects of those changes. Participants made revisions to PDS roles and responsibilities. For most aspects of the PDS program, the participants were planning ways to maintain the PDS structures and activities. Participants worked on maintaining relationships and responding to change.
137
This period of implementation and maintenance lasted from 2000 to April 26, 2002. On April 26, 2002, local school district officials abruptly ended the Partnership. The PDS immediately began a period of change. The school-site partners were reassigned, and Glen Grove joined Mark Twain in the PDS Partnership with East Coast University. This time period was a year of PDS development for Glen Grove and a year of responding to change for Mark Twain. June 2003 marks the end of this case study. Each of these time periods is explored in detail in the following sections. The events and interactions among stakeholders shape the PDS and influence the opportunities and nature of the collaboration. In turn, the experiences with the process of collaboration shape the events of the PDS. This view of the history and context sets the stage for further examination of collaborative processes in the development and maintenance of the PDS. Context for Reform: Prelude to the East Coast University/Suburban Schools Partnership As early as 1993, East Coast University initiated discussions with a Maryland school district (other than Suburban Schools) regarding changing the model for teacher education. In 1994, East Coast University began its first PDS with that school district, thus beginning the East Coast University PDS Network (Hinkle & Proffitt, 1997, 1998). Dr. Grayson, Associate Dean of the College of Education at East Coast University, explained his view: We went into it with that success and the building of multiple schools and what we started to call our PDS Network. We looked to expand it to Suburban County (personal communication, July 28, 2004). This effort was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Dwight D. Eisenhower Professional Development State Grant Program and the Goals 2000 Grant Program.
138
Suburban Schools also entered into PDS Partnerships in 1994, although not with East Coast University (Board Report, June 11, 1998). Thus, both institutions were beginning their responses to state directives for PDS development. Although PDS initiatives began with other players, East Coast University and Suburban Schools had a working relationship during this time. There were traditional student teacher centers at Mark Twain and Greenview Elementaries. George Grayson described the pre-PDS setting: The issue of the origin in these two was the evolution, or development, if you will, of a pre-existing student teaching center. Suburban County had a number of them with East Coast and from other institutions. Dr. Rose had been in that center for several years before the PDS initiative actually started. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) East Coast University approached Suburban Schools about interest in PDSs. Dr. Orlando described how he felt a special link was made with East Coast University and Suburban Schools. East Coast University and Suburban Schools had experienced difficulties in the past in the training of student teachers. Jim Orlando shared: It might have been the late eighties when we almost cut our relationship with East Coast as far as training student teachers at that time. We were having a great deal of difficulty. The master teachers were complaining that East Coast supervisors were not doing the kind of supervision that they were supposed to do and that they were leaving it up to the teachers and the teachers were feeling kind of left high and dry. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) Suburban Schools staff complained that no one was sure what the expectations were for the program. Jim Orlando called a summit meeting of all the deans and/or directors of student teaching and really laid down the law. He said, We are not going to continue working with institutions that do a half-assed job of training teachers and particularly dont meet their supervisory responsibilities to the school system (personal communication,
139
November 2, 2004). Orlando saw the job as a collaborative process. He was impressed with the deans response to his concerns: To the Deans credit, he really brought things in to order in a hurry in East Coast. And, so since that time, since we came so close to not having a relationship, Ive really felt a special link with them in the whole area of teacher training. Because once they became aware of what was and wasnt happening, then they really committed themselves to the effort of making it a high quality process. (J. Orlando, personal communication, November 2, 2004) Jim Orlando continued to feel that the dean was an ally in teacher education reform. As a member of the Redesign committee, Jim Orlando felt that we really needed to rethink the concept of what internship truly means. He pushed to have the internship become a full-year program. Although he felt that East Coast University did not support or were reluctant to go to a five-year program from a four-year program, he did feel that the Dean was supportive and an agent for change in his institution. Jim Orlando recalled: The Dean was very simpatico with that idea and he was trying to move some of the faculty and the problem was part of the faculty at the College of Ed., which is true I think at all institutions. Jim Orlando expressed his respect for the dean and for Associate Dean George Grayson, who had a major role in translating these ideas into programs and policies. These leaders continued to develop this relationship between their respective institutions during the next 10 years. Discussions then began between Suburban Schools Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando and East Coast University Associate Dean of Education Dr. George Grayson. Grayson described his involvement: We did talk with Jim about this, and at the same time, the State Department of Education was involved in promoting PDS development. The Redesign gave us some impetus when it was implemented in late Spring of 1995. I believe there was an Eisenhower grant and some small MSDE monies. Jim Orlando was an early
140
proponent and we talked about just growing the pre-existing partnership into our first PDS. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) Jim Orlando also described his involvement in these discussions: I was personally involved in the dialogue along with George Grayson. I was very taken with the idea of changing the way in which we really developed teaching personnel. And, I also felt that something that was long overdue, that the kind of training up until that point that we were doing for preservice teachers was the same thing that I did back in the 1960s. And, I didnt think it was very good then and it really left the teachers at a very meager beginning point, in my judgment. It really didnt put them at the edge of professionalism that I felt they should be. The concept of the professional development school really sounded like it would do that. It really created that sort of collaborative community in which the learning of the adults is as important as the learning of the kids. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) Both George Grayson and Jim Orlando represented the interests of their respective institutions. Both advocated for development of PDSs as a means of responding to their states calls for reform. Both leaders and their institutions drew on preexisting relationships as a basis for this new venture. As representatives of their institutions, Dr. Orlando and Dr. Grayson led by example. Each leader became personally involved in the PDS reform movement. Jim Orlando furthered his interest in changing teacher education by serving on the Redesign committee. He explained: I was on the Redesign Committee that a professor from one of the universities chaired. So, I was part of that from the very beginning and supported the idea of the Redesign very strongly and still do. We really needed to rethink the concept of what internship truly means. (J. Orlando, personal communication, November 2, 2004) George Grayson and other East Coast University representatives also were active on various committees to shape teacher education program policy. East Coast University representatives served on the Maryland PDS Policy Board and PDS Operations Team from 1995 to 1996. Jim Orlando also was involved as a representative for Suburban Schools. In
141
May 1995, at the state level, MHEC issued its Teacher Education Task Force Report (Redesign of Teacher Education), which provided the mandate for reform in teacher education. Representatives at the state level continued to be active and promoted establishment of PDS programs. The Maryland Business Roundtable Task Force on Professional Development issued a report in April 1996. The steps to begin professional development schools in Maryland, and the reforms that followed, were not necessarily smooth. Amid this rush of activity at the state level, deans and superintendents expressed strong concerns at a State Superintendents meeting. Although efforts were underway to encourage collaboration, some stakeholders did not feel fully engaged in the process. Their concerns addressed the lack of their input into documents detailing implementation of The Redesign of Teacher Education. As a result, the Deans and Superintendents Committee was formed. Jim Orlando shared his experiences: We had kind of a state-wide flare-up. It took the form of the Deans and Directors coming to a State Superintendents meeting and presenting us a very detailed plan about the reorganizing of teacher education in the state. It was based on the Redesign document, but it also talked a lot about the obligations of the school system to do this, or to do that, and so on. We had never seen that document. We had never been consulted in that document. And so the result of that was the formation of the Deans and Superintendents committee. There were about eight of us--four from each group. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) State leaders were able to work through these concerns to continue the momentum of the PDS. The direction for reform was becoming clearer. Creating a Culture of Change in Suburban Schools In the 19951996 school year, continuing in this spirit of reform, Suburban Schools Superintendent Dr. Orlando initiated a reorganization of the systems administrative hierarchy to create, in his words, a culture of change. Jim Orlando recalled this change:
142
By the reorganization, I mean where the principals were reporting directly to me. The whole thrust of that was two-fold. One was to say very loud and clear to everybody that the most important work of the school system doesnt happen at the central office, it happens at the school. And, the other thing that it was intended to say, and I think it did create a culture of change. To really get the people at the central office to understand that their jobs existed to serve the schools and not viceversa. I did not want central office dictating to the schools what they should be doing. We should be learning from them. We should be responding to them. Our job ought to be to figure out how to make it possible to do the things they want to do. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) This school system reorganization was part of building capacity for collaboration needed to develop PDSs. Led by Dr. Jim Orlando, Suburban Schools began to develop PDSs. The Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS was listed as a possible emerging PDS for 1999 in the systems Board Report on May 5, 1996. Suburban Schools showed its commitment to PDSs by recommending in this Board Report that the system create a separate budget category for PDSs. This action illustrated the school systems commitment to allocating resources for this reform. Maryland Emerges as a Leader in the PDS Movement The next year was a time when PDS advocates were active on various levels. MSDE continued to be highly involved in PDSs in 1997. The Maryland Professional Development Schools Evaluation Framework was developed, and MSDE identified East Coast University as a state leader in PDS in MSDE Program Approval Visit Report (1997). That same year, East Coast Universitys PDS Network was selected by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as 1 of 19 sites in the nation to conduct a 3-year pilot of NCATE Standards for PDSs. Also during this time, Suburban Schools developed the School System Questions to Guide Decisions Regarding PDSs: How Can a School System Benefit to the Greatest Extent from PDS Partnerships?
143
This document listed benefits for Suburban Schools if the system adopted PDSs and provided the beginning rationale to direct widespread PDS development in the school system. Maryland continued to be a leader in the PDS movement by hosting the PDS National Conference in 1998. The conference, Charting a New Course was sponsored by the Maryland Professional Development Schools Network. The program from the 2003 conference provided historical perspective: Maryland had 13 LEASs and 13 IHEs involved in PDS at the time of that first conference. We continued to Chart Our Course by developing Maryland PDS guidelines and standards under the auspices of the Superintendents and Deans Committee of the Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning, K16. (Staying the Course: PDS, an Anchor for P-16 Reform, March 2729, 2003; Proffitt & Wittman, 2003, p. 1) Educators at the state level not only sounded the charge for reform, but they took an active role in directing and shaping professional development schools. Statewide PDS Standards were being drafted (see Appendix Z). These standards that guided leaders in developing and evaluating PDS programs highlighted the essential collaborative nature of the PDSs. Educators from various institutions contributed to their development. Collaborative ventures such as the K16 Partnership also were part of the PDS movement. The K16 Partnership, which is an alliance of MSDE, MHEC, and the UMS, created a subcommittee entitled the Professional Development Design Team. The team issued a report describing Marylands PDS initiative in 1998 entitled the Professional Development Design Team Final Report (February 7, 1998). The committee was charged with recommending areas of change in the education and continued professional development of teachers. The committees report stated that:
144
Professional development requires partnerships among schools, higher education institutions and other appropriate entities to enable teachers to develop further expertise in subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies and other essential elements in teaching to high standards. It must also be accessible statewide as part of a systemic effort to improve and integrate the recruitment, selection, preparation, initial licensing, induction, ongoing development and support, and advanced certification of educators. (Professional Development Design Team Final Report, February 7, 1998) Recommendations were given in nine areas: incentive funding (establishing stability), enhancing quality (reinforcing state policies and procedures), enhancing quality (setting rigorous assessment and accountability measures), improving clinical practice (the internship), improving the continuing professional development of teachers, strengthening and expanding the business partnership, faculty roles and rewards, and meeting the needs of underserved students. Further, in the Professional Development Design Team Report, the PDS was defined and all aspects of the PDS initiative in Maryland were outlined and described as they would support other state reform initiatives. The Design Team gave suggestions for the next steps: We believe that the recommendations in this report, reflecting state and national reform documents, represent the best and most promising practices in teacher development and are worthy of the significant commitments and investments their implementation will require. We are hopeful that the K16 Workgroup and Leadership Council will endorse these recommendations, encourage and support responsible agencies as they determine how best to enact them, and establish a mechanism for monitoring implementation. (Professional Development Design Team Final Report, February 7, 1998) Maryland school systems and universities now had a tool for developing PDS programs. The climate was ripe for developing PDS Partnerships. Direction was set. Commitments were made. East Coast University had been a leader in the process. In 1998, East Coast University received national recognition by the Association of Teacher
145
Educators (ATE) as a Distinguished Program in Teacher Education and was cited as a model for a true collaborative partnership. With East Coasts recognized success for PDS programs, the capacity for developing collaborative partnerships was increasing. Conversations that were initiated in 1994 between East Coast University and Suburban Schools began to develop into realities. East Coast University and Suburban Schools signed a formal agreement to begin the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership in 1997, with interns to begin in spring 1998. Structure of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership The PDS Partnership organization shown in Fig. 3.1 initially described the structure of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University Partnership. However, the PDS participants described the PDS Partnership as a more complex and dynamic structure. Thus, a revision of Fig. 3.1 was needed to more accurately reflect the nature of this case studys PDS Partnership and the interaction among PDS participants. Figure 4.2 displays the PDS Partnership as an interorganizational effort with its own unique institutional complexity. The PDS participants were central to forming the PDS Partnership. Memorandum of Agreement The PDS consists of two institutionsa university and a school districtthat agree to enter into a partnership. East Coast University and Suburban Schools signed a memorandum of agreement to begin the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership and then renewed their agreement each fiscal year. The universitys involvement centered on the experiences of the interns and providing professional development for school system staff. The school systems responsibilities included providing school sites to host the interns and providing office space, equipment, supplies,
146
FIG. 4.2 The PDS Partnership as Described by PDS Participants.
and clerical support. The agreement recognized the needs and responsibilities of each institution. It affirmed their commitments to the PDS. In the initial agreement, specific shared responsibilities included the provision for a joint PDS teacher position. The jointly appointed staff was to report to both institutions. The position description was included in the agreement as well as details of the duties and responsibilities. East Coast University and Suburban Schools each agreed to pay 50% of salary and benefits. The joint appointment was supervised and evaluated by both institutions by the Director of Human Resources for Suburban Schools and by the Dean of the College of Education for East Coast University. In the memorandum of agreement, the school system and the university agreed to mutual covenants and conditions related to the scope and term of the agreement, the duties
147
and responsibilities including employment and compensation, and supervisory responsibilities. The specifics of this annual agreement were revised each year to reflect changes in goals, standards, and funding. PDS Participants Before an understanding of the collaborative actions of the PDS participants can be reached, it is important to describe participants as representatives from their affiliated educational institution: school sites, school system, or university. Although the official partnership agreement was between East Coast University and Suburban Schools, these two partners are educational institutions comprised of subgroups. Some of the institutions are nested within other institutions. For example, participants from each of the three school sites also were members of Suburban Schools. Therefore, PDS participants may represent more than one institution and may hold multiple roles. As individual people, the PDS participants must possess the skills to advocate for their individual goals, yet collaborate to pursue shared goals with other PDS participants. The PDS Partnership brought together members of various institutions to focus on a mutual goal. Figure 4.2 illustrates how the PDS Partnership is a point of intersection of several groups of educators. It is a basic need for the PDS participants to interact. However, because of the variety of ways PDS participants might interact, there exists a complexity to the PDS culture from the beginning. The PDS participants in this case had numerous interactions with participants from other institutions, and these interactions shaped their relationships within the PDS. Figure 4.2 displays the complex web of interactions that occurred among representatives from the main PDS stakeholder groups.
148
As the PDS evolved its own unique institutional culture, the complexity increased. The PDS evolves from a blend of the contributing institutions and the establishment of new norms and expectations specific to the individual PDS Partnership. Thus, PDS participants must have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to understand differing cultures within the PDS setting. Recognizing the cultural context strengthened the abilities of the participants to interact, collaborate, and promote the PDS goals. The PDS participants interacted with the members of the other educational institutions. Yet they continued to represent the institution with which they were affiliated and function within their primary institutional culture. For example, the university coordinator served as a key member of the PDS steering committee, yet represented the values, goals, and agendas of East Coast University. Thus, complexity of roles was one challenge experienced by PDS participants. Some participants described difficulties understanding different cultures. George Grayson explained the challenge he experienced: The first years were rocky, based on the struggle of the school system and the university folks to understand one anothers culture. Participants must be able to successfully function as members of institutional cultures. Collaboration is the key to meeting this challenge. Study participants may be described in several ways. One way to group the PDS participants is by their site affiliation. Participants are affiliated with one of six sites: East Coast University as faculty, Interns (from East Coast University), Suburban Schools, Mark Twain Elementary, Greenview Elementary, or Glen Grove Elementary. The site profiles describe the context of the participants experiences, actions, responses, and perceptions. The school profiles provide approximate representations of the students ethnicity and
149
mobility, as well as the numbers receiving special services. These are approximations due to the variability in data over the course of the years of the study. They are listed to provide a general sense of the schools characteristics. To connect the PDS participants to their main settings, they are presented by site and job position. PDS-roles also are noted. East Coast University This university is situated in a metropolitan area of Maryland. East Coast University was founded in the 1800s and is a large public university. It is a member of the University System of Maryland. East Coast University is considered a leader in the development of PDSs. East Coast University is accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the Maryland State Department of Education, and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. The university is a member of the American Council on Education, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the Association of American Colleges. The College of Education coordinates PDSs in several school districts in the state, including Suburban Schools. Table 4.1 presents the East Coast University PDS participants and their job positions. Table 4.1 East Coast University PDS Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ George Grayson Associate Dean of the College of Education Irene Rose Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education Amelia Brown Associate Professor in the Department of Elementary Education ________________________________________________________________________
150
The study participants from this site are George Grayson, Irene Rose, and Amelia Brown. Each of these participants also held PDS-specific roles in addition to their job positions. George Grayson was a convener of the East Coast/Mark Twain/Greenview PDS Partnership. Dr. Irene Rose served as the Partnerships first university coordinator and had prior experience in that role when Mark Twain was a traditional student teaching center. Amelia Brown served as the partnerships second university coordinator and transitioned the PDS from Greenview to Glen Grove. Both university coordinators also served on the PDS steering committee. Interns For the purposes of this study, being an undergraduate student was considered a job position. The interns were students of East Coast University who served their preservice experiences at one of the Partnerships elementary school sites. Two interns were interviewed. Hannah Berger was an intern at Mark Twain and Greenview. At Mark Twain, Hannahs mentor teacher was study participant Cathy Tobiason. Hannah served on the PDS steering committee during her internship. Raina Hunt was an intern at Mark Twain and Glen Grove. At Mark Twain, Rainas mentor teacher was study participant Nora Kramer. Table 4.2 lists the interns who served as PDS participants. Table 4.2 Interns ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ Hannah Berger East Coast University Undergraduate Student Intern Raina Hunt East Coast University Undergraduate Student Intern ________________________________________________________________________
151
Suburban Schools Suburban County is one of the fastest growing counties in Maryland. The public school system enrolls approximately 47,000 students. The ethnicity of the student population is approximately 57% White, 20% African American, 15% Asian, 5% Hispanic, 3% Unidentified, and less than 1% Native American. School system mobility is about 6% entrants and about 5% withdrawals. The school systems per pupil expenditure is approximately $11,500 per year. Students receiving special services include about 2% for Title I, 11% for free and reduced lunch, 9% for special education, and 3% for students with limited English proficiency. Class size ratios in elementary schools are 1:19 in Grades 1 and 2 and 1:25 in Grades 3 through 5. The school systems mission is to ensure excellence in teaching and learning so that each student will participate in a diverse and changing world (school system website, 2/27/07). Suburban Schools appears to be succeeding in its mission. It is consistently ranked in the top Maryland school districts for state assessments, and its students score above the national averages on standardized tests. Over 90% of Suburban Schools graduates continue their education beyond high school. Attendance rates are high at about 96%. The graduation rate is about 94%. Approximately 43% of the students participate in some aspect of the Gifted and Talented Program. There are approximately 4,200 certified staff members, with over half of these staff members holding masters degrees or above. The average teacher has taught about 12 years. The school system is a source of pride for the community. The school district hosts several clusters of PDSs that are affiliated mainly with three local universities, including East Coast University. The district-wide PDS program involves
152
more than 40 public schools hosting future teachers pursuing either graduate or undergraduate degrees. The school system website (2/14/07) notes that the school system will benefit from the latest university-level academic research available, while the college program students gain exposure to the classroom with experienced teachers as mentors. Table 4.3 presents the Suburban Schools PDS participants and their job positions. Staff affiliated with Suburban School System who were interviewed for this case study are Dr. Jim Orlando, Kate Caplan, Ann Hu, Ron Mitchell, and Anita Quinn. Dr. Jim Orlando was the superintendent of the school system during this study until 2000. He was a convener of the PDS Partnership. Coordinator Kate Caplan was a convener of the initial PDS Partnership and served actively on the steering committee for many years. Table 4.3 Suburban Schools PDS Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Jim Orlando Kate Caplan Superintendent of Schools Coordinator of the Office of Professional Development Schools Ann Hu School System PDS Liaison (.5 position) Ron Mitchell School System PDS Liaison (.5 position) Anita Quinn Facilitator, Professional Development Schools ________________________________________________________________________ Ann Hu served as the first part-time (.5) School System PDS Liaison beginning in 1998. The position responsibilities were described in the Memorandum of Agreement. Ann worked at the school sites and served on the PDS steering committee. Ron Mitchell later served in the same positions as Ann Hu. Anita Quinn served as the school system representative and also was a member of the PDS steering committee. Her position was
153
initially part of the Office of Professional Development Schools and then later reorganized to be part of Human Resources. Selection of School Sites The selection of the school sites to host the interns was an important step in developing the PDS, but also shaped its character as an institution. Orlando described the discussion related to the selection of school sites: We thought it would be very worthwhile to use two schools that offered a contrast to one another (personal communication, November 2, 2004). Orlando wanted to spread the benefits of the PDS and allow interns a diverse overall experience with Mark Twain as the high socioeconomic model and Greenview as the low socioeconomic model. Orlando believed that the two were a pretty stark contrast from one another. Orlando described Greenview as a school that drew heavily on Section Eight housing, had a large number of free and reduced meals students, and had a minority population that was quite significant. Orlando summed up the perspectives of the partnerships decision makers at that time: So, we felt that even though the student interns would be at two different schools for their experience, that the opportunity presented by that experience would be well worth the change, the inconvenience, or the adjustment that they would have to make. (J. Orlando, personal communication, November 2, 2004) Orlando also hinted at the underlying issues involving possible intern perceptions related to working in schools characterized by poverty and high-minority populations: I think that as I recall East Coast liked the idea a great deal and it particularly served another purpose. And that was that a lot of teacher interns, when they are choosing where they want to do their student teaching, would pick Suburban County over any other county and we had far many more wanting to come here than could come here. And, also I think East Coast felt that they were making those choices, in many cases for the wrong reason. The wrong reason being that they just didnt want to deal with the challenges of a high-minority, high-poverty school system. I think that they appreciated the idea that even though Greenview might not compare to some of the realities of some City schools, or some in perhaps another Maryland
154
County, or other places like that, that it would still give students the opportunity to deal with the issues of Title I populations somewhat, and working with minority communities and the additional challenges and opportunities that that brought. (J. Orlando, personal communication, November 2, 2004) Although it seemed that the main consideration for determining school sites was the characteristics of the schools, Dr. Orlando also shared that there were discussions about the characteristics of the school leaders as well. Jim Orlando explained: I also wanted to be sensitive to the fact that some principals would be good PDS principals and would really respond to the opportunity that it presented to them, whereas others wouldn't know what to do with it. And, also, I really wanted to have some sense of receptivity on the part of the principal too because they were the ones that were going to have to sell it to their staff. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) It was agreed that the sites would be Greenview Elementary and Mark Twain Elementary. The structure of this PDS Partnership included two school sites. Although this Partnership included only two schools at a given time, this study includes three sites due to a change of school partners in the midst of the studys timeline. Greenview and Mark Twain were the initial sites in 1997 and continued as partners until April 2002. At that time, there was a change made by the school district that abruptly ended the arrangement between those two schools, causing Greenview Elementary to be replaced by Glen Grove Elementary. This study presents perspectives for participants at the three school sites. However, the study examines the PDS within the chronological context and therefore reflects the school pairing appropriate to the relative time period. Mark Twain Elementary Mark Twain Elementary opened its facility in 1979. Its average enrollment during the years of this study was approximately 585 students. Mark Twains student population is diverse, with approximately 61% White, 18% African American, 12% Asian, 4% Hispanic,
155
and 4% unidentified. Student mobility rates are approximately 10% entrants and 6% withdrawals. Approximately 4% of the students receive free and reduced lunch services. No students receive Title I services. Special education services are provided to approximately 6% of the students, and about 3% of the student population is considered limited English proficient. The school received the National PTA Certificate of Achievement Award from 1999 to 2003 and hosts several educational partnerships. Table 4.4 presents the Mark Twain Elementary PDS participants and their job positions. Staff affiliated with Mark Twain Elementary include Allison Moore, Wendy Davidson, Alice Hayes, Nora Kramer, Cathy Tobiason, and Penny Sawyer. Allison Moore served as principal at Mark Twain. Although the PDS agreement for Mark Twain was entered into with previous Principal Bill Baranson, he was transferred to another school in the Suburban Schools district prior to the opening of the PDS. Allison also served on the PDS steering committee along with Assistant Principal Wendy Davidson. Table 4.4 Mark Twain Elementary PDS Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ Allison Moore Principal Wendy Davidson Assistant Principal Alice Hayes Classroom Teacher Cathy Tobiason Classroom Teacher Penny Sawyer Classroom Teacher _____________________________________________________________________ Alice Hayes served at Mark Twain as a classroom teacher and mentor teacher for interns. She later transferred to Greenview Elementary and also is listed as affiliated with that site.
156
Nora Kramer was the schools Gifted and Talented resource teacher, a member of the PDS steering committee, and a mentor teacher for interns. Greenview Elementary Greenview Elementary opened its facility in 1954. Its average enrollment during the years it was a PDS partner was approximately 470 students. Greenviews student population is diverse, with approximately 33% White, 33% African American, 10% Asian, 10% Hispanic, and 9% unidentified. Student mobility rates are approximately 10% entrants and 9% withdrawals. Approximately 26% of the students receive free and reduced lunch services, and 11% receive Title I services. Special education services are provided to approximately 8% of the students, and about 5% of the student population is considered limited English proficient. The school hosts a number of special programs such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters and a prekindergarten program. Table 4.5 presents the Greenview Elementary PDS participants and their job positions. Study participants affiliated with Greenview Elementary include Allen Barnes and Alice Hayes. Allen Barnes served as principal and was instrumental in developing the PDS program at Greenview. Allen served on the PDS steering committee as well. Alice Hayes served as a mentor teacher at Greenview and previously at Mark Twain Elementary. Table 4.5 Greenview Elementary PDS Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ Allen Barnes Principal Alice Hayes Classroom Teacher ________________________________________________________________________ Glen Grove Elementary
157
Glen Grove Elementary opened its facility in 1992. Its average enrollment was approximately 600 students. The student population is diverse, with approximately 38% African American, 33% White, 20% Asian, 7% Hispanic, and 2% unidentified. Student mobility rates are approximately 10% entrants and 6% withdrawals. Approximately 11% of the students receive free and reduced lunch services. No students receive Title I services. Special education services are provided to approximately 6% of the students, and about 4% of the student population is considered limited English proficient. The school hosts a variety of after-school activities, and several educational partnerships. Table 4.6 presents the Glen Grove Elementary PDS participants and their job positions. Staff affiliated with Glen Grove Elementary include Albert Owens, Sheri Lohmann, Jennifer Marks, Sophie Michaels, and Natalie Ronaldi. Albert Owens was a member of the PDS steering committee. Sheri Lohmann, Jennifer Marks, Sophie Michaels, and Natalie Ronaldi served as mentor teachers. Sophie Michaels also served as the PDS Site Liaison and a member of the PDS steering committee. Table 4.6 Glen Grove Elementary PDS Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Participant Job Position ________________________________________________________________________ Albert Owens Principal Sheri Lohmann Classroom Teacher Jennifer Marks Classroom Teacher Sophie Michaels Classroom Teacher Natalie Ronaldi Classroom Teacher ________________________________________________________________________ Beginnings of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership East Coast University representative George Grayson and Suburban Schools Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando were the initial conveners of the Partnership, and they
158
were directly involved in the initial planning stages and in developing capacity for collaboration. Early in the process, Dr. Orlando enlisted Suburban Schools staff member Kate Caplan to assist with the process. Due to her significant responsibilities in initiating the partnership, Kate is also considered a convener of this partnership. The conveners educated others as the PDS model and advocated for its development. George Grayson described his involvement: I worked with the school systems in terms of creating the background of knowledge needed for folks to understand what this "new" model actually meant. We had a lot of folks who knew about it from their reading, but they really didn't understand it. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) He also explained how the PDS adopted its first set of goals: Our original set of goals came out of an AACTE publication. There were six of them that drove the development of all of our PDSs. The first one was building a collaborative culture and governance system. The second goal was an enhanced preservice experience. The next one was to provide ongoing professional development for inservice teachers. The fourth one was to focus on inquiry into and to improve teaching practices, best practices, if you will. The fifth one, which is really the sum-total of the first four was to enhance student achievement. And, the last goal, because it was relatively new, and even to this day, remains a goal, is to disseminate promising practices and procedures in the development of PDS. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) The next steps in developing the PDS were designed to address the first goal. George Grayson explained how the PDS conveners initially sought to persuade school staff to adopt the PDS model: We met with the principals and gave presentations to the school faculties. That's always been our model because these are not the sort of initiatives that can exist just because the Superintendent or principal says. They are ground up activities. So, we need the approval, if you will, or at least the stated interest of a critical mass of the individual school faculties to make this work. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) The Mark Twain and Greenview faculty members agreed to participate in the PDS. Participants began to establish the working governance and develop the initial structures to
159
define and support the PDS. The PDS was first implemented in the fall of 1997 with planning and professional development activities. The first intern cohort was scheduled to begin in the spring of 1998. This semester break was intended to give time to develop the program, establish the governance, and involve participants at the school site levels. The PDS planning was guided by the Standards for Maryland Professional Development Schools (see Appendix AA). The standards were published as a draft on July 31, 2001, and drew from the Draft Standards for Identifying and Supporting Quality Professional Development Schools (NCATE) and Common Understandings about Professional Development Schools (Maryland PDS Consortium). There were five areas for the standards: learning community; collaboration; accountability; organization, roles, and structure; and equity. Within each of the five areas, four components were targeted: teacher preparation (extensive internship), continuing professional development, action research and performance assessment, and student achievement (K12 priorities). Specifically, for collaboration, the standards focused on the mission: The PDS has a mission that is jointly defined and mutually supported by the university and school. As part of the components, joint planning, joint responsibility, involvement of stakeholders, and steering committees are mentioned. These standards gave conveners a starting point for developing the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership. As the planning continued, the group of decision makers widened to include more stakeholders. A steering committee was established. PDS programs are governed by steering committees that include university program representatives, school system staff, and faculty from the participating schools (school system website, 2/14/07). To more fully describe the development and maintenance of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast
160
University PDS, a detailed history of the partnership follows. However, PDS roles are first presented to provide understanding of participants involvement. Roles of Participants Participants may serve in roles related to their job position or they may serve in roles that are specific to the PDS. Job position titles include: Principal, Assistant Principal, Teacher, Superintendent, School System PDS Liaison, School System PDS Coordinator, University Coordinator, Assistant Dean, or Student. Table 4.7 and Table 4.8 provide a detailed listing of the various job positions and PDS roles of the 22 participants in this study. Table 4.7 Job Position Titles ___________________________________________________________________ Job Position Title Number of Participants ___________________________________________________________________ School site staff 12 Administrators 4 Teachers 8 East Coast University staff 3 Associate Dean of Education 1 University Coordinator 2 Suburban Schools Staff 5 School Superintendent 1 School System Representative 1 School System PDS Coordinator 1 School System PDS Liaison 2 University student 2 _____________________________________________________________________ Although most (55%) of the study participants were school site staff, this represents three school sites. PDS roles have two main aspects. Some roles stem from professional positions that were assigned significant responsibility for PDS-related tasks. Other roles reflect
161
additional, specific involvement in the PDS for a participant who holds a professional position that is not directly linked to PDS staffing or that does not typically have significant PDS-related responsibilities. Thus, there is overlap between job positions and roles and some participants may hold more than one role. The six main PDS roles are Convener, Intern, Mentor Teacher, PDS Site Liaison, and Steering Committee Member. In addition, the professional position of some participants may be dedicated to the PDS (e.g., University Coordinator, School System PDS Coordinator, or School System PDS Liaison). These professional positions are assigned responsibilities in the PDS, and job expectations include supervision of PDS programs in the school system or university. These positions may be staffed as a result of the development of the PDS or funded from the PDS budget. Examining PDS roles is one way to reflect participants involvement in the Partnership. Table 4.8 Roles in the PDS ________________________________________________________________________ PDS Role Number of Participants ________________________________________________________________________ Convener 3 Mentor Teachers 8 PDS Site Liaison 2 Steering Committee Member 15 Assistant Dean of Education/Grant Manager 1 University Coordinator 2 School System Representative 1 School System PDS Coordinator 1 School System PDS Liaison 2 Intern 2 _____________________________________________________________________
162
The PDS roles are not exclusive. For example, the university coordinator also would be a steering committee member. Over half (59%) of the participants held multiple roles. Table 4.9 shows the individual participants and the PDS roles they hold. Table 4.9 Multiple Roles of Participants in the PDS ________________________________________________________________________ PDS Roles PDS Steering Convener Mentor PDS Site Prof Intern Participants committee Teacher Liaison Pos* ________________________________________________________________________ Allison Moore Wendy Davidson Nora Kramer Penny Sawyer Cathy Tobiason Allen Barnes Alice Hayes Albert Owens Sheri Lohmann Natalie Ronaldi Jennifer Marks Sophie Michaels George Grayson Irene Rose Amelia Brown X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
163
Jim X X Orlando Anita X X Quinn Ann X X Hu Ron X X Mitchell Kate X X X Caplan Hannah X X Berger Raina X Hunt ________________________________________________________________________ *Participant holds a professional position created that includes specific PDS related responsibilities. History of the Partnership The history of this PDS Partnership is described from its beginnings in 1997 through the end of this study in 2003. The following overview highlights the nonlinear nature of the PDS development and maintenance over 6 years. Development of the Mark Twain/Greenview/ East Coast University Partnership After conveners signed the Memorandum of Agreement, Suburban Schools and East Coast University had the task of developing the PDS that they had planned. As noted previously, the conveners were involved in the early aspects of the development of the Partnership, and then other staff assumed the major responsibilities. With a goal to create consistency among PDS programs that were affiliated with various universities, Suburban Schools took responsibility for completing some of the tasks at the school system level. Some of these tasks were delegated to school site staff to allow PDS programs to meet the needs of their specific school communities.
164
Establishing the Planning Group Jim Orlando and George Grayson delegated significant responsibility to Kate Caplan. Caplan served as a convener. She met with Orlando and Grayson to determine how PDSs would take shape in Suburban Schools and then later served as a leader of the planning group for the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership. Kate described her early involvement: My role was initially to learn about PDS and then gradually take over the whole teacher education. Kate described how her role expanded: There was a statewide committee, a task force, that Jim Orlando and George Grayson were very big on at about the time that I took over this responsibility and I started to attend their meetings. Although she started to take leadership to meet with school system coordinators on a monthly basis, Kate Caplan stressed that the Suburban Schools superintendent had direct and ongoing involvement in PDS development. Kate relayed an example of how the coordinators worked to develop a school system PDS mission statement and sent it to Dr. Orlando, who said, No, youll adopt this one. Orlando had created his own mission statement to be used for Suburban Schools. Kate explained that she felt that the group had worked hard on their own mission and that it should be considered. She also said that she shared her concerns with her supervisor, but was told, If Jim says this is the mission, this is the mission. Thus, the PDS program began as a topdown reform in Suburban Schools. The mission of Suburban Schools was (and is) to ensure excellence in teaching and learning so that each student will participate responsibly in a diverse and changing world (school system website, April 2007). All of the PDS programs operating in Suburban Schools needed to support this mission.
165
With a school system mission in place, the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS had some initial building blocks to develop the PDS; however, there was rush of activity just prior to beginning the PDS in the fall of 1997. Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando initiated the planning discussions: We sat down with the principals and then, I more or less stepped out of it at that point. The planning group consisted of principals from both schools, Kate Caplan from Suburban Schools, and Dr. George Grayson and Dr. Irene Rose from East Coast University. As the planning group began its work, Kate Caplan described the initial feeling that we have this wonderful six-month block of time that we dont have interns and we can simply start working on building capacity. However, she also detailed the challenges they met as they approached the reality of the complex task of developing a new PDS. Kate shared the difficulty the planning group experienced in finding staff to fill the School System PDS Liaison position: There is the reality that you try to do things quickly. We found that we had a half position and at the elementary school level thats a little bit difficult to find someone. There were a few people interviewed. Allen knew Ann and her interests. Ann was hired. (K. Caplan, personal communication, July 22, 2004) Ann Hu started her position as the School system PDS Liaison by going to meetings for the partnerships that were underway in a neighboring school system. However, she expressed that she was not involved in the very beginning of the PDS to develop the overview of what was going to be established or what the PDS was going to look like. There were other difficulties as well. Kate Caplan recalled the challenge of engaging the needed stakeholders. Kate felt that Irene Rose was initially resistant to becoming fully involved. Kate shared her perspective:
166
We got started without her and thats why, partly, she hadnt bought into some of what was going on. It was like I dont have time to attend those meetings. She didnt value them. (personal communication, July 22, 2004) Dr. Roses view of this time period was slightly different. She said we were suddenly on the fast track. She shared that she had not planned to begin a switch to PDS until 2006 and that she didnt know what PDS really was supposed to be. However, she did express that she thought it would be best to home grow this so it would be unique. Initiating the Governance Despite the challenges, the planning group worked to develop PDS governance and structures. Irene Rose explained: There is a possibility of thinking only about interns, but with this time, we were able to move past that to put the governance in place. The governance mainly consisted of the steering committee, which added teacher representatives from each school, the PDS site liaison, and eventually intern representatives to the original planning team. The steering committee worked to further the level of structure of the PDS by creating guidelines and procedures for various PDS activities. These structures were being developed where none had previously existed. The steering committee was creating these structures and implementing the PDS simultaneously. Ann Hu explained: Since it was a new concept, there was a lot of flexibility. She also shared Kate Caplans comment that Im just flying by the seat of my pants! Ann saw the positive side of this situation: There is a neatness because people are more receptive to ideas because they are not locked into their old ideals or their old ruts. Most of those involved in the PDS were receptive to the reform. Marketing the Reform
167
The school-based leadership was especially willing to participate in this initiative. Anita Quinn commented on the strong willingness from the administration at both schools to move forward in this kind of endeavor. She explained why these two schools were selected: The sites were targeted largely because of the strong mentor teacher support at Mark Twain. We had a lot of master teachers that we could utilize for an elementary program (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Although the staff members of both school sites were told that their schools would be part of the PDS Partnership, there were significant efforts to gain the agreement and cooperation of the staff members. University coordinator Rose explained: the university has to court school systems and school buildings and persuade them to participate with us. Anita Quinn also commented, saying, The faculties at both sites were pitched as to whether they would support this type of endeavor. She explained that the staff members were educated as to what a PDS was in terms of benefits for the teaching staff, in terms of the demands for the teaching staff, professional development opportunities, and monetary compensation. Anita felt certain that there was mutual support from both the faculties. Mark Twain staff member Cathy Tobiason agreed: We already had student teachers from East Coast coming. So, I think it was a natural segue into becoming partnership schools. Mentor Teacher Alice Hayes also commented: It just seemed like a very positive kind of situation and I dont remember there being a lot of negative or disgruntled feelings about this happening. The staff saw the benefits and supported the development of the PDS. Structuring the PDS
168
The steering committee members met to develop structures. Penny Sawyer described this as a true collaboration where both schools and the university were actively involved in the planning and looking ahead and setting priorities for the year, and in looking at the needs and the goals for PDS. Allen Barnes agreed that joint planning was essential during PDS development. He shared his perspective: I always got the feeling that we were in it together. The team planned for the internship experiences, some action research opportunities, and some professional development. Some efforts also were started to link the PDS activities to the school improvement plan. In the beginning, planning emphasis was mainly on the intern experiences. The partners negotiated such aspects as the calendar, the assignments for mentors and interns, and the components for intern evaluation. There also was debate as to the budget. For example, the committee discussed whether mentors would be paid for their service. Allen Barnes explained: There was some initial reluctance to pay mentors as much money as we wanted to pay them. There were some thoughts that we should keep some of that money for staff development. The committee agreed to compensate mentors. By the 19981999 school year, the Partnership had moved past development of the basic structures needed for the governance and the internship pieces and started to offer professional development opportunities for the staffs at Mark Twain and Greenview. According to the Board Report, in 19981999: twelve faculty members attended a NCTE/East Coast University reading course. Seventeen faculty members participated in the Maryland Writing Project course. Twenty-three teachers participated as mentors. Thirty-eight staff participated in Discipline with Dignity workshops. Three administrators and ten teachers attended and/or presented at professional conferences. Fourteen new non-tenured teachers participated in classes and mentoring. Four teachers presented seminar sessions to interns and four mentors attended the school system training session for cooperating teachers. (January 27, 2000)
169
In 19981999, the PDS also provided guided reading inservice presentation and textbook purchase opportunities, funded inservice for preschool and kindergarten teachers, collected a PDS library of professional books, provided personnel with borrowing privileges at the East Coast University library, and hosted visitors from Idaho and Britain. The Board Report also described university involvement and professional development: Three full-time tenured East Coast faculty members offered four courses on-site; 131 informal visits were made by East Coast faculty to classrooms; 43 formal observations and three-way conferences were completed; reading re-certification courses were planned to be offered in the coming academic year. (January 27, 2000) University faculty were active in PDS development by providing opportunities for graduate coursework. They also offered their expertise as a resource for PDS participants. Maintenance of the PDS At the end of the 2000 school year, changes in Suburban Schools leadership were underway. Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando retired and Dr. Benjamin Scott became Superintendent of Suburban Schools. During his initial years as superintendent, Dr. Scott did not alter the course for PDSs that had been set by Dr. Orlando. As the PDS programs in Suburban Schools were developing, the structures at the school system level also were changing. The school system established the Office of Professional Development Schools (OPDS) which was organized to promote the movement toward PDS Partnerships (Board Report, January 27, 2000). The first year that OPDS had a stand-alone budget was the fiscal year 2000. This budget affirmed the systems commitment to PDS as a reform and documented the allocation of resources. Identifying Resources
170
To help maintain the PDS, East Coast University and Suburban Schools applied for a Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant from the MSDE in March 2001. George Grayson served as the contact person for the grant and coordinated its submission. Funds of $40,000 were requested for the continued enhancement and expansion of the PDS. The grant proposal targeted: building the capacity and skill of interns and all inservice teachers to integrate technology into their instruction, with specific emphasis on mathematics instruction, which reflects priorities of the [school] system and the two schools. The proposal reflects all elements of The Redesign and is aligned with the objectives of [the universitys] Teacher Preparation Improvement Plan to provide an extensive, performance-based internship for interns. (Application for Grant from MSDE, March 16, 2001) As part of the rationale for receiving the grant, it is noted that, although this is an existing partnership, the PDS has not received previous funding (Application for Grant from the MSDE, March 16, 2001). In addition, the funding would: enable the Partnership to implement several new initiatives that enhance the Partnerships existing alignment with Marylands PDS Standards, and focus program development, action research, and interns performance assessments on the local and state goals to integrate technology in instruction to improve student achievement in mathematics. (Application for Grant from the MSDE, March 16, 2001). The grant application detailed how the PDS would accomplish these goals by providing a timeline for accomplishing milestones for each objective and a plan operation for key personnel. Plans for the fall of 2001 included interns observing and participating in mathematics instruction and finalizing professional development plans for teachers to include focus areas of the grant. Also in the plans for 2001 was a needs assessment to be used as the base for planning staff development. Seminar sessions that focused on technology use in instruction were planned for staff and interns. The interns would have a focus on technology for their portfolios.
171
Plans for the spring of 2002 also were included. During this time, implementation of staff development opportunities occurs. For May 2002, a mentor survey was planned for evaluation of the PDS (Application for Grant from the MSDE, March 16, 2001). The interns would participate in a formative portfolio review. Grant-sponsored activities for the summer of 2002 included a summer strategic planning session that would be a time to analyze student achievement scores and revise school improvement plans as well as to evaluate internship program and plan revisions based on mentor survey results (Application for Grant from the MSDE, March 16, 2001). A proposed budget noting categories of expenditures, specific uses for funds, and allocated amounts also was included in the application. In a letter of support to the state superintendent for the grant application, Anita Quinn wrote: Funding this PDS would greatly enhance this partnerships achievement and help support [Universitys] and [School systems] commitment to this collaboration. The partnership is focusing on improving achievement in math by utilizing technology. Professional development opportunities will mirror this by affording opportunities for graduate courses, seminars, and interns mandate to utilize technology in their instruction. (Application for Grant from the MSDE, March 16, 2001). Allen Barnes, Allison Moore, and Kate Caplan also wrote letters of support. The PDS received the grant for June 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002. Various staff development activities were supported by the grant to target improving mathematics and technology instruction. Interns portfolios were to include use of technology in instruction. Throughout the project, the staff was surveyed as to their needs for staff development or other support. Some technology was purchased for the schools that included software for instruction. Kate Caplan described the impact of the grant on the PDS Partnership as a whole: The themes for the partnerships were grant-driven. In other words, the writing of
172
the grant forced a focus for the PDS (K. Caplan, personal communication, July 22, 2004). Many of the subsequent activities of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership were thus related to the grants math and technology focus. To utilize the funding earmarked for promoting technology in PDSs, the steering committee needed to embed this focus and related goals and objectives into the fabric of the PDS. During the 20012002 school year, the Mark Twain and Greenview schools hosted 14 internships. Whereas Suburban Schools noted future directions would continue to support the efforts to implement and support professional development school partnerships, the Board Report issued warnings about funding: As grant funding is less available, overall funding support for PDS efforts will be an issue (February 21, 2002). Creating Institutional Norms While the participants of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership were working to maintain their PDS, Suburban Schools was working to develop consistency among its various PDS programs. Implementation manuals were created in 2001 (and revised and updated in 2002 and 2003) to document the history of PDSs in Suburban Schools, provide a common knowledge of PDSs, present PDS benefits, and ensure consistent procedures in PDS programs. Continuous Improvement of the PDS Although new procedures and expectations for consistency were developing system-wide, by this time, the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership had hosted interns for 4 years. During these years, the partnership operated on a spring/fall calendar. The steering committee determined that it would like to change this arrangement to become a partnership with a fall/spring calendar. The Partnership requested
173
and received a one-semester hiatus from hosting interns for the spring of 2002 to allow time to reorganize the internship calendar. As the school system began to establish parameters, guidelines, and procedures for PDS in Suburban Schools, the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership was ready to evolve. However, the school system had another agenda that took precedence over the agenda of PDS as reform. Removal of Greenview In light of the requirements of the NCLB, Suburban Schools began to examine its policies related to PDSs. NCLB required all teachers of core academic subjects hired in the 20022003 school year in a Title I-supported program to achieve highly qualified status. It also required any newly hired paraprofessionals in 2002 in a Title I-supported program providing instructional support services in a classroom to be highly qualified. Suburban Schools examined Greenview Elementary, along with other district schools receiving Title I funds, through this lens. With this new emphasis on providing highly qualified staff members for Title I schools, Suburban Schools central office staff determined that these schools should be targeted for added system resources. Additional funding and staffing were directed toward targeted schools in the system. A system for determining which schools qualified for additional resources was established. In this system, schools were designated by tiers to indicate the level of need and degree of student achievement. Schools that were targeted for additional assistance became known in the school district as Tier One schools. These schools generally had a higher need for additional resources, and their students were not showing achievement levels comparable to other schools in the district on various measures such as standardized
174
achievement tests, state and local assessments, and numbers of students participating in advanced-level coursework. To address teacher quality issues highlighted by NCLB, central office staff at Suburban Schools examined their Tier One schools and utilized these criteria to develop the School Improvement Unit (SIU). Kate Caplan wrote an e-mail to the school systems PDS coordinating Committee, principals, and MSDE staff explaining the change in PDS. This e-mail stated: Fifteen schools were designated to receive focused support. Ten of the fifteen SIU schools are currently engaged in PDS Partnerships. In order to allow them to clear their places so that they can meet the challenges they face, it has been decided that no SIU schools will continue as part of PDSs following the end of this school year. (K. Caplan, personal communication, July 22, 2004) Greenview was 1 of those 10 schools. In addition to Kate Caplans e-mails, the announcement was made at a meeting of the SIU principals. Although the school system representatives declared that Suburban Schools was remaining committed to PDSs, they did not allow open discussion or input into the decision. The message was given that the PDS would end for SIU schools in the next few months, but we look forward to a future time when a PDS Partnership may again be a part of their programs. Some participants experienced a climate of uncertainty following the Chief Academic Officers announcement. Ann Hu of Suburban Schools shared her frustrations about the slowness in the decision making related to PDS events for the remainder of the school year and in the summer: They cant make a decision about the summer institute because the University peoples schedule is not the same as the schools and they are all on vacation now. I wish they could just forge ahead. Penny Sawyer, mentor teacher at Mark Twain, also shared her feelings about the problems that resulted:
175
The system really undercut East Coast when they pulled Greenview out and sort of said that only certain schools might be able to be a PDS and certain schools might not and with no warning. I think it caused some real problems in terms of the relationship with East Coast because basically the county undercut the policies that had been established for the PDS. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) PDS participants were concerned about the changes this new directive would bring for their established PDS. Allen Barnes described his perceptions of the rationale for the changes that occurred at Greenviews PDS: They took Greenview out because it was an SIU school. They took all of the Title I schools basically out of it. The new Associate Superintendent that came into the county from another county felt very strongly that she wanted, in her words, the most qualified teacher in front of the kids all of the time. So, she felt that the interns were not the most qualified teachers to be in front of the kids in the Title I schools. Now, my argument would be, that the way that we set it up, is that there were two people in the classroom, that was the teacher and the intern, 85% of the time, I would imagine. And, I would think that the interactions between the University and the teachers and the interns was a positive thing. But, thats the two points of view (laughter). We didnt have any choice. It was just they will no longer be. (personal communication, June 29, 2004) Allen Barnes felt strongly that this decision should be reversed. He expressed surprise that this topdown decision was made so quickly and without consultation from the principals of the impacted schools or universities involved. He made efforts to persuade school system officials to change course. When his efforts did not succeed, Allen indicated that he had no voice/no choice. He elaborated: The Chief Academic Officer for the school system made it VERY clear that when youre out, youre out! (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Allison Moore, principal at Mark Twain, echoed Allen Barnes description: Everything changed. The Assistant Superintendent declared that SIU schools could no longer participate in the PDS program. Since Greenview is an SIU school, it could no longer be our partner school. I felt very sad to see that partnership dissolve. (personal communication, June 29, 2004)
176
The PDS at Greenview ended in April 2002. Transitioning to a New PDS Partner Mark Twain Elementary was paired with Glen Grove Elementary which was described as a Tier Two school. Allen Barnes shared his perceptions of the transition: It seemed East Coast University was hesitant to bring Glen Grove on as a full partner. East Coast University wasnt very happy with it (personal communication, June 29, 2004). George Grayson provided the university perspective: That experience was probably one of the most troubling experiences in the entire partnership. The foundations of the PDS were based on collaboration theory, and the reality was that it was a unilateral decision. The university had no knowledge and was informed by e-mail about Greenview. Thats not how you do business. We understood the rationale when someone bothered to explain it to us. All of the institutions that were effected were blind-sided by this. I think it was a function of the leadership style. It was a very challenging experience. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) Irene Rose commented that they were unhappy about how this partner change had all come about and added that the timing was very poor. She explained how the change impacted the universitys abilities to place interns. The school system had not told the university of its plans to change the PDS sites until after the university had told its students where they would be placed for their teacher internships. According to Rose, this created a very big headache for the university since they would have to rework all of the placements. Dr. Rose said she did not feel the school system was showing a deep and continuing commitment to the concept of the PDS. She added that, by removing the PDS from lowperforming schools, the school system was siphoning off the diversity of the PDS Partnership pairings and was sending the message that the PDS did not contribute to
177
student performance. It was obvious that the university staff did not feel included in the decision or that they had negotiating power to change the action. Anita Quinn shared another perspective from Suburban Schools staff: The removal of Greenview as a result of the SIU was felt as very anticollaborative. I think that was why it was so shocking. And, yet, system personnel have taken ownership for that. They have taken ownership for the fact that it wasnt handled well. We have worked very hard to rebuild anything that was lost in that. (personal communication, June 30, 2004) Anitas emphasis was moving forward to begin the transition to another partner school and to try to rebuild the trust that was harmed as a result of the anticollaborative action. Penny Sawyer described how this transition to a new partner school impacted the maintenance of the PDS: The interruption of it by the county, by changing schools, sort of took it off the track a little bit, but not really. It just put it on a new track. And so, consequently, I think that what weve done is that we havent gone backwards, but we have to start and continue to move forward with a new group of people. And so some of the things that are going on are a little bit like backtracking. But, I dont think it is a negative. I dont think it is going to inhibit the progress of it within our school. Its just that it is sort of like that you have to wait for somebody to catch up a little bit. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) That spring, Mark Twain staff started to develop the new partners PDS program. The decision to remove PDS programs Tier One schools was followed by reorganization within the school system. On June 5, 2002, Superintendent Scott issued a memo to share information about upcoming changes to the Central Office. These changes were made to reorganize the Division of Curriculum, Instruction, and Administration and were part of the school systems Comprehensive Plan for Accelerated School Improvement, which was the impetus for removal of the PDSs from Tier One schools. In this memo, Superintendent Scott detailed specific staff reassignments that would be effective July 1, 2002. Several of these changes impacted the school districts PDS
178
programs. The major change related to the PDS was that the school systems staff development center would no longer be organized as a separate, cohesive unit. These employees were reassigned to Human Resources. This move included the Office of Professional Development Schools. The Superintendent stated that, The commitment to the PDS program and partnerships will continue under the leadership of the Director of Human Resources (Superintendent Scott Memorandum to Staff, June 5, 2002). PDS participants were in a time of change. There were several staff changes. Kate Caplan retired from her position. A replacement was not named because of the restructuring of the OPDS. University Coordinator, Dr. Irene Rose, was reassigned, and Dr. Amelia Brown was named as her replacement in May 2002. Ann Hu transferred to another school system position. Anns position was assigned to Ron Mitchell, who would serve part time in the PDS and part time in Human Resources. The Greenview PDS ended, and plans for the partnership with Glen Grove were beginning. Development of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership Albert Owens, principal of Glen Grove, recalled his interest in establishing a PDS at his school site: This was basically something that I had heard of operating in the county. I made some inquiries and found that schools could indeed apply to be part of PDS initiatives. So, we did apply, strongly, about two years ago. There were no openings at that time, but we sort of prepped our school by partnering with a local Community College. They had a program operating at that time where students in their two-year programs needed to have field experiences with teachers and needed to be placed in certain schools. So we sold the idea to the staff. Many, many folks stepped up and said that they would take one of these local Community College students. So that the next year when an opening for a PDS was available, we jumped on it. (personal communication, December 15, 2003) Sophie Michaels told how the newly assigned University Coordinator Amelia Brown met with a key group of Glen Grove staff to sell the idea of the PDS:
179
We had a summer institute meeting. The meeting was composed of the principal, myself, some teachers who were interested in the program, and Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown explained to us what the PDS program would look like. And, she wanted to know if our school was willing to be part of the program and we all agreed. (personal communication, February 16, 2004) A new Memorandum of Agreement was signed to officially begin the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast PDS Partnership for the 20022003 school year. Glen Grove Principal Albert Owens felt that the way it has evolved has been nothing but positive. He explained that his staff was eager to volunteer to take PDS students, and a number of teachers have stepped up to take either the A or the B rotation. Although the Glen Grove staff expressed excitement about their newly acquired PDS, the Mark Twain staff did not perceive the change as positively. Principal Allison Moore said there were big changes at Mark Twain and shared her concern that the two schools were at very different stages. We are an established PDS site, and they are not. She recalled Mark Twains previous Partnership with Greenview and the differences of this new Partnership with Glen Grove: It doesnt have to look like the Partnership we had with Greenview, but it needs to be organized, and roles need to be defined. Nora Kramer shared: It seems to be getting weaker, not as clear-cut, not as well-defined. Allison Moore stated, there seems to be more of a struggle to make collaboration work in the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University Partnership because it is so new. Principal Moore also shared her concerns about staff changes. Amelia Browns recent assignment as university coordinator was another point of transition. Amelia replaced Irene Rose, who had been reassigned to other university duties in May 2002. Amelia recalled her displeasure at being selected for this position: I enjoyed being on campus and didnt want to do the PDS if I could avoid it. She
180
commented on the discussions held in her university department about how it was time to rotate back in and how she finally agreed to take the position. I knew that I would have to be rotated in later so I figured I would take the PDS again now and then I would at least have some say in where I would be. I live in Suburban County. It seemed this appointment was convenient for Amelia Brown, but not necessarily desired. Dr. Brown shared some of her challenges in developing the PDS: This was a new learning experience for me. The PDS model had changed so much from 1994. It is more streamlined. Amelia Brown further explained the change in the collaboration in the PDS from her previous experiences: I had taught every day and co-taught all of the courses. I had collaborated on projects. That model couldnt be sustained. It was too intense and there was not enough faculty. You had to agree to be an active member of the PDS and all staff members had to be active. Now, the PDS has mentor teachers, but the school doesnt totally embrace the PDS. (personal communication, June 25, 2004) Maintenance of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership Glen Grove was ending its first full year as a PDS site as this study was ending. Some aspects of the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast PDS Partnership could be still considered to be in the development stage. However, because the Mark Twain school site was a fairly experienced site by this point in the study, the PDS Partnership as a whole could be considered to have moved into a maintenance phase by the end of the 20022003 school year. Although Glen Grove was still a novice, Mark Twains experience helped the Partnership to develop at a quick pace. The PDS progressed quickly, but this rapid development presented challenges. Mark Twain Principal Allison Moore explained: The PDS program was very disorganized this year, and the collaboration was lacking. Other staff expressed a change
181
in their level of involvement. Cathy Tobiason explained: I dont know that the excitement, over the years, has continued. I think people are still interested in having student teachers, but I dont think the full-range of the whole program is still there (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Change Is in the Wind As data collection for this case study was ending, the PDS Partnership was once again on the verge of change. The original structure of two elementary schools partnered with the university was changing to include three elementary school sites. Several factors influenced this change from two school sites to three. Mark Twain Elementary requested a hiatus from interns. The university needed additional placements for its students. Dr. Brown was reassigned. Glen Grove Elementary staff members were expressing concerns that they were fatigued. Despite these issues, Sophie Michaels relayed positive feelings about the upcoming changes: I know next year our partnership will be changing so we will get a chance to work with a different school with a different university coordinator. I am definitely looking forward to next year. We are ready to start off our third year with a different partnership, and a different rotation, and different people to work with. (personal communication, February 16, 2004) She was eager to share the experiences she had gained in the past years with other schools: We now have some experience and we could help the other schools that are going to be in our partnership. Mark Twain kind of gave us an example and a role model of how to set up our partnership. (personal communication, February 16, 2004) Thus, the Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership was scheduled to end or evolve once again. Key Events in the History of the PDS
182
The events detailed previously chronicle the history of the PDS Partnership. This history is one part of the larger reform picture. These key events are summarized in Fig. 4.3, which displays data points according to the time in the history of the PDS with which FIG. 4.3 Key Events in the History of the PDS Partnership.
they are associated. The figure helps to highlight patterns in activity levels during the various time periods. Each data point represents a significant event that shaped the PDS Partnership examined in this case study. A listing of the key events used for these data points is included as Appendix BB Key Events by Year. Figure 4.3 displays the major events and guiding documents issued during each of the four major time periods. Each of these key events is listed by time period and by year in Appendix BB to give further detail.
183
During the years of creating a context for reform, representatives from East Coast University were especially prominent. They served on state committees, initiated contacts with school systems, and helped the university to gain national recognition as a leader in the PDS movement. Suburban Schools also was significantly involved in state-level activities. The school system leader, Superintendent Jim Orlando, was personally vested in this reform. He served as a convener of this PDS Partnership and promoted PDS in the school system. He established an institutional culture that was receptive to institutional change, and by his direct involvement, he modeled leadership behaviors conducive to collaboration. Both East Coast University and Suburban Schools were successful in establishing a context for reform in their institutions. By building the capacity for collaboration, these two institutions were ready to move forward, together, to develop PDS Partnerships. Major events and significant documents issued for the years 19971999 are categorized as the Development of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership because they reflect important events or documents that led to the development of the PDS. During these years, the PDS participants were beginning their joint venture. They affirmed their commitments and formalized their agreement. They created structures to support the PDS, established goals and parameters, and marketed their product. They sought resources to support their initiatives and began documenting their progress. These activities are noted by year in Appendix BB. These years reflect a flurry of activity. The PDS grew quickly in its first full year of development and soon served as a model and resource for other educators interested in developing PDSs when it hosted visitors from Britain and Idaho. A variety of courses,
184
workshops, and inservices were offered to PDS participants. Representatives of the school system were actively promoting and publicizing the PDS by creating a brochure of the PDS mission, goals, and activities. Successes during these 2 years of PDS development allowed for continuous improvement. The next phase for the PDS reflected full implementation of the initiative and efforts to address issues of maintenance and institutionalization. Figure 4.3 shows the pattern of key events that occurred from 2000 to April 26, 2002. This time period represents achievement of full implementation of the PDS and the beginning of the maintenance period. The key events for each year in this time period are listed in Appendix BB. During this period of maintenance, many PDS efforts were aimed at securing additional resources. In this partnership, grant monies sponsored a variety of efforts to increase the use of technology in the PDS. Because the need to document activities to justify allocation of resources came with the receipt of grant monies, there were increased efforts to document the PDS programming, activities, spending, and so on. Roles and responsibilities continued to be refined and documented in handbooks and manuals. PDS participants in this partnership, as well as other partnerships across the state, began to see the need to share their successes, best practices, and lessons learned. The Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership seemed to be fully implemented, and the participants were working to ensure its longevity by establishing norms for the institution known as the PDS, as well as integrating the PDS into the cultures of its partners. In April 2002, these maintenance efforts and the move toward institutionalization came to a halt with the removal of school site partner Greenview Elementary. The
185
partnership then entered a phase of responding to numerous changes and developing a new relationship with a new school site partner. Specific events associated with this period of responding to change are listed in Appendix BB. During this time period, the PDS Partnership withstood numerous changes. In addition to the change of PDS school site partner, there were changes in key staff members due to retirements, transfers, and reassignments. Within Suburban Schools, responsibility for PDS programs was changed from the Office of Professional Development Schools, which was dedicated solely to PDSs, to becoming part of the Human Resources department. Some participants viewed this change as a reduction in the school system support for PDSs. Although all of these changes had an impact on the Partnership studied, the change in partner was most critical. Mark Twain Elementary entered a period of change. With a new partner, Mark Twain had to regroup to redevelop the partnership. Mark Twain was an experienced PDS partner, whereas the participants had to train their Glen Grove counterparts. Specific events associated with this time period are noted in Appendix BB. The new Mark Twain/Glen Grove/East Coast University PDS Partnership was quicker to develop because of the prior experiences. After 1 year, the PDS was fully implementing the program and carrying on the traditions established earlier by Mark Twain and Greenview, such as the portfolio review events and the summer institutes. Manuals and handbooks continued to be revised as PDS participants gained experience. All of the events noted earlier represent significant events in the Partnerships history. Not all PDS-related activities or events are listed. However, a more complete listing of data that notes events, documents, and actions is presented as Appendix Q,
186
Chronology of Documents, Artifacts, and Activities. The chronology provides a sense of the scope and sequence of PDS-related activities during the 10-year time period from 1993 to 2003. The events are categorized by the level (state, district, university, or partnership) of their initiation. Viewing the data in this way highlights the degree of influence, involvement, or impact on the PDS Partnership in this study. As connected to the studied PDS Partnership and its history, these events portray a picture of patterns of involvement. Taking cues from the national PDS movement and calls for reform, Maryland initiated state-level efforts that drove university and school district involvement. The most important example of this is the Redesign of Teacher Education. By creating a mandate for universities to develop PDSs, the state was able to guide reform as well as ensure that PDSs would be implemented with all due speed. Appendix Q also displays how the activity, mostly in the form of written documents, spread from the national and state levels to the district and partnership levels. East Coast University, an early leader, continued to be involved in the PDS movement. However, as the PDS movement began to take hold, the individual partnerships began to assume more responsibility for developing, structuring, and maintaining programs. Although the state involvement continued throughout the 10-year period, it was less frequent during the later years. The events and timetables presented earlier show how the PDS developed and changed over time. This case study highlights how one partnership experienced the development and maintenance processes, and how these processes did not evolve in a linear fashion. The timetables provide a window into the experiences of the PDS
187
participants and serve as a starting point for examining the collaborative processes associated with PDS development and maintenance. The Processes of PDS Development and Maintenance Initiated in 1997, the PDS Partnership continued to evolve throughout the term reviewed in this study. Although a timeline was presented for reference, the path of PDS growth was not linear. It did not follow a clear pattern for development and maintenance. The history of the PDS reflects starts and stops, repetitiveness and recursiveness, as well as successes and frustrations. For this case study, the PDS development and maintenance appear to be an ongoing, intertwined, and often messy process. Throughout the development and maintenance, the PDS participants elaborated on these processes in the context of collaboration. Chapter 5 explores participant perspectives on processes of collaboration and how they influenced PDS development and maintenance. Study of collaboration processes supports the need for schools, school districts, and universities engaged in PDS Partnerships to identify specific actions that will support their goals. Without a full understanding of these processes, which are essential to the partnerships collaborative core, the PDS Partnership may struggle to meet its intended reform goals or decrease the probability of its sustainability. Next, I present analysis of participants involvement levels in the collaborative processes in PDS development and maintenance. Participants Involvement in the PDS Partnership Examining participants involvement in the PDS Partnership revealed their participation or engagement in PDS activities and collaborative processes. Viewing participants PDS involvement describes how the people in the Partnership interacted to
188
create the history detailed previously in this chapter. It explains the participants roles in the processes of developing and maintaining their Partnership and adds another layer of description to the PDS context. Involvement Across Sites First explored was participants frequency of responses across sites. There were 309 total coded responses related to PDS development and 417 total coded responses related to PDS maintenance. Further exploration of participants responses during PDS development and maintenance included categorizing their responses by collaboration phase. Collaboration Phases This section provides a general description of the collaboration phases in this PDS Partnership by presenting frequency patterns in participants responses within problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Table 4.10 displays the total number of responses across sites for each collaboration phase for PDS development and maintenance. Table 4.10 Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation Participant Response Totals for PDS Development and PDS Maintenance Across Sites ________________________________________________________________________ Problem Setting Direction Setting Implementation ________________________________________________________________________ PDS Development 113 107 89 PDS Maintenance 94 105 218 ________________________________________________________________________ The numbers of participant responses related to the problem setting and direction setting phases of PDS development and maintenance were at similar levels. However, the number
189
of participant responses was more than double for implementation in PDS maintenance than in PDS development. Additional exploration helped to reveal other data patterns. Overview of Collaboration Phases and Processes in PDS Development and Maintenance Further description of participants involvement included examining response frequency patterns for collaboration processes to determine trends during PDS development and maintenance. Examining these frequencies provided an indication as to the areas that participants felt were relevant to their PDS experiences and collaboration perspectives. The frequency of participants responses for each of the collaboration processes varied during PDS development or maintenance. Table 4.11 combines the participant responses for the problem-setting, direction-setting, and implementation phases to present totals of participant responses related to development and maintenance for each of the collaboration processes. Table 4.11 Frequency of Participant Responses in PDS Development or Maintenance Phases Process of Collaboration Total PDS Development Total PDS Maintenance Responses (%) Responses (%) Capacity for collaboration 17% 18% Negotiating 4% 4% Structuring 44% 27% Coping With change 9% 20% Communication 19% 26% Coping With power and 4% 2% politics Enhancing control and 3% 3% reducing complexity
190
Comparing PDS development and maintenance revealed some general trends in responses. The area of highest frequency of responses for both development and maintenance was structuring. The processes of developing capacity for collaboration and communication were consistently in the higher percentages for both the development and maintenance phases. The processes of negotiating, coping with power and politics, and enhancing control and reducing complexity were consistently in the lower percentages for both development and maintenance. The process of coping with change increased the frequency of participant responses from 9% in the PDS development phase to 20% in the PDS maintenance phase. This increase was more than double the percentage of responses from development to maintenance. The actual number of responses was an increase of 27 related responses to 86 related participant responses. Comparing PDS development and maintenance provides general data trends to describe the nature of collaboration within a PDS Partnership. However, further examination of data patterns within each collaboration process offered more detailed descriptions. Appendix KK presents these data and note patterns by indicating percentages of participants responses for each collaboration process (for PDS development or maintenance and collaboration phase). Tables (see Appendix KK) display the totaled participants responses, categorized by collaboration phase and process, for PDS development and maintenance. Figure 4.4 provides a visual model summarizing Appendix KK. Sections describe the data presented in Fig. 4.4 according to collaboration phase for PDS development and then for PDS maintenance.
191
FIG. 4.4 Collaboration in a PDS Partnership.
192
Figure 4.4 displays participants involvement in PDS collaboration processes to highlight focal points or concentrations of high response frequency across sites in the Partnership. Identifying these high-involvement areas led to the development of focal points for of collaboration processes for this PDS Partnership. Chapter 5 presents these focal points as part of my model for PDS collaboration. Problem Setting in PDS Development During problem setting, participants commented on each of the collaboration processes. However, the frequency of their comments was unequal. Participants commented most frequently on processes related to capacity for collaboration. Other areas of frequent comment were structuring (29%), communication (14%), and coping with change (12%). The lowest frequency of comments was the process of enhancing control and reducing complexity (1%). Direction Setting in PDS Development Participants commented on all collaboration processes during direction setting in PDS development. They commented most frequently on structuring (52%). They also commented frequently on communication processes (17%). Participants commented least on processes related to enhancing control and reducing complexity (4%), coping with power and politics (4%), and negotiating (4%). Implementation in PDS Development During the implementation phase, participants also gave related responses for all of the collaboration processes. They commented most frequently (52%) on processes related to structuring. They also commented frequently on communication processes (28%). Participants commented least on coping with power and politics (1%). Other areas of low
193
responses included negotiating (3%), coping with change (4%), and enhancing control and reducing complexity (4%). Problem Setting in PDS Maintenance During problem setting, developing capacity was the process on which participants commented most (30%). There also were high numbers of responses related to coping with change (25%) and structuring (24%). Areas of low response numbers included negotiating (3%), enhancing control and reducing complexity (2%), and coping with power and politics (1%). Direction Setting in PDS Maintenance During direction setting, participants commented most on structuring processes (42%). There also were high numbers of responses related to coping with change (24%) and communication (17%). Low response numbers occurred in relation to negotiating (5%), enhancing control and reducing complexity (2%), and coping with power and politics (1%). Implementation in PDS Maintenance In the implementation phase, participants most frequently commented on communication (36%). Other areas of frequent comment included structuring (21%), coping with change (17%), and developing capacity for collaboration (16%). Responses related to coping with power and politics, enhancing control and reducing complexity, and negotiating were areas of low frequency with 3% each. Collaboration Processes Examining patterns of participants involvement in collaboration processes was a first step to answering this studys research question. Examining Fig. 4.4 reveals that there
194
were unequal participant response levels during the different collaboration processes. Some processes reflect a higher frequency of responses than others. Some processes seem to be areas of relatively frequent participant comment throughout all phases during PDS development or maintenance. For example, participants commented on structuring processes during PDS development and maintenance and throughout problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Comment frequency was variable, but steady. An examination of the frequency of participants comments related to negotiating processes provides an example of an area that received consistently low numbers of participant responses. Although participants did not discuss negotiating processes frequently, they also did not mention that it was an area where they felt their involvement was lacking. In addition, they did not comment that this was a concern for them. Finding that there was little discussion about negotiating was not surprising because the PDS innovation represented a mandate for universities. Therefore, it is likely that participants did not view the Partnership as an arena for negotiation, and this viewpoint produced limited related responses. The processes of coping with power and politics, enhancing control, and reducing complexity also represented areas of consistent low response. Participants did not frequently comment on these processes during PDS development or maintenance. Because these were areas of low participant response, the comments shared in the chapter 5 section designated Voices of the Participants are useful to examine and give some indication as to how Partnership participants viewed these collaboration processes. Because certain collaboration processes represent areas of high involvement during certain points in the PDS development or maintenance, examining these patterns reveals
195
where participants might concentrate related skills and energies and the times when they are most needed. By examining these focus areas, participants can identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to foster collaboration necessary to develop and maintain a PDS. Participants can thus begin to develop a skill set for collaboration. Reviewing these concentration areas helped to explore the proposition that participants might use different actions and skills with different collaborative processes. Viewing involvement data by collaboration process reveals several areas of high participant responses across sites during the collaboration phases of problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Table 4.12 displays collaboration processes with the highest percent of participant responses during PDS development. Table 4.12 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Development ________________________________________________________________________ Phase Percent of Participant Responses ________________________________________________________________________ Problem Setting Capacity for Collaboration 34% Direction Setting Structuring 52% Implementation Structuring 52% ________________________________________________________________________ During problem setting in PDS development, capacity for collaboration was the focus area. However, during both direction setting and implementation, structuring processes represented the most frequent participant responses. Table 4.13 shows the collaboration processes with the highest percent of responses from participants during each phase of PDS maintenance. As in PDS development, capacity for collaboration continued to be a frequent area of comment during problem setting for PDS maintenance. The findings showed structuring continued to be an area of Process of Collaboration
196
frequent comment for direction setting in maintenance as well as development. However, unlike PDS development, implementation in PDS maintenance showed that participants commented most about collaborations communication processes. Table 4.13 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Maintenance ________________________________________________________________________ Phase Process of Collaboration Percent of Participant Responses ________________________________________________________________________ Problem Setting Capacity for Collaboration 30% Direction Setting Structuring 42% Implementation Communication 36% ________________________________________________________________________ These comparisons represent the extremes showing the areas of most frequent comment. These areas helped identify focal points for PDS collaboration. It is also helpful to determine areas of silences or lack of participants comments. Table 4.14 shows the collaboration processes with the lowest percent of responses from participants during each phase of PDS development. Table 4.14 Collaboration Processes During Phases of the PDS Development ________________________________________________________________________ Phase Process of Collaboration Percent of Participant Responses ________________________________________________________________________ Problem Setting Enhancing Control 1% and Reducing Complexity Direction Setting Enhancing Control 4% and Reducing Complexity; Negotiating: 4% Coping with Power and Politics 4% Implementation Coping with Power and Politics 1% _________________________________________________________________________
197
Enhancing control and reducing complexity was an area of lowest response in both problem setting and direction setting for PDS development. Coping with power and politics was an area of lowest participants comments in both direction setting and implementation. Negotiating was low during direction setting in PDS development. Table 4.15 shows the collaboration processes with the lowest percent of responses from participants during each phase of PDS maintenance. Table 4.15 Collaboration Processes During Phases of PDS Maintenance ________________________________________________________________________ Phase Process of Collaboration Percent of Participant Responses ________________________________________________________________________ Problem Setting Coping With Power and Politics 1% Direction Setting Coping With Power and Politics 1% Implementation Coping With Power and Politics; 3% Negotiating; 3% Enhancing Control and Reducing 3% Complexity ________________________________________________________________________ During PDS maintenance, coping with power and politics was an area of lowest response during all collaboration phases. Negotiating and enhancing control and reducing complexity also were areas of lowest response during implementation of PDS maintenance. Participants Frequency of Responses by Site Additional searches of frequency of responses sorted by participants site affiliation revealed differences in participants involvement. Tables (see Appendix T) were created for each site to compare participant involvement codes to the participants frequency of responses. Appendix JJ presents graphs of participants responses for problem setting, direction setting, and implementation in PDS development and maintenance by site.
198
Trends in participants responses describe how participants at different sites were more involved in different collaboration processes during different collaboration phases for PDS development or maintenance. Data displays in Appendix JJ indicate collaboration processes that had frequent participant comment as well as infrequent comment. These comparisons across sites allowed additional hypotheses to be explored. Participants Responses by Site for Collaboration Processes To further examine how the participants responded within PDS development and maintenance, the numbers of participants responses for each collaboration process were tallied at each site according to their association with the phases of collaboration (problem setting, direction setting, and implementation). Developing Capacity for Collaboration Participants responses for developing capacity for collaboration in PDS development and maintenance are presented in Figure. 4.5. Totaling the numbers of site responses reveals that participants commented most (71.7%) on developing capacity in the problem-setting phase of collaboration in PDS development. Also, in the problem-setting phase of PDS development, there were related comments from participants at five of the six sites. Participants in the interns group did not make related comments in PDS development. During the PDS maintenance, participants commented most on developing the capacity for collaboration as related to the implementation phase (47.9%). There also were a number of comments related to the problem-setting phase (39%). Developing capacity was less of a focus for participants during direction setting (13.8%). Also, participants
199
FIG. 4.5 Capacity for Collaboration in PDS Development and Maintenance.
representing all of the six sites made related comments about developing the capacity for collaboration during PDS maintenance. There were other differences as well. There were more total participants comments related to maintenance (71) than to development (53). Participants made 34% more comments related to the maintenance phase compared with the development phase. There was an increase in comments from participants from different sites regarding the maintenance phase. There was a 22% increase in the representation of different sites commenting related to PDS maintenance compared with PDS development. Participants at some sites did not comment as frequently as participants at other sites. Sometimes they did not comment at all. For example, there were no intern comments related to PDS development. Mark Twain was the only site that had participants
200
commenting in all phases. Among the school sites, Mark Twain was most often the site with the most responses. Also, Mark Twain had the most responses during implementation in PDS development and maintenance. East Coast University had the most comments in the problem-setting phase during both development and maintenance, but had little or no responses during the direction-setting and implementation phases. Negotiating Figure 4.6 presents the frequency of participants responses by site and phase of PDS development or maintenance for negotiating processes. FIG. 4.6 Negotiating in PDS Development and Maintenance.
During PDS development, the Mark Twain and interns participants did not contribute related responses. East Coast University participants only commented during problem setting. Greenview participants only commented during direction setting. 201
During PDS maintenance, interns did not contribute related responses. Mark Twain participants only commented during implementation. East Coast University participants commented in all three phases of problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. Overall, the number of comments was low, with only 12 total responses during PDS development and 15 during PDS maintenance. Suburban Schools participants contributed most frequently overall. Site participants commented about negotiating processes with varying frequency during different phases of PDS development or maintenance. Structuring Figure 4.7 displays the data for participants responses related to structuring processes. FIG. 4.7 Structuring in PDS Development and Maintenance.
202
Totaling the numbers of site responses reveals that participants commented most (42%) on structuring in the direction-setting phase of collaboration in PDS development. Also, in the problem- and direction-setting phases of PDS development, there were related comments from participants at five of the six sites. In the implementation phase of PDS development, participants from all sites commented. During PDS maintenance, participants commented most on structuring as related to the implementation phase (41%). Structuring was only slightly less of a focus for participants during the direction-setting (39%) and implementation (20%) phases. Participants from five of the six sites commented related to structuring processes in the problem- and direction-setting phases of PDS maintenance. Also, participants representing all of the six sites made related comments about structuring during implementation in PDS maintenance. Interns only commented as related to implementation issues in both development and maintenance. There were other differences as well. There was a slight decrease in comments related to problem setting from development (33) to maintenance (23) and from direction setting from development (56) to maintenance (47). However, comments related to implementation remained steady from development (46) to maintenance (47). Participants at some sites did not comment as frequently as participants at other sites. For example, there were no intern comments related to problem setting and direction setting. Among the school sites, Suburban Schools was the site with the most responses in PDS development. Mark Twain Elementary had the most comments in PDS maintenance. Communication
203
Figure 4.8 presents the number of participants responses related to the communication process in the development and maintenance phases. Figure 4.8 displays the responses by phase of collaboration (problem setting, direction setting, or implementation) and notes the participants site affiliations. FIG. 4.8 Communication in PDS Development and Maintenance.
The number of participants responses is fairly similar across most sites and phases of collaboration, with the exception of implementation in PDS maintenance, which shows an increase in participants related responses. Figure 4.8 shows that participants commented more on communication during implementation in the PDS maintenance phase. For five of the six sites, this area had the highest responses. Coping With Power and Politics
204
Figure 4.9 displays data patterns of participants responses related to coping with power and politics. In both development and maintenance, there are no responses from Interns or Greenview participants. Mark Twain participants only commented during the implementation phase of PDS maintenance. Suburban Schools participants commented most with 48% of the total responses. FIG. 4.9 Coping With Power and Politics in PDS Development and Maintenance.
Coping With Change Tallies of the participants responses by site for both PDS development and maintenance show data patterns for processes of coping with change. Figure 4.10 displays these data. During PDS development, related responses to the processes of coping with change were low, with no site having more than five total responses. Although responses were low overall, the problem-setting phase had the most frequent (52%) total participant responses 205
for PDS development. The next highest phase was direction setting (33%), followed by implementation (15%). There was not representation from all sites for any of these PDS development phases. Interns did not comment during PDS development. There were almost three times more participant responses in PDS maintenance than development. In PDS maintenance, participants commented most frequently in the implementation phase (48%). Problem-setting comments represented 31% of the total maintenance comments. Direction-setting comments comprised 20% of the total maintenance comments. Not all sites commented during each phase. Participants from
FIG. 4.10 Coping With Change in PDS Development and Maintenance.
206
Mark Twain and Suburban Schools commented most often in PDS maintenance, whereas interns did not comment at all. In addition, more sites commented in PDS maintenance. The following sections explore actual participants comments. Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity Figure 4.11 displays the data for participants responses related to processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity. FIG. 4.11 Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity in PDS Development and Maintenance.
207
Viewing the data by collaboration processes highlighted patterns of participants involvement. Sections in chapter 5 entitled Voices of the Participants provide sample participants comments to describe perceptions of the Partnerships collaboration processes. Discussions of these patterns relate the involvement data to themes that emerged from the participants comments. Chapter 5 presents these findings. Commitment to Involvement Participants must demonstrate a commitment to involvement in the PDS Partnership. Because collaboration is the heart of the PDS, involved participants who demonstrate collaboration skills are the promise of the PDS. Examining all of the collaboration processes during each of the collaboration phases during PDS development and maintenance helped to highlight these areas of needed skills. Involvement varied in this case study. Participants described that it was the individual person who was the promise of the PDS. They shared the importance of matching PDS roles to a persons skills in order to promote successful collaboration and ultimately a successful Partnership. Participants described that dedicated people matter. They explained that developing and maintaining a PDS partnership was time-consuming and hard work. Participants must demonstrate a commitment to being involved in collaboration processes in PDS development and maintenance. The Partnerships work was more difficult if the participants did not possess the skill set they needed to successfully engage in collaboration. Participants described several examples of how the Partnership was different when different people held the same position. They explained how two individuals responsible
208
for the same role responded differently and that what made the difference was the participants collaboration skills. This skill set evolved from the processes activated at the various phases of collaboration. The ideals for collaboration described in Fig. 1.1 gave direction for the types of skills needed to enable each collaboration process. To be most effective, participants needed to match their collaboration skills to the times these skills were most needed. Because it seemed likely that those with effective collaboration skills would rise to leadership positions, the next section examines the involvement of recognized PDS leaders to see whether their comment frequency might be different from other participants. Leaders in the PDS PDS leadership has been a consistent consideration for the Partnership. As noted in the Partnerships history, the PDS conveners carefully determined the selected school sites and considered whether each school principal would be a good match for the PDS initiative. Conveners recognized that the PDS leaders would be instrumental in its success. Participants also noted the importance of leaders, as described in previous sections. PDS leaders influenced the development and maintenance of the Partnership. Participants described how leaders impacted the type and frequency of communication. They noted how leaders were instrumental in establishing climates in which participants felt they could freely communicate. Leaders set agendas, chaired meetings, produced written documents, and coordinated information sharing. It would thus seem likely that leaders would frequently communicate their perceptions of PDS collaboration even when other participants did not. For example, leaders likely would be
209
participants who would have extensive knowledge about PDS activities, be involved in governance, and have skills to foster collaboration among other participants. Although leaders seem most likely to be those participants who would have high levels of involvement and high frequency of responses, data collected on leaders involvement levels indicated that those participants considered PDS leaders did not always have high levels of involvement, and the level of leaders responses was not generally higher than other participants at their site. Because it became apparent from involvement data that there were situations when there was only one response at a given site, the question developed as to who was providing that one response. Appendix X provides data displays of leaders responses that were used to examine data patterns. In addition, Appendix X presents frequency response data, noting whether leaders of each site contributed responses when other site participants did not. There were a few areas during PDS development when leaders at the majority of sites (6080%) did comment when other participants at their site did not. These areas were communication during problem setting and negotiating during direction setting. For PDS maintenance, there were no such focus areas. In fact, overall there were fewer areas in which leaders commented when others did not. For these instances, it was only true for one leader at one site. The following sections elaborate on the circumstances of these data. The involvement of leaders at the school site level was inconsistent. Principals were directly involved in all aspects of the PDS. Assistant principals were less involved. They were sometimes present at steering committee meetings. However, for practical reasons, it was often difficult to release both the principal and the assistant principal to attend a meeting together away from the home school site. Glen Groves assistant principal
210
did not participate in steering committee meetings, summer institutes, or other formal PDS meetings and was therefore not interviewed for this study. Although she was less involved, Mark Twains assistant principal, Wendy Davidson, was the most involved of her assistant principal colleagues and so was interviewed for this study as a representative of this group of administrators. Davidson also expressed some varying viewpoints from other administrator colleagues that presented another perspective to the Partnerships collaboration. For example, Davidson related her perspective that she was not fully included in PDS activities. She also felt that there was a lack of collaboration between school administration and other PDS participants. She said that she had not seen collaboration between the mentor teachers and the administration in this building (W. Davidson, personal communication, September 24, 2003). Thus, at Mark Twains site, the assistant principal did not feel involved in collaborating to lead the PDS Partnership. Frequency of responses of Mark Twain administrators also indicated that they did not comment most frequently compared with other participants at their site. For example, for PDS development, Mark Twain administrators made only 17% of the comments from their site. For PDS maintenance, this total was 23%, but was not the highest percentage. At other sites, the administrators did comment more often than the other participants at their respective sites, but at certain times. Both Greenviews principal (76%) and Glen Groves principal (39%) commented most at their sites during PDS development. However, neither principal had the highest percentages for PDS maintenance. Although school-site leadership varied, there were other Partnership leaders from the other sites such as the university and the school system whose actions also influenced
211
PDS collaboration as they set agendas, chaired meetings, and guided the Partnership. For PDS development, responses from Suburban Schools participants seemed to be evenly distributed (with the exception of the second school system PDS liaison). However, for PDS maintenance, Suburban Schools Anita Quinn emerged as the site participant who commented most frequently, with 48% of the site comments. For the university participants, George Grayson commented most frequently during PDS development, with 69% of the site comments. For PDS maintenance, responses were more evenly distributed among the three university participants. These inconsistent response frequencies reflected the variation in participant involvement depending on the associated PDS phase. They also indicated that participants at different sites were more active in the Partnership at different times. Site leaders assumed Partnership leadership positions at different times in the Partnerships history. Thus, the following sections explore participants involvement during different collaboration phases in PDS development and maintenance and then examine participants perspectives of characteristics of collaboration processes. Involvement in PDS Collaboration Is an Overarching Theme PDS participants consistently noted the need for involvement in PDS collaboration in PDS development and maintenance. Although involvement levels varied throughout the Partnerships history and often reflected the commitments of individual participants, there was always a general sense of the importance of involvement in this collaborative endeavor. The people who participated were at the center of PDS collaboration. Chapter 5 elaborates on these findings and presents the people of the Partnership as the central aspect of a model for PDS collaboration.
212
Chapter 5: FindingsCollaborative Processes
Chapter Overview In this chapter, I present my findings and answer the research question: How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership? Participants describe collaboration processes by their words, actions, and their collective Partnership experiences. This chapter presents findings that shed light on PDS participants lived experiences during PDS development and maintenance. In chapter 3, I presented the case and its context. In chapter 4, I compiled the Partnerships history and included participants comments and descriptions of their involvement to add to the context. In this chapter, I present findings that build on this context and history to reveal the studys overall trends, themes, and perspectives and provide a rich, thick description of PDS collaboration. My findings describe PDS participants understanding of the nature of the collaboration processes that are central to their Partnership. PDS participants must have a commitment to collaboration as a process to fulfill PDS goals. Although the PDS model provides a structure for approaching goals of simultaneous reform of preservice teacher education and renewal of schools, the participants are the driving force propelling that collaborative model into a successful reality. Their understanding of collaboration processes in a PDS Partnership shapes the PDS reform initiative. Figure 5.1 presents a model of PDS collaboration based on the studys findings and revises the framework presented in Fig. 1.1. Chapter sections present several overarching themes contributing to the Partnerships commitment to collaboration as a process:
213
commitment to involvement, commitment to relationships and people, and commitment to resources. Chapter sections describe each theme. The chapter sections also summarize the studys main findings describing PDS collaboration processes and paint a picture of PDS participants perceptions, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actions related to collaboration processes. PDS Collaboration The case studys participants recognized collaborations general importance in a PDS. A sampling of participants comments shows how they described collaboration as the heart of the Partnership. East Coast University intern Raina Hunt felt that collaboration was essential to the PDS. She emphasized, Isnt that what a PDS is supposed to do? Its all about collaboration (R. Hunt, personal communication, October 28, 2003). Suburban Schools Ann Hu also shared her thoughts on the importance of collaboration: I think it is the whole heartbeat of the partnership (A. Hu, personal communication, April 23, 2004). Mark Twain assistant principal Wendy Davidson also stated that collaboration is important and should be the top priority (personal communication, September 24, 2003). The participants perceived collaboration as central to the PDS. They realized that participants engaged in collaboration would help them to achieve the promise of the PDS model. Although participants deemed collaboration as important, they did not have a full understanding of collaboration processes. In this case study, participants held differing perspectives and had varying understandings about collaboration. Some participants described true collaboration as occurring within the contexts of positive interpersonal relationships, mutuality, and trust. Participants noted relationships as a central theme in
214
FIG. 5.1 PDS Collaboration.
215
this study. Participants who were truly collaborating were actively and equitably involved in the PDS. Thus, involvement was also a main theme. To qualify as true collaboration, participants needed to be able to connect the collaborative effort to a purpose that was personally meaningful. Being involved and building relationships helped participants find this meaning. By being actively involved and developing relationships, the PDS participants worked together to develop their skill set and determine their ideals, and eventually they forged their Partnership through trial-and-error attempts at collaboration. They described challenges associated with gaining and sustaining participant involvement and relationships. This study notes the challenges that participants experienced in developing the capacity for collaboration, and ultimately, the capacity for the PDS reform. Participants also described other challenges inherent in a PDS Partnership. They also noted challenges in identifying, monitoring, and sustaining the needed resources for PDS development and maintenance. The sections that follow elaborate on these challenges. A Model of PDS Collaboration I have developed a model of PDS collaboration, shown in Fig. 5.1, to describe participants perceptions of collaboration processes in the PDS Partnership in PDS development and maintenance. This model recognizes the dynamic and interactive nature of PDS collaboration. People are at the core and their involvement influences collaboration processes in the Partnership. The participants interactions reflected the Partnerships norms and relationships that contributed to participants gaining personal meaning from their experiences.
216
My PDS collaboration model includes the processes of developing the capacity for collaboration, structuring, coping with change, coping with power and politics, negotiating, communication, and enhancing control and reducing complexity. Descriptors for each collaboration process, noted as bulleted items, evolved from the PDS participants comments about the nature of collaboration. The model provides a synopsis of PDS participants descriptions of collaboration processes in PDS development and maintenance and creates a picture of collaboration specific to the PDS context. As shown by the overlapping arrows, Fig. 5.1 presents collaboration as a nonlinear process in which each process may influence others. Because there is a recursive nature to PDS collaboration, and processes are permeable, the collaborative Partnership is constantly redefining itself. Thus, there is an ongoing need for participants to cope with change. The model also reflects participants descriptions of when each collaboration process becomes activated during PDS development or maintenance. The next section further explains focal points in collaboration processes as an aspect of participants involvement. My findings reflect the notion that communication processes form a foundation for PDS collaboration. Each of the collaboration processes relies on participants communication skills. In Fig. 5.1, negotiating processes are shown to overlap with communication processes because, in this case study, participants described negotiating as closely tied to communication processes. Commitment to Involvement PDS participants demonstrated their commitment in the collaborative Partnership by their involvement. This theme of involvement was pervasive throughout the study.
217
How individual participants perceived collaboration shaped their experiences, determined their interpretations, and colored their descriptions of collaboration in PDS development and maintenance. For example, participants frequently described involvement within the context of the PDS governance and decision-making situations in which the partners had equal input as to what was best for the Partnership. Participants emphasized the need for balanced perspectives in setting these goals and priorities. In addition, as noted in chapter 4, examining participants involvement levels helped to highlight focus areas for collaboration processes during PDS development and maintenance. I incorporated these focal points into my model of PDS collaboration. Figure 5.1 displays the focal points for each collaboration process that reflect the participant response categories with the three highest percentages. These focal points emphasized increased relevance of certain collaboration processes for participants at certain points in PDS development or maintenance. The focal points note the period of PDS development or maintenance and Grays (1989) collaboration phases (problem setting, direction setting, or implementation). These data trends indicate times when each collaboration process became a frequent focus of Partnership participants responses. Although PDS collaboration was recursive in nature, I found that timing was critical. Because different processes were activated for participants at different points in PDS development or maintenance, participants can use these trends to focus their involvement, collaboration energies, and resources to build and nurture the PDS. Commitment to Relationships and People This study found that relationships were key for PDS participants. Collaboration processes within the PDS Partnership depended on the people who served as the
218
participants. People matter. First and foremost, PDS participants must develop the capacity for collaboration to form the relationships that connect and give meaning to PDS interactions and to support one another in their endeavors. Thus, this study finds that Partnerships must invest in people and relationships. My PDS collaboration model highlights four main aspects of relationships described by participants: trust, credibility, mutuality, and understanding differing cultures. These aspects were central to the collaborative Partnership and helped participants connect to the new culture formed by the Parntnership. Challenges related to relationships included understanding different cultures and creating and maintaining a climate receptive to the PDS reform and change in general. Participants shared the challenges of creating or changing institutional norms, and these challenges impacted relationships in the PDS. I found that participants began to approach these issues as they attempted to develop the capacity for collaboration, use collaborative problem solving, and develop a shared understanding of the problem. Understanding each other as people allowed participants to develop the trust, credibility, and communication that formed the foundations of collaboration. Later sections elaborate on these findings. Commitment to Resources Another common theme in PDS collaboration was the need for a commitment to resources. PDS participants attended to resources throughout all areas of collaboration processes during PDS development and maintenance. Addressing the various needs for resources was a recurrent discussion among participants. Challenges related to resources included concerns that financial and human resources might not be readily available for PDS maintenance. Money did matter for this
219
PDS Partnership. Grant-funding and dedicated PDS resources allowed a variety of PDSrelated activities to flourish. Participants also described challenges with monitoring resources. They explained how identifying and monitoring resources required additional human resources. They shared that it takes time to plan budgets, document PDS activities, write reports, and explore resources, and they stated that they needed the human resources to devote this time. Processes of Collaboration Participants must develop the knowledge and skills that enable collaboration to flourish in the PDS. Figure 1.1 provided a framework for how collaboration would ideally occur based on sources in collaboration literature. Although this model is derived from collaboration not specific to the PDS setting, it would be expected that PDS participants would display these ideal traits as they engage in collaboration. These ideals provided the context for this studys examination of collaboration and, in this Partnership, participants worked to foster an ideal collaborative climate to promote PDS goals. The model of PDS collaboration presented in Fig. 5.1 summarizes collaboration processes in this PDS Partnership. Participants elaborated on aspects of each collaboration process and described the process within the PDS development and maintenance phases. The sections that follow describe each of the collaboration processes in detail. The PDS participants are the promise of the PDS. The PDS participants actual experiences, compared to the ideal notions of how collaboration should occur, provide a basis for understanding collaboration and its relationship to PDS development and maintenance. Whether by patterns of frequency of participants responses or by sharing the participants voices, these detailed views of each of the collaborative processes provide the
220
participants perceptions of PDS collaboration. Sharing participants voices elaborates on their perspectives as to why some collaboration processes were frequently addressed and why some were not as apparent in participants comments. Thus, each of the following sections for collaboration processes presents data trends of participants responses, followed by the participants voices. Capacity for Collaboration Overview Although the collaboration literature does not present it as a linear process, it would seem that collaboration often begins with problem setting. Reviewing the data from Appendix KK for problem setting in the PDS development phase indicated that developing the capacity for collaboration was the area of most frequent participant comments (34%). Thus, the capacity for collaboration is the first collaboration process presented in this chapter. As noted by Fig. 1.1, participants developing the capacity for collaboration would use collaborative problem solving, work to develop a shared understanding of the problem, and strive to ensure or enhance the credibility of the participants and the program. Because collaboration is the key for participants to fully engage in the PDS and foster its success, it would be expected that developing the capacity for collaboration would be a priority. It is useful to examine participant responses to shed light on participant perspectives, experiences, and values related to developing the capacity for collaboration. This section compares the collaboration process of developing the capacity for collaboration in PDS development and maintenance. This section reviews areas of frequent participants comments and provides further description as to how participants view
221
developing capacity for collaboration. It also includes direct quotations from participants to portray the scenarios in their own words. Capacity for Collaboration in PDS Development and Maintenance Participants commented on building the capacity for collaboration throughout both PDS development and maintenance. Examining frequency patterns of participants responses was a starting point for targeting points in PDS development and maintenance, during which participants felt it was necessary to consider developing the capacity for collaboration. These data patterns showed that participants comments about developing capacity were most frequent in the PDS development problem-setting phase, during which 34% of all participants comments about collaboration processes were related to building the capacity for collaboration. Although participants comments related to building capacity in PDS development became less frequent in the direction-setting (8%) and implementation phases (7%), it was still an area of comment. In the maintenance phase, participants also commented most in the problem-setting phase (30%). Although the frequency of responses declined for direction setting (9%), it increased again during implementation (16%). Subsequent sections explore the participants comments for both development and maintenance. The next section details the range of views on aspects of developing the capacity for collaboration. Voices of the Participants The participants words described how they perceived collaboration processes of developing capacity that occurred in their PDS. Although the previously presented percentages, patterns, and trends give an indication as to the PDS participants experiences, their perspectives and voices, as noted in their actual comments, add richness to the
222
description of how participants perceive the collaborative processes in the PDS development and maintenance. There was a range of responses. In their comments about building the capacity for collaboration, participants mentioned topics such as developing a belief in the concept of the PDS, encouraging others to participate in this venture, and gaining professional skills needed to make the transition from a traditional student teaching center to a PDS. Some participants discussed their need to understand the perspectives of the other participants and their cultures. Some participants mentioned how they must continue to develop the capacity for collaboration to encourage continuous improvement and to maintain interest, resources, and commitment to the PDS initiative. Later sections explore these topics. Examining strategies designed to build the capacity for collaboration would be the next step to reach the ideal vision of collaboration. In an ideal collaborative environment, we would expect to see PDS participants developing capacity by using collaborative problem solving, developing a shared understanding of the problem, and ensuring or enhancing the credibility of the participants in the program. The next chapter sections explore each of these aspects of capacity. Collaborative Problem Solving One aspect of developing the capacity for collaboration is to create an atmosphere conducive to collaborative problem solving. In this PDS, the conveners were the first to set the tone for collaborative problem solving. Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando and East Coasts Dr. George Grayson worked together as conveners to model collaborative problem solving for the PDS participants to emulate. As noted in the Partnership history presented
223
in chapter 4, there were numerous opportunities for these leaders to interact and solve problems together as they began this Partnership. As the PDS grew, participants made decisions jointly and jointly planned PDSrelated events and activities. As they engaged in these tasks, they found ways to interact with each other. These interactions influenced PDS communication and relationships, which in turn influenced collaborative problem solving. The interactions of the PDS participants helped them to begin to build a common understanding, goal, and mission for the PDS. Shared Understanding of the Problem To begin to effect change, PDS participants must have a shared understanding of the problem. State leaders from MSDE, MHEC, and UMS who developed the Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K16 (1998) modeled this for future PDS Partnerships in their Partnership statement: The three institutions share a sense of urgency to increase student achievement K16, a belief that bold educational leadership is required, and a vision of the strength of collective strategies. (p. 2) From the beginning, Maryland PDSs recognized the need to develop a shared understanding among participants. The PDS Partnerships conveners had the initial opportunity to shape a shared understanding. They used their influence to bring attention to the initiative and to promote discussion. For example, in the Suburban School System, Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando advocated for PDS adoption. He was directly and personally involved and ensured that the PDS initiative was placed on school system agendas. These efforts initiated discussions of
224
the PDS as a reform and fostered a common understanding of related issues among key school system employees. Among this group of key employees were the planning group members for the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership. Because these participants had been involved in exploring the potential for PDS programs in Suburban Schools, they were in sync with Orlando plans for this reform initiative. Orlando was then able to delegate some responsibilities to the PDS planning group. Some of the planning groups early work was to promote an understanding of the PDS concept in school sites. In this situation where the partners were both eager to be involved in a PDS, a shared understanding may seem easy to establish. However, participants described how it took time and effort. Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason described how there were East Coast expectations and there are Suburban County expectations and suggested having a core group of people to talk through both of these expectations and roles that the county and East Coast have (personal communication, September 23, 2003). She felt this approach would help the partners work through any differences. Combating the bureaucracies of institutions was a significant and consistent challenge for other PDS participants. University coordinator Dr. Irene Rose had a long history with the PDS Partnership. She had served as East Coasts university coordinator at Mark Twain Elementary when it was a traditional student teaching center, and she played a part in the Partnerships development. After many years of struggling to overcome differences, Dr. Rose shared her perspective on the status of the educational bureaucracies associated with the PDS Partnership: There is no partnership. It doesnt exist. It is an abusive spousal relationship. It never did work. The University doesnt plan to be changed. The University and the
225
school system are both locked into their bureaucracies and cant change much. (I. Rose, personal communication, September 20, 2004) It was important for participants to understand the PDS as an intersection of institutional cultures. In a successful partnership, participants can use this understanding of how the PDS reflects its related institutional cultures to prevent the inertial forces inherent in institutions from blocking change and reform. Having a shared understanding of the problem helps participants work together to overcome these challenges and then negotiate differing expectations and perspectives. In this PDS Partnership, the participants continued attempts to ensure a shared understanding. For example, in April 2002, Mark Twain staff responded to an informal school culture survey asking them to rate given statements as to their applicability to their site. One of the areas of highest positive score was the following statement: We all recognize that teaching is inherently difficult and ask for and give assistance for problems with students and teaching issues. Institutional obstacles can impact PDS development and maintenance. The Maryland PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) described the partnership-building process: These steps rarely occur in a neat, linear fashion. Instead, PDS work is much more recursive as it evolves according to the needs of the partners. As the PDS develops, participants are challenged to make their assumptions explicit, eventually coming to understand, and then trust, others in the process. (The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K16, Superintendents and Deans Committee, p. 57) Failing to consider potential obstacles can eventually lead to limiting PDS effectiveness as a reform effort. Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast PDS Partnership participants first proposed to address this need by initiating a plan to build the shared understanding of PDSs
226
and of the institutions involved in the partnership. One way to build this understanding was to actively promote and market the PDS. Promoting and Marketing the PDS As noted in the Partnership history presented in chapter 4, there were efforts by the conveners and the planning group to promote the PDS concept to school staffs. They pitched school staffs and promoted the benefits of PDS programs. They shared ways that the school system and school staff members would benefit from PDS Partnerships based on the school systems flyer, School System Questions to Guide Decisions Regarding PDSs: How can a school system benefit to the greatest extent from PDS Partnerships? (undated, circa 1997). This document provided a rationale for establishing PDSs and listed benefits in three major areas: a) training a hiring pool, b) developing the skills and expertise of current teachers and administrators, and c) maximizing the impact on students. Using talking points from this flyer, the planning group members communicated benefits to the school site staffs to try to persuade them to participate in the PDS. Although the partnership agreement had already been signed when the planning group presented to school staffs, the planning group members actively sought the staffs agreement to participate in the PDS. Teacher Alice Hayes recalled: We had a staff meeting to talk to us, and really to ask if we, as a staff wanted to come on board, wanted to be a part of this. And, did we think that it was a good direction or a good idea. (personal communication, July 21, 2004) Ann Hu explained that the planning group felt that there were already some staff members who they felt were going to be key from each of the sites and that there was staff invested. However, she emphasized that buy-in was important (A. Hu, personal communication, April 23, 2004) from the whole staff. After all, it was the school site staff
227
who would implement the initiative at the elementary schools on a daily basis. The school sites were hosts to the PDS. The teachers served as mentors for interns. The PDS could not be implemented without the school site staffs participation. To secure the school staffs agreement to participate in the PDS, the planning group needed to develop positive relationships built on trust and supported by mutuality. Relationships were an essential component to developing and maintaining capacity for collaboration. In turn, engaging in collaboration promoted the relationships among PDS participants. Relationships In a discussion of relationships in the PDS, Ann Hu summarized: It is really all about the people. The people and the staffs are everything (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Like Ann, other PDS participants also commented that it was the people who made the difference as to the PDS success. They explained that the participants relationships were central to the PDS Partnership and that relationships needed to be cared for throughout the Partnerships history. Some sample comments follow. Principal Albert Owens described how Glen Grove participants worked to develop capacity by building relationships with other stakeholders and forming ways to work together: It took us a good part of the first year to see how all of the different stakeholders played a part (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Cathy Tobiason shared her perspective as a Mark Twain staff member who served on the steering committee during the time Glen Grove became Mark Twains new PDS partner. She explained that the relationships with Glen Grove staff were still developing during their first year as partners: I think that we were in a honeymoon period this year. We really didnt know the teachers at the other site. Hopefully, as this partnership grows, we will get to know
228
the school and the personnel better. (C. Tobiason, personal communication, September 23, 2003) Patterns in participants comments revealed that there were several shared elements that comprised the relationships that they experienced. These key elements were trust, mutuality, and involvement. The sections that follow elaborate on these characteristics of relationships. Trust Trust was an essential component of relationships in the PDS. Some participants felt that it was the foundation. Mentor teacher Alice Hayes emphasized: You have to develop a relationship and trust at the very beginning so you can build on that (personal communication, July 21, 2004). The state leaders also presented trust as a building block for PDS Partnership relationships. The PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) explains: Continuity of faculty and staff within the PDS promotes ongoing vision-based planning and facilitates the development of trust between the school and the IHE (The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning, Superintendents and Deans Committee, p. 75). School site leaders recognized that trust was important for building relationships and necessary to the PDS success. However, they had their individual understandings of how to address this issue. For example, Glen Grove principal Albert Owens felt that trust was assumed once a commitment was made to participate in the PDS: As soon as the commitment is made, then your job is basically to keep the cooperation and keep the lines of communication open, and make sure that people are seeing it as a profitable situation for everybody. This is the kind of staff that 90% of the job was done, when they were sold on the program, when they decided to go forward with it and decided to bring it to Glen Grove. I can trust these folks to make it work, and they do. (personal communication, December 15, 2003)
229
Greenview Principal Allen Barnes also discussed the importance of fostering trust at the school site, but described a process in which he was personally involved in fostering connections among staff members: First thing, you have to build the trust between the administration and the teachers and the teachers with each other. Then youve got to get them talking together. The next steps would be to get them planning together (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). Barnes explained that, once teachers were talking and planning together, they could work toward being actually in a collaborative relationship. However, he noted that this was a time intensive process and that it took a year or two years to get that kind of collaboration going in teams (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). School system representatives recognized that PDS leaders needed to invest time in establishing trust. Anita Quinn explained her perspective as the Partnerships Suburban Schools Representative: We have strong administrators involved in these schools that really advocate for their teachers and for their students. We have university faculty that do the same for their interns. I think that it is something that we work at every day because I think trust and respect are earned. (personal communication, June 30, 2004) Like Barnes, Quinn recognized that there was a significant time investment needed for trust to develop. She shared: Until people are doing the work long enough and have established trust and rapport and maybe a knowledge base of the populations that they serve, then we can dig deeper (A. Quinn, personal communication, June 29, 2004). East Coasts Dr. Rose expressed concern that participants might not work long enough together in the Partnership. She noted the Partnerships frequent staff turnover and questioned commitment levels: Is everyone sort of passing through? There seems to be no nesting (personal communication, September 20, 2004).
230
Suburban Schools representatives emphasized the importance of building and sustaining trust in PDS relationships by including the topic in several school system publications. These publications educated and guided PDS participants by providing resources on how to promote trust. For example, in the school system PDS newsletter Reflections (October 2001), there was an article describing tools to promote trust in the PDS and tips for developing and trust rapport in the mentorintern relationships. Some specific tools included active listening, providing useful feedback, and being aware of body language. Another example of efforts to educate PDS participants through school system documents is a section in the Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002). The handbooks section on developing trust and rapport notes that trust is the foundation for the relationship with another person and trust enables learning to take place. This section also included a definition of trust: Trust is the knowledge that a person will act in the best interest of the other person; allows people to depend on each other; allows people to rely on one anothers integrity and confidentiality; must be established and maintained over the long term; exhibits an absence of I can fix you attitudes; is the believe that says Whatever you see or hear or experience with me is the best I can do at this moment. If I were able to do any better, I would. (p. 1.19) The school system PDS representative provided these handbooks for all participants in PDSs affiliated with Suburban Schools regardless of university affiliation. Participants described that there could exist different levels of trust in the PDS Partnership and linked it to the relationships context. They described trust among individuals on a personal or professional level. Participants also noted that they needed to have trust in the institutions affiliated with the PDS. These comments reflected credibility
231
as an aspect of trust. The sections that follow provide further description of participants perceptions of credibility. Ensuring or Enhancing Participants Credibility To develop or maintain the capacity for collaboration, it is necessary to ensure the credibility of the people, programs, and institutions associated with the PDS. Participants discussed different levels of credibility. They shared their perspectives on the personal credibility of PDS participants, especially those in leadership roles. They commented on how the PDS developed credibility as its own unique institution and how the institutions of the school system and the university gained credibility through their PDS participation. Table 5.1 presents trends in the frequency of participants responses for strategies for building or recognizing credibility regardless of level. Table 5.1 Participants Responses Related to Aspects of Credibility Aspect of Credibility Frequency of Participants Responses 6 6 17 6 25 3 6
Prior successful experiences and relationships Lead by example/display personal commitment Adopt standards Value input and provide recognition for efforts and competence Document and publicize success Allocate resources to indicate importance, value, and commitment Be open to suggestions/self-examination and continuous improvement
The sections that follow explore these strategies and examine them within their context or level. Personal Credibility 232
Participants gave a range of responses, noting expectations for personal credibility. Based on the frequency of their responses as noted in Table 5.1, participants identified the following three strategies as most important to establish or maintain personal credibility in a PDS: lead by example, have prior experience, and receive recognition for competence. Participants must lead by example and show personal commitment. This strategy applied mainly to those in decision-making positions, such as conveners, principals, school system leaders, university representatives, and steering committee members. Principal Allen Barnes described his personal commitment and involvement. Barnes shared that he felt that the PDS offered a great opportunity for the principal to work with the staff (personal communication, June 29, 2004). He explained how undertaking a reform effort such as the PDS was a great collaboration, working together, to come up with philosophies and ideas and that it was a great start for the school (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). These are positive examples of participants who built credibility as leaders by leading by example. Participants also could lose credibility if they did not lead by example. An illustration of this notion was how the university coordinator responded to technology. Dr. Irene Rose explained that she did not like technology and only used it when absolutely necessary. The school system PDS liaison Ann Hu expressed concern that Dr. Rose, who was the math/technology grant manager, knew so little about technology and was so unwilling to learn (personal communication, April 23, 2004). In addition, Mark Twain mentor teacher Nora Kramer also commented on how Dr. Rose had asked other PDS participants to teach her interns about technology curriculum connections (participant observation, February 28, 2002). Although the participants were eager to be involved as
233
instructors, they connected this opportunity to Dr. Roses lack of technology expertise (participant observation, February 28, 2002). Thus, some participants began to question Dr. Roses credibility as a university coordinator. Participants with prior professional experience gained credibility with their colleagues. These participants were those who had previous PDS or other related experiences. Practitioners valued that their colleagues had engaged in PDS-promoted practices and could share lessons learned. As described in the PDS history in chapter 4, several participants entered this PDS Partnership with prior experience. The following sections elaborate. Receiving recognition for competence in PDS-related activities also was noted as a source of personal credibility. It was especially important for those in leadership roles to be recognized professionally. Credibility of the Conveners and Leaders To develop and maintain the PDS, the participants must trust the conveners and leaders. Credibility of the conveners was especially important in the beginning stages of PDS development as they sought to gain the participants confidence and their agreement to participate in the partnership. Conveners needed professional and personal credibility. Participants perceived credibility in a variety of ways. They associated credibility of individuals with position power, past successes with professional experiences or professional awards or recognition, positive relationships, and favorable public persona. They also commented that it was important to show personal commitment and to lead by example.
234
During the Partnerships development phase, PDS leaders worked to establish their personal credibility to help build trust and relationships with other participants. Steering committee members commented on their past successes. For example, Irene Rose shared that, because she had worked with Mark Twain participants when it was a teacher center, the staff knew me and were ready to take a risk (personal communication, September 20, 2004). Amelia Brown said, Id opened the first PDS in the state and that school won the National Award that put East Coast University on the map (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Allen Barnes also explained that he had the experience with the other university (personal communication, July 29, 2004). Albert Owens commented on how he created prior experiences to build the capacity for a collaborative partnership at Glen Grove: We sort of prepped our school by partnering with a local community college (personal communication, December 15, 2003). They realized the importance of building success incrementally. Ann Hu also commented on the early efforts of convener George Grayson to include Suburban Schools in East Coasts PDS discussions even if they were with other school districts: George Grayson would hold these meetings for the partnerships that were underway in a neighboring county and we were also invited to those (personal communication, April 23, 2004). George Grayson led by example. He worked to build the capacity for collaboration by including representatives from Suburban Schools in collaborative problem solving during the early stages of the development of East Coast University-affiliated PDSs. Grayson shared that he spent a lot of time in the field and served on a lot of steering committees, both at the county level as well as the individual school level. He explained that he had taught courses, had visited all of the sites, and
235
was involved in doing the portfolio reviews on site. Grayson shared his reasoning: Part of it is leading by example. Thats my area of interest. Part of it is theres a lot that needs to be done and everybodys already busy enough so thats possibly a way to be supportive to the K16 Partnership and thats what needs to be done (G. Grayson, personal communication, July 28, 2004). Suburban Schools Superintendent Orlando described his efforts to model a collaborative approach and be involved in PDS activities: I tried to take advantage of every opportunity to get out into the schools that I could (personal communication, November 2, 2004). He explained that his presence at PDS events sent or reinforced a message that the most important work of the system happens in those classrooms. Dr. Orlando shared an example of how he tried to regularly attend portfolio reviews for the PDS interns: I felt particularly by my being there, I could show that I valued that sort of thing. His actions showed his personal commitment to the PDS. Orlando also indicated that he had wanted to help reinforce the idea that the central office was there to serve the schools (personal communication, November 2, 2004). He emphasized how he wanted to serve as a model for other school leaders: I thought, well, if the guy that sits in the Superintendents office and sits up there with the board can be out there showing that, it models something to the central office. It keeps reminding teachers that we really do mean this. We really do mean it. Our job is to serve you. (personal communication, November 2, 2004) Other PDS participants took note of the superintendents personal commitment. Dr. Irene Rose felt that Orlando had a personal interest in PDS and that she thought it was an intellectual curiosity for him. She also said that he had an unusual level of commitment and that he was hands-on (I. Rose, personal communication, September 20, 2004). Ron Mitchell described how Orlando came to intern receptions to get everyone
236
involved directly or indirectly (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Other PDS participants followed Jim Orlando lead. Allen Barnes also felt that as a school principal he should lead by example. He saw his role as a PDS advocate: The principals role is to get involved and to make sure that everybody knows that it is important and that it is a priority. And, that you care about that program (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). He shared some of the ways that he became involved in the PDS and, by his involvement, deemed the activities important for staff to be involved with as well. I was active on the steering committee in both schools, active in the activities, making sure that we were responsible for the resources and the budget, being a cheerleader to a certain extent, being the liaison, to make sure that the principal and the other school know what was going on here and I knew what was going on there. (A. Barnes, personal communication, July 28, 2004) Allen Barnes also described how he attended workshops and conferences with the school staff. He gave an example of participating in a conference promoting the whole-language approach: If the teachers are going to give their time to go all the way to East Coast University on a Saturday to spend a half a day in a workshop, then I think it is important enough that the principal participate too (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). During the maintenance phase, participants also commented more on the personal commitment needed to sustain PDS efforts and how key PDS members should lead by example. Anita Quinn emphasized the school administrators commitment: In the past, the commitment of the administrators has been significant. They have been at every summer institute. They have been at every governance meeting. And, I think that it is a
237
significant commitment and it has got to come from the top, down (personal communication, June 30, 2004). In the development of the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership, this personal commitment came from the top down as modeled by the Suburban Schools Superintendent. Although Jim Orlando was active in the PDS until his retirement, his successor seemed to have different priorities. During the Partnerships maintenance period, PDS participants did not feel that their superintendent had the same commitment level as convener Orlando. Irene Rose shared her perspective that Dr. Orlando seemed closer and more accessible than the current superintendent. She described that the current superintendent has visited the partner school for a portfolio sharing but Ive had no face-to-face contact with him (I. Rose, personal communication, September 20, 2004). This superintendent would later initiate Greenviews removal as a PDS partner and the reorganization of the Suburban Schools Office of Professional Development Schools. Credibility of Institutions Aspects of participants personal credibility as well as the leaders credibility helped shape perceptions of the partner institutions. It was necessary that participants viewed Suburban Schools and East Coast University as credible institutions in order for their partnership endeavor also could be viewed as credible. Participants felt that institutions could demonstrate credibility by adopting standards and documenting the success of their institution and the Partnership. Adopting Standards
238
PDS participants noted professional educational standards when developing and maintaining the PDS. During the PDS development, state standards were emerging. Participants used draft formats as guides. One such early guide was the draft of Maryland Professional Development Schools Evaluation Framework (undated). This framework guided participants through a PDS self-evaluation process generally based on the Redesign of Teacher Education (1997). The framework advocated annual descriptive data collection in areas such as teacher certification, teacher candidate recruitment and retention, and school and student demographic data. The framework also promoted adopting standards from Marylands Essential Dimensions of Teaching and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). PDS representative Anita Quinn described how Suburban Schools worked with MSDE to give input into the evolving standards document. She explained how Suburban Schools staff worked with MSDE to ensure that they include diversity in state standards. Quinn said that Suburban Schools staff really had a part in actually writing the document. And, those standards are modeled within all of our partnerships. Consequently, we have a lot of support from the State Department, and credibility with the institutions that we serve, because we helped define what this work is, and we model that in the schools that we work with (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Adopting these standards early in their development helped Suburban Schools gain credibility and build relationships. These actions also added to the capacity for collaboration within Suburban Schools PDS Partnerships. The MSDE draft PDS evaluation framework was revised in July 2006 as Professional Development Schools Assessment Framework for Maryland. The Mark
239
Twain/Greenview/East Coast University Partnership adopted the state standards, in their various evolving forms, as their PDS planning and evaluation guides. In fact, in later years, the PDS Partnership agreement included specific language that required insisting on professional standards (Agreement between the University and School System, June 19, 2003). These professional standards were the Maryland PDS standards. Participants extended this initial directive to all of the PDS Partnerships mentor meetings, summer institutes, steering committee meetings, and communications from the university coordinator. For example, agendas from mentor meetings (January 30, 2003) and steering committee meetings (December 4, 2002; January 29, 2003; April 30, 2003) often linked state standards to the agenda items. The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) noted professional standards as a common core (p. 1.11) and listed Marylands Essential Dimensions of Teaching (EDOT) standards, one of which specifically recognizes the value of collaboration in developing a highly effective classroom: Teacher candidates and teachers will collaborate with the broad educational community including parents, businesses, and social service agencies (p. 1.10). The university coordinator recognized INTASC standards by incorporating these principles into the intern evaluation form. Memorandums from the university coordinator explained INTASC principles for interns and mentors and reinforced their connection to formal intern evaluations. The Partnerships efforts to link their activities to professional standards helped build the PDS credibility. Documenting Success By documenting successful PDS experiences, the Partnership strengthened credibility. The PDS participants made numerous efforts to publicize their efforts through
240
written communications such as brochures, newsletters, and Suburban Schools Board Reports meeting minutes. Suburban Schools and East Coast University also publicized success by maintaining PDS websites. Mark Twain and Greenview PDS participants documented successes at their sites as part of their math/technology grant requirements. The Partnerships brochure provided basic PDS information and noted promotion by the MSDE and MHEC. The brochure also provided quotes from PDS participants to describe the benefits noted by all involved in this collaboration (p. 5). The brochure quoted the Mark Twain principal as stating: The PDS offers a collegial, nurturing environment for both developing student interns as teachers and professional staff as introspective mentors (p. 5). The brochure quoted an East Coast intern: It is a very valuable experience to be associated with the school faculties for more than just one term of student teaching. I was enriched by my diverse experiences in the two school sites (p. 5). These quotes documented the PDS importance and personalized its value. School system newsletters were another way to document successes and best practices in PDSs. Reflections newsletters (January 2002, April 2002) provided short updates on spotlighted PDS programs to celebrate successes and commonalities across the Suburban Schools system. These newsletters also built credibility for staff by recognizing their contributions (Reflections, January 2002). Participants in all Suburban Schools PDSs (regardless of university affiliation) received these newsletters published by the Suburban Schools Office of Professional Development Schools. Suburban Schools Board Reports (January 27, 2000; February 21, 2002) summarized the events and progress of system PDSs. These reports were one of the primary communication methods for Suburban Schools to promote PDS awareness,
241
commitment, and approval. Board reports also documented the status efforts of recruitment, hiring, and retention and included placement statistics. They noted system honors and important PDS events. For example, the January 27, 2000, Board Report noted: Statewide and nationally, the movement toward Professional Development Schools has gained strength and that legislators from the House Education and Economic Matters Subcommittee had visited one of the systems schools (p. 1). Finally, the Board Report also commended the Superintendent and school staff stating: The PDS movement is gaining recognition and momentum. Institutions at all levels are examining and realigning their structures and cultures to remove barriers to the work that true PDSs entail. The Suburban School system has been fortunate to have a superintendent who has make this work a priority, to have staff who are committed to mentoring those who are the future of education, and to have forged early and enthusiastic partnerships with higher education institutions which have eased the path toward PDSs. (January 27, 2000, p. 4) Documenting/publicizing recognitions gained by Suburban Schools was one way to boost the systems credibility. Websites created by Suburban Schools and East Coast University provided information about PDSs and documented progress. The Suburban Schools website included profiles of each PDS Partnership and described professional development offerings. The East Coast University website described the program and intern requirements. It also detailed the history of the universitys PDS Network and emphasized its purpose to create a community of learners. The website noted the universitys recognition as a PDS leader and Association of Teacher Educators (1998) honors for Distinguished Program in Teacher Education. Publicizing their successes on their individual websites helped the PDS partners to build credibility for their institutions as well as the PDS Partnership.
242
Other documentation occurred in the PDS as well. As part of the requirements for maintaining the $40,000 Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant for math/technology, Mark Twain and Greenview participants documented how this budget was spent. They noted activities and successes at their sites. Another documentation example was the datacollection forms requested by the Suburban Schools PDS Coordinating Committee to complete their annual reports. Finally, developing, hosting, and participating in conferences locally and nationally helped to build credibility for the PDS as an initiative. Both Suburban Schools and East Coast University were actively involved in conferences. Locally, Suburban Schools offered opportunities for educators to share their research with school system colleagues through its annual action research conference. East Coast University participants served as organizers and promoters for the national PDS conferences, one of which was held at East Coast University. The national conferences were an opportunity for PDS researchers to network, share their research, and expand their knowledge about PDSs from participants in a variety of PDS Partnerships. The conference planners provided knowledgeable keynote speakers and workshop presenters who shared their expertise with attendees. Examples of conference topics included: building and nurturing the PDS; shaping the PDS through standards and policy; supporting one another; researching PDS impact; and maintaining and sustaining the PDS (Invitation to attend National PDS Conference, October 2002, p. 2). Bringing together experts in the field helped to develop the credibility for PDSs and increased the capacity for collaboration among participants nationally.
243
Documenting success was useful in marketing the PDS and building its credibility. It helped to build interest in participants working together in collaborative experiences, and it helped strengthen relationships as participants realized the benefits of their PDS association. The documentation also added to the capacity for collaboration to occur in the PDS. Aspects of Relationships Participants noted common elements of relationships as essential to the building capacity for collaboration. Mutuality and commitment formed building blocks for relationships and a base for collaboration to flourish. Elements of mutuality included mutual interest, mutual goals, mutual commitment, and mutual benefit. The next sections examine each of these mutuality aspects. In addition, because participants relationships also influenced the PDS collaborative processes, later sections examine other types of PDS relationships noted by participants. For example, relationships might be professional or personal in nature or also may occur at the level of the institution partner or between individual participants. Mutuality Mutuality is a key element of PDS relationships and thus a key aspect of developing capacity for collaboration. This studys participants described several mutuality aspects that included mutual interest, mutual goals, mutual commitment, and mutual benefit. Related interactions involved different levels of independence, interdependence, or dependence based on the relationships purpose. To engage in a mutual relationship, PDS participants needed to believe that they would gain a benefit that they would not normally gain if they acted alone.
244
Mutual Interest Both the university and the school system have an ongoing vested interest in the successful preparation of teachers. East Coasts George Grayson explained the interest in PDSs: Some people see this as building a continuous induction model. The school system was very interested in hiring folks out of a Suburban County PDS experience. They had been there for a year. They were comfortable with the schools, the school system, and curriculum. They knew the children. They knew the communities. So, you had a pipeline of well-prepared teachers for the school system. You had an induction process now that spanned both the preservice as well as the first couple of years of inservice. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) Suburban Schools Ron Mitchell also shared: The partnership exists because the stakeholders have their own vested interests and there is a mutual benefit to all involved (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Both Suburban Schools and East Coast University advocated for the PDS model. Partnership conveners expressed their initial interest in establishing the PDS. They generated additional interest by promoting the PDS initiative to school staffs and committing their institutions resources. Superintendent Jim Orlando described his involvement: I was strongly supportive of the whole idea of professional development schools. And everybody knew that (personal communication, November 2, 2004). Ann Hu also noted Orlando high interest, explaining that he was very much invested in a philosophy of collaboration with universities for the development of professional development schools, and that the PDS was something that was generated from above (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Jim Orlando invited others to share his interests in collaboration and the PDS.
245
Invitations to become involved sparked some participants PDS interest. Participants explained that they liked the notion of being involved in collaboration and contributing ideas. Mark Twain Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason said, I think there was a lot of excitement about the possibilities of being a partner with another school (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Mentor teacher Sophie Michaels explained how Glen Grove staff members were eager to join the partnership: We had heard that Mark Twains partnership worked so well. And, I definitely know that at our school, we are always willing to try new things. Sophie also commented on how initial successes served to increase staff interest: This year, since we feel that it was so successful, and we have been talking about the program so much, and how beneficial it is, I think it definitely helped to get more people interested in it (S. Michaels, personal communication, February 16, 2004). Other participants expressed interest in working with interns and achieving other PDS goals. Principal Owens shared that Glen Grove had searched for ways to be involved with preservice students. He explained that, prior to joining the PDS Partnership, Glen Grove had hosted students in two-year programs who needed to have field experiences. He shared that many, many folks stepped up and said that they would take one of these local community college students (personal communication, December 15, 2003). The staffs initial interest in teacher preparation led to their eventual involvement in the PDS Partnership. Although both the university and the school system had mutual interest in the PDS, participants commented that they did not have equal levels of interest and that this difference impacted their ability to have a true collaboration. Dr. Amelia Brown shared her
246
perspective that East Coast University had a stronger need for developing PDSs: It is not a collaboration. At best, it is a cooperation. We need PDS schools. We are mandated to have them (personal communication, June 25, 2004). This view of unequal levels of interest also was noted by Greenview Principal Allen Barnes: George Grayson came to many of the meetings and I always got the feeling that they [East Coast University] were very supportive of the PDSsometimes even more so than Suburban County as a whole county. Kate [Caplan] was always supportive, but sometimes, she was the lone voice (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Because Maryland mandated universities to implement PDSs, their interest was required. However, the interest of other PDS participants was voluntary. Working to promote the PDS and increase interest among PDS participants was part of developing the capacity for collaboration. Participants could not be fully engaged in a collaborative venture such as the PDS without a high level of interest. Mutual Goals Although Suburban Schools and East Coast University had unequal levels of interest, their interest was sufficient for them to sign a formal agreement and recognize their mutual goal to establish the PDS Partnership. However, because the PDS model was a multipronged reform, there were multiple goals implied as part of the agreement to pursue this initiative. The Partnership participants had to identify these multiple goals and discuss their focus and level of commitment to them. Collaboration occurs in connection with a purpose or goal. PDS participants must repeatedly collaborate, negotiate, and develop shared goals throughout PDS development and maintenance. The process is ongoing, and several goals
247
may be addressed simultaneously. The PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) explained this ongoing process and the need for continuity in the PDS: Institutional relationships are built upon long-term, day-to-day interactions and a developed understanding of shared vision and goals. (The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning, Superintendents and Deans Committee, p. 75) Shared goals and mutuality are essential components of the PDS and are embedded in PDS collaboration processes. Ultimately, the PDS goals must support the needs and interests of the participants in the specific partnership. In the Mark Twain/Greenview/East Coast University PDS Partnership, the participants adopted multiple goals in their partner agreement. The partners mission statement was to employ the collaborative resources of PreK12 and higher education to: Create a collaborative culture and governance structure to guide the work of each PDS site. Provide enhanced preservice experiences through the integration of theory and practice in a clinically based teacher education program. Provide needs based continuous professional development for inservice teachers and administrators through on-site PDS related graduate coursework. Provide for inquiry into and refinement of effective practices in teaching and learning. Maximize student achievement. Disseminate promising practices and structures to the education community. (Professional Development Schools FY 2003 Partners and Mission, p. 1)
The agreement also presented six primary goal areas related to culturally diverse settings and exceptional learners, professional standards, representation of both partners, intern placements, reporting and evaluation, and compensation. Professional publications and Maryland PDS standards influenced the goals. The goals also supported Suburban Schools system-wide school improvement plans (SIP) for improving student achievement. During some school years, the SIP objectives provided specific direction for PDS needs-based professional development. For example, in this
248
PDS Partnership, the math/technology focus was adopted by Mark Twain and Greenview. Because participants at these sites wrote and received grant monies to improve mathematics instruction and provide technology-related professional development, they tailored PDS professional development activities to support this initiative. Participants Perceptions of Shared Goals Although the formal agreement outlined the PDS Partnerships mutual goals, participants often held differing perspectives of PDS goals. Table 5.2 displays the frequency of participants responses as to the nature of PDS goals. Table 5.2 Frequency of Participants Responses of PDS Goals Participants Perceived PDS Goal Preservice teacher education Diverse intern placements and understanding different learners Professional development, including action research PDS specific goals such as those related to the math/technology grant Student achievement and SIP goals Collaboration Frequency of Participants Responses 8 4 4 3 2 2
Table 5.5 notes the range of participants responses and displays the participants perceptions of the PDS models multipronged nature. The following sections explore these perceptions. Participants relayed their need to fulfill specific goals and to have a sense of mutuality in the Partnership. Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer described collaboration simply as actually working together on a common thing (personal communication, September 3, 2003). Teacher preparation was the most frequent participant response as to what that 249
thing was. Penny gave examples to explain how mentors worked with university staff to help shape intern experiences to meet university portfolio guidelines. Other mentor teachers, Cathy Tobiason and Natalie Ronaldi, mentioned preservice education as well. Cathy shared: I think the goal of the partnership is to draw students into seeing how teachers really perform in a school (C. Tobiason, personal communication, September 23, 2003). Natalie explained: I think the main goal is to give the interns true continuous experience with a group of kids and with a staff and with a school so that they feel a part of the community and feel really invested (N. Ronaldi, personal communication, July 20, 2004). Principal Allen Barnes also commented as to the goals of a clinically based teacher education program (personal communication, June 29, 2004). The Partnership also valued this goal and promoted it within their brochure, stating: The Maryland State Department of Education and Maryland Higher Education Commission have identified Professional Development Schools as the primary vehicle for the clinical preparation of pre-service teachers (PDS Partnership brochure, p. 2). Participants also commented on the PDS diversity goals. East Coast Universitys George Grayson felt conveners addressed the diversity goal: by virtue of the manner in which we chose our schools, which was always to make sure that our students had experience in a diverse and inclusive population. We chose schools that were quite different like Mark Twain and Greenview. The students would have experience in both schools environments. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) Suburban Schools Anita Quinn explained how they really worked to keep the diversity issue in the forefront. Documents such as the partnership agreement (Agreement Between the University and School System, June 19, 2003) and the state PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) reflected diversity goals as well. The PDS
250
Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) describes how the PDS also addresses the issue of underserved children and achievement gaps: PDSs, with their ability to make fundamental changes on multiple levels, must assume a position front and center to meet this challenge (The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning, Superintendents and Deans Committee, p. 9). Some participants relayed the PDS goals for professional development. Kate Caplan commented that the school system was putting resources into the school to build up the overall expertise of everyone in the school and explained that, in a PDS school site, everybody in the school is impacted (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Greenview Principal Allen Barnes felt that action research was an avenue for professional development. He shared that the PDS encouraged inquiry into and refinement of effective practices. However, he also realized that it was probably the hardest nut to crack, getting good action research (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). The benefits of action research described in the May 15, 2001, Action Research Conference Invitation included focused attention on student learning and achievement; increased collaboration across teams, disciplines, and grade levels; revision of practice based on new knowledge about teaching and learning; teacher-designed and teacher-initiated professional development; contributions to school improvement and planning process (p. 1). Thus, the action research outcomes supported other PDS goals. Suburban Schools facilitated action research across the system to use it as a strategy to support school improvement efforts. Suburban Schools Board Report (February 21, 2002) states: One of the goals of PDSs is to serve as centers for identification and documentation of best practices in teaching and learning through inquiry, research and reflection.
251
Over the past two years, the PDS Department has collaborated with staff developers and curriculum experts to define action research, to show how it can align with the systems evaluation options, and to develop an inservice course and resources. These efforts culminated in the first annual Action Research Conference, held in May 2002. (p. 3) Several Mark Twain mentor teachers commented on enhancing the teachers skills. Cathy Tobiason noted: The goal is to build a stronger cadre of teachers (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Penny Sawyer explained: It is a good way to also help the people who are existingthe teachers who are already therein looking at their own professional development and looking forward to what they will accomplish within the teaching profession (personal communication September 23, 2003). Nora Kramer felt that collaboration should be a tool for professional development: I think it (collaboration) is a tool to enhance the teaching process and the education process of students. She explained that professional development should be the central piece and that schools need to continue to make staff as professional as possible. Nora saw collaboration as how we grow (N. Kramer, personal communication, October 28, 2003). Some participants, such as Suburban Schools PDS Liaison Ron Mitchell, described these professional development goals within the context of their site-specific needs, such as those connected to the math/technology grant goals. Grant-related documents also connected these goals to the individual schools school improvement plans. Suburban Schools-produced documents such as the Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) advocated collaboration as a PDS goal and gave guidelines for working collaboratively: Participants in a collaborative activity share responsibility for participating in the activity and the decision making that it entails (p. 3.6). Penny Sawyer
252
also shared her perspective that collaboration was a goal and elaborated on the benefits to those who participate in collaboration: I do think collaboration is an important goal, in and of itself. I think that when you collaborate with people, you learn. You improve yourself because our skills are shared. You get the benefit of other peoples talents and their strengths. And, I think it is important because I think that collaboration will be the thing that new teachers will lean on to help them to get through the tough parts and that collaboration is important in terms of keeping the teaching professional going forward. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) Most of the school system documents, such as the mentor handbook, the brochure, and the partnership agreement, recognized the central place of collaboration in the PDS. Some school site staff discussed collaboration as a process that fostered implementation of their SIPs. Principal Allen Barnes explained his perspective about the need for shared goals and alignment: So, with the School Improvement Team, the Professional Development School, and the teachers objectives, what we were trying to do is to get everybody talking about the same issues from the student teachers to the teachers. (personal communication, June 29, 2004) Barnes saw the common goal as accelerating student learning and summarized his definition of collaboration as: Where the whole school, after a period of time, is talking about how we can accelerate student achievement. Barnes found a natural link between PDS goals and school improvement: The PDS supports the primary goal of maximizing student achievement (A. Barnes, personal communication, June 29, 2004). Principal Barnes described how each PDS aspect ultimately linked to student achievement: The goals were enhanced professional development of preservice teachers through a clinically based teacher education program. So, this was the intern part. Continuous professional developmentthis was the teacher part. And, then, inquiry into and refinement of effective practices. Those goals would tie to our School Improvement Team. (personal communication, June 29, 2004)
253
Allen Barnes further explained: A good collaboration, a school-wide collaboration, is where teachers work together to improve instruction and student learning (personal communication, June 29, 2004). He used the SIP as an overarching guide for the school and the PDS as a vehicle for promoting that plan. Ron Mitchell, Suburban Schools PDS Liaison, felt that, student achievement is also a goal and is overarching for everything in this partnership (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Expected Goals That Participants Did Not Mention During interviews, PDS participants did not directly comment on PDS goals as part of a national reform movement. Although Maryland had been a national leader in the early adoption of PDS programs, and some PDS participants had been involved in the creation of MSDE documents that guided Marylands PDS development, Partnership participants did not overtly comment as to the PDS goals for reform of teacher preparation programs or the improvement of schools. Although they described them as PDS outcomes, participants did not explicitly state them as goals. This theme surfaced in PDS-related documents that were distributed within the Partnership. The 2003 national PDS conference invitation noted specific strands of conference activities aimed at recognizing the PDS impact on the national scene. Some PDS participants attended this conference, and the Partnership participated by contributing a display to the conferences gallery walk. However, Partnership participants did not provide explicit responses, clearly articulating PDS as national reform. Mutual Commitment PDS relationships included the need for mutually committed partners. Affirming commitments is a key aspect of collaboration as presented in Fig. 1.1, Collaboration
254
Framework. Each year the partners signed a new Memorandum of Agreement to affirm their commitment to the PDS. This memorandum was a formal, public way to annually renew the commitment of each PDS partner. Stakeholders at various levels voiced their PDS commitment in several different ways. PDS proponents committed themselves and their institutions to PDS development and maintenance during meetings and in written documents. Superintendent Orlando developed his initial interest into a commitment for Suburban Schools: I committed the system, in effect, of moving forward as much as we could (personal communication, November 2, 2004). Although the PDS partners ideally would have mutual levels of PDS commitment, some PDS participants felt that this goal could not be achieved because of the inequality of interest level. For example, as noted previously in chapter 4, Dr. Amelia Brown felt that, although the school system may desire to implement PDSs, they do not have the same level of need for PDS success as the university that is held accountable. Dr. Brown further explained that this difference leads to less commitment of resources and valuing of the PDS initiative and that impacted the Partnerships collaboration. Dr. Brown felt that When the partnership doesnt serve both equally with resources and a valuing of what they need, it flips to cooperation (personal communication, June 25, 2004). It also would be ideal for participants to have consistent views of commitment. In this study, different participants held different perspectives on affirming commitments. Often participants connected allocation of resources as a commitment indicator. Ron Mitchell felt that the school system made the PDS a priority by allocating staff and budget to make it a priority in our county (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Other
255
participants expressed similar perspectives: They felt commitments were being affirmed if partners allocated financial and human resources to support the PDS. PDS stakeholders at different levels showed their commitment in written or electronic documents. Suburban Schools and East Coast University repeatedly emphasized their PDS commitment in reports, budgets, and websites. For example, the East Coast University PDS networks website noted: Faculty and staff and other key constituents of East Coast Universitys PDS Network have taken numerous steps to maintain the continuity of this critical initiative. By maintaining a cadre of committed professionals, hosting annual professional development institutes, targeting funding at capacity building and offering expanded tuition benefits from professionals, the network furthers its commitment to long-term service. (p. 1) Although the PDS Networks website included information about all East Coast University PDSs, these claims applied to this PDS Partnership. Participants expressed the need to have commitments affirmed in additional ways throughout PDS development and maintenance. This need was especially true as the PDS Partnership responded to a change in partners. During this time, some participants felt that the school system had reduced its commitment. For example, the university coordinator shared that the partner change initiated by the school system was a very big headache for the university since they would have to rework all of the placements that had been made for students who were to be interns in the now-determined SIU schools. She continued to explain that she did not feel the school system was showing a deep and continuing commitment to the concept of the PDS and that she felt that the school system was sending the message that the PDS did not contribute to student performance (participant observation, May 24, 2002). Thus, perceptions of commitment levels varied during the Partnerships history.
256
Mutual Benefit PDS participants commented that it was important that partners experienced mutual benefit as part of their Partnership relationship. Different participants described how they experienced these benefits. Some participants described professional development opportunities such as graduate coursework, workshops, tuition reimbursement, or opportunities for reflection about teaching. Some participants appreciated the collegiality that the PDS promoted. Although some participants viewed the PDS in terms of opportunity, other participants commented that there also was lost opportunity. Mentor teachers Alice Hayes and Penny Sawyer commented on the professional development benefits as they perceived them. Alice Hayes explained: As a result of the PDS, I was involved in several of the graduate level courses. It was like a little catalyst for my own career development. I was asked to do a workshop at a conference. Hayes also described how the teachers on her grade-level team benefited from Mark Twains PDS Partnership: I remember reaping benefits of the PDS when as a team leader, I wanted to do some training of some of my teachers in the guided reading program. And, I was able to get three or four members of my team money to go to a conference. And, that opportunity would not have been available to us without money from the professional development center. So, there were many times that I saw that teachers had professional development opportunities that were funded through the professional development center that were just wonderful opportunities. And, that, in itself, made the whole partnership worthwhile. (A. Hayes, personal communication, July 21, 2004) Penny Sawyer shared personal as well as professional benefits for mentor teachers: I think that when you collaborate with people you learn. You improve yourself because our skills are shared. You get the benefit of other peoples talents and their strengths. And, I think it makes you stronger as a teacher. Not just professionally, but personally as well. When you collaborate, it keeps you from getting stale. It makes you learn about other things that are going on, hopefully new things that are going on. And, it keeps you actively engaged and actively thinking about what is
257
involved with teaching and whats with your students. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) She also felt that collaboration occurred when participants were taking advantage of the East Coast courses through the PDS (P. Sawyer, personal communication, September 23, 2003). Penny Sawyer also saw benefits of collaboration for the interns: I think the benefit of being a cohort for the students, being able to support each other and learn from each other has also been beneficial. The PDS should be continued. Interns have a real-life experience and on-the-job training. It is valuable if you had a good mentor. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) Intern Hannah Berger shared that the PDS has helped me to become familiar with curriculum and staffs and that she got to see students grow and enjoyed having the opportunity to help them stretch (personal communication, August 31, 2003). She continued: You get different perspectives. In the school with more older staff [Mark Twain], you get their wisdom and in the other school you have younger teachers and you get new perspectives. It is important to interns because they soak up every bit of information and to get the two different perspectives. We want a variety of help. (H. Berger, personal communication, August 31, 2003) Mentor teacher Alice Hayes also noted intern growth, but explained that mentors also grew by helping that intern teacher grow. She shared that she could see the professional development happening on both levels (A. Hayes, personal communication, July 21, 2004). Mentor Cathy Tobiason also recognized this benefit: For the mentor, it also keeps her up to date on what is new coming down the pike (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Mentor Jennifer Marks commented: We get the ideas that the student teachers bring. They bring fresh ideas for older teachers like us (personal communication, July 22, 2004). East Coasts Amelia Brown hoped that the interactions
258
will help mentors examine their own practices, and then have a positive impact on student achievement (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Ultimately, these professional experiences led to personal growth for some participants. Sheri Lohmann described how her participation as a mentor teacher renewed her enthusiasm and that it lights a fire (personal communication, October 19, 2004). Alice Hayes explained how her experiences helped her gain a new teaching perspective by transferring to Greenview from Mark Twain. She shared that she had had an opportunity to see snippets of a school that had some really distinct needs (A. Hayes, personal communication, July 21, 2004). East Coast University also experienced benefits of engaging in the Partnership relationship. Dr. George Grayson shared his perspective about the PDS models benefits to teacher preparation reform: Our goal was to enhance the quality and the depth and breadth of the preservice experience so that when students were hired, they would be successful first-year teachers. The data shows to date that the PDS-prepared teachers have a higher retention/lower attrition rate than those that are not prepared in PDS which in turn adds to the stability of the teaching force which in turn is tied very tightly in the research to improve student achievement. Long-term that may be one of the most important outcomes of the whole professional development school experience. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) In addition to benefits to preservice programs, Dr. Grayson felt that the PDS provided benefits to university faculty as well because they became immersed in the reality of the public schools, and this process gave them a greater insight into what their students were expected to be able to do. Grayson shared that this insight benefited the university program because it provided professional development, not only for inservice teachers, but professional development that occurs also for university faculty. Grayson felt that this has been a reciprocal relationship and the reciprocity impact is real important
259
(personal communication, July 28, 2004). Glen Grove Principal Albert Owens also felt that it was a win-win situation for everybody. He elaborated that the school is able to bring in a youthful energy and youthful ideas and very often, another set of hands. We, on the other hand, are able to provide a service of in-depth teacher training to the undergrads of East Coast. So, we feel that everybody wins (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Not all participants felt that the Partnership realized the PDS full benefits. Mark Twains assistant principal Wendy Davidson recognized the PDS models potential as a learning factory, in which everyone is part of a learning community with continual opportunities to learn themselves or to contribute to others learning (personal communication, September 24, 2003). She also shared that she would describe the PDS as a lost opportunity because she felt that there can be more directed efforts in improving staff development efforts across the board. Davidson explained: There are shared professional development activities that have been missed (personal communication, September 24, 2003). Communication in Relationships PDS participants recognized communication as an essential element of relationships and developing the capacity for collaboration. They shared numerous related responses. However, because this study found communication essential for all of the other PDS collaboration processes, the chapter devotes separate, later sections to discussing communication processes in detail. Relationships Vary by Type and Level
260
Relationships of all types and levels reflected common characteristics that impacted the PDS Partnerships capacity for collaboration. PDS relationships were built on trust, credibility, mutuality, commitment, and communication. With this foundation, relationships at different levels had different emphases. The sections that follow examine two of these areas of emphasis: professional relationships and relationships at the partner institution level. Professional Relationships Participants described their perspectives that collaboration is part of building the relationships needed for PDS work. Some PDS participants commented specifically about the need for building professional relationships among staff. They shared that staff members need to work together and support each other. Mentor teacher Nora Kramer explained: With the PDS, I see a lot more connects. That long-term relationship that you build with the school does provide for more opportunities for collaboration. You are building on those relationships (personal communication, October 28, 2003). By being involved in PDS activities, school staff at the two PDS sites built relationships that might not have occurred otherwise. Staff recognized that having a PDS at their school site encouraged the development of professional relationships. Mentor teacher Natalie Ronaldi explained how having interns does make the school a little more collaborative by encouraging teachers to talk to people on your team and talk with resource people and by finding out different approaches (personal communication, July 20, 2004). Teachers shared ideas and resources. Thus, engaging in collaborative processes fostered professionalism.
261
Some participants also described how their PDS involvement broadened their professional network. Intern Hannah Berger commented that her steering committee involvement allowed her to meet lots of people from Human Resources (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer felt strongly that involvement and collaboration were needed to support new colleagues and keep them in the profession: I think collaboration will be the thing that new teachers will lean on to help them get through the tough parts. Collaboration is important in terms of keeping the teaching profession going forward (personal communication, September 23, 2003). All of the Mark Twain mentor teachers also mentioned the importance of establishing positive collegial relationships in a PDS. Cathy Tobiason noted the importance of the mentorintern relationship: Its a collaborative relationship. It is not the mentor giving the intern all of the information. You learn from each other (personal communication, September 23, 2003). She also explained how the interns established relationships with all teachers in a grade-level team, in addition to their assigned mentor teacher by being involved in team planning and by sharing responsibility for the students. Relationships at the Partner Institution Level Relationships at this level reflect the cultures of the partner institutions. Understanding the cultural contexts within the PDS Partnership helps participants to develop the capacity for collaboration. In addition, a full awareness of the range of collaborative processes can help participants develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for PDS development and maintenance. To establish these strong relationships, PDS participants must understand how cultural forces shape behaviors and therefore influence relationships. In this study, PDS
262
participants shared their perspectives on the norms, values, and widely shared beliefs of their organizations. They also explained the challenges associated with understanding differing cultures. Participants described the factors that influenced and shaped their institutional culture as well as those of their partner institution. These widely shared beliefs developed from the experiences of each institution and also were part of the PDS Partnership culture. Earlier sections presented norms of trust. This section presents participants perspectives about other norms that were socially embedded over the long term. Participants described guidelines and beliefs about what was appropriate for the PDS setting. They commented frequently on norms that involved staff, such as those related to PDS involvement, training, routines and consistency, guidelines, roles, and expectations. Some participants also noted the norms generated by national and state educational standards for teaching, curriculum, and PDSs. Participants connected these norms to their SIPs. They also shared efforts to develop new PDS-specific norms and how they worked to make the process visible. Participants explained ways that they attempted to increase PDS participation. Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer explained: I think the prime way the PDS becomes incorporated within the school is if you have a student teacher or not. But, I think that as people have worked with student teachers, or worked with the PDS model, then it becomes more integrated. Another thing I think is a good indicator is the number of people who said, Id like to take a student. I think it is a good indication that people are aware of the successes and willing to put in the time to be a part of that. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) Other participants commented that gaining staff commitment and involvement was important. Mentor Alice Hayes explained how the involvement spread:
263
Once more people saw the positive effects of the PDS on different staff members, saw teachers taking advantage of the classes, saw the results of having an intern within the classroom, there was a lot of people who were just biting at the bit to have an intern and they really wanted to be a part of that. It just grew in interest over the time. (personal communication, July 21, 2004) As participation increased and various people joined the PDS activities, the need to increase consistency grew. Some participants felt that developing norms in educational institutions was slow. University coordinator Dr. Rose shared: There is a disconnect. We have our life elsewhere. The University doesnt really change. There is lipservice that they will, but they move to change at the speed that trees walk. The school system doesnt want to change either. It wants the university to solve problems that they define and determine are relevant on their own timetable. At the level of the institution, no one plans to change. At the building/site level, there are face to face interactions and people are more willing to change. (personal communication, September 20, 2004) University coordinator Dr. Brown also explained her perspective as to how the university began to incorporate PDS norms: The university is just beginning to incorporate the PDS into its organizational structures. As of July 1, 2004, this will be our first year that any money has been set aside specifically for the PDS and has been directly earmarked for the PDS. Previously, we had to rob Peter to pay Paul. We are just beginning to institutionalize at the campus and so that helps me understand the lack of collaboration at the schools. The PDS started in the university. If we are only beginning to institutionalize it, then it hasnt even begun at the schools. I see integration and incorporation of the PDS Coordinators role as the lightening of the load for campus. (personal communication, June 25, 2004) Another chapter section details norms for workloads, roles, and responsibilities. Some participants connected standards and school improvement expectations to Partnership norms. Greenview principal Barnes felt that we should get a continuous thread from our school improvement plan through our instruction. He felt that the only way that you can do that is through a lot of collaboration and communication with the
264
teachers (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Suburban Schools Anita Quinn noted that the professional development should be interwoven with the SIT plan and that maybe it is more important for us to allocate funding and/or expertise to work on SITbased initiatives that were ready to do or research-based initiatives. Quinn felt that too many times the PDS is misconceived as something extra as opposed to something that should be in the work of a school (personal communication, June 30, 2004). PDS participants began to recognize new Partnership norms. They communicated these norms through written guidelines for PDS roles, routines, responsibilities, procedures, and expectations. Participants described norms communicated to them through training sessions, meetings, and consistency of implementation. Fostering Relationships Participants described how they tried to promote relationships and increase PDS involvement. They often described collaboration in terms of a goal to include and involve a wide range of stakeholders in all aspects of PDS development and maintenance. For example, the East Coast University PDS Networks website described PDS governance: All stakeholders must participate in refining the collaborative and in managing its operations (PDS network website, July 13, 2002). Suburban schools representative Anita Quinn echoed these values: It has got to include everybodybe inclusive (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Participants recognized that representatives from several different institutions comprised the Partnership. Glen Grove Principal Owens described the Partnerships stakeholders: We knew that there was certainly representatives from the Suburban County School System. There was representation from the University. There was representation
265
from the individual schools served. There were various folks representing each of those stakeholders that we had to become familiar with. (personal communication, December 15, 2003) Sophie Michaels felt that including all stakeholders benefited the Partnership: I think it works really well because we have so many people involved (personal communication, February 16, 2004). Participants described ways to involve a wide range of stakeholders as providing opportunities for participation, encouraging involvement through incentives, and monitoring representation at meetings to include the various groups of educators. In addition to persuasive, welcoming attempts to involve stakeholders, PDS participants also experienced accountability pressures that compelled their participation. Participants structured the PDS to use these strategies to increase stakeholder involvement. Structuring Overview Once the PDS participants developed shared goals, they worked to develop ways to achieve these goals. Structuring the PDS involved developing precise agreements about responsibilities and decision-making methods. It also involved monitoring progress. Participants described the numerous ways that stakeholders structured their PDS Partnership. Making decisions about the resources, activities, roles, and responsibilities was essential to the PDS development and maintenance. When interviewed about PDS collaboration, participants often described collaboration in the context of decision making. The decision-making contexts included representation or governance, joint planning,
266
determining roles and responsibilities, identifying and monitoring resources, and enhancing control and reducing complexity. Later sections explore each of these contexts in detail. Structuring in PDS Development and Maintenance This section examines data patterns for structuring processes. Reviewing the data from Appendix KK for structuring in PDS development indicated that participants responded most about structuring during the direction-setting (52%) and implementation phases (52%) of PDS development. Compared to other collaboration processes in PDS development, structuring had significantly more related participants responses. This emphasis during PDS development would be expected because participants needed to establish the parameters to build the new PDS initiative. It is useful to examine the frequency patterns of participants responses and the context of their comments to shed light on participants perspectives, experiences, and values. Participants commented frequently on building structuring processes throughout all phases of both PDS development and maintenance. Reviewing data from Appendix KK, structuring also was the area of highest percent of responses during the PDS maintenance direction setting phase (42%). The next section details the range of views on aspects of structuring for collaboration. Voices of the Participants This section reviews areas of frequent participants comments and provides further description as to how participants viewed structuring processes. The participants words describe their perceptions of the structuring process. They explain the ways that they developed the PDS governance structures and the processes of administration. Participants noted efforts to establish the governance, coordinate PDS activities, roles, and
267
responsibilities and detailed processes for monitoring resources and progress toward accomplishing PDS goals. Some participants also discussed the differences between formal and informal structures. They also noted the differences between school sites and how their Partnership differed from other PDSs. Representation, Governance, and Administration The PDS model promoted inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders. PDS participants embraced this concept for creating their governance structures. The PDS Coordinating Committee facilitated PDSs across the school system (Professional Development Schools Coordinating Committee Handbook, 20002001). The school systems Board Report (January 27, 2000) explained the activities of the Suburban Schools PDS Coordinating Committee to include formally adopting a mission statement for all Suburban Schools PDSs, reviewing standards, creating a PDS Coordinators Handbook, developing PDS brochures, and establishing a PDS website for Suburban Schools. Kate Caplan shared her experiences with the coordinating committee: There was some unevenness in that the planning of the coordinating council meetings, and the governance meetings was delegated to the school system side. There wasnt as much investment on the university-side in the planning of the meetings (personal communication, July 22, 2004). East Coast Universitys PDS Network website described governance as one in which all stakeholders must participate in refining the collaborative and managing its operations. The website also noted that, to foster communication and collaboration among members of the East Coast University PDS Network, collaborative governing bodies exist for each PDS to make decisions regarding activities and fiscal requests (PDS network website, July 13, 2002).
268
The PDS Partnerships governance occurred mainly in steering committee meetings and was developmental in nature. Throughout the PDS development and maintenance, these meetings were the main forums for joint decision making, mutual problem solving, and planning. The steering committee evolved as the PDS grew and developed complexity. However, its consistent characteristic was the inclusion of representatives from all stakeholder groups. Although the steering committees membership changed slightly from time to time, members were representatives of the school system, university, interns, and school sites. The steering committee was designed to provide formal opportunities for all stakeholders to participate in decision making needed for shaping, guiding, and sustaining the PDS Partnership. The steering committee meetings were interactive and allowed opportunities for collaboration. Ann Hu described the collaboration that occurred during early meetings: There were all different types of collaboration. But, in terms of the whole united partnership, most often collaboration was happening early on when we were in those governance meetings because there were representatives from all of the partners, all of the stakeholders. People were putting the ideas out on the table and they really were interested in crafting an ideal that would work given the givens in the different sites. (personal communication, April 23, 2004) PDS participants recognized the importance of being involved in decision making and collaboration with other stakeholders. Mark Twain principal Allison Moore emphasized: Collaboration in the PDS occurs when all of the stakeholders have a say in defining their roles and how the PDS program will be implemented in each school given the school culture, while, at the same time, maintaining the integrity of the university and the school system. (personal communication, April 15, 2004) Glen Grove principal Albert Owens commented that, the true collaboration piece probably comes when there are formal meetings called for any particular reason. Thats why most of
269
the collaboration would take place during the steering committees (personal communication, December 15, 2003). The steering committee meetings were an essential PDS structure. The next section examines these meetings in more detail. Steering Committee Meetings in the PDS Partnership Each school site had several representatives on the steering committee. Typically each schools principal attended meetings along with their corresponding PDS site liaison. Assistant principals occasionally attended. Each school site also had interested staff, usually mentor teachers, who attended. This representation by mentor teachers varied in number and specific participants during this case study. Regardless of the variability in composition, the school site staff members were the majority steering committee representatives. School system representatives of the Office of Professional Development Schools and the school system PDS liaison were consistently in attendance at meetings. Usually, school system staff coordinated the meeting dates and developed the agendas. Ron Mitchell shared: The university and the school system coordinate with the liaisons (personal communication, August 31, 2003). The university coordinator was a steering committee member and was usually the lone representative of the university. Both university coordinators expressed concern that this unequal representation at steering committee meetings prevented the PDS from fostering a true collaboration. Dr. Brown explained: A true collaboration is when both partners are equal and have equal say in decisionmaking and decisions are made based on what is best for the client. I feel we are always a guest and are always outnumbered. I never sit at a meeting with equal representation of the school system and East Coast University. There is never an equal number of voices in quantity or equal voice in just being heard. (personal communication, June 25, 2004)
270
Dr. Rose also shared: They say that the PDS is a collaboration and a partnership, but look at the meetings. There is one representative from the university and 5-8 people from the school system. I needed to speak in a voice eight times as loud as one school system person does. There is no balance. (personal communication, September 20, 2004) Although the university coordinators were in attendance at all meetings, they felt that the university was underrepresented and that their voices were not fully heard. Amelia Brown shared her feelings: I am keenly aware of being an outsider. I can come and go. But you know it is not your building. You have to do as the school system says and are not able to question (personal communication, June 25, 2004). She indicated that the voice of the university was overshadowed by that of the on-site participants. Dr. Brown felt that this unequal representation impacted university staff from participating fully in the PDS decision-making processes. She said that decisions were made predominantly by the school system. She also added that she felt that East Coast cooperates with the school system and that there isnt a true collaboration (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Thus, although the steering committee included East Coast Universitys coordinators, they did not feel that the university perspective was adequately represented and that there was an imbalance of perspectives shared at steering committee meetings. The PDS Partnership valued attendance and participation by interns representing their East Coast University student cohort. Principal Barnes explained that incentives were provided for participation: We paid the interns a stipend to come to the steering committee (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Nevertheless, their attendance was infrequent, and therefore they were an underrepresented group at steering committee meetings.
271
Although at some points in the PDS history the interns were regularly included in the meetings, some intern representatives did not feel that they were recognized as full contributors. Hannah Berger explained: I have been to every steering committee meeting and some of the members of the school system dont even know my name (personal communication, August 31, 2003). The steering committees intern representative changed each semester. Other participants had different experiences with the steering committee. Glen Groves PDS site liaison, Sophie Michaels, shared her positive experiences: I think our steering committee meetings really helped get all the plans together. We were able to talk about what we did last year that was successful and what wasnt successful. Since those [meetings] were monthly, that helped to get everything started and we could touch base with everyone and find out what our interests were from our staff (personal communication, February 16, 2004). Representation, Joint Decision Making, and Joint Planning Collaboration occurred as part of the processes of joint decision making and joint planning. Participants shared their perceptions about their involvement in decision-making processes and the PDS administration. Some participants described joint decision making as occurring during steering committees when they made decisions regarding the Partnerships rules and governance. For example, Suburban Schools Ron Mitchell felt that standards should guide the partnership and the governance structure is used to develop policy (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Some participants experienced variability in their experiences with the PDS governance. Mark Twain Principal Allison Moore shared that the efficiency of the
272
governance varied over time: The PDS was extremely organized for the first three years. Roles were defined, and meeting dates were established at the beginning of the school year (personal communication, April 15, 2004). Mentor teacher Nora Kramer shared: When we were a partner with Greenview, I thought the governance was more clear-cut. I felt more informed. I thought it was very well defined (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason felt uninformed: I dont know how often they meet (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Intern Raina Hunt also expressed that she felt uninformed: I dont feel the power of the steering committee. I dont even know what that honestly is. I dont know what they talk about (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Some participants felt they had varying input depending on the level of decision making. Suburban Schools Ann Hu felt that the principals voices were the strongest (personal communication, July 22, 2004). However, mentor teacher Penny Sawyer felt that principals voices reflected opinions of other participants as well and shared that schoolbased decisions were made with input from any of us who wanted to tell what we thought. However, she felt that the central office decisions were a little more fragmented, took a little longer to get done. She also felt that, during that school year, the central office was an area of weakness, but that that was not the case in the past. She described previous decision-making efforts as everyone having an opportunity to contribute and to vote and that decisions were truly made by the committee (A. Hu, personal communication, September 23, 2003). Thus, governance experiences varied depending on the people involved at the time. Roles, Responsibilities, and Rights
273
The Maryland PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) served as a guide for participants, noting that: Parity is foundational to a true partnership in a PDS. All participants have equal rights, responsibilities, and goals with no one partnership dominating (The Maryland Partnership for Teaching and Learning K16, Superintendents and Deans Committee, p. 10). The Partnerships annual memorandum of understanding also provided guidelines for roles and responsibilities. Suburban Schools Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) also included explicit descriptions of rules, roles, and responsibilities. Joint Planning During PDS development, convener George Grayson emphasized the need for joint input. He gave the example of how, in the PDS, the whole assessment process, the portfolio assessment model, was developed jointly (personal communication, July 28, 2004). As he described this PDS experience, he added, Thats what collaborations about. Participants planned structures that would enable joint planning. Joint planning opportunities were not only valued by the conveners. Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason shared that joint planning strengthened the partnership: What happens between the two schools, the collaboration and the planning, thats where the strength is (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Intern Hannah Berger explained that collaboration involved all the different teachers and students planning events and expectations for what the program is supposed to be (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Specific opportunities purposefully designed as PDS planning structures included the annual Summer Institute. Mark Twain Principal Allison Moore described the Summer
274
Institute: The Summer Institute, held at the end of June each year, is a collaborative activity that gives the stakeholders time to brainstorm, discuss, and plan for the following school year (personal communication, April 15, 2004). Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer also valued the Summer Institute, explaining that meetings that have been held in the past have been very useful and that they were really opportunities for collaboration and to really discuss things extensively and to work together on certain pieces of it (personal communication, September 23, 2003). According to Dr. George Grayson, the Summer Institutes served as opportunities for strategic planning, and they were where the university and the school-system folks worked together to develop what is actually going to happen across this year (personal communication, July 28, 2004). Ron Mitchell explained: For the summer institute, there will be collaboration with non-mentors, etc. Everyone will be involved to guide and plan for change (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Other opportunities for being involved in PDS planning also were mentioned by participants. Some mentor teachers participated in mentor planning days, in which mentors had the opportunity to meet and collaborate. Penny Sawyer emphasized that active involvement defines true collaboration: I felt that in the beginning, when it was with Greenview, it was really a true collaboration where both schools and the university were actively involved in the planning and looking ahead and setting priorities for the year, and in looking at the needs and the goals for PDS. (personal communication, September 23, 2003) Mentor teachers Nora Kramer and Natalie Ronaldi shared the view that collaboration is characterized by involvement and personal relationships. Alice Hayes gave an example of the positive experiences she had: It was just so nice to have an opportunity to collaborate and we always did it in a very relaxed way, in a comfortable
275
way, with a little bit of food or something. Everybody just had a very pleasant experience (personal communication, July 21, 2004). Participants jointly planned several PDS-specific events, such as portfolio reviews, Summer Institutes, and mentor training. For example, the steering committee members addressed portfolio reviews quite frequently during their meetings (Steering Committee meeting minutes; October 11, 2001; November 16, 2001; October 23, 2002; December 4, 2002; April 30, 2003). Participants described how the portfolio review events were the culmination of the internship. School system PDS Liaison Ann Hu felt that the portfolio process was something that really kicked inservice professional development up a notch. It was tougher, a little more rigorous. And, probably, it was more real (personal communication, April 23, 2004). In addition to describing the types of joint planning, participants also noted some of the challenges. Although valued, participants sometimes found the logistics of joint planning to be problematic. Because the university and the school system had different annual calendars, steering committee members had different availability. Participants needed to consider several schedules when planning PDS events. They needed to coordinate school site schedules, school system schedules, the universitys calendar of events, and the individual participants personal and professional schedules. Thus, there were often lengthy discussions about scheduling during steering committee meetings (participant observations; December 10, 2001; February 28, 2002; March 12, 2002; January 29, 2003; March 7, 2003). Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason noticed the frequent calendar confusions among steering committee members and commented that they didnt all seem to be on the same page (personal communication, October 28, 2003).
276
Leaders in the PDS The PDS model fostered leadership opportunities by encouraging teachers and interns to be more involved in steering committees or Summer Institutes. Kate Caplan described how the participants worked to find ways to involve mentors and other experts in the building in being used in expert roles or run seminars (personal communication, July 22, 2004). School staff had the opportunity to serve as the school site liaison. School system and university faculty provided leadership as steering committee members. Participants also recognized other leaders based on their professional titles and other leadership positions in their schools, university, or school system roles. The PDS model promoted various structures to allow leadership to flourish at all levels of the Partnership. Identifying and Monitoring Resources East Coast Universitys Dr. George Grayson defined collaboration as when folks come to the table and jointly decide how things will be and how to allocate resources (personal communication, July 28, 2004). Suburban Schools Anita Quinn shared: I feel that both the university and the system are committed to achieving the goals of the partnership. To that end, they commit staff. We commit staff. We commit monies and time (personal communication, June 30, 2004). The steering committee allocated resources provided by school system and university budgets. Suburban Schools provided budgeting guidance through the Professional Development Schools Coordinating Committee Handbook (9/17/01) and other documents. Although resources were often a topic of decision-making teams, it also was an area in which the Partnership needed additional focus. To make their commitments a
277
reality, the PDS participants needed to develop and maintain ways to identify and monitor resources. During PDS development, there was ready access to resources. Suburban Schools and East Coast University promoted the PDS and committed resources. Anita Quinn commented on Suburban Schools support: Our system supports us with a budget and a staff that probably is larger and more supportive than many other people in our state (personal communication, June 30, 2004). For example, the proposed PDS 2001 budget allocated funds for mentors, summer retreats, celebration activities, governance (steering committee), and professional development. Mentor costs included payments for mentors for stipends, training, and meetings. Expenditures for governance included stipends, supplies, substitute coverage for teachers, and refreshments. The total expenditure for East Coast University was $14,038.00 and for Suburban Schools was $14,094.00. Both institutions dedicated the majority of the budget to workshop wages for participants. Suburban Schools and East Coast University shared responsibility by committing in-kind resources as part of the PDS budget. Suburban Schools Kate Caplan explained: None of the PDSs, none of the partnerships, were paying people directly for things. They were always looking for in-kind resources. In other words, opportunities to take courses at discounted fees, or bring courses onto the school system campus (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Grants provided other financial resources for the PDS. Anita Quinn shared, We were blessed to have grants (personal communication, June 30, 2004). East Coast University representatives George Grayson and Irene Rose facilitated writing and guided the steering committees work in monitoring the Partnerships grants. Penny Sawyer
278
shared that participants worked to collect data to make sure they satisfied the requirements of the grant (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Ann Hu explained: Theres going to be day to day aggravations with it. Like the scheduling of planning when we were going to go over the data for the grant, deciding what data was going to be part of the grant, even doing the grant (personal communication, April 23, 2004). However, PDS participants also shared responsibility for maintaining an adequate level of resources to continue the PDS efforts. Participants described the uncertainty that characterized the PDS budget. For example, some participants expressed confusion as to how to access reimbursements or had questions about guidelines for expenditures. At times the steering committee members also expressed uncertainty about budget guidelines (steering committee meeting minutes; October 11, 2001; October 23, 2002). Anita Quinn explained how continuing Suburban Schools funding became a concern once the PDS has been up and running for many years (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Because grant monies largely funded PDS activities, there is an inherent uncertainty in terms of future resources, funding, and program consistency. Quinn shared her perspective as to the direction the school system might take if grant funding decreased: Well, the idea would be that when these grants dried up, that both partners, meaning the university and the system, would be committed to finding a way for this work to happen. So that, if our budgets got tighter maybe we [would consider] the idea of release time for someone as opposed to paying them a stipend or the idea that a university person would come and offer a training and perhaps not charge the system contracted services. The idea that we would each donate our people, and the resources that we have access to, to make this work. (personal communication, June 30, 2004) In this study, PDS participants did not propose strategies to reduce uncertainty in the organization. This area offered little discussion among participants. Later sections
279
describe participants responses related to the processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity. In addition to financial resources, participants mentioned other resources such as space and time. Anita Quinn explained that school site space was needed for the PDS: Space is typically a hot commodity. Its about who might have extra space. We try to make sure it is equitable. We like interns to spend time in both buildings so they can talk about something and then perhaps go and observe it. (personal communication, July 30, 2004) Glen Grove principal Albert Owens explained that they were fortunate in that they have been able to provide an actual classroom that literally became known as the PDS classroom. He shared that it was used by Dr. Brown during the week to teach the various courses, to meet with the students, and to do the kinds of continuation that she has to do to the university experience (personal communication, July 25, 2004). Participants also commented that their time was a resource that was often not considered in PDS discussions of identifying and monitoring resources. They commented on the time-intensive nature of developing and maintaining a PDS. Amelia Brown shared how she experienced a disenchantment about the effort needed, the difficulty to commit to being a mentor teacher, etc. (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Glen Grove principal Owens, however, did not express this same concern: Timewe are literally able to spend as much time as Dr. Brown and the university folks feel that they need (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Monitoring Progress Participants also shared responsibility for developing structures to monitor progress. The Maryland PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) noted: In the climate of shared responsibility that is the nature of the PDS relationship, PreK12 student
280
achievement must be the measure of that collaboration. Participants recognize a shared responsibility for improvement of all students learning (p. 9). Some participants sought input as to what resources were needed to positively impact student achievement. Greenview principal Allen Barnes described how at first they simply asked the teachers, What do you need? He explained how the teachers would list what they need and then the resources that they would be looking for. He said, It was almost your needs assessment for professional development because the steering committee members would line up how we would get them this help whether it was through a course, or a workshop, or a resource teacher or university professors (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Kate Caplan described how the steering committee members had meetings on how the budget would be divided. She said, There was funding that was necessary for the two schools together, but also recognizing that each school might have some individual things that they would want to do (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Kate further explained that, in the early days of the PDS, there was a model that said that the school as a whole should benefit, not necessarily the mentors themselves, directly. So, funding went to the school (personal communication, July 22, 2004). She explained that, as the PDS became established, budgeting changed somewhat. She said, And then, we actually got a budget page that received some funding for mentors, and training. There was some resistance initially, on the part of the university to pay mentors directly for what they did. Because we had the funding to do it, we started looking in two ways. We looked at rewarding mentors directly. And, also, putting resources into the school to just build up the overall expertise of everyone in the school. Because everybody in the school is impacted by the fact that you have all of the mentors there. (personal communication, July 22, 2004)
281
Thus, some budgeting guidance came from Suburban School System and its organizational structures. However, guidelines for PDS program evaluation, and for evaluating the Partnerships collaboration, were in draft stages as part of state PDS standards. Formal Versus Informal Structures As a process, collaboration is intertwined with many other processes necessary for the management of educational institutions. Sometimes these processes occur formally as part of meetings, professional development, or planning opportunities. PDS participants described formal collaboration as intertwined with activities such as the steering committee, the Summer Institute, and other governance opportunities. Penny Sawyer felt that the summer institutes are a formal structure for making sure that there are opportunities (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Wendy Davidson felt that the mentor/intern collaboration is formal, and Cathy Tobiason explained that she felt the interns planning with grade-level teams also was formal in nature. Intern Raina Hunt shared her perspective that a lot of how the interns learn is through formal means (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Participants also described instances of informal collaboration. Penny Sawyer felt that the informal ways are not really established (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Principal Allison Moore felt that informal collaboration occurs in the classroom, staff lounge, media center, team areas, or in the principals office (personal communication, April 15, 2004). Ron Mitchell said, There are a lot of hallway conversations. Intern Hannah Berger said, The activities with the mentors are usually informal. So are other teacher contacts. We arrange those ourselves (personal
282
communication, August 31, 2003). Wendy Davidson added that she felt the collaboration between interns is informal (personal communication, September 24, 2003). Some participants also described a combination of formal and informal collaboration. Nora Kramer and Raina Hunt, who worked together as mentor and intern, shared that collaboration could occur as part of formal arrangements for planning and discussion or as spontaneous, informal activities such as catching each other in the hallway (personal communication, October 28, 2003). It seemed that participants collaboration experiences covered a wide range of levels of formality of structures. In addition to traditional types of structures, a new structure for PDS communication, planning, and collaboration was on the horizon for the Partnership near the case studys culmination. Suburban Schools had adopted a new e-mail system designed to foster communication within the school system. Later sections on communication processes explore participants perceptions about this form of communication. Although this e-mail system was not interactive at the time of this study, it does reflect how PDS structures were evolving. Participants Involvement in PDS Structuring By being involved in PDS activities such as professional development opportunities, graduate coursework, or action research, participants had opportunities to give feedback as to how PDS structures were working within the Partnership. For example, Suburban Schools action research conferences encouraged PDS participants to reflect on their Partnership and their professional practices through roundtables and panel discussion formats. The conference invitation (May 15, 2001) encouraged participants to share the following types of research: as part of a course, peer coaching, professional
283
development portfolios, a cooperative program review project, a school improvement project, or a system-wide improvement project. These conferences helped participants learn how other partnerships structured their PDSs and encouraged sharing of best practices. The PDS Is Site-Specific Although the Partnership adopted the PDS model, it was differentiated in its implementation, as were other PDSs in Maryland. The Maryland PDS Implementation Manual, Revised Edition (spring 2003) explained: The state of Maryland can provide standards for PDS, but no one expects standardization of partnerships. PDSs must respond to the needs of the stakeholders involved, and a cookie-cutter approach is counterproductive (p. 56). The site-specific nature of Suburban Schools PDS programs was evident when they were compared system-wide. Suburban Schools Anita Quinn explained: There are similar tenets and yet each partnership evolves differently in order to meet the needs of the students and the teachers that they serve. So, you are going to see variation among universities and different school sites (personal communication, June 30, 2004). University coordinator Irene Rose also commented on differences: This school system does the PDS model differently than other counties. I am amazed by the differences around the state and the differences in quality. For example there seems to be far less central office involvement in other districts (personal communication, September 20, 2004). Participants described how this Partnership was different from others by the goals participants chose to pursue, how they chose to utilize resources, and the culture and climate distinctive to their Partnership.
284
Negotiating Overview Negotiating processes ideally include resolving disputes, understanding differing expectations, and establishing common ground. In this case study, participants did not frequently comment in these related areas. However, engaging in a partnership implies that participants deliberately plan ways to anticipate and respond to conflict and to develop constructive negotiations of disputes. Because a partnership connects the values and work cultures of different institutions, participants must be able to negotiate pathways through unanticipated obstacles. Thus, examining participants responses, although limited, provides some indication as to how they perceived negotiating processes within their Partnership. Later sections detail the range of views on aspects of negotiating processes in collaboration. Negotiating in PDS Development and Maintenance Using the data from Appendix KK, it is evident that negotiating processes are one of the areas of lowest total participant response in both PDS development (4%) and maintenance (4%). For problem setting, direction setting, and implementation in both PDS development and maintenance, negotiating processes received 5% or less of the total participant comments. Compared with other collaboration processes, responses for negotiating were consistently ranked in the lowest three processes for frequency of participant responses. Voices of the Participants This section presents themes in participants responses. The participants comments explain their perspectives of negotiating processes embedded in collaboration
285
during PDS development and maintenance. Greenview principal Allen Barnes shared that, in his experiences, decision making was always by consensus. He explained: I dont think that we ever had to take a vote. I think we would have fallen back on a vote, if we had needed to, but we came to consensus. He also explained that there was little need for negotiating: There wasnt anything that controversial of issues (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Glen Groves PDS school site liaison Sophie Michaels also felt that the steering committee members usually come up with a consensus (personal communication, February, 16, 2004). East Coast University coordinator Dr. Amelia Brown viewed negotiating decisions differently than Suburban Schools staff. She felt that she had to do as the school system says and was not able to question. Brown described a situation in which there was little actual negotiating sharing that there is not ground there where we can disagree (personal communication, June 24, 2004). Although there were few comments regarding negotiating, some participants discussed efforts to resolve disputes and issues that arose involving personal interests or technical points. Negotiating in the PDS did not necessarily relate to disputes of content. Some participants also shared that differing expectations created some of these obstacles. Participants worked to negotiate common ground where there can be a merger of their different personal and professional values. Combined with differing expectations were differing levels of interpersonal skills needed for successful negotiation. In this case study, some participants seemed to describe negotiating processes as a subset of communication skills. Resolving Disputes
286
The Partnership emphasized the importance of establishing the freedom to disagree and including various stakeholders voices. However, participants shared that this was not always their personal experience. University coordinator Amelia Brown explained her experiences: I am not part of the faculty. Any decision I make has to be one that the school principal says is OK (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Some school staff expressed discomfort about disagreeing with their principal. For example, during a participant observation of a Mark Twain staff meeting to review results from an informal school climate survey (April 2002), staff members shared comments indicating their uneasiness with the principals defensive posture. Staff also shared that they had just been reprimanded by the principal for having responded honestly to the climate survey stating that they felt afraid to disagree (participant observation of April 18, 2002, survey results). For example, an area of low average score was attributed to the following statement: We can disagree without jeopardizing our relationships. Thus, participants did not perceive that there was a school or Partnership climate that allowed participants the freedom to disagree without consequence. It also indicates that participants valued their relationships. Sometimes participants described disputes as disagreements about roles, responsibilities, or professional territory. Suburban Schools Kate Caplan shared her perspective about a dispute with the university coordinator about who should instruct interns: The interns were always hers. And, even to the extent of Ann [Hu] having an opportunity to present to them. It was always, this is our job and this is my job (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Ann Hu also noted this dilemma and explained that there were things Dr. Rose didnt want to release, such as the observations of the interns (personal communication, April 23, 2004).
287
Participants shared their disputes about roles and other aspects related to program content and quality. Sometimes these disputes stemmed from differences in perspectives as to the population served by the different PDS participants. Dr. Amelia Brown shared her perspective as university coordinator: Now the child is the client in the school systems mind. The intern is the client in the universitys mind (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Thus, advocacy for their perceived clients was sometimes an underlying factor in understanding roles and responsibilities. Other chapter sections also address roles, responsibilities, and expectations and how they are part of structuring processes during collaboration endeavors. Understanding Differing Expectations and Negotiating Common Ground PDS participants needed to establish common ground to develop the Partnership. Understanding each others perspectives and expectations was key to accomplishing this common ground. However, perspectives of the potential obstacles and how negotiations should occur differed among participants. Some participants felt that their relationships helped them to negotiate possible bureaucratic obstacles. Anita Quinn shared that, because she had a network or connection with East Coast University, she felt that negotiating was a matter of talking with people as opposed to going through formal channels. She clarified this by adding: I dont mean to imply that it is a handshake and a nod. I dont mean that at all. I just mean that it is not necessarily a bureaucratic problem to get things done (A. Quinn, personal communication, June 30, 2004). Other participants, such as principal Allen Barnes, felt that if you base decisions on the school improvement plan and whats good for staff development or student
288
instruction, there is not a whole lot of controversy (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Although participants recognized the connection between school improvement and the PDS goals, they shared examples of disagreement that surfaced from lack of participants input into decision making. Ron Mitchell explained, The committee tries to reach consensus, but sometimes there were obstacles. He continued: The Action Research Conference is an example. It was decided that here is how it will be and there was disagreement. If only a few make decisions, it is not how PDSs are intended to function (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Participants also worked to create common ground by developing common expectations. Some mentor teachers recognized this need, but shared that expectations may change over time. Glen Groves Natalie Ronaldi explained: I think expectations have changed. Where in the beginning, we were unsure of what to expect and just trying to go right by the book. I think now it is a little more fluid and the mentors are able to see more of the big picture. It is not as rigid as I think it was. (personal communication, July 20, 2004) However, some participants felt that other participants did not attempt to understand others. East Coasts Amelia Brown explained how she felt school staff did not understand her duties. She shared that she had other university duties that were not part of her PDS responsibilities and that the school and university cultures were very different. She explained that she told school staff: Dont think if Im not there, Im not working anywhere (participant observation, June 13, 2002). Brown also shared that the university culture had different expectations and did not generally value her contributions as university coordinator: I know more about the school system and the role of teachers than they know about my university responsibilities. We need to be able to do more to share each others worlds. When I hear, the University doesnt know about the school system and
289
teaching, I think I know a helluva lot more about what a classroom teacher does than they know about me. I think that is a failing. There would then be a mutual feeling that we need this to work. I feel like Im always trying to keep everyone happy. Im trying to keep the school system happy, the principals happy, the teachers happy, the interns happy, and the university happy. I feel like I should write about the good, the bad, and the ugly. The bad and the ugly are not talked about. We have only touted how wonderful it is. There are some thorny issues that can chew some people up. (personal communication, July 22, 2004) University coordinator Irene Rose also felt that the lone faculty member gets shredded between the expectations of each institution and it gets too exhausting to continue (personal communication, September 20, 2004). Thus, participants expressed the need to understand each others institutional cultures to successfully resolve disputes and engage in negotiating processes. Similar issues came to the surface during the period in the PDS history when Greenview was removed as a PDS partner. The university faculty strongly expressed their need to be included in resolving conflicts and also their dismay when they were not included. Dr. Grayson shared his experiences with negotiation about Greenviews removal from the Partnership: There was no negotiation. We were told. We did have a follow-up meeting here involving Kate Caplan and Anita Quinn to help clarify what was going on. I think it helped folks getting a handle on understanding, but the manner in which it was done is what wrangled a lot of people. It was not only what you say, but how you say it. It wasnt something that was done over night. This policy was one that took awhile. I think it would have been a much better, much easier issue had we been privy to some of these conversations. Im not interested in knowing the school systems business so to speak. But, if the shoe had been on the other foot and the university had sent an email saying Oh by the way we are no longer going to be partnering with this school, I dont think the reception there would have been favorable either. Its not how you do business. (personal communication, July 28, 2004) These conflicts were still fresh when Glen Grove became Mark Twains new partner school. Glen Grove principal Albert Owens explained that he felt his main role at this
290
point, is one of almost a communicator, an ombudsman so to speak, someone who basically keeps everybody coordinated and everybody speaking to one another (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Thus, some participants attempted to mediate or negotiate conflicts. Attempts to ensure that participants clearly understood their roles and responsibilities included written documentation and reminders of expectations. For example, Amelia Brown regularly issued memorandums (August 30, 2002; September 24, 2002; September 25, 2002; December 3, 2002; August 2003; January 28, 2003; April 24, 2003) to give clear delineation of roles, to present precise agreements and schedules, and to direct mentor teachers and interns as to upcoming responsibilities. Although there were frequent attempts to establish common expectations about roles and responsibilities, the details and logistics of the day-to-day PDS implementation continued to challenge participants. Schedules were one of the details that required negotiating and problem solving. Albert Owens explained the flexibility that he sought with scheduling for Glen Grove: There are certain things that are dependent upon East Coast Universitys schedule that we have no control over and we have to sort of morph their dates and their times onto our schedule. On the other hand, there are certain things specific to the education here at Glen Grove that we cant alter and they have to morph their schedule onto ours. (personal communication, December 15, 2003) Other participants also noted that schedules presented an obstacle. Ann Hu shared: We had to really look at the school schedule and how it was going to work for the professors who were used to being on campus and were now coming to our building. I remember meeting with them and we all came together and hashed out a schedule that would be workable (personal communication, April 23, 2004). However, Ann felt that these early
291
arrangements changed as teachers began to offer input into the schedule and would suggest a schedule more befitting to them. Yet when the committee discussed schedule constraints from the college level, teachers knew that even though they voiced, it wasnt going to happen. Ann shared that she felt after awhile, then, people just dont voice as much (personal communication, April 23, 2004). The Partnership participants continued to struggle with scheduling intern placements, events, and activities to meet the various stakeholders needs. Throughout the study, they frequently revised schedules to try to find the best fit for all involved. Other attempts to ensure that participants understood expectations and developed common ground included providing numerous opportunities for participants to share opinions. Other sections describe these opportunities to involve participants and to help them to resolve possible disconnects between personal expectations and PDS expectations. These opportunities encouraged participants to develop working relationships with each other and to understand diversity in the Partnership. Coping With Power and Politics Overview Recognizing and attending to issues of power and politics supported the Partnerships collaboration. Ideally participants would cope with power and politics by providing open access to power by increasing participation from a wide range of stakeholders and monitoring the allocation of resources. Participants commented on efforts to increase PDS public relations and overall involvement in PDS activities. They also commented on PDS leaders and their relationships to processes of power and politics in the PDS setting. Prior sections describe the efforts of steering committee members to monitor
292
resources. Later sections detail the range of views on aspects of coping with power and politics during collaboration. Power and Politics in PDS Development and Maintenance Reviewing data from Appendix KK indicates that the processes of coping with power and politics were generally not areas of focus for PDS participants responses. During both PDS development and maintenance, related responses to the processes of coping with power and politics consistently represented less than 6% of the total participants responses. Implementation in PDS development was the lowest area of response, representing only 1% of the total responses. This finding also was true for problem setting (1%) and direction setting (1%) in PDS maintenance. For implementation in PDS maintenance, coping with power and politics also was in the lowest percentage (3%), but shared that level of response with negotiating (3%) and enhancing control and reducing complexity (3%). Voices of the Participants Participants shared few responses related to coping with power and politics. However, they did mention ways they worked to include a wide range of stakeholders through participation. Specific topics noted included agenda setting, representation at meetings, and monitoring resources through steering committee leadership. They also discussed promoting the PDS concept. Agenda Setting and Representation at Meetings The Suburban Schools staff members usually created the agenda with little input from the other steering committee members (participant observation, June 23, 2003). They also frequently led the steering committee meetings (participant observations, December
293
10, 2001; January 29, 2003). Dr. Rose commented that university representation was unequal at these meetings: There is one representative from the university and 5-8 people from the school system. I needed to speak in a voice 8 times as loud as one school system person does. There is no balance (personal communication, September 20, 2004). Mark Twain assistant principal Wendy Davidson also felt that there was a need to widen representation at steering committee meetings. She felt that she had had no role in developing policy. She explained that she had not been asked to attend meetings even though she was part of the schools administrative team: I am not invited and not given anything in that area [PDS]. Zero. It is significant that Ive never been invited (personal communication, September 24, 2003). Nevertheless, PDS participants claimed the goal of including a wide range of stakeholders at meetings. Participants also wanted to broaden PDS involvement. Ron Mitchell explained how participants want to look outside of the regular teacher mentor pool for others to contribute. He shared, we are also trying to pull in a parent this summer for the summer institute. There is room to grow (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Monitoring Resources The steering committee members monitored the Partnerships resources. During the early PDS development, East Coasts Dr. George Grayson took responsibility for monitoring the Partnerships resources: One of my primary responsibilities was to find the resources and for monitoring the funding. As the Partnership gained grant funding, Dr. Grayson continued in this role. He shared: ultimately, somebody has got to be
294
accountable for the grant so that was another area of responsibility (personal communication, July 28, 2004). Early in the Partnerships history, the steering committee members monitored the Partnerships budgets. Greenviews principal Allen Barnes explained how the steering committee kept track of the budget and the expenditures and that the committee decided that most of the budget went towards staff development. He described how the Partnership participants changed procedures: We were the first, I believe, to pay, at least with East Coast University, to pay the mentors a stipend. Before that the money went to the school and the school divvied it up. Although Barnes explained that the steering committee made these decisions together, and that they monitored budget spending, he did not indicate that there was an ongoing monitoring as to the efficiency of spending or the effectiveness of programs. Later in the Partnerships history, the PDS Coordinating Committee Handbook (2001) gave guidance from the Suburban Schools Office of Professional Development Schools as to how to develop and monitor budgets, facilitate wages for workshop attendance, pay substitutes for teachers attending professional development opportunities, or negotiate contracted services. The FY2002 budget information and guidelines indicated that PDSs which are grant funded usually receive most support as in kind services in the first year of the grant, but may require funding in subsequent years of multi-year grants as grant funding is reduced (p. 1). The handbook also provided guidelines for monitoring the use of funds and suggested areas in which PDSs may particularly want to seek additional support from PDS partners. These included conferences, equipment, contracted services,
295
supplies, and materials for recognition events (PDS Coordinating Committee Handbook, 2001, p. 5). The steering committee members discussed budget constraints such as how conference registration fees might be paid (steering committee meeting minutes; October 23, 2003). Other issues included how mentors might receive compensation. Kate Caplan explained how the steering committee made decisions to allocate funding for mentors and then monitored its use. She provided background for the decisions ultimately made by steering committee members: There was some resistance, initially, on the part of the university to pay mentors directly for what they did (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Thus, steering committee members jointly decided how to allocate resources and directly monitored them. Promoting the PDS Concept to School Communities PDS participants created a brochure to promote their Partnership. Suburban Schools staff initiated this effort as part of a system-wide PDS promotion. Ron Mitchell asked school site staff to participate in its development by taking a few digital pictures and helping to review the draft brochure (steering committee meeting minutes; December 4, 2002). Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason mentioned keeping the school community informed: I think that someone is going to speak at back-to-school night so that parents will know we are part of the PDS program (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Because these interview responses were limited in number, additional data were needed to reveal how participants responded to processes of coping with power and politics. Therefore, an examination of participants overall response levels revealed their
296
PDS levels compared with other participants. These data patterns present participants involvement and indicate their PDS participation. Examining involvement levels and making comparisons to participants characteristics helped to develop a description of PDS participation. The following section presents participants involvement levels, as noted by frequency of responses for PDS development and maintenance. Involvement Participants who are collaborating are involved in the PDS. Because participants who are highly involved are likely to have more PDS-related experiences, they are more likely to provide more elaborate PDS descriptions. Thus, highly involved participants are likely to have high numbers of interview responses. Involvement levels were thus examined to explore this proposition. As noted in chapter 4, each participant was provided a rating for levels of involvement. It was expected that a participants involvement level would reflect his or her activity at the site with which he or she was affiliated. Therefore, participants response levels were first compared to the colleagues at their site. Appendix CC presents the data for involvement levels by site and lists the site-specific ranges for determining high, average, or low involvement levels. Examining Involvement Expectations and Levels by Site For Mark Twain participants, the hypothesis that highly involved participants would have high response frequencies was correct 67% of the time. For Greenview participants, the percentage was 100%. However, there were only two participants. The hypothesis held true for 40% of the time for Glen Grove and Suburban Schools. It did not hold true for East Coast University participants (0%). For the Interns, the hypothesis was correct 50% of the time. Overall, across sites, the hypothesis was correct for 11 of 23 or 48% of
297
the PDS participants. Because this ratio is not significantly different than being correct by chance, it cannot be confidently stated that the hypothesis is correct. Based strictly on levels of involvement, this study did not find that high levels of involvement, based on previously noted observable criteria, would consistently yield high numbers of responses from participants. Although the PDS goals were designed to foster the inclusion of a large number of stakeholders, it is reasonable to expect that they may not all participate to the same extent. Some participants may be more active or involved at different parts in the process. It was necessary then to compare aspects of the PDS participants such as job position or roles to see how these might be related to the participants responses in the study. Appendix DD presents tables listing these comparisons. Of the four main groups (school site staff, East Coast University staff, Suburban Schools staff, and university students), the only group in the Higher than Average range was the Suburban Schools Staff. This result might be expected because the responsibilities of their job positions were closely aligned with their PDS Partnership roles. Some individuals had higher than average numbers of responses. If that person did not share their job position at any point in the study, their number of responses was not averaged and reflected the contributions of one participant. Some participants had job positions that were PDS-specific, whereas some participants fulfilled a PDS role in addition to their school system job position. Noting this difference was needed to help sort out distinctions between job positions and roles. It was necessary to examine the PDS-specific role of a participant as distinguished from the professional position a participant might hold as an employee of the school system
298
or university. Appendix EE notes frequency of responses of PDS participants grouped by role. As explained in chapter 4, there was overlap between job positions and PDS roles, resulting in some participants holding multiple PDS roles. If a participant held multiple roles, it would be expected that he or she would have a higher than average number of responses. A ratio was created to reflect multiple roles held by participants compared to the total of six types of roles. Appendix FF displays each participants involvement, described by the level of involvement code, alongside the multiple roles ratio and the ratio of the number of participant responses to the total across sites. Appendix GG lists numbers of responses by site and notes a percentage of the total responses. The following participants held the five highest numbers of individual participant responses across sites: Allen Barnes, Anita Quinn, Ann Hu, Cathy Tobiason, and Penny Sawyer. These participants were from three different sites: Greenview, Suburban Schools, and Mark Twain. None of these participants had the highest attained multiple roles ratio (50%). Involvement Levels at Sites Examining the multiple roles dimension of level of involvement still does not show the full participant involvement picture. It describes individuals who were active in PDS activities and who held positions or responsibilities in the PDS. Examining site totals added to this description. Table 5.3 shows the total responses for all participants at each site compared to total responses across sites. Table 5.3 Total Site Responses Compared Across Sites
299
Site
Number of Site Responses; Percentage of Total Responses
Mark Twain Elementary Greenview Elementary Glen Grove Elementary Suburban Schools Interns East Coast University
785; 25% 392; 13% 579; 19% 771; 25% 161; 5% 409; 13%
Table 5.3 shows that participants at Mark Twain and Suburban Schools contributed more coded responses than the other sites. It also indicates that Mark Twain Elementary and Suburban Schools contributed about the same percentage of the total coded responses. This result might be expected because Mark Twain had longevity in the Partnership compared with the other two elementary schools. Suburban Schools also had been involved, from the Partnerships beginning. Although East Coast University also had been involved as a founding partner, the number of site responses was about half of Mark Twain and Suburban Schools. It also should be noted that the number of East Coast University participants interviewed was three, whereas the number for Mark Twain was six and the number for Suburban Schools was five. The five participants with the lowest number of responses were Hannah Berger, Wendy Davidson, Sheri Lohmann, Jennifer Marks, and Raina Hunt. Both of the interns were in this group. This result might be expected due to the interns limited opportunities for involvement in the Partnership because of limited time. Both Sheri Lohmann and Jennifer Marks were mentor teachers at Glen Grove. Neither participated in other PDS roles such as the steering committee or the PDS site liaison, and they were not as involved in the Partnership as other members at their school site. Wendy
300
Davidson indicated in her interview that she had no defined role in the Partnership. Her responses indicated that she was not delegated PDS-related tasks by the Mark Twain principal. Examining job positions and related involvement levels added to the description of PDS participation. Appendix HH displays job position, level of involvement, and multiple PDS roles regardless of site affiliation. On average, school administrators appeared to be the group with the least involvement in terms of multiple roles. However, their response levels were not low as compared with the other participants with different job positions. Roles in the PDS also must be considered across sites to expand the description of participation. Appendix DD displays these involvement levels. Next considered were participants who held multiple roles. Although participants held multiple roles, it seemed possible that the different participants who fulfilled those roles may have interpreted them differently. Different participants had more impact, influence, or involvement at different phases of the PDS Partnership. Certain roles or job positions were more aligned with skills needed for different collaboration processes during PDS development and maintenance. Thus, a participants involvement varied and may have had varying influence or impact at different points in the Partnerships history. Tables listing involvement levels of PDS participants described the general context of PDS collaboration. Further examination of the activity and involvement of participants as connected to phases of the PDS or collaboration processes provided a more complete picture of PDS collaboration. Some participants had more involvement as noted by responses in PDS development or maintenance. Because all data were coded to indicate its context of PDS
301
development or maintenance, participants comments were examined to reflect their involvement levels by phase. Examining responses coded PDS Development revealed which participants commented about this phase. The following tables show the numbers of responses by individual participant by site. The tables present the level of involvement code and the frequency of responses for PDS development. Table 5.4 presents the data for Mark Twain Elementary. Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason had the highest number (27%) of site responses. However, she had a moderate level of involvement. With the exception of Wendy Davidson, who did not make PDS development-related responses, other Mark Twain participants had similar response frequencies and moderate involvement levels. Table 5.4 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Mark Twain Elementary Level of Involvement (minimal, low, moderate, high) Mod Min Mod Mod Mod L
Participant
Responses Coded PDS Development (ratio; % of site total) 11/63; 17% 0/63; 0% 13/63; 21% 9/63; 14% 17/63; 27% 12/63; 19%
Allison Moore Wendy Davidson Penny Sawyer (SC) Nora Kramer (SC) Cathy Tobiason Alice Hayes
Table 5.5 presents the data for Greenview Elementary participants. Principal Allen Barnes had the highest number of responses at this site. Table 5.5 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: 302
Participant
Greenview Elementary Level of Involvement (minimal, low, moderate, High) H L
Responses Coded PDS Development (ratio; % of site total) 38/50; 76% 12/50; 24%
Allen Barnes Alice Hayes
Table 5.6 presents the data for Glen Grove participants. Principal Albert Owens had the highest percentage (39%) of responses for this school site. The second highest percentage (31%) was mentor teacher Natalie Ronaldi. Table 5.6 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Glen Grove Elementary Participant Level of Involvement Responses (minimal, low, moderate, (ratio; % of site total) high)
Albert Owens Sophie Michaels Jennifer Marks Sheri Lohmann Natalie Ronaldi
Mod Mod L L L
25/65; 39% 7/65; 11% 8/65; 12% 5/65; 8% 20/65; 31%
Table 5.7 presents the data for Suburban Schools. PDS liaison Ann Hu had the highest number of responses (31%). Ron Mitchell, who replaced Ann in this same position, had the lowest number of responses (5%) at this site. All Suburban Schools site participants had high involvement levels. Table 5.7 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Suburban Schools Participant Level of Involvement Responses (minimal, low, moderate, (ratio; % of site total) high)
303
Jim Orlando Kate Caplan Anita Quinn Ron Mitchell Ann Hu
H H H H H
18/88; 20% 23/88; 26% 16/88; 18% 4/88; 5% 27/101; 31%
Table 5.8 presents the data for East Coast University. Of the three study participants, George Grayson offered the most responses compared with the other site participants. However, all three East Coast University study participants were noted as high involvement in the PDS activities. Table 5.8 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: East Coast University Participant Level of Involvement Responses (minimal, low, moderate, (ratio; % of site total) high) George Grayson Irene Rose Amelia Brown H H H 22/32; 69% 8/37; 22% 2/37; 5%
Table 5.9 presents the data for the Interns. Only one of the two interns, Raina Hunt, made comments related to PDS development. Raina was an intern during the time Glen Grove joined the Partnership. Table 5.9 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Development by Site: Interns Participant Level of Involvement Responses (minimal, low, moderate, (ratio; % of site total) high)
304
Hannah Berger Raina Hunt
L Min
0/10; 0% 10/10; 100%
Each of these tables presents involvement levels and numbers of responses by site. These data indicate which participants were most involved at their respective sites. They provide a description of power and politics in the PDS by revealing which participants were involved in PDS development. Tables noting involvement levels and numbers of responses for PDS maintenance by site follow. Table 5.10 presents the data for Mark Twain Elementary. Although mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason had the most (23%) related responses, the frequencies were fairly evenly distributed across the site. Table 5.10 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Mark Twain Elementary Level of Involvement (minimal, low, moderate, high)
Participant
Responses Coded PDS Maintenance (ratio; % of site total)
Allison Moore Mod 17/128; 13% Wendy Davidson Min 13/128; 10% Penny Sawyer Mod 23/128; 18% Nora Kramer Mod 21/128; 16% Cathy Tobiason Mod 29/128; 23% Alice Hayes L 25/128; 20% ________________________________________________________________________ Table 5.11 presents the data for Greenview Elementary. Mentor teacher Alice Hayes had the most (64%) related responses, although her level of involvement code was low. Table 5.11 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: 305
Participant
Greenview Elementary Level of Involvement (minimal, low, moderate, high) H L
Responses Coded PDS Maintenance (ratio; % of site total) 14/39; 36% 25/39; 64%
Allen Barnes Alice Hayes
Table 5.12 presents the data for Glen Grove Elementary. PDS site liaison Sophie Michaels contributed the most (29%) related responses. Table 5.12 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Glen Grove Elementary Participant Level of Involvement Responses Coded PDS (minimal, low, moderate, Maintenance high) (ratio; % of site total) Albert Owens Sophie Michaels Jennifer Marks Sheri Lohmann Natalie Ronaldi Mod Mod L L L 14/73; 19% 21/73; 29% 15/73; 21% 11/73; 15% 12/73; 16%
Table 5.13 presents the data for Suburban Schools. Anita Quinn contributed the most (48%) related responses. Although Superintendent Jim Orlando contributed the least responses (5%), this result would be expected during the PDS maintenance phase because this was the time period during which he retired from Suburban Schools. Table 5.13 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Suburban Schools Participant Level of Involvement Responses Coded PDS (minimal, low, moderate, Maintenance high) (ratio; % of site total) Jim Orlando Kate Caplan H H 306 4/83; 5% 6/83; 7%
Anita Quinn Ron Mitchell Ann Hu
H H H
40/83; 48% 14/83; 17% 19/83; 23%
Table 5.14 presents the data for East Coast University. The responses for East Coast participants reflect similar frequencies for all participants. In addition, all participants were coded as having high levels of involvement. Table 5.14 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: East Coast University Participant Level of Involvement Responses Coded PDS (minimal, low, moderate, Maintenance high) (ratio; % of site total) George Grayson Irene Rose Amelia Brown H H H 18/56; 32% 15/56; 47% 23/56; 41%
Table 5.15 presents the data for the interns. Responses for the interns were almost equal shares. Table 5.15 Participants Level of Involvement in PDS Maintenance by Site: Interns Participant Level of Involvement Responses Coded PDS (minimal, low, moderate, Maintenance high) (ratio; % of site total) Hannah Berger L 18/35; 51% Raina Hunt Min 17/35; 49%
Comparing site responses indicates that certain individual participants from various sites commented more frequently than others. There were participants from all sites who commented on PDS activities. Because this finding reflects their PDS involvement, it
307
indicated that the Partnership did engage a variety of stakeholders from its various sites. Comparing these involvement findings for PDS development and maintenance revealed that some participants were more involved at different PDS phases. Coping With Change Overview PDS participants must develop ways for their Partnership to cope with change. Participants cope with change by promoting flexibility among participants and within the organization. They also must develop awareness that change is inevitable. To help cope with change, participants should communicate frequently and document processes and progress toward goals. Participants must focus on the continuity of processes and not the changes in the people involved in the PDS. Coping With Change in PDS Development and Maintenance The data from Appendix KK indicate that the process of coping with change was a focus area for participants comments throughout PDS development and maintenance. Coping with change increased as a focus area from development (9%) to maintenance (26%). Compared with other collaboration processes, coping with change most often ranked in the middle for frequency of responses during problem setting and direction setting. However, for implementation in both PDS development and maintenance, coping with change represented more frequent participant responses, ranking second for PDS development and third for PDS maintenance. Participant response frequencies provide an overview of when participants chose to comment on how they coped with change in the Partnership. The next section details the range of views on aspects of coping with change as part of collaboration processes.
308
Voices of the Participants There was a range of responses related to coping with change. Some participants commented on the rate of change. Others noted specific types of changes, such as staff turnover, schedule changes, organizational changes, and PDS programming changes. Suburban Schools Anita Quinn explained how frequent changes impacted the PDS Partnership: In four yours time, there has been a lot of changes. And, to combat those changes, then it has taken a lot of time in re-laying the groundwork and building consensus and trust and rapport, and being educated about the SIT plans in all of those sites, and trying to make sure that there are programmatic links to the SIT plans and that professional development is aligned to those. (personal communication, June 30, 2004) School system PDS liaison Ann Hu discussed how frequent change impacted participants: People just get tired, I guess. I dont know if that is a curve for change, or what. But, there is high interest, high motivation, high investment, a leveling off period of where it seems to you that you get things in place and the next year or so it can bop along and you can even put in extras. But, then people get weary and it falls off. We kept changing. (personal communication, February 28, 2002) Participants described PDS staff changes. During this case study, there were staff changes in several leadership positions. Steering committee members changed frequently. Examples of staff changes included the following. The university coordinator changed from Dr. Irene Rose to Dr. Amelia Brown. The school system PDS liaison changed from Ann Hu to Ron Mitchell. Suburban Schools Kate Caplan retired, and Anita Quinn became more active in the Partnership as a school system representative. Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer commented that student representatives changed along the way so weve had different input from different former student teachers (personal communication, September 23, 2003).
309
Participants noted their perspectives of how they responded to these leadership changes. Principal Allen Barnes explained his reaction when the Mark Twain principal changed to Allison Moore: When the administration changed, it kind of suffered. I dont think the second principal, because she was new, understood the PDS as much because she came in the middle (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Ann Hu shared her reaction to the university coordinator change. Ann felt that the university coordinator definitely needed a change and explained how the participants were excited because we are thinking we are getting a fresh new change (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Hu also described how she felt the change in university coordinators would result in delays for PDS initiatives (participant observation, March 12, 2002). However, not long after that staff turnover, Ann decided to vacate her part-time position as the school system PDS liaison. Suburban Schools representative Anita Quinn commented that it had been challenging to fill the part-time school system PDS liaison position that Ann Hu vacated. She explained that, because of their time-intensive nature, it was difficult for a person to share that part-time position with another part-time position and that when Ron Mitchell eventually vacated the position as well, the school system placed a person in there who doesnt have another half (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Anita continued to explain Suburban Schools response to these frequent changes. She said, We are reexamining the best way to utilize these people. She also noted that their position title had recently changed to release teachers on assignment (personal communication, June 30, 2004).
310
Mentor teacher Cathy Tobiason shared that staff changes occurred at the school level as well: Our staff has changed over the years, too. So, I think theres some new learning that is to be done (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Anita Quinn described the PDS as an ongoing thing and commented: I think that it is continually learning because we have teacher turnover and administrator turnover (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Participants described how they responded to these staff changes. Mentor teacher Nora Kramer shared: It is difficult when the personnel changes because then I feel the PDS goes through a slide and a readjustment (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Mentor Penny Sawyer shared that, with a new group of people, it didnt seem like anybody had a real good sense of what the policy should be and it seemed like it was sort of a moving target this year (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Anita Quinn explained that the challenge is the turnover, because you get a new principal, you get a new university coordinator, you get new site liaisons, and you are kind of back to square one again. And, I think that in three years time, we have rebuilt a lot of links (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Anita elaborated: I think trust and respect are earned. Because of the amount of turnover that we have had, it has taken some time. You know, to live with each other and to redefine ourselves, and to make sure that we are collaborating (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Participants shared their perspectives of how they coped with schedule changes. Ann Hu explained: There was some experimentation going on with how to do the schedule for the interns (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Mentor teachers Sophie Michaels, Penny Sawyer, Jennifer Marks, and Sheri Lohmann also commented
311
about the intern schedule changes. Michaels shared: I definitely see that it is running more smoothly that it did in the beginning. We had a lot of different changes and we had to be very flexible. She explained that last year mentor teachers had a hard time with doing the evaluation because they did not have enough time with their interns, but, This year, both placements are balanced out (S. Michaels, personal communication, February 16, 2004). Marks shared There has been a drastic change from last year to this year. (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Lohmann also shared how oftentimes it has been challenging with the schedule. There have been frequent schedule changes, especially as to when there would be meetings with Dr. Brown. There was confusion with the interns and thus the mentor teachers as to what was due when. There were frequent changes that were somewhat confusing. That lasted up until June (personal communication, October 19, 2004). Participants described organizational changes that impacted the PDS. Many of their comments described how the participants reacted to the partner change due to the removal of Greenview Elementary from the Partnership. Some participants mentioned how the school system reorganized the Office of Professional Development Schools to be incorporated with the Human Resources Department. During this time period in the PDS history, participants described emotional reactions to how the school system enacted these changes. Other sections noted these changes and participants responses. Participants commented on their responses to PDS programming changes. They described how they initially changed from a traditional student teaching program to a PDS. Ann Hu explained how the PDS became its own entity: We had the governance that we had established, and the steering committee. When the teachers were a part of that and blended from each of the staffs, over time, it
312
really did become something where they cared about one another. It did become a unit. (personal communication, April 23, 2004) The PDS continued to evolve. Participants created roles, responsibilities, and structures to suit the Partnerships needs. Anita Quinn explained that, after doing PDS work for some time, we really had more of a sense of what needed to be done. Prior to that, we were transitioning from teacher center to PDS so perhaps we didnt know then what we know now (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Superintendent Dr. Jim Orlando explained the direction he felt PDSs should evolve: The PDS has to become so much a part of the culture that the PDS becomes impervious to those kinds of changes at the margin. Even though they are very important changes, they ought to be marginal in terms of their impact (personal communication, November 2, 2004). Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity Overview The data from Appendix KK indicate that the process of enhancing control and reducing complexity is an area of low participant response for problem setting (1%), direction setting (4%), and implementation (1%) in PDS development. It also was an area of low response for problem setting (2%), direction setting (2%), and implementation (3%) in PDS maintenance. In an ideal collaboration, it would be expected that understanding the processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity would be necessary for a complex reform such as the PDS. Participants would enhance control and reduce complexity by developing rules for governing the use of resources and establishing a high level of coordination. Ideally, participants should have access to resources, use them efficiently, and have a joint appreciation for the PDS goals.
313
Examining participants perspectives, experiences, and values related to enhancing control and reducing complexity provides a way to examine interrelationships among the collaboration processes. Enhancing control and reducing complexity may impact other collaboration processes and ultimately the PDS success. This section examines data patterns for the case study participants responses. Later sections detail the range of views on aspects enhancing control and reducing complexity in collaboration. This section compares the collaboration process of enhancing control and reducing complexity in PDS development and maintenance. The section reviews areas of frequent participants comments and provides further description as to how participants view enhancing control and reducing complexity. The section also includes direct quotations from participants to portray the scenarios in their own words. Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity in PDS Development and Maintenance Although infrequently, participants commented on the collaboration process of enhancing control and reducing complexity during both PDS development and maintenance. Enhancing control and reducing complexity had its highest percentage of comments in the direction-setting (4%) and implementation (4%) phases of PDS development. Nevertheless, this area still had the lowest comments overall in PDS development. Although related participants comments remained low during PDS maintenance, enhancing control and reducing complexity was still an area of comment. In the problemsetting and direction-setting phases, it accounted for only 2% of the total participants
314
responses. During implementation, responses increased slightly to 3%. The next section explores the participants comments for both development and maintenance. Voices of the Participants Based on the limited participants comments, it seems difficult to describe how the participants viewed processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity. However, there are patterns evident by their lack of comment. For example, across all sites, there was only one participant response related to enhancing control and reducing complexity during the problem-setting phase of PDS development. This total is much lower than other collaboration processes during problem setting. This one comment was from Glen Grove principal Albert Owens, who addressed how complexity decreased the longer that participants worked together to try to make sure that the program ran smoothly at all of the different schools (personal communication, December 15, 2003). The most participants comments were made related to direction-setting during PDS development, with a total of five responses across sites. Two of these comments were made by Greenviews principal Allen Barnes, who discussed efforts for joint coordination for meetings and training. A few participants also noted other specific suggestions for coordinating efforts. Accessing and Monitoring Resources The steering committee, serving as a means for joint governance, was the main arena for monitoring resources. The PDS made some steps to develop collective rules governing resource use. Participants created annual budgets. Some guidelines were beginning to develop to monitor resource use, but such efforts were mainly grant-related
315
and prompted by state requirements for documenting the use of grant monies. Previous sections noted these grant-related efforts. Thus, there were few internal efforts to monitor resource use. Coordination efforts for resources need to be incorporated into the structures of the PDS Partnership. Participants did not specifically comment on ways they would increase future access to resources. There also was little discussion about the efficient use of resources. Although there was accountability as to the use of resources, participants did not discuss spending efficiency or the effectiveness of allocated resources. Monitoring Progress and Effectiveness The PDS participants did not conduct studies to determine whether professional development activities were effective. Although they collected data to document their grant funding, participants did not collect specific data on their Partnerships program effectiveness. Participants did, however, monitor progress toward stated PDS goals, SIP objectives, and grant-sponsored activities. Despite the fact that there was no systematic means for data collection in place, participants made observations about how the Partnership was developing, changing, or working at the time. Some participants sensed fluctuations in the program over time. For example, Ann Hu discussed a period of time when she felt like the college started falling away. Ann described her perception that, during this time, the university was reluctant to provide professional development courses at the school sites and took a more restrictive stance. She shared the universitys approach that, if we didnt get enough numbers, they would not be offering a course. Hu felt that some of the professional development options thus became lost (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Program options
316
appeared to decrease as a result of university requirements for minimum enrollment in graduate courses. At the time of this study, the Partnership participants did not express a targeted plan for addressing these institutional issues. Coordinating Efforts Establishing the job position for the school system PDS liaison was an effort to coordinate PDS tasks. Both the university and the school system agreed to fund this position through their annual memorandums of agreement. However, the position title indicated the connection to Suburban Schools because they supervised recruiting and hiring for the job. The job description included responsibilities to serve both school system and university needs and to facilitate communication among participants. Ann Hu and Ron Mitchell served in this position and were central to coordinating efforts for the Partnership. In addition, participants discussed ways that they might coordinate their efforts by delegating responsibilities to the PDS site liaisons, synching schedules of the school system and the university, and coordinating activities. The PDS site liaison coordinated logistics such as scheduling coverage for classroom teachers to attend meetings (participant observation, May 7, 2003) and arranging for reviewers for intern portfolios (participant observation, May 15, 2003). At steering committee meetings, synching schedules presented a challenge (participant observations, February 28, 2002; April 18, 2002). Planning activities such as the Summer Institutes, action research conferences, mentor trainings, and professional development required participants to coordinate their efforts. For example, at the June 23, 2003, Summer Institute, Work groups were established to review the internship calendar, service learning, and intern activities (meeting minutes, June 23, 2003).
317
Anita Quinn shared another example of the need to coordinate efforts system-wide. She described how Suburban Schools had layers of resource staff providing service to teachers. Quinns Office of Professional Development Schools (OPDS) was one provider within Suburban Schools. Quinn explained: They kind of classify my office as the clearinghouse of all PDS issues. So, we are kind of the overarching umbrella. She described how other resource teachers from various offices were kind of connected to us as well as another layer of field or resource teachers that are connected to us as well to help us manage the program (A. Quinn, personal communication, June 30, 2004). These layers of assistance were not coordinated on a regular basis within the PDS Partnership or systemwide. OPDS initiatives existed alongside initiatives from Suburban Schools curriculum offices. Resource teachers from both groups competed for teachers professional development time. Thus, PDSs need to concentrate their efforts to reduce the complexity within the Partnership. Not all of the PDS participants felt that adding staff or delegating responsibilities reduced the complexity of developing and maintaining a PDS. For example, university coordinator Dr. Amelia Brown shared her perspective that, In Suburban, there seem to be layers of help which are not really help and that the structures are not working (personal communication, June 25, 2004). Mark Twain assistant principal Wendy Davidson shared her perspective: Im going to be brutally honest here. The PDS is an add-on piece that, at this time, is not an integral part of the school (personal communication, September 24, 2003). To attempt to provide role clarity and to guide the PDS in future years, participants documented their coordination efforts through minutes of meetings; however, there were
318
occasional misunderstandings among participants. For example, Ann Hu shared an experience of frustration with the university coordinator. She explained that she had worked on a project without collaboration, cooperation, or assistance of any kind and that it took a great deal of personal effort to pull the event together (participant observation, February 28, 2002). Another such incident of misunderstanding and frustration occurred during preparation for the Partnerships display at the PDS national conference. The PDS site liaison experienced difficulty gaining participation from other participants and was concerned that none of the steering committee members had taken the initiative to begin the design of the display (participant observation, March 7, 2003). Ann Hu explained the general difficulty with coordinating efforts: I think early on the collaboration was there. And, whether it was the realities of what they had to do, or it was just the fact that they were more disillusioned with the concept or not as interested. Sometimes the follow-up to what they said they would do wouldnt occur or they say they dont remember that they had the task. (personal communication, April 23, 2004) To help reduce frustrations and complexity in the PDS, participants explained that they needed someone to help coordinate the efforts of the various participants and their respective institutions. Some participants felt that a boundary spanner was needed for this Partnership. Dr. George Grayson of East Coast University felt that the boundary spanner role was crucial and that the university was beginning to try to build those bridges between the university as well as the school system (personal communication, July 28, 2004). Suburban Schools Kate Caplan discussed how another PDS partnership created such a role and that it was the first appointment that was half-East Coast and halfSuburban County (personal communication, July 22, 2004).
319
Caplan explained that this boundary spanner helped to overcome issues experienced by Dr. Amelia Brown and Dr. Irene Rose as university coordinators because of East Coasts promotion and tenure policies: Amelia and Irene, and Im trusting that you will articulate this in a strong way, were very much immersed in and attended a great deal to issues of tenure and university protocol, and so, in my estimation, didnt buck the system. We were more conscious of their time in fulfilling all of their university responsibilities and marking those boundaries. (personal communication, July 22, 2004) Kate Caplan continued to explain how the newly appointed boundary spanner found ways to find the time to do the kinds of things within the PDS, because she was not wrapped up in tenure (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Kate felt that the boundary spanner position seemed to work smoothly, from our perspective because you really had somebody who was truly assigned to the field and who would actually live in the schools and see what the reality was (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Kate stressed that promotion and tenure policies at the university level were a huge issue for PDS (personal communication, July 22, 2004). Other Suburban Schools colleagues recognized the promotion and tenure issues as well. Anita Quinn also shared, I do think the issue of promotion and tenure at the university level is a challenge (personal communication, June 30, 2004). Superintendent Jim Orlando shared his perspective of the dilemma: You know we give a lot of lipservice to the fact that promotion and tenure decisions are made on the basis of scholarship, service, and teaching. Thats mostly bull. We give it on the basis of scholarship. How many papers you write. Publications you get. Even teaching takes second place. And service takes a distant third place. And, for people, especially young faculty who are on the tenure track, they are expected to teach four classes each semester. They are expected to do research. Theyve got to do their research because theyve got to show productivity by the time they go up for tenure. It is really a very difficult task. Working as a PDS coordinator in a school is a huge time consumer. (personal communication, November 2, 2004)
320
University faculty also shared their concerns with current promotion and tenure policies. Dr. Irene Rose shared why she decided to leave her position as the university coordinator after 4 years: There were some faculty opportunities that I was not eligible for and I asked to have a change. The Chair wants faculty to have a chance to participate in a PDS. It builds strength in the program to have more staff involved. It is healthy for the program. Dr. Rose also explained that faculty changes were typical for East Coast (participant observation of steering committee meeting, April 22, 2002). Dr. Rose explained that she based her decision partly on promotion and tenure issues within the university system and indicated that her work was not as valued by the university as other types of work such as publishing and research (participant observation, April 22, 2002). She noted that, as a university faculty, there are standards that we must meet for tenure. Running a PDS doesnt necessarily translate to standard criteria for meeting these requirements. The PDS is not an attractive assignment for a faculty member (personal communication, September 24, 2004). Other East Coast University faculty also recognized the issues related to the universitys promotion and tenure policies. University coordinator Amelia Brown explained her concerns: We are always at a disadvantage because we are out of the university so long. The student contact hours are based on four courses. The PDS is one three-credit course. It is a day and a half off campus. We cant publish, collaborate with colleagues, or advise students. We have to do that on our own time. We have to do the rest of our university load. There is exploitation in being a PDS Coordinator. You lose campus promotion opportunities. (personal communication, June 25, 2004) East Coasts George Grayson described how the policies of promotion and tenure are under review and that we are looking at trying to provide recognition for the demands of
321
PDS work on university faculty (personal communication, July 28, 2004). Dr. Irene Rose also shared that she felt the university was beginning to address the issue: They are hiring others to do the PDS rather than university faculty. These people do the PDS and are not on tenure track. Actually the East Coast University Elementary Education Department is now [September 2004] trying to ensure that tenure track or tenured faculty members are involved in PDS work. (personal communication, September 24, 2004) Promotion and tenure issues continued to be a point of discussion by PDS participants throughout this case study. Communication Overview This section describes communication processes involved in PDS collaboration. In an ideal collaborative partnership, participants communicate successfully by matching the form, function, and amount of communication to the situation. They conduct good faith negotiations and seek to prevent misinterpretations. They also are sensitive to the timing of communications. The sections that follow examine ideals for communication compared with participants perceptions. The next section details the range of views on aspects of communication processes within collaboration and present communication as a foundation for other PDS collaborative processes. Communication in PDS Development and Maintenance Participants frequently commented on communication processes during PDS development and maintenance as noted in Appendix KK. Participants commented most on communication during the implementation phases of PDS development (28%) and maintenance (36%). Compared with other collaboration processes, communication ranked second in PDS development and first in PDS maintenance.
322
Voices of the Participants Participants responses revealed that there was great variety in purposes, type, and content of PDS communication. Participants initiated communication to foster collaboration and to provide the means for decision making, information sharing, and feedback. The main areas of participants responses were related to roles and relationships, information sharing, and specific tasks or activities within the PDS. These responses were generally connected to communication within the individual site. Several Glen Grove participants commented on the types of things staff members can do to increase communication and build relationships. Principal Albert Owens shared that he was basically responsible for the communication piece. He explained that Glen Grove had certain vehicles that help with decision making and communication. He described building leadership team meetings (BLT) that involved team leaders as well as a representative from the assistants, the custodial, and the secretarial staff. He explained that this group becomes almost the first line of defense when anything has to be discussed or decided upon. For Glen Grove, this process also included any kind of PDS decision or any kind of PDS implementation or initiative. Owens also explained that an initiative usually gets its start at the monthly BLT (personal communication, December 15, 2003). The participants affiliated with Suburban Schools echoed Owens comments. Ann Hu felt that she was instrumental in informing other participants of the various schoolwide events. Ron Mitchell explained how this was accomplished: The steering committee minutes are disseminated to the team and site liaisons and at mentor meetings and at the summer institute (personal communication, August 31, 2003).
323
At Mark Twain, some participants felt that information from PDS meetings was not being shared broadly. For example, mentor teacher Nora Kramer stated: I havent been informed of any meetings. She also felt that processes had changed in the partner switch from Greenview to Glen Grove and explained that things were different from the way we used to meet with Greenview because she knew all of the people involved (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Mentor Cathy Tobiason explained: I think a lot has to do with information that is given by the supervisor to her team. PDS participants recognized the importance and impact of communication. They described how communication supported collaboration at all levels and within all contexts of the PDS Partnership. It formed the foundation on which collaboration is built. Figure 5.2 shows the relationship between collaborative processes and communication as illustrated by this case. FIG. 5.2 Communication as a Foundation for Collaboration.
The type, frequency, and perceptions of communication influenced the perceptions of the PDS participants as to the nature of collaboration in their Partnership. Some participants perceived communication and collaboration as parts of the same process. Other participants viewed processes of communication as the basis for collaboration. Communication was extensive, varied, and essential to the PDS. Communication was one means for participants to fully participate in the PDS and to manage the effects of change. For example, when PDS changes blurred the institutional
324
boundaries, increased communication helped participants to articulate expectations, values, and norms. This communication helped reestablish boundaries that gave shape and definition to the involved educational institutions. Effective communication helped the participants address the nonlinear nature of PDS development and maintenance. Collaboration and Communication Are Closely Linked PDS participants closely linked collaboration and communication. They often described the two processes as intertwined. Albert Owens asserted: Collaboration mainly sprang from the communication. He also emphasized the importance of the person-toperson contacts among the school staff, the interns, and the university coordinator. Owens elaborated on the nature of the contacts: The contacts are frequent and easy and uncluttered and just sort of very informal. Other participants presented similar views about the need for informal contacts, communication, and collaboration. Although she valued the informal contacts, university supervisor Amelia Brown felt that sometimes her role was limited to them. She shared how the participants ask me quick questions about certification or about coursework, but they do not seek me as a resource for advice or input about their classrooms. I would have considered it a part of my role, but it never materialized (personal communication, February 14, 2004). Some participants seemed to blend the concepts of collaboration and communication and described them almost as one effort. For example, when asked to define collaboration, Mark Twain mentor teacher Penny Sawyer said: I think that we collaborate well. I think we have a good communication base within this school. And, I think that people work well together. I think there is a good amount of sharing (personal
325
communication, September 23, 2003). Glen Grove mentor teacher Natalie Ronaldi also viewed collaboration as contacts, communication, and information sharing. Participants noted the importance of frequent communication throughout PDS development and maintenance. Anita Quinn explained that collaboration, as communication, was essential to sustaining this Partnership: I think because this particular partnership has seen so many changes, the fact that it still survives speaks to, perhaps the commitment to collaboration, to really listening to what people have to say, to thoughtfully making decisions that are in the best interests of the system and the university and the populations that we serve. (personal communication, June 30, 2004) Figure 5.3 displays the foundation of communication to the collaboration processes that occur during problem setting, direction setting, and implementation. FIG. 5.3 Communication and Collaborative Processes During Problem Setting, Direction Setting, and Implementation.
Aspects of Communication Communication, as a process, is complex. It requires participants to engage in listening, reflecting, and articulating their ideas to others. It is essential for participants to possess communication skills needed to navigate the frequent interactions with other participants, understand their institutional cultures, and collaborate to develop and maintain the complex institution of the PDS. Participants described aspects of communication that were essential to PDS Partnership interactions and collaborative processes. Figure 5.4 326
includes these aspects of the communication process in the PDS Partnership. The following sections explore each of these communication processes.
FIG. 5.4 Collaborative Processes and Aspects of Communication.
Listening Some participants described listening processes as essential to the communication processes needed in collaboration. For example, Suburban Schools Ann Hu commented on the amount of time it would take to really hear everything to get the whole picture. She further explained that, because people werent always in the same places at the same time, she would have to share it all over again, increasing the time she spent communicating with participants. Ann felt that as the liaison she really did try to let them know what happened. However, she felt constraints by being a part-time PDS staff member who could not see participants daily. She said, there would be stuff lost in the translation, or it would just be lost (personal communication, April 23, 2004). The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) noted listening as a means for developing trust and rapport and gave suggestions for being an active listener:
327
In order to be an active listener, you must truly want to hear what the other person has to say, genuinely be able to accept the other persons feelings and ideas, and trust the capacity of the other person to handle, work through, and find solutions to their own problems. (p. 1.19) The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) also suggested that mentors provide wait time, paraphrase, and use clarifying questions (p. 1.18). Reflecting Other participants shared that reflecting was another characteristic of communication processes in the PDS Partnership. Participants discussed communication as part of the mentorintern coaching relationship. The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) includes reflecting conversation as part of the cycle of supervision, suggesting that mentors help mediate the learning of the person observed (p. 2.22). The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) explains that mentors should encourage interns to summarize impressions and an assessment of the lesson, recall supporting information, analyze the data that was collected, infer and hypothesize cause and effect relationships . . . construct new learnings and applications (p. 2.22). The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) also provides specific suggestions for mentors to encourage their interns reflective thinking. Effective mediational questions focus on the thinking processes which underlie behavior, performance, decision, or choice (p. 2.23). The Handbook for Mentoring in a PDS (20012002) provides examples of such questions. Reflective Teaching and Information Sharing Some PDS participants felt that, by encouraging frequent communication, the PDS also fostered reflective teaching. Allen Barnes saw these information-sharing activities as opportunities for reflecting. He felt that when you reflect, then you can collaborate on it (personal communication, June 29, 2004). Ann Hu felt that everybody has to really take
328
time to listen. It takes thoughtful reflection to see all perspectives and sides. Although Ann said that there was certainly more reflection that took place in a PDS than there is in a traditional program, she also noted that it takes time to listen, and that it can be challenging to find the time. In her role as school system PDS liaison, Ann felt that her time was always encroached on and she did not have the time she needed to devote to listening and reflecting. She said, thats what made me the craziest (personal communication, April 23, 2004). Mark Twain assistant principal Wendy Davidson also commented on reflective teaching: I see mentors as being forced to be reflective of their own teaching practices and to continue to look at routine maintenance skills. When they have an intern, they remember to do these things. It serves as a self-assessment for experienced teacher. (personal communication, September 24, 2003) Davidson also noted that, for the school as a whole, there can be benefits. She described how the interns could serve as examples and how the interns can sometimes shake things up (W. Davidson, personal communication, September 24, 2003). Other participants distinguished types of communication such as information sharing about professional development opportunities or best practices. They also noted opportunities to develop working relationships with their colleagues and to understand their cultures. Mentor teachers Cathy Tobiason, Penny Sawyer, and Natalie Ronaldi described information sharing as occurring in the context of grade-level team planning. Natalie Ronaldi also said, Ive seen people collaborating across the grades (personal communication, July 20, 2004). Penny Sawyer relayed that they were working together in terms of student learning and also really collaborating with lessons (personal
329
communication, September 23, 2003). Wendy Davidson also shared that there was collaboration within the teams, adding that the interns served as a team for each other when they collaborated on their lessons to support each other and help each other with keeping on track with assignments (personal communication, September 24, 2003). Some information sharing occurred during mentor day when mentors met to discuss their interns progress. Summer Institutes and portfolio review events also presented opportunities for sharing. Each of these events was structured by the steering committee to become annual events for the PDS. The content of these events varied each time depending on the PDS participants needs. School system PDS liaison Ron Mitchell gave an example. He shared how he would like to widen the range of participants who were involved in PDS activities. Specifically, he indicated that he would like to see future portfolio reviews to integrate more and have the mentors and non-mentors involved (personal communication, August 31, 2003). Other types of information-sharing sessions occurred between the Greenview and Mark Twain mentor teachers. Penny Sawyer described grant sponsored activities that fostered information sharing: We were actively collaborating when we were sharing math lessons and working on pieces of the grant (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Ann Hu also recalled a day of information sharing for teachers: That was a true collaboration because we talked to the county people, the resource people, and they contributed to it. So, it was a very nice win-win thing (personal communication, April 23, 2004). She also felt that there was high involvement of mentors: I thought we got wonderful contributions. Truly! They were very willing to offer what they knew and to participate (personal communication, April 23, 2004).
330
Mentor teachers described ways that they shared information with their interns. Alice Hayes described how she ended up spending a lot of time focusing on the essential curriculum, noting how these information-sharing sessions also helped to develop the relationship with the intern. She explained that, you had to help them with understanding the student as a learner (personal communication, July 21, 2004). Sharing information about best practices was one facet of communication within the mentor-intern relationship. Interns Raina Hunt and Hannah Berger stressed that the interns valued information sharing as well. Hannah Berger felt that feedback is needed daily and that collaboration occurred when teachers were meeting with interns discussing grading policies and expectations (personal communication, August 31, 2003). She described how sharing information through planning activities with mentors was one way that collaboration occurred. Raina Hunt added that the sharing of ideas from the mentor teacher to the intern and then the intern to the mentor teacher is the whole thing of the PDS. She explained: That is where the collaboration is. Nevertheless, Raina Hunt felt that interns could also benefit from the sharing of ideas from other teachers in the school. She said, I would be extremely happy if, in the PDS, you would work not just with one teacher, but a whole team. You could collaborate with other people. Im sure other teachers have other ideas that Im not catching up on, but we dont really share them. She described her overall intern experience as one in which she was EXTREMELY isolated (R. Hunt, personal communication, October 28, 2003). Although structured activities such as those associated with grant monies seemed to promote information sharing across school sites, there did not seem to be many spontaneous cross-school connections for staff. Mentor teacher Natalie Ronaldi stated: I
331
have to be honest. I dont see a whole lot of collaboration between the two schools. But that might be because Im not on the steering committee. I didnt have any contact with the other school this year (personal communication, July 20, 2004). Mentor Cathy Tobiason commented that a lot depends on how it is supervised, and a lot has to do with information that is given by the supervisor to her team (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Dr. Brown also felt that the PDS was lacking spontaneous sharing: I have taught in a portable at Mark Twain Elementary with no teacher interaction. It is almost like they want to be important by saying they get to be the school meeting place. The reality, though, is that now one would know if we were there or not. There is no sharing of instruction. (personal communication, February 16, 2004) Although the steering committee was a main avenue for information sharing across school sites, the structure of the PDS Partnership did provide another venue for information sharing. The Partnership created PDS school and site liaisons to facilitate information sharing within and across school sites. Preventing Misinterpretations by Communicating Through PDS School and Site Liaisons To explain the roles and responsibilities of the PDS site liaison, the Partnership distributed a handout entitled Roles and Responsibilities of the Higher Education Supervisor, Mentor, and Intern (undated, circa 2002). The document describes the duties of the PDS school and site liaisons; however, it includes several different names for these positions. For example, the handout references the PDS school liaison as the school coordinator and the PDS site coordinator. Included in the handout is the job description for the PDS site coordinator.5 position, as well as a separate list of examples of duties
332
for the school coordinator. This case study references this position as the PDS school liaison, which was a position title that evolved later in the Partnerships history. Generally, the handout describes the duties of the PDS school liaison as facilitating communication, providing on-site coordination, working collaboratively with university coordinators and PDS site liaisons, maintaining Partnership documentation, coordinating professional development, and attending various meetings (Roles and Responsibilities of the Higher Education Supervisor, Mentor, and Intern, undated, circa 2002). Participants valued the PDS school liaisons leadership and assistance. Mentor teacher Penny Sawyer felt that the school system PDS liaison was very important because she had a lot of information about the PDS and that sharing was almost an instructional piece for the schools (personal communication, September 23, 2003). The duties of the PDS site liaison included assisting other participants, such as the university coordinator, site coordinator, and building administrator. Examples of specific duties may include helping to arrange resources, support mentor training, arrange meetings, or coordinate internship placements. The duties of the PDS site liaisons also include disseminating information from steering committee meetings, assisting with the governance by serving on the steering committee, and participating in Summer Institutes. The document specifically notes the PDS site liaison as a leadership opportunity (Roles and Responsibilities of the Higher Education Supervisor, Mentor, and Intern, undated, circa 2002, p. 3). Anita Quinn added that both liaisons were critical for sharing information: We make sure the Site Liaison is someone that is an approachable person who faculty feel that they can come to and who is disseminating information consistently to the faculty
333
(personal communication, June 30, 2004). Albert Owens also commented that site liaisons were valuable contact people who facilitated communication in the PDS: These are the folks that are our first line of defense as any kind of communication develops. Usually, the university folks contact these people first. And, whatever meetings take place, these folks represent the school (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Several participants served as site liaisons during the Partnerships history and shared how they fulfilled their responsibilities. For example, Sophie Michaels elaborated on her site liaison role and how she assisted with information sharing: Usually, I sit down with my principal and the university supervisor and sometimes we might have three-way meetings to decide what we need to talk about next, what concerns there are, what are new dates that we need to discuss and what changes need to be made. She described how she met with the Suburban County representative as well as the mentor teachers. She explained how the information exchange with mentor teachers was usually informal: If they have a question about something, they can put a note in my mailbox, or sometimes theyll e-mail me, or just ask me a question in the hallway. Sophie described her role as making sure that we are all collaborating. Her explanation of this collaborating was that she would go back and bring up information to staff and relay information. She offered an example: If we have a staff meeting, and anybody has any concerns or dates they want to go over, then I bring back all of those dates or issues to them (S. Michaels, personal communication, February 16, 2004). Although the liaison positions were in place, some participants, such as mentor Nora Kramer, stated that the information is not getting through (personal communication, October 28, 2003). Mentor Cathy Tobiason noted that some mentor teachers see their role
334
as a chore. She thought that their lack of information caused them to be stressed out (personal communication, September 23, 2003). Mentor Alice Hayes also noted that there were probably people out there that were unaware of some of the things that they could have been doing, but she felt that it was mostly their own lack of interest in maybe getting involved (personal communication, July 21, 2004). Timing of Communication Processes Successful PDS communication often relied on a sense of timing (e.g., providing information when it was needed or when participants were receptive to the information). Other examples of timing included giving participants time to reflect and digest information so they did not feel overwhelmed. Appendix Q provides a summary of this case studys data on written documents in the PDS. Appendix II provides a log of examples of e-mail communication by date to display a sample timeline for electronic communication to the PDS school site liaison. Table 5.16 details the various purposes for PDS written communications and the number of documents representing each purpose. Examining the numbers of documents created for the various PDS purposes describes the participants reasons for communication. Participants created a majority of documents for the basic purposes of communicating and documenting PDS activities. Sharing opportunities for professional development was the most frequent specific reason for PDS written communication. The following sections further describe written and oral communication. Table 5.16 Purposes and Frequencies of Documents Purpose Frequency
335
Communication Documentation of PDS activities Sharing professional development opportunities Information sharing Establishing norms Structuring the PDS Celebrations, recognizing participants Direction setting Agenda setting and decision making Affirming commitments Developing capacity for PDS activities Promoting action research Providing open access to wide range of stakeholders Listing connections to MSDE standards Seeking participant feedback Monitoring resources Sharing educational reform recommendations Application for grant Suggestions for maintenance Explaining mutual benefits of PDS Understanding differing expectations Promoting the Partnerships credibility
66 26 21 20 19 16 12 7 7 6 6 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
Written and Oral Communication Examining written and oral communication in this PDS Partnership revealed differences in participants views. In interviews, participants specifically mentioned oral communication 34 times, whereas they only specifically mentioned written communication 9 times. Thus, interviewees commented on oral communication instances more than three times more than written communication. In contrast, documented communication efforts reflect 118 instances of written communication such as board reports, schedules, handbooks, flyers, staff or school system newsletters, or meeting agendas or minutes. Documented events focusing on oral communication such as meetings, informal conversations, or Summer Institute planning numbered 45. Although written communication may lend itself to documentation more than oral communication, there
336
does appear to be a trend in that written communication represents three times the documented oral communication. This trend seems to be the opposite of what the interviewees reported. Thus, there seemed to be a disconnect here as to the preferred communication format. Glen Grove staff also described how written communication efforts helped them understand PDS expectations. Mentor teacher Sheri Lohmann explained that there is a binder that tells what the semester should look like and that it lists the teacher responsibilities and gives forms for evaluation. Lohmann felt that this written communication helped her know the kinds of things to expect and what to look for (personal communication, October 19, 2004). Principal Owens described how he fostered written communication through weekly staff newsletters. He explained that we very often have a section in there called PDS news and that helps us get the word out as to what has been happening with the PDS, what kinds of things should you be expecting to see, what kinds of things are happening lately. He added, its chiefly the means of communication at this point that get the policy out (personal communication, December 15, 2003). Other Types of Communication Glen Groves PDS school liaison Sophie Micheals told how her school used a bulletin board to communicate PDS information. She shared that it has a picture of all the interns and Dr. Brown and it has all of their names. And, it also has the teacher that theyre assigned. Michaels added that the bulletin board also had background information about the PDS and how it got started (personal communication, February 16, 2004). Michaels, along with mentor teacher Jennifer Marks, shared examples of when Dr. Brown and the interns presented PDS information at parent programs such as Back-to-School night.
337
Penny Sawyer looked to the school systems upcoming technological advances as a means for increasing communication and opportunities for collaboration. She felt that email might serve as a means for fostering connections: Maybe with the new e-mail system where we can really e-mail people from other schools more easily, maybe that will be a new opportunity to really do some cross-collaboration (P. Sawyer, personal communication, September 23, 2003). This e-mail system was being created at the end of the period of study. However, it was designed as a means for groups of educators across Suburban Schools to have ease of opportunity for communication. These structures for communication represent an area for growth in PDS programming. E-mail has since become a common means for communication among Suburban Schools educators. Another relatively new avenue for fostering connections and sharing information was East Coast Universitys PDS network website. The website promoted itself as a community of learners, stating: As a result of collaboration with public schools, the Network has been successful because it links the best of practice with the best of theory and research, which prepares and sustains the abilities of teachers to teach well and positively impact student achievement. (East Coast Universitys PDS Network website) The website noted that one of the PDS networks purposes was to create a collaborative culture and governance structure to guide the work of the network (East Coast Universitys PDS Network website). It also described each of the East Coast PDS programs. Understanding Differing Cultures Communication processes helped establish PDS norms. As noted in previous sections, participants developed norms by creating a common language, providing written communication to describe and document roles and responsibilities, as well as to define
338
procedures, policies, and processes. Participants established the common PDS culture as something distinct from those of the school, school system, or university. Good Faith Negotiations Good faith negotiations were essential to communication as well as negotiation. Allison Moore described the collaboration with Greenview as a give and take (personal communication, April 15, 2004). This understanding was often the basis for negotiating common ground. Good faith negotiations formed the foundation of the Partnerships annual Memorandum of Understanding. Previous sections detailed how aspects of relationships, trust, and understanding cultures were built on the partners initial good faith interactions. Good faith was essential to ensuring mutual interest, commitment, and benefit for participants. Thus, the basic elements of communication enabled all of the other collaboration processes. Summary of Findings This studys findings indicate the need for participants to develop strategies for coping with change. Because this PDS Partnership experienced frequent changes of staff, structures, partners, locations, and guidelines, participants were forced to find ways to cope with change even if these ways were not productive for the Partnership. Understanding collaboration processes and having a PDS collaboration model may initiate the discussion needed to develop these strategies by encouraging PDSs to anticipate change and become proactive. Chapter 6 discusses these findings and presents conclusions. Chapter sections interpret and explain the studys findings of how PDS participants describe collaboration processes involved in PDS development and maintenance.
339
Chapter 6: Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications
Overview In this case study, I examined how Professional Development School (PDS) participants described collaborative processes in PDS development and maintenance. I examined the contexts in which collaboration occurred and the participants perceptions as to the nature of collaboration processes during different PDS and collaboration phases. In this chapter, I review, interpret, and discuss the findings as well as situate the study within the contexts of practice, policy, and theory. I conclude with recommendations for future research and acknowledgment of the studys limitations. Review of the Problem and Study In the current environment fostered by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act schools must scrutinize the links between teacher performance and improved student learning. Aspects to consider include teachers content and pedagogical knowledge and provisions for high-quality professional development. Identifying and propagating best practices has become an increased focus for educators. As schools strive to meet the NCLB requirements, PDSs have been seen as a means to meet standards set for teacher quality and professional development and to address student achievement concerns (Hallinan & Khmelkov, 2001; Teitel, 1996, 2003). Although named more than 20 years ago in 1986 by the Holmes Group, the PDS model slowly developed into a reform movement. The reforms took several directions. This new vision for universities and public schools (Reed, Kochan, Ross, & Kunkel, 2001) aimed to change the organizational structure of the school (Holmes Partnership, 2001). Hallinan and
340
Khmelkov (2001) noted PDS as a means to reinvent professional development. As a reform initiative, the PDS model aimed to prompt simultaneous renewal of teacher preparation and professional development. The state of Maryland strived to meet the NCLB requirements by adopting a top-down approach for their school districts and universities. Teitel (2003) noted partnership formation as basic to PDSs, but recognized the struggles that schooluniversity partnerships might face. Because the nature of a reform is to promote change, PDS Partnerships must recognize the inherent nature of change and commit themselves to the process. Teitel (2003) proposed, collaboration can bring coherence and reduce fragmentation (p. 24). Researchers such as Kerrins, Cushing, Grant, and Veitch (1990) and Allington and Cunningham (1996) also supported the need for collaboration. Abdal-Haqq (1989) emphasized universityschool collaboration as a hallmark of professional development schools (p. 2). Other researchers noted positive experiences for collaboration and partnerships. Table 6.1 summarizes the essential findings of these researchers. Table 6.1 Finding Researchers Findings on Collaborations Benefits Researcher(s)
Positive general experiences
Neubert & Binko (1998), Silva & Dana (2001) Enhanced teacher professionalism Lieberman (1986) Increased professional development participation Teitel (1996) Enhanced preservice experiences Teitel (1996) Increased communication Reed et al. (2001) School improvement via action research Teitel (1996) Increased individual attention for children Teitel (1996) Learning for everyone Dodd (1996) Inclusiveness Jones (2002) Improved quality of instruction Jones (2002) Higher student achievement levels Jones (2002) Increased positive perceptions of efficacy Benton & Richardson (1993), Morris
341
Positive changes to teacher attitudes Climate of collaboration is beneficial
& Nunnery (1993), Woloszyk & Hill (1994) Cobb (2001), Woloszyk (1992) Knight, Wiseman & Cooner (2000), Rafferty (1993)
Thus, there were many benefits associated with collaboration in partnerships and PDSs. Participants recognized its value to their endeavors in this Partnership. In 2001, The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) also recognized its value for Partnerships and incorporated collaboration into their PDS standards. Although policies promoting the PDS model present collaboration as centrally important, they do not fully describe collaboration processes that would occur in PDS development and/or maintenance. Moreover, there remained varying definitions of collaboration in the literature, state and local standards, as well as within individual PDSs. In 2001, Thomson reviewed the literature and found at least twenty-six different definitions or perspectives on collaboration (p. 69). Metcalf-Turner and Fischetti (1996) claimed that multiple assumptions often underlie the concept of collaboration (p. 293). I designed my study to provide greater understanding of the nature of collaboration. To achieve this goal, I first reviewed theoretical and empirical literature on collaboration. I found that most researchers noted that there are differences between cooperation and collaboration (Hord, 1986; Trubowitz, 1986). The organizational climate must be conducive (Thomson, 2001), and stakeholders must be motivated to participate (Gray & Wood, 1991a, 1991b). I synthesized the collaboration theories of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001) to create a conceptual framework for studying PDS collaboration. I examined data trends of frequency of participants responses to identify
342
areas that participants deemed important for comment. Little (1982) summarized this connection between frequent comment and importance: In a work situation where time is a valued, coveted, even disputed form of currency, teachers can effectively discount any interaction by declaring it a waste of time. Thus the sheer frequency of interaction among teachers must be taken as a clue to its relative importance. (p. 333) In this study, I explored these data trends and theoretical concepts to elaborate on collaboration processes and to describe their application in PDSs. My research presents findings at the intersection of the fields of PDS and collaboration literature. Discussion and Interpretation of Findings The research question I addressed in this study was: How do participants in a PDS Partnership describe the collaborative processes involved in developing and maintaining a PDS Partnership? Through interpretation of findings, I developed a collaboration model (Fig. 6.1) specific to the PDS setting. This PDS collaboration model reflects the various processes that comprise collaboration and several overarching themes. In this chapter, I discuss my PDS collaboration model and interpret the studys main findings. PDS Collaboration Model In chapter 5, I described how a commitment to PDS collaboration required commitments to involvement, relationships and people, and resources. I found collaboration in PDS development and maintenance to be a process occurring over an extended time period, in which participants interact to pursue common goals. It took time for these commitments to develop and mature and it took effort for these commitments to be maintained. These commitments reflect common themes among the participants responses that shaped my model of PDS collaboration presented in Fig. 6.1. This model
343
represents the complexity of PDS collaboration and the dynamic nature of a PDS Partnership. FIG. 6.1 PDS Collaboration.
344
Figure 6.1 represents the wide array of participants comments included as descriptors of each collaborative process. These descriptors reflect commitment to
345
involvement by encouraging participants active participation in all aspects of collaboration. Participants engaged in collaboration processes to varying degrees. However, what distinguished their involvement were the long-term, substantive relationships that were formed because of their engagement in collaboration. These relationships would not have developed without collaboration; they were the core of the PDS Partnership. In this Partnership, participants demonstrated collaboration by developing substantive relationships, adopting shared norms, and gaining personal meaning from their experiences. As I explored participants perspectives on collaboration, I found that participants held varying views about its nature. Some participants suggested that the PDS efforts might simply be examples of cooperation. I found that part of this distinction lay in the participants levels of involvement. Descriptors highlight participants commitments to relationships and people. The extent to which participants felt their interactions were productive reflected the degree to which they sensed that they shared norms with other participants, developed strong relationships, and gained personal meaning from their Partnership experiences. The people in the PDS made a difference to the collaboration that occurred in the Partnership. If the participants did not develop relationships characterized by trust, credibility, and mutuality, they experienced frustration. Involvement was related to the participants perceptions of the success of their relationships and the extent to which they found collaboration to be productive. Thus, people and their involvement are at the core of the model. Descriptors noted for each collaboration process highlight participants emphasis that there must be a commitment to resources. The processes of identifying and monitoring
346
resources were embedded in all collaboration processes. Thus, resources were a common theme and impacted all aspects of the Partnership. As noted in previous chapters, viewing data trends of response frequency helped to reveal focal points for collaboration processes during PDS development and maintenance. Examining these focal points may allow PDS participants to understand the nature of collaboration and, thus, focus their energies and resources. To help target resources, a systematic approach for examining financial and human resources was needed. Although the Partnerships history details how the participants worked to acquire and manage resources, these efforts were not part of a systematic approach. The lessons learned from this Partnerships experiences include the need for focused attention to resources. In sections discussing each collaboration process, these commitment themes represent a common thread in PDS collaboration. Each section provides further elaboration and examples on these themes. In addition to these overarching themes of commitment, my PDS collaboration model existed within the context of state and local reform. As described in chapter 4, PDS was a top-down state reform. For this Partnership, the local school districts superintendent served as a convener and was highly involved. Thus, this context directly impacted the nature of collaboration for this Partnership and collaboration processes must be viewed with an understanding of how this context is different from other reform origins. Marylands Unique Context During the early time periods examined in this study, the state of Maryland was in the process of developing the capacity for the PDS as a state-wide reform movement. State leaders shaped the direction for local leaders to develop PDSs in their districts. Marylands
347
guidance was significantly greater than other states that fostered organically developed PDSs. The Redesign of Teacher Education and the later development of state PDS standards continued Marylands trend to strongly direct the PDS movement. This Partnerships history illustrates how one PDS developed among this milieu. Its history reveals how, despite efforts to structure Maryland PDSs with standards, guidelines, and a top-down approach, this Partnerships collaboration relied on the relationships forged by the individual participants and their partner institutions. Although Partnership participants did not often comment directly about the role of the PDS as a reform initiative in the state of Maryland, their comments about their Partnerships collaboration processes reflect the context in which the collaboration occurred. Therefore, my PDS collaboration model also must be understood within this context. The model incorporated the processes of developing capacity for collaboration, structuring, coping with change, coping with power and politics, enhancing control and reducing complexity, and communication. The next sections discuss findings related to each of these collaboration processes. Developing Capacity for Collaboration Figure 6.1 presents descriptors for developing capacity for collaboration in the PDS Partnership that these descriptors are consistent with Gray and Woods (1991) research. In addition, PDS participants described how these processes applied to their unique setting. They explained the need to develop participants knowledge, skills, and attitudes through professional development and creating PDS-specific norms. They also noted the need to connect PDS goals to school improvement plans to strengthen participants interest in the PDS collaborative venture and their commitment to the process.
348
Although participants noted the need to establish connections among school initiatives and goals, the Partnerships history reveals how the context in which this was occurring influenced their readiness to do so. Findings related to developing capacity for collaboration reflect the Partnerships history as well as the state and local context. I found that processes of developing capacity for collaboration occurred throughout PDS development and maintenance. Each time the Partnership experienced change, the participants needed to reevaluate the capacity for collaboration within the Partnership. Thus, because change was frequent, participants frequently discussed ways to develop capacity for collaboration. However, participants most often discussed developing capacity during three main points: problem setting in PDS development, problem setting in PDS maintenance, and implementation in PDS maintenance. Noting these focal points helps participants to understand PDS collaboration and to focus their resources at times when developing capacity for collaboration might be most needed. The focal points during the problem-setting phase were not unexpected. Whether in PDS development or maintenance, to engage in the process of problem setting, participants must come to some agreement on a definition of the problem and then identify resources for solving the problem. If change is frequent and new problems arise, the collaboration process may shift to a problem-setting phase. Participants descriptions of their focus on developing capacity during implementation in PDS maintenance was a less expected finding. At first glance, it might be expected that there would be less emphasis needed to develop capacity for collaboration during implementation in PDS maintenance. However, study participants described this
349
period as one in which efforts to build or reinforce capacity for collaboration should not be neglected. I found that some aspects of developing capacity for collaboration included relationship-building efforts. Because the studied PDS Partnership evolved over time and reflected many changes from conceptualization to implementation, relationships became an essential thread to tie together the participants amid institutional change. Thus, participants emphasis on developing capacity during implementation reflects this context of change and the need to strengthen relationships. Structuring Participants described structuring processes as including monitoring progress by incorporating standards and developing policies, developing precise agreements about responsibilities and resources, and developing agreements about decision-making methods through mutual problem solving. Participants emphasized the structuring processes needed for PDS governance and administration and explained that representation in these processes was essential. I found that the processes of structuring occurred throughout PDS development and maintenance. However, participants most often described that issues of structuring occurred during three main periods during the process: (a) during the period of direction setting in PDS development, (b) during the period of implementation in PDS development, and (c) during the period of direction setting during PDS maintenance. Connecting points of emphasis for structuring processes can help participants target their efforts to foster PDS development and maintenance. Participants emphasized structuring during direction setting in both PDS development and maintenance. This finding was not surprising because the
350
direction-setting phase involves processes that are supported by structuring. Participants provided examples for problem solving, establishing ground rules, setting agendas, organizing subgroups, and exploring options. Structuring processes support these activities. Participants also emphasized that structuring processes occurred during the implementation phase of PDS development. At first, this finding seemed less expected because it would seem that most PDS structures should be in place during implementation. However, study participants described structuring efforts as ongoing and that this may reflect that PDS activities were expanding in scope as they were being implemented. Because the Partnership simultaneously created and implemented essential aspects of the PDS, participants experienced challenges with structuring processes. As they implemented the PDS initiative, they frequently regrouped to develop new agreements about responsibilities and resources. Participants related many examples of how they adapted and adjusted the PDS structures while developing the PDS. They were building the plane while flying it. Participants descriptions emphasized the recursive nature of PDS collaboration. They also indicated the instability of the PDS reform. My findings confirmed observations by Enciso, Kirschner, Rogers, and Seidl (2000) that reveal a PDS as a moving target that has to be constantly tended and reformulated in order to maintain communication and continuity of purpose (p. 70). Chasing this moving target necessitated frequent structuring and restructuring efforts. Participants also described their experiences with unclear PDS expectations. During the studys time period, draft standards for PDSs were evolving. Documented descriptions of expectations, roles, and responsibilities emerged as participants enacted
351
them. Participants reported that they created, evaluated, and refined their own structures. Thus, an important finding of the study was that participants were highly involved in structuring processes throughout PDS development and maintenance. It may be that this process of structuring and restructuring occurred because the PDS was new and untested. The participants had PDS guidelines and generalities, but were learning the logistical realities through their own personal PDS experiences as they attempted to implement the PDS. Coping With Change In commenting on their experiences, PDS participants suggested that anyone developing a PDS should be aware that they need to be flexible and aware that change is inevitable. In general, coping with change presented challenges for the Partnership. Changes in participants seemed to have the greatest impact on the Partnerships general functioning. Participants noted the need to ensure continuity of processes to limit the potential impact from changes in actors. Participants described documentation and communication efforts as ways to develop PDS-specific norms and to document progress. I also found that, although participants engaged in processes of coping with change throughout PDS development and maintenance, they most often discussed issues they faced during problem setting in PDS maintenance, direction setting in PDS maintenance, and implementation in PDS maintenance. It was at these times when the Partnerships participants reported that they faced particular challenges in coping with change. This trend of high responses in PDS maintenance mirrors participants experiences of frequent change during that period. For example, the removal of Greenview as a PDS Partner occurred during the maintenance period with Mark Twain Elementary. Study participants frequently
352
commented on the emotional impact this change had on them as individuals as well as on the Partnership. Other examples of changes during PDS maintenance include staff and site changes. I found that participants felt these experiences were time-consuming and often challenging. With each major change to the Partnership, the participants had to regroup and reestablish relationships, changing their sense of trust, credibility, and personal meaning. The PDS that I studied underwent frequent change. Participants were concerned that a high rate of change created frustration and were discouraged by the change process when it required them to repeat efforts again and again. For example, participants described how they had to reestablish relationships with each new staff member when changes were made. Thus, I found that staff turnover impeded PDS progress by slowing the pace. Redoing efforts, repeating procedures, and revisiting territory represented lack of progress to participants. My finding that participants descriptions concentrated on issues of coping with change may reflect this particular Partnerships history of frequent change. However, other PDSs are likely to have similar changes during their development and maintenance. Thus, it is useful to examine ways that participants sought to reduce the impact of frequent change. Participants combated the effects of these changes by documenting roles, responsibilities, and procedures. They created handbooks, brochures, and guidelines to establish PDS expectations and norms. Although participants intellectually acknowledged that change was inevitable, and they worked to limit its effects, they continued to experience emotional reactions to change that impacted their relationships and involvement.
353
Coping With Power and Politics Participants described several ways in which they coped with issues of power and politics. They monitored the allocation of resources, ensured open access to power by increasing participation by a wider range of stakeholders, and promoted positive public relations. Participants also discussed PDS leadership as centrally important in effectively addressing issues of power and politics in the Partnership. I found that processes of coping with power and politics occurred throughout PDS development and maintenance. However, participants most often discussed coping with power and politics during three main points: problem setting in PDS development, direction setting in PDS development, and implementation in PDS maintenance. It might be expected that participants commented most about coping with power and politics during problem setting and direction setting in PDS development. During these periods, PDS conveners and leaders courted participants participation, encouraged their involvement, and enlisted their commitment. My exploration into the involvement trends of PDS leaders revealed that, for most of the collaboration processes, participants who held official leadership roles (such as school administrators or coordinators) did not show higher involvement levels than other participants at their respective sites or comment when others did not. This finding was unexpected because named leaders typically participate actively, are highly involved, and are considered groundbreakers in innovations such as PDSs. It would seem likely that PDS leaders would have insights to which other participants might not be privy. Thus, it was surprising that my findings did not show a consistent trend that leaders commented on certain collaborative processes when other participants did not comment. It might be
354
considered that this lack of comment reflects a lack of leadership. However, it is also possible that there was a perception of shared leadership among the participants. For PDS development, there were two points when leaders did comment when other site participants did not. During problem setting leaders commented on communication and during direction setting they commented on negotiating. This finding is consistent with typical expectations for leaders. It would be expected that leaders would communicate new initiatives during a problem-setting phase or facilitate a groups efforts to negotiate during a direction-setting phase. I found that these data trends for leaders indicated that Partnership leaders did not demonstrate their leadership by being more involved or commenting more frequently about PDS activities than other PDS participants. As I searched for ways that PDS leaders demonstrated their leadership, I found that they generally served in governance capacities. For example, they actively served on steering committees, created rules and structures, and were involved in joint decision making. The PDS leaders engaged in the day-to-day tasks to develop and maintain the PDS. They engaged in administration tasks to coordinate roles and responsibilities, monitor resources, facilitate communication, and mediate conflict resolution. Enhancing Control and Reducing Complexity The Partnership also needed to address the processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity. I found that there was limited discussion about the processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity for this Partnership. Participants described how they needed to address ways to gain control of the increasing PDS demands. Participants described challenges they faced due to varying perspectives as to the nature of
355
PDS collaboration. To enhance control and reduce complexity, participants needed to develop shared understandings about the nature of PDS collaboration processes. Participants described processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity in the PDS as requiring high levels of coordination, ensuring access to resources as well as their efficient use, and documenting related rules. Participants described several PDSspecific staff positions that they felt should address issues of enhancing control and reducing complexity. I found that processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity occurred throughout PDS development and maintenance, but participants often did not discuss them. This may be due to limited involvement of participants in these processes. Generally, only a few key participants were involved in related discussions. Participants most often discussed enhancing control and reducing complexity during three main points: direction setting in PDS development, implementation in PDS development, and implementation in PDS maintenance. It also might be expected that participants would comment most about processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity during direction setting and implementation in PDS development. During these times, Partnership participants were exploring options for resources that would support their decisions to pursue their chosen directions. Participants were building support for their plans and developing the structures to carry out their agreements. Discussing resources at these times would be necessary in order to engage in direction setting and implementation. It also might be expected that participants would discuss processes of enhancing control and reducing complexity during implementation in the maintenance phase of the
356
PDS Partnership. Typically, innovators seek grant funding to sponsor the initiation of the desired reform effort. PDS Partnerships have generally followed this trend. Grant funding represented a common means for financially supporting PDS development. However, grant funding is often associated with the early stages of the PDS development. Once PDS implementation is underway and maintenance becomes the participants focus, it may appear that the reform has been accomplished and that financial support aimed at PDS development is no longer needed. Because PDSs mainly benefit from grant funding, participants need to review their resources and identify new sources as grants expire. Clark and Plecki (cited in Levine & Trachtman, 1997) described additional dilemmas in determining PDS funding due to insufficient information about the costs of such schools and an inability to accurately compare costs across PDSs because of different classification and accounting methods (p. 140). Many study participants noted that money did matter in the PDS. For example, funding enabled professional development activities to occur that would not otherwise in the schools. Although the effect of investment in staff as a resource is hard to measure, my findings indicate that participants valued these activities and perceived that they benefited from the experiences, both personally and professionally. Study participants described how these experiences added to their perceptions of mutuality in the Partnership. Financial resources enabled participants to be compensated for some of the time they invested in PDS activities. However, I found that participants perceived their time investment as high. PDS participants described their involvement as intense and often undervalued. Their perceptions may be due to the extra demands on their time generated by frequent change in this Partnership.
357
Other PDS researchers (Winitzky, Stoddart, & OKeefe, 1992) also have found that resource demands increased more than expected. Bullough et al. (1999) reported that, in the enthusiasm for reform, resource issues, in particular, were not considered with the care they deserved; the result has been an intensification of labor (p. 386). PDSs continue to face resource-allocation issues such as competition for mentors and finding space for PDS activities. However, proactive plans for dealing with issues relating to resources were not often discussed by study participants. Negotiating Although participants offered few comments about negotiating, they described processes such as resolving disputes, understanding differing expectations, establishing common ground, and problem solving. However, these limited responses focused on three main areas: direction setting in PDS maintenance, direction setting in PDS development, and problem setting in PDS development. These focal points for participant comments reflect times when they experienced challenges in understanding cultures or when they felt they did not have guidance for structuring the PDS. Participants described how they negotiated the direction that the PDS would take. For example, they explained how receipt of grant monies helped them to determine their focus for professional development activities and the data they would collect to document their use of grant funds. Several participants gave examples describing how they usually could reach consensus in decision making and that there was little negotiation. This ease in decision making is consistent with the thought that stipulations for receiving grant funding drove some of the main decisions and therefore did not leave room for the discussion of other options. These comments also provide one explanation for
358
why overall numbers of participants responses related to negotiating processes were much lower than other processes involved in collaboration. Communication Participants described PDS communication processes as providing a foundation for collaboration. They reported that communication was essential for building PDS relationships and cultures. In the Partnership, communication processes described by participants focused on preventing misinterpretations, engaging in good faith negotiations, and using a common language and written documentation to establish PDS norms. Participants noted main functions of PDS communication as including information sharing, coaching, providing feedback, and decision making. Participants described how the timing of communication impacted other processes and that appropriate timing helped manage the effects of change. Form, function, and amount of communication also should match the situation. I found there were clusters of participants responses describing communication processes in implementation and direction setting for both PDS development and maintenance. Although these clusters existed, PDS participants commented frequently on communication throughout all phases. Participants described communication as an ongoing need. Communication was a central feature of each of the other collaboration processes. The strongest link was between communication and structuring processes, with their focal points paralleling each other and the processes being intertwined. Participants explained that many of their efforts to provide structuring resulted in simultaneous efforts to increase or enhance communication processes.
359
Participants described this link between communication and structuring by providing examples of how the PDS climate often was characterized by on-the-go decision making and informal hallway conversations. Participants also characterized the Partnerships climate as one in which participants were building the plane while flying it. Participants also described the frustrations they felt when they did not feel informed or when there were miscommunications. I found that, as PDS structuring occurred, it was imperative that participants enact communication processes to support those changes. Communication was essential to building and maintaining relationships and communicating norms that were central to encouraging participant involvement. Participants described how they developed widely shared beliefs about appropriate actions in the Partnership and used these beliefs to draw personal meaning from their experiences. They explained that they also applied these beliefs to their judgments of others. Thus, these beliefs also influenced participants relationships and involvement. What Was Not Found Because state and national standards promote collaboration as a central aspect of PDSs, it could be expected that collaborative processes are purposefully addressed in PDS Partnerships. However, I did not find this expectation to hold true for this Partnership. PDS participants did not purposefully target collaboration processes for discussion during any of the meetings that occurred in developing or maintaining the Partnership. Although participants commented on how collaboration was essential, valued, or central to the PDS, their definitions of collaboration varied widely. Participants expressed individual perspectives of collaboration processes, yet their comments indicated that they assumed others shared their collaboration perspective. Collaboration was the backdrop for other
360
aspects of the PDS as if it were assumed that collaboration would occur. There were no strategic attempts to match participants skills with specific collaboration processes. Collaboration was not overtly addressed in this Partnership. In addition, although state PDS standards target collaboration within the context of improving student achievement, participants did not overtly make these same connections. Participants did not directly discuss how the PDS Partnerships collaboration connected to student achievement. Participants alluded to the notion that professional development leads to instructional best practice which, in turn, leads to increased student achievement. However, they did not comment directly about how their Partnerships collaboration would help them to accomplish their student achievement goals. At first glance, it may seem that this lack of comment indicates a lack of importance that PDS participants placed on student achievement. However, this lack of comment also may represent a climate in which improving student achievement is an assumption and thus a topic seen as a given by participants. In either case, this study highlights the lack of participants direct connection of student achievement to the related goals of the PDS as a reform initiative. Reviewing the Partnerships history and the dramatic event of the removal of Greenview Elementary as a PDS site sheds some light on this issue of student achievement. This change of school site occurred as a school system response to pressures to increase student achievement in identified schools. At the time, the rationale for removing Greenview from the Partnership involved the idea that the PDS detracted from the staff members focus on the needs of their students in favor of the needs of the interns. This rationale included the argument that to increase student achievement, students should not
361
have the least-experienced teachers (interns) instructing them. Thus, the lessons learned from the removal of Greenview from the Partnership reflect on the school districts intense focus on student achievement and highlight the participants lack of connection to their collaborative efforts as a means for ultimately improving student achievement. Contributions and Implications My qualitative case study findings have implications and contributions for theory, practice, and policy. In the sections that follow, I elaborate on each of these areas for PDS Partnerships, school systems, and universities. Contributions and Implications for Research and Literature My findings contribute to the body of research on the nature of collaborative processes in a PDS Partnership. This study adds to the literature base by describing collaborative processes in detail from the PDS participants perspectives. The study provides a view as to the nature of the PDS participants collaborative experiences over the long term and describes collaboration processes occurring in both PDS development and maintenance. The findings enrich the conversation on how to develop and maintain PDSs by providing conceptual tools to help participants understand the complexity of their Partnership. Support for Assumptions of Study A basic study assumption was that collaborative relationships are integral to the PDS Partnership and PDS model. I found that collaboration processes were integrated throughout every aspect of the PDS Partnership. Another main assumption in this study was that the PDS Partnership was affected by the presence and extent of collaborative processes. My findings support that assumption.
362
Study Findings and Collaboration Theory In this case study, I have applied collaboration theories to an analysis of the development and maintenance of a PDS to develop a collaboration model (Fig. 6.1) specific to the PDS setting. The sections that follow discuss how these findings support other collaboration theories and PDS research. The identification and exploration of emerging themes and patterns are important contributions to the study of PDS collaboration. PDS collaboration reflects concepts presented by Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001). The PDS collaboration model presented in Fig. 6.1 revises the conceptual framework presented in Fig. 1.1 to reflect the PDS participants descriptions of collaboration processes in PDS development and maintenance and to integrate Thomsons dimensions. My new PDS collaboration model adapts Grays (1989) phases of collaboration to phases of PDS development and maintenance. By including the focal points, my model emphasizes that different collaboration processes may be more evident during different time periods.
Based on collaboration theory, it would be expected that the ideals for collaboration processes would be evident in a PDS setting. The Partnership would be created to reflect a shared vision and serve the collective good. The Partnerships shared vision would translate into shared goals. The participants would work together to achieve these shared goals. All of these statements describe collaboration in the studied PDS Partnership. I found support for collaboration theories of Hord (1986) and Trubowitz (1986). The findings support Hords conclusion that additional research is needed to compare
363
different levels of working together, such as cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. Study participants did not consistently distinguish collaboration from other ways of interacting. Their definitions and descriptions of collaboration were inconsistent, as were their actions and expectations. Trubowitz noted the PDS Partnerships fluidity. In this study, collaboration was nonlinear and recursive in nature. Trubowitz also commented on the inevitable change within such partnerships. My findings document the numerous changes that occurred in this PDS Partnership. The findings specifically support the collaboration theories of Gray (1989), Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b), and Thomson (2001), which were used to form the studys initial conceptual framework. The sections that follow present and discuss the confirming evidence for these researchers work. First, I present support for the theories of Gray and Gray and Wood. Their work is combined because the later research builds on Grays work from 1989. In subsequent sections, I discuss the studys findings in relation to Thomsons research. Support for Gray and Woods Collaboration Theories My findings generally support the research of Gray (1989) and Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b). PDS collaboration was a process in which participants engaged throughout PDS development and maintenance. Participants described collaboration as occurring in problem setting, direction setting, and implementation phases, such as those described by Gray. The studys participants also described processes associated with collaboration, as did Gray and Wood. Gray (1989) defined collaboration as: A process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for
364
solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (p. 5). My findings support this definition and describe how this process occurs in PDS development and maintenance. Gray and Wood (1991a, 1991b) described collaboration as complex and distinguished it from cooperation. My study supports that assessment as well. Study participants noted differences from cooperation even if their expectations or actions did not always recognize the distinction. Support for Thomsons Collaboration Theories Although the study participants did not use specific terminology associated with Thomsons theory, their comments supported Thomsons (2001) concepts of governance, administration, organizational autonomy, mutuality, and norms. Through data analysis, it became apparent that, although participants provided support for Thomsons dimensions, Thomsons model was not the best match to participants descriptions of PDS collaboration. Participants descriptions supported an integration of Thomsons (2001), Grays (1989), and Gray and Woods (1991a, 1991b) collaboration theories. For example, participants described governance, administration, and organizational autonomy as embedded within collaboration processes, such as structuring or enhancing control and reducing complexity. Thomsons dimension of mutuality was an important issue in the Partnership. However, participants described it as part of the picture of PDS relationships and involvement. Thomsons dimension of norms was embedded throughout the Partnership participants interactions. Thus, her theory provided background and considerations for developing my PDS collaboration model. Thomsons key dimensions best reflected the participants descriptions as integrated within the model (see Fig. 5.1) versus separate categories outside of the model (see Fig. 1.1). In
365
the next sections, I describe how the studys findings confirm each of Thomsons key dimensions of collaboration and relate how they are integrated within the model of PDS collaboration. Governance Thomsons (2001) key dimension of governance was evident within the PDS Partnership. I found that PDS governance activities mainly occurred within steering committee meetings and that these activities were consistent with Thomsons descriptions of collaboration in governance. PDS participants jointly created the rules and structures to help them develop and maintain their Partnership. Thomsons descriptors of governance applied to the PDS setting are best described in light of how they supported collaboration processes. Administration Thomsons (2001) key dimensions of collaboration include administration. I found that participants engaged in processes that were part of Thomsons definition of administration. Examples of these processes were joint decision making, coordinating tasks, developing clarity of roles and responsibilities, monitoring, communicating, and resolving conflicts. However, for PDS participants, the purposes of these activities determined how they were described. Thus, administration in the PDS took its various forms depending on its purpose for PDS development or maintenance. Organizational Autonomy Thomsons (2001) key dimension of organizational autonomy surfaced at various points within the Partnerships collaboration. Participants mainly described such instances in terms of understanding differing cultures. Participants also addressed issues of
366
organizational autonomy in terms of challenges they faced in coping with change. Participants noted the tensions created among organizations even when the organizational partners committed to the goals and rules of the Partnership. These issues were evident during participants discussions of enhancing control and reducing complexity. For example, existing organizational structures clashed with needs for PDS-specific staff positions and high coordination levels. Issues of organizational autonomy created tensions and frustrations for participants that impacted their PDS relationships. Mutuality In my study, mutuality in PDS collaboration was an ongoing concern and it was particularly essential to developing and maintaining relationships. These findings support Thomsons (2001) description of this key dimension. I found that PDS participants needed to engage in mutually beneficial interactions. Different interdependence levels were evident in the Partnership, but participants emphasized that mutual interest was an essential aspect for PDS collaboration. Norms My description of PDS collaboration supports Thomsons definitions of norms. Participants described their perceptions of how they felt certain beliefs about PDS involvement were widely shared by Partnership participants. Norms of trust were essential to the development of relationships in the Partnership. During PDS development and maintenance, participants worked to document these norms and thus institutionalize them. Support for PDS Research My studys findings corroborate the work of many educational researchers. Table 6.2 notes specific findings supported by my studys findings.
367
Table 6.2 Research Findings Confirmed by My Studys Findings ________________________________________________________________________ My Studys Findings Researchers Findings ________________________________________________________________________ Partnership experienced changes in PDS-inspired approaches and structures participants, partners, sites, roles, and that support them are slow in becoming responsibilities. institutionalized (Teitel, 1997). There were misunderstandings and Confusion in interinstitutional blurred boundaries throughout the relationships and roles and equity issues Partnerships history and across sites. (Teitel 1997b). Participants did not understand each Role ambiguity is a pronounced theme others roles. (Bullough et al., 1999, p. 386). Tensions occurred in bringing about changes of culture and the PDS model exposed prevailing patterns of relationships, roles, and organizational rules (Whitford, 1994). University coordinators were highly University faculty members have mainly involved in PDS activities. guided the PDS research attempts (Wiseman & Nason, 1993). It took time to invest in new Long-term commitment is a challenge for relationships. Participants had to rebuild PDSs (Dixon & Ishler, 1992). or reinforce relationships and structures Too few deep relationships were with each major change. developed given time constraints (Bullough et al., 1999, p. 397). Participants comments reflected a need The partnership literature is replete with to establish a collaborative culture calls to blend cultures, to create a third throughout PDS development and culture out of a mix of university and maintenance. school cultures (Bullough et al., 1999, p. 387). There are problems associated with creating collaborative cultures andfew institutions appear to have succeeded in resolving it (Bullough et al., 1999, p. 387). Participants experienced a mismatch Plateau effect (Teitel, 1997a; between occurring collaboration Trubowitz, 1986). processes and those targeted to their PDS accomplishments do not occur current needs. Partnership processes unless there is a focus and energy were out of sync Collaboration is a directed at the steps leading to effective recursive, and not necessarily efficient, partnerships, efficient collaboration process. (Neapolitan, Proffitt, Wittmann, & Berkely, 2004, p. 163).
368
Participants expressed a need to focus on specific collaboration processes at appropriate times for the purpose of institutionalizing the PDS.
PDSs need to be woven into the fabric of the school and university not as rigid, inflexible structures but as dynamic and vibrant parts of the mission and operation of each institution (Teitel, 1997b, p. 129). University coordinators served as Education faculty assigned to facilitate instructors for graduate courses on action the achievement of PDS goals often do so research. Engaging in PDS-specific tasks at the expense or delay of their other such as these, in addition to typical professional interests (p. 295). As a university responsibilities, was a struggle result, tension may increase between for study participants. field-based faculty and campus-based faculty (Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996, p. 294).) Differing expectations as to the role of A time investment is needed to establish the university faculty. collegial relationships between school and university faculty (Lemlech & Hertzog-Foliart, 1993). There is a connection between Consistent attention to what public participants involvement and school personnel receive from engagement and PDS development and involvement is important in maintaining maintenance. a partnership (Bullough et al., 1999, p. 389). Participants described their perceptions Teachers struggle to change roles of unfairness in the Partnership and (Rushcamp & Roehler 1992). specifically mentioned differences in Participants in effective PDSs need to expectations for roles and responsibilities develop trust, engage in productive as contributing factors to perceptions of communication, establish and enhance inequity. collaboration, and ensure that there is adequate time (Book, 1996). Trust is essential (Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996, p. 295). Participants noted the importance of Productive and lasting educational relationships and commented on the reform requires not only attention to difficulties they experienced in standards, but resources and structures to understanding the differing cultures establish critical relationships which found within the PDS Partnership. enable educators to learn about themselves as they learn with others, thereby creating the opportunity for the understanding and development of different perspectives. (Gallego, Hollingsworth, & Whitnack, 2001, p. 241). There must be appreciation for the value added by each participants contribution (Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996, p. 295).
369
Participants sought new insights, but struggled in acquiring them.
A change in culture requires more than new laws, it requires new insights (Hollingsworth & Whitnack, 2001, p. 241). Participants expressed frustration with To those doing the work of change, the slow change of institutions and their effect of the PDS work on the overall complexity. organizational structures appears minimal (Metcalf-Turner & Fischetti, 1996, p. 295). PDSs exist in the margins of their institutions (Teitel, 1997a). ________________________________________________________________________ Book (1996) described difficulties associated with PDS maintenance due to their complexity and clash of cultures. Understanding how to enhance PDS collaboration may provide guidelines for addressing culture differences and institutionalization challenges. Findings That Differ From What Theory Anticipated My findings highlighted some differences from what theory anticipated. PDS researchers commented extensively on PDSs as a national reform effort. My findings reflect the Partnership participants perspectives of PDSs within the local context. I found that participants rarely commented on the national context for educational reform. Rather, participants frequently tied the PDS initiative to their local school districts school improvement plans. Participants did not generally connect local school improvement plans to national educational movements. Although research advocates collaborative inquiry as one benefit of PDSs, I did not find that participants engaged in collaborative research. The Partnership did encourage action research by offering related graduate coursework and inviting participants to share their research at the annual Suburban Schools action research conference. However, these attempts were not collaborative in nature.
370
Contributions and Implications for Practice As Hoy and Miskel (2005) note, theory informs practice in three important ways: it forms a frame of reference; it provides a general model for analysis; and it guides reflective decision making (p. 1). My findings form a theory of PDS participants perceptions of PDS collaboration that can initiate reflection and discussion among Partnership participants. My findings contribute to the practice of developing PDS collaborations by documenting a long-term view into the lived experiences of PDS participants. Tracing the Partnerships history details the development and maintenance of a PDS. Educators embarking on a journey to initiate this reform can gain understanding of the complexity of their undertaking. In my study, I present best practices in establishing an exemplary collaborative PDS Partnership. The study highlights ways participants can assist PDSs in reaching their potential for reform and renewal. The PDS participants directly impact the nature of their individual PDS by their involvement and success in collaboration. It is imperative that PDS participants have a full understanding of collaboration. My case study suggests several positive practices specific to PDS Partnerships, including practices related to maintaining PDS goals, such as collaboration, action research, teacher preparation, professional development, communication, and data collection. In addition, the study has implications for how partnerships should anticipate and respond to change. Practices to Foster Collaboration in the PDS Partnership
371
PDS Partnerships can be fragile entities. Because PDSs develop at the intersection of two or more institutions, they should cast a wide net to involve participants in all PDS aspects. PDSs should take caution not to rely on the efforts of a single dynamic individual or they may fall apart when that individual leaves. Including a wide range of stakeholders will help to limit the potential impact of staff turnover. The governance structures should foster ownership, continuity, communication, vitality, and commitment. These elements are essential for PDS sustainability. Governance should allow for joint decision making and problem solving. Participants must have the means to collectively address PDS issues. Developing governance structures that support collaboration strengthens the partnership. Collaboration may be the means for PDSs to address issues of burnout. By developing collaborative relationships, participants can support one another in the endeavor to develop or maintain a PDS. My studys findings suggest that this endeavor is challenging and time-intensive. Thus, I recommend that PDS participants maintain an awareness of this level of challenge and seek out ways to support the participants, remove obstacles, and reduce complexity in the PDS. My study participants noted supportive relationships as conducive to their Partnership efforts. PDS participants can structure their partnership to strengthen relationships on all levels. Action Research Practices The practice of coordinating an action research conference for PDS participants to share their studies was viewed positively by my study participants and replicated in others partnerships. Although in my case study the school system did not promote the action
372
research conferences as the specific domain of PDS, doing so has increased the credibility of PDSs with their participants. Teacher Preparation Practices The practice of requiring intern portfolios has far-reaching implications for teacher preparation practices in the PDS. It helps to focus, structure, and document the intern experiences. It provides guidelines for mentors and university coordinators, and it gives the interns a tool they can use to promote themselves in the job market. In my study, interns developed portfolios as part of their internship requirements. The portfolio review event was an opportunity to celebrate the accomplishments of all involved in developing the portfolio, as well as a chance to give valuable feedback to the interns. Because the participants valued this event, it served to promote good will within the Partnership and made public the PDS positive outcomes. Thus, portfolio reviews serve public relations needs and encourage motivation to sustain PDSs. PDSs should initiate or maintain portfolio review events. The focused, positive, and productive nature of these events was an important part of maintaining the PDS momentum and highlighting its value to a wide range of educators. The practice of hosting portfolio review events should be replicated by other PDS Partnerships. Professional Development Practices The PDS Partnership connects the university and the school system in the task of providing professional development for educators. The Partnership highlights the connections of research to practice. In addition, the PDS emphasis on professional growth encourages participants to take advantage of the opportunities available to them. Coming together to provide professional development opportunities is mutually beneficial for the
373
university and the school system. PDS-promoted professional development occurs at all levelsfrom the national level to local school site. Examples of PDS-specific professional development at the national level are the national PDS conferences. The practice of hosting national PDS conferences should be continued by the PDS practitioners. Attending these conferences gives participants the opportunity to view the wide range of PDSs and highlights their site-specific nature. These conferences offer participants a forum for networking, sharing best practices, and problem solving with other PDS participants. In addition, the national conferences give opportunities for participants to share research, explore issues of common interest, or explore options in PDS programming. Two of the most important benefits of these conferences are the supportive climate fostered and the encouragement to share successes. Hosting national conferences builds credibility for the PDS as a reform movement and promotes sustainability. At the Partnership level, it is imperative that the participants continue to seek resources such as grants. In my case study, financial resources allowed the PDS Partnership to tailor professional development activities to their needs. Practices such as the PDS Partnerships math/tech day should be replicated in other PDS settings. Teachers need time to learn and add new practices to their repertoires. School-based professional development activities can provide the time needed and focus the professional development to address PDS site-specific goals. Other activities at the Partnership level included the summer institutes, at which participants reflected and planned for the PDS continuous improvement. The summer institute allowed the PDS participants from different school sites to get together for joint
374
planning with the university and school system personnel. The summer institute experience was mutually beneficial. It helped the participants to communicate, enhance their skills, and understand the expectations of others. It fostered relationships among participants, continuity of programming, and, ultimately, PDS maintenance. The practice of hosting summer institutes also should be replicated by other PDSs. Another practice that supported PDS collaboration and professional development was conducting meetings of mentor teachers. These meetings provided opportunities to develop the mentoring skills of teachers, provide clarification about expectations for the internship, and institutionalize PDS norms. PDSs should offer opportunities for mentors to consult about PDS issues and to collaborate. The mentorintern relationship is a pillar of the PDS, and the collaboration skills of mentors should not be assumed, but cultivated. Developing capacity for collaboration in this way fosters professionalism and creates a supportive climate. All of these professional development practices represented opportunities for the Partnership to institutionalize expectations. PDSs should continue to involve participants on multiple levels of professional development. By differentiating professional development options, the PDSs will have the best opportunity to include the most participants in renewing schools. One example of how the studied Partnerships school system might have enhanced differentiated professional development was to integrate the services of school system resource teachers into PDS professional development opportunities. At the time of my study, a major function of these resource teachers was to provide curriculum support and professional development for school staff. However, they were not regularly included in
375
PDS professional development planning and were considered a separate resource for the school. Integrating their services into PDS plans could provide needed support for PDS initiatives and would help to streamline procedures. Thus, best practices for school systems would be to reduce complexity created by professional development efforts coming from different school system departments and perspectives. Integrating services and reducing complexity would support efforts to institutionalize PDSs in the school site environments. Other school systems should consider these suggestions within their own school and PDS contexts. Communication Practices PDS participants must recognize that communication processes form the foundation for all collaboration experiences. Communication practices should reflect this level of importance and should be carefully addressed by participants. PDS participants must ensure that communication practices enhance the collaboration process. In the following sections I present examples of best practices for PDS communication. PDS partnerships should ensure that they have formal, written agreements or memorandums of understanding. These essential documents formally recognize the partnership between educational institutions and publicize their common goals. These agreements should include specifics as to the roles and responsibilities of each partner. They also should include details as to how to allocate financial resources. If the agreement clearly articulates these matters, misunderstandings are less likely. In addition to the Partnership agreements, school districts and universities can clarify roles, responsibilities, and expectations by publishing guiding documents such as implementation manuals, mentor handbooks, PDS newsletters, and brochures. In my case
376
study, manuals and handbooks gave specific guidelines for practice and also allowed for personalization by including open-ended questionnaires and self-evaluations. In this Partnership, the university coordinators communicated through memorandums to mentors to provide written expectations, update schedules, and clarify roles and responsibilities. These practices enhanced communication and documented norms of practice. These findings support the work of Teitel (2001) who emphasized the need for documentation in PDSs. In addition to communicating expectations, participants documented their efforts using agendas, meeting minutes, flyers, memorandums, and handouts. These means of written communication helped to develop a shared understanding of PDS events, made visible the decision-making processes and governance structures, and served as reference points for the next years decision makers. Participants found meeting minutes useful for providing a clear coordination or delegation of tasks. In this way, the day-to-day PDS responsibilities could be shared by participants. A promising practice described by the Mark Twain participants was developing personal mentor handbooks that teachers used to share important school and classroom information with their interns. These handbooks were useful to mentors because they helped organize essential information that needed to be shared quickly and systematically with every intern who worked with that mentor. Sharing the updates of the various PDS programs gives opportunity for comparison and information sharing. These practices foster institutionalization by reinforcing standards. They also drive continuous improvement by providing avenues for examining practices within the PDS.
377
The practice of marketing the PDS also promotes continuous improvement. As the PDS purpose and goals become public, they invite feedback. In my case study, both the school system and the university marketed the PDS through websites. These websites were used to present the PDS programming, spotlight various activities, communicate best practices, and celebrate commonalities and successes. These marketing efforts should be replicated by other PDSs. They foster communication and institutionalization. They encourage participants to examine the quality of their PDS and give suggestions for new directions. However, one aspect of website PDS marketing that was not seen in this study was the purposeful effort to share these websites with PDS participants. For study participants, increasing awareness of these sites would have helped them to fully understand how their PDS Partnership fit into the network of East Coast University and Suburban Schools PDSs. Although my studys findings suggest replicating the practice of establishing websites, they also indicate a need for promoting the sites within the PDS community. Another marketing practice by the school district in this case study was holding an annual reception for interns. This opportunity invites interns to network with school system staff. The school system also uses this event as a way to publicly thank the interns and court them as potential hires. It is an event that is mutually beneficial for interns and school system staff. Data-Collection Practices PDSs need to establish practices that foster data collection. The site-specific nature of PDSs makes them difficult to compare. School districts should collect PDS data in such areas as teacher recruitment and retention, staffing, budgets, and activities. Such data will
378
be useful in planning for resource allocation and program evaluation. In this case study, there were small expenses that were not represented in the overall budget process. These hidden costs were for items such as printing expenses, food, or office supplies. Neglecting to consider these types of expenditures can be problematic during PDS implementation. Partnerships should make every attempt to include all expenses in their budgets to adequately plan for such expenses. Other PDS data-collection practices that should be replicated include regularly surveying PDS participants. Surveying can be formal or informal. However, participants input should be actively sought. For example, in this studys Partnership, participants used surveys to determine professional development needs. Surveying can be a quick method for monitoring the pulse of the PDS and for driving continuous improvement. Data-collection practices can enhance the Partnerships ability to reflect on its success and plan for continuous improvement. The Maryland PDS Evaluation Framework guides PDS practitioners in how to structure their programs and monitor effectiveness. During this case study, this framework was an evolving document. However, PDSs should utilize such documents to monitor their Partnerships and should collect the necessary related data to address this framework. These data-collection practices could then serve as guides for data conversations among PDS participants that will help guide and maintain the Partnerships efforts. Responding to Change In my case study, there were many changes in the PDS Partnership. These changes presented challenges to the participants during both PDS development and maintenance. However, because change was expected during the development of a new initiative, it
379
impacted participants to a lesser degree than during PDS maintenance. To maintain the PDS, participants must have strategies for coping with change of staff, partners, school sites, and guidelines for the PDS. PDS Partnerships can assist PDS participants in these challenges by anticipating these potential points of change. Long-range planning is one strategy for being proactive. In addition, documentation of roles and responsibilities is essential to combat staff changes. If roles and responsibilities are clearly articulated in written documentation, staff changes will have less impact on the whole of the partnership. In addition, these guidelines for roles and responsibilities assist participants in understanding their expected PDS involvement. Having a common understanding of how the PDS works encourages productivity and effectiveness. Written documentation is essential for creating institutional memory. Written documentation of roles and responsibilities limits the impact of staff turnover, partner changes, or the influences of leadership changes. Contributions and Implications for Policy My findings contribute to PDS policy by examining how a Partnership applied PDS guidelines and standards. Examining ways that participants interpreted state and local policies gives direction for future PDS policy and suggestions for revisions of current policies. My findings suggest implications for policy for school districts and universities. As school district leaders develop policy, they must consider their needs for consistency and their desires to be responsive to site-specific needs. They also must develop policies that guide allocation and monitoring of resources for PDSs. My findings suggest that school districts also should consider policy creation or revision for professional development in
380
PDSs. University leaders should consider policy creation or revision for promotion and tenure policies. I present these policy implications with consideration for the states PDS policies and suggest that school systems and universities ensure alignment of their policies. Policy for School Districts My case study findings suggest policy implications for loca...