Skip to main content

Full text of "ERIC ED352319: Professional Development School Handbook."

See other formats


DOCUMENT RESUME 

ED 352 319 SP 03A 096 



AUTHOR 
TITLE 

INSTITUTION 

PUB DATE 
NOTE 

PUB TYPE 



Wo 1 oszyk , Carl ; Davi s , Suzanne 
Professional Development School Handbook. 
Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, Coll. of 
Educat ion. 
92 

251p. 

Guides - General (050) 



EDRS PRICE 
DESCRIPTORS 



IDENTIFIERS 



MFOl/PCll Plus Postage. 

'^College School Cooperation? Educational Change; 
Educational Finance; '^Educational Principles; 
Elementary Secondary Education; ^Taculty Development; 
Higher Education; 'Treservice Teacher Education; 
Program Development; Program Evaluation; Program 
Implementation; '^School Role; ''^Teacher Improvement 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education; 
^'Professional Development Schools 



ABSTRACT 

This handbook documents efforts to promote the 
professional development school (PDS) concept at Western Michigan 
University (WMU) and examines how a university might initiate the 
restructuring process for teacher education and collabaorate with a 
local school district through the establishment of a PDS. It 
discusses the underlying principles of PDSs, their place in school 
restructuring, and three major PDS components (teacher education, 
inquiry and research, and professional development) . The handbook 
outlines steps to be taken in the planning process by university 
administrators and faculty and explores the four stages of PDS 
development (exploration, orientation, implementation, and 
operation). It includes information on; finances, evaluation, and 
PDSs in Michigan. Three mini-bibliographies and a resource list 
conclude the document. Nine appendixes include: a chronology of the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education, PDS position statement, 
workpian for WMU, partnership school criteria, and a PDS workplan for 
WMU, partnership school criteria, and a PDS glossary of terms. In 
addition, the appendixes include six concept papers: ''Administrative 
Structures To Implement Professional Development Schools,'' "Awareness 
and Orientation Plan for Shared Understandings," "Criteria for 
Involvement in Professional Development Schools," "Evaluation of the 
Professional Development School Effort," "Nature of School and 
University Partnerships," "Promotional Plan for the Professional 
Development Schools Concept among the University and General School 
Community." (lAH) 



^'c :k ^'c 5'c ^'c t't ^'c V: Vr V: :V V: Vc ^'c ^'c Vf i< V: it x Vc :V x x it "k it it it it it it it it it it it ic it it it it it it it it it it it 

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made '"^ 

from the original document. 

it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it it 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 

HANDBOOK 



Developed by 



College of Education 
Western Michigan University 
2306 Sangren Hall 
Kalamazoo, NU 49008 
(616) 387-2960 



Authors 

Carl Woloszyk 
Consumer Resources and Technology 

Suzanne Davis 
Education and Professional Development 



uuu»,.,.,^nai Hesearch and 'n^D'O^er^ent 
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION 




-PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS 
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY 




•J d 



TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES 
INFORMATION CENTER {ERIC)." 




PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 
HANDBOOK 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Table of Contents i 

Acknowledgements 1 

Preface 3 

Section I: Introducing Professional Development Schools 6 

Establishing the Background 6 

Explaining the Concept 8 

Teacher Education in Professional Development Schools .... 10 
Inquiry and Research in Professional Development Schools . . 10 
Faculty Development in Professional Development Schools ... 11 

Section II: Planning for a Professional Development School 13 

Analyzing the Situation 15 

Choosing a Task Force 19 

Securing Commitment From the College 22 

Making Recommendations 24 

Section III: Operating and Administering a Professional 

Development School 26 

Exploration 27 

Orientation 29 

Getting Organized ^. 30 

Selecting the Site 31 

Implementation 33 

Designing a Management Structure 33 

Implementing Activities 35 

Operation 37 

Identifying Characteristics of a Professional 
Development School 37 

Section IV: Planning Finances for a Professional Development School .... 40 



i 



Table of Contents, Continued 

Section V: Evaluating a Professional Development School 43 

Section VI: Obtaining Additional Information 46 

Professional Development Schools in Michigan 47 

Clhiical Schools Clearinghouse, Mini-Bibliography No. 1 52 

Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, Mini-Bibliography No. 2 54 

Clinical Schools Clearinghouse, Mini-Bibliography No. 3 . . . , 56 

Professional Development School Resource List 58 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Michigan Partnership for a New Education Board of Directors 

Appendbc B: Chronology of Michigan Partnership for a New Education 

Appendix C: Position Statement on Professional Development Schools 

Appendix D: Professional Development School Concept Papers 

Administrative Structures to Implement Professional Development 

Schools (Crowell & Jenlink, 1991). 
Awareness and Orientation Plan for Shared Understanding? (Berkey 

& Jacobson, 1991). 
Criteria for Involvement in Professional Development Schools 

(Icabone, 1991). 
Evaluation of the Professional Development School Effort 

(Tones, 1991). 

Nature of School and University Partnerships (Pinnegar & 
Smith, 1991). 

Promotional Plan for the Professional Development School Concept 

among the University and General School Community (Miller, 1991). 

Appendix E: Professional Development School Work Plan for WMU 

Appendix F: Partnership School Criteria 

Appendix G: Oakland University/Pontiac School Partnership, 

Professional Development School Initial Planning Document 

Appendbc H: Chronology of Professional Development School Activities at 
WMU 

Appendbc I: Professional Development School Glossary of Terms 
Appendbc J: References 



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 



A considerable amount of cooperative effort and planning went into the 
development of this Professional Development School Handbook. Teams of 
faculty members have worked on the development of the Professional 
Development School concept at Western Michigsan University. Faculty have 
served on one or more of the following leami: Task Force on School 
Collaboration, Collaboration Papers Writing Team, Administrative Council, and 
the Handbook Writing Team. All of these individuals have made significant 
contributions to encourage the establishment of the Professional Development 
School concept at Western Michigan University. The Task Force on School 
Collaboration Team composed of representatives from every department within 
the College of Education developed the philosophy, goals, and a position 
statement for the College of Education related to Professional Development 
Schools. The Collaboration Paper Writing Team composed of teacher educators 
within the College of Education developed working papers concerned with school 
and university collaboration, criteria for participation, administrative structures to 
enhance collaboration, awareness, professional development, and evaluation of 
professional development schools. The Administrative Council met monthly and 
encouraged faculty members to visit existing professional development schools and 
participate in professional development school meetings and seminars. The 
Handbook Writing Team of Suzanne Davis and Carl A Woloszyk completed the 
development of the handbook. Anita Turns provided able and capable secretarial 
assistance. 



Task Force on School Collaboration 



Carol Payne Smith, Chair 
Education and Professional 
Development 



Deb Berkey 

Health, Physical Education and 
Recreation 



Ron Crowell 

Education and Professional 
Development 



Arnold Gallegos 

The Evaluation Center 



John Geisler 

Counselor Education and 
Counseling Psychology 



Jack Humbert 

Consumer Resources and Technology 



Dona Icabone 
Special Education 



Pat Jenlink 

Educational Leadership 



George Miller 

Education and Professional Development 



ERIC 



5 



Collaboration Papers Writing Team 



Deb Berkey 

Health, Physical Education and 
Recreation 



Ron Crowell 

Education and Professional 
Development 



George Miller 

Education and Professional 

Development 

Dona Icabone 
Special Education 

Stefmee Pinnegar 
Education and Professional 
Development 

Rosalie Torres 
Educational Leadership 



Jeanne Jacobson 
Education and 
Development 



Professional 



Patrick Jeniink 
Educational Leadership 



Mary Jo Smith 
Education and 
Development 



Professional 



1)^91 Administrative Council 



Evalyn Dearmin, Chair 
Education and Professional 
Development 

Alonzo Hannaford, Chair 
Special Education 



Alan J, Hovestadt, Chair 
Counselor Education and Counseling 
Psychology 

Roger Zabik, Chair 

Health, Physical Education and 

Recreation 



Linda Dannison, Chair Eugene Thompson, Chair 

Consumer Resources and Technology Educational Leadership 

Daniel Stufflebeam, Director James Bosco, Director 

The Evaluation Center Merze Tate Center 



Floyd L, McKinney 
Interim and Associate Dean 
College of Education 



Handbook Writing Team 



Suzanne Davis 

Education and Professional 

Development 



Carl A. Woioszyk 

Consumer Resources and 
Technology 



PREFACE 



While our economy and work force have changed dramatically within the 
last century, public school education has lagged far behind. Recent national 
studies recommend that schools must be strengthened in order to prepare today's 
youth to live and work in a world of ideas, information, and constant change. The 
structure and even the fundamental purposes of our public schools must be 
redefined and reformed. Meaningful school reform resides in a redirection and 
re-examination of how we do things. However, the required changes will not 
come easily. As Schlechty (Schools for the 21st Century, 1991) points out, there 
are really only four areas within the educational establishment subject to reform: 
time, space, content, and method. 

A central focus for school improvement must also involve a fundamental 
restructuring and continued improvement in the recruitment, selection, and 
preparation of future teachers, counselors, and administrators. 

Teaching for "new learning" will be challenging, demanding, and require a 
new and more sophisticated pedagogy. New pedagogy will need to be supported 
and sustained by new approaches to school organization and management. There 
will be no change in pedagogy, school organization and management, unless the 
entire system of teacher education and leadership preparation is changed. 
Fundamental change in the way we prepare and continually develop teachers, 
counselors, and school administrators will be essential to successful restructuring 
of schools. 



Fundamental change in professional education can bs effected only through 
a strategy that engages practitioners and clients at all levels in the educational 
system. Improved professional education will require educational partnerships 
between universities and school districts, and new connections with business, 
community groups, and parents. 

The Professional Development School (PDS) will be at the core of 
restructuring education. The Professional Development School is unique. 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. The PDS will not serve as merely a bridge 
between the school and university; it is, instead, a new institution composed of 
a community of professionals committed to fundamental change which will make 
education more effective a: id efficient in producing new learning for all children, 
youth, and adults. Professional Development Schools are community centered 
schools where teachers, university faculty, school and university administrators join 
together in working relationships to study, plan, and implement programs and 
methods designed to create new educational opportunities for youth and adults. 
(Michigan Partnership for a New Education, 1990) 

Professional Development Schools are designed as places of change, 
demonstration, inquiry, and self-renewal. Principals, teachers, counselors, and 



support staff in a local schooi and university faoilty work as colleagues to 
determine what changes are needed in instruction, curriculum, organization, and 
management. This team approach should change schools to institutions where all 
children will learn for understanding and will be motivated to be life-long 
learners. Educators must not work alone; rather they need to collaborate with 
local businesses, community organizations, parents, and citizen volunteers in the 
change process. 

This Professional Development School Handbook was prepared for two 
purposes: 

1. to document the efforts of Western Michigan University in 
promoting the Professional Development School concept at the 
University, and 

2. to thoughtfully examine how a university might initiate the 
restructuring process for teacher education and collaborate with a 
local school district through the establishment of a Professional 
Development School(s). 

Accordingly, the Handbook introduces to the reader the concept of a 
Professional Development School, outlines the necessarj' internal planning steps, 
and the phases of initiating a Professional Development School. Evaluation 
activities, financial considerations, additional resources, a chronology of WMU 
efforts, a glossary of terms, and WMU concept papers are also found in the 
Handbook. 



SECTION I: INTRODUCING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 



Establishing the Background 

The Holmes Group was organized in 1986 as a consortium of nearly 100 
American research universities committed to making teacher preparation 
programs more rigorous and integrated with the liberal arts. Their goals were: 
(a) improved intellectual preparation of teachers in education and the arts and 
sciences; (b) improved assessment and evaluation of teacher education achieved 
through flexible approaches; (c) increased collaborative effectiveness among 
colleges of education, arts and sciences, and the public schools; and (d) improved 
environments in which teachers work, practice, and learn. 

The Holmes Group recommended the establishment of Professional 
Development Schools (PDS), analogous to teaching hospitals in the medical 
profession, as vehicles to provide the necessary linkages between colleges of 
education and public schools. Professional Development Schools have existed in 
many forms since the late nineteenth century nnd have been described as school 
settings focused on the professional development of teachers and the development 
of pedagogy. Laboratory schools, embedded in chools of education, were the 
earliest forms of Professional Development Schools. John Dewey (1896) 
compared the need for a teacher's professional development lab to that of a 
scientist's or a medical practitioner's. However, there are fundamental differences 
between a PDS and a laboratory school. The differences are detailed below 
(Weber, 1991): 



Professional Development School 

- focus is upon at risk students 
in real public schools 

- learning is defined as thinking 
and metacognition 

- research generates theory for 
classroom practice 

- investigations are 
characterized as problem 
solving, "action" research 

- long-term staff development 
programs are targeted at 
continual learning 

- needs and focus of the school 
are determined by building 
staff in collaboration with 
university faculty 

- preservice students are 
considered a part of the 
school community 



Laboratory School 

- focus is upon "selected" 
students in private institutions 

- learning is defined as the 
acquisition of information 

- research validates theoretical 
constructs 

- investigations are 
characterized as empirical 
research 

- one shot in-seivice sessions 
are assessed for motivation 



needs and focus of the school 
are determined by university 
faculty 



preservice students are 
considered visitors to the 
school community 



Knowledge and contextual constraints now inhibit the preparation of future 
educators for a changing era of learning, teaching, and schooling. Fundamental 
change in professional education can be effected only through a strategy that 
engages practitioners and clients at all levels in the education system. To change 
the nature of the work of teachers, counselors, administrators, and other educators 
in school and universities requires a statewide initiative of institutional 
collaboration and knowledge networking. Improved professional education calls 



ERLC 



3'x 



for partnerships among universities, local schools, businesses, state, and local 
governments. 

The strategy for fundamental change in professional education must include 
a dynamic, balanced interaction between well founded, thoughtful demand for 
change from outside the system and new knowledge and leadership from within. 

Explaining the Concept 

According to the Holmes Group (1990), six underlying principles are 
fundamental to the design of Professional Development Schools, These design 
principles are: 

Principle #1: Teach for understanding so that students learn for a lifetime. 
Principle #2: Organize the school and its classrooms as a community of learning. 
Principle #3: Hold ambitious learning goals for everybody's children. 
Principle #4: Teach adults as well as children, 

r 

Principle #S: Make reflection and inquiry the central feature of the school. 
Principle #6: Invent a new organization. 

The Professional Development School is unique. While it is a site for 
schooling, it is not representative of the typical school culture; while it is a site for 
teacher, counselor, and administrator education, it is not representative of the 
typical university culture; while it is a site for inquiry, it is not representative of 
the typical research culture. The Professional Development School is a unique 
social institution in its own right; the culture it develops will be distinctly different 

8 



from traditional schools, teacher education instititions, and research universities. 
The Professional Development School is not, therefore, merely a bridge between 
the Rchool and the university, it is, instead, a new institution composed of a 
community of professionals and citizens committed to fundamental change which 
will make education more effective and efficient thereby producing "new learning" 
for all children, youth, and adults. These schools are "real" community-based 
schools where teachers, university faculty, school and university administrators, 
local businesses, community service agencies, parents, and citizen volunteers join 
together in a working relationship to study, plan, and implement programs and 
methods designed to create a new education institution. 

Individuality and the unique qualities of each Professional Development 
School are maintained, because the professional staff at the school in 
collaboration v/ith university faculty and community representatives, plan, and 
implement the changes that they believe are necessary to create a model school 
for their students and community. 

The three major components of the professional development school 
(teacher education, inquiry and research, and professional development) are 
discussed on the following pages. 



ERIC 



1 



Teacher Education in Professional D evelopment Schools 

The university program for preparing teachers is enhanced by the 
placement of teacher candidates in a Professional Development School. A regular 
elementary, middle, or high school, as a designated Professional Development 
School works in partnership with a university to develop and demonstrate the 
following: 1) fine learning programs for diverse students, 2) preparation for future 
teachers, 3) professional development for experienced educators, and 4) research 
about schools and teaching practices. The Holmes Group envisioned a 
partnership among practicing teachers, administrators, and university faculty based 
on the following principles: (a) reciprocity or mutual exchange and benefit 
between research and practice, (b) experimentation with, or willingness to try, new 
forms of practice and structure, (c) systematic inquiry or the requirement that new 
ideas be subject to careful study and validation, and (d) student diversity, or 
commitment to the development of teaching strategies for a broad range of 
children with different backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles (Holmes, 1986). 

Inquiry and Research in Professional Development Schools 

Effective research on teacher education cannot be done in a vacuum. It 
needs to occur in settings where there are real children, real adults, and effective 
teaching (Van TiL 1985). Research models must be validated with real classroom 
events and produce studies useful to practitioners in education (Omstein, 1985). 
The achievement of realistic research goals, therefore, is most probable in an 
environment where classroom teachers also become researchers. 



10 



The Professional Development School is a center for inquiry and research 
about teacher education, teaching, learning, and school organization. Research 
is a means of evaluating the work of university and school faculty, as they search 
for answers about how to create the best school. Documentation of all procedures 
should provide a wealth of information to the education community. 

The Professional Development School serves as a setting in which (a) 
teaching professionals can test different instructional arrangements, (b) novice 
teachers and researchers can work under the guidance of gifted and experienced 
practitioners, and (c) the exchange of professional knowledge between university 
faculty and practitioners occurs (Holmes, 1986). 

Faculty Development in Professional Development School s 

The Professional Development School is a place where continuing 
development of the professional staff is considered of primary importance and 
supported by curriculum and organizational development. Discussions about 
teaching, learning, and demonstration of best education practice provides a way 
for sharing new thinking with other staff members. In a Professional 
Development School risks are taken. Participants are open to current findings 
about teaching and desire to continue learning ways to improve. 

As an example, a teacher or a group of teachers could decide to research 
and develop methods to teach math to first and second-grade students, which 
would provide students with skills beyond memorization, thereby, fostering higher 

11 



level understanding. University faculty with knowledge and an interest in this 
subject are sought and collaboratively work with the teachers. The university and 
school personnel would plan ways to pursue the desired outcome. This group of 
professionals promotes continuous learning by engaging in discussions, readings, 
and sharing together new approaches to learning math. The process of 
professional growth is continuous in a Professional Development School. 



12 



SECTION \h PLANNING FOR A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



The establishment of a Professional Development School is a complex 
endeavor for a university. There are many challenges to establishing a 
Professional Development School. Some of the challenges include: 

1. Many public schools and communities will not favorably respond to a 
Professional Development School innovation. Some teachers, administrators, and 
parents will object to the idea of "experimenting" on their studems. Concepts and 
guidelines for responsible innovation must be developed in concert with 
cooperating local school districts. School board and parental support must be 
present. 

2. Current university reward systen« are largely non existent for 
recognizing school and universit>' collaborative work. Alternative or revised 
procedures for tenure, merit pay, promotion, and faculty reassigned time will need 
to be addressed. 

3. A complex set of existing public school rules, regulations, and 
procedures will often interfere with the effort and will need to be waived or 
changed to accommodate the innovation. 

4. Substantial effort will be required to "recruit " and prepare a sufficient 
number of faculty who will be willing to work in a Professional Dev .opment 
School site. 

5. Many teachers, administrators, and university teacher educators are 



13 



unaccustomed and unskilled in the conduct of collaborative research and 
development with school teachers, counselors, and administrators. 

6. The personnel costs of collaborative inquiry and program development 
are high with university and school district staff sizes and resources often limited. 

7. The dilemma of trying to innovate and study promising practices in a 
demonstration site, while at the same time, attempting to share the results with 
other schools, will need to be addressed. Because a Professional Development 
School is "unreal" in the sense of innovation it still must be recognized that the 
school is a part of the "real world " of a public school district. 

8. Teacher compensation and/or various approaches to differentiated 
staffing will require complicated negotiations with local school boards and teacher 
associations. 

9. University administrators will need to commit a greater level of financial 
resources for the preparation of a trained educational workforce, while focusing 
more on the quality of preparation rather than the quantity of the those 
individuals prepared to work in schools. 

The development of a Professional Development School partnership 
between a university and a local school district might not be a viable alternative 
for every higher education institution within a state. This section on Planning 
provides information on several activities that can be helpful for university 
administrators and faculty when deciding on whether a Professional Development 



14 



School partnership should be established between tJie university and a local school 
district. 

Steps in the planning process for a Professional Development School include: 

1. Analyzing the Situation 

2. Choosing a Task Force 

3. Securing Commitment from the College and University 

4. Making Recommendations 

Analyzing the Situation 

The status and current condition of the teacher preparation program within 
a College of Education should be the primary consideration when deciding if a 
Professional Development School should be started. Normally, the initial interest 
and leadership in establishing a Professional Development School originates from 
University or College administrators. National, state, and local resources are 
consulted and used in analyzing the current situation and initiating future 
directions for the institution. 

National trends in teacher preparation pertaining to Professional 
Development Schools are available from several different s >urces. The Clinical 
Schools Qearinghouse, a joint project of the American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education^ the Ford Foundation Clinical Schools Project, and the ERIC 
Clearinghouse on Teacher Education can provide resources which relate to 
professional development school projects, collaboration within the context of 

15 



professional development schools, and the principles and concepts associated with 
professional development schools. 

National professional teacher education associations, such as, the 
Association of Teacher Educators and the American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education also publish materials, monographs, position statements, and 
journals related to professional development schools. 

Reviews by University and College administrators of other university 
teacher preparation programs within the state and consultation between Presidents 
and Deans from other universities within the state also provide a context of 
directions being taken by other teacher training institutions. Attendance and 
participation in the statewide affiliate meetings of national associatidiF such as the 
Michigan Association of Colleges for Teacher Education is another excellent 
source of trend information for university leadership concerned with school 
collaboration efforts. 

An analysis of the most recent National Council on the Accreditation of 
Teacher Education (NCATE) can provide a local reference point for University 
and College administration in assessing overall strengths and weaknesses of the 
existing teacher education program. 

In addition, input can be sought from local school district superintendents, 
curriculum directors, building principals, teacher association leadership personnel, 
local employers, foundation staff, parent associations, the Chamber of Commerce, 

16 

ER?C 



the local business "roundtable", or other local agencies for input about the need 
to develop school and university partnerships. 

The Michigan Partnership for a New Education (the Partnership), a non 
profit corporation, has a professional staif of individuals and can provide 
additional resources and information on statewide professional development 
schools and teacher education reform efforts within the state. 

Because of the significance of the Partnership in planning and initiating 
teacher education reform, school resiructuring, and the development of the 
concept of Professional Development Schools in Michigan, the following 
information about the Michigan Partnership for a New Education is provided in 
this Planning section. 

In late 1989 the formation of the Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education was announced jointly by then Governor James Blanchard, acting for 
public schools and state government; university presidents, John DiBiaggio from 
Michigan State University, James Duderstadt from University of Michigan and 
David Adamany from Wayne State University, acting on behalf of their 
universities; and Mr. A. Alfred Taubman, acting on behalf of private investors. 
Dr. Judith Lanier, Dean of the College of Education, Michigan State University 
was named President of the Partnership. 

The Michigan Partnership for a New i ^ucation became a non-profit 
corporation in 1990. Today the Partnership is governed by a diverse, statewide 



17 



33 - member Board of Directors including Governor John Engler, and innovative 
leaders from the public, private, and professional sectors (See Appendix A). 

The Partnership is dedicated to the discovery and implementation of new 
ways of ensuring quality learning -both in school and out-for the state's children 
and youth. The Partnership seeks to develop ways and means that Michigan 
educators can prepare all Michigan students for the changing demands of a global 
economy and the essential responsibilities of citizenship. 

The Partnership intends to create and sustain a statewide educational 
innovation system in Michigan. This statewide system will have the capacity to 
realize fundamental change and continuous renewal of public education. Working 
through an alliance with the public, private, and professional sectors, the 
Partnership develops in depth working relationships with selected schools and 
school districts, neighborhoods, communities, universities and other agencies. 

Therefore, to launch the nation's first statewide education innovation 
system the Partnership has designed and begun to operate four interlocking 
program components: 

1. the School and University Alliance, which is supporting the work of 
innovating schools and universities in the creation and operation of Professional 
Development Schools. 

2. the Business and Community Alliance which is mobilizing local-level 
support for quality learning for children by working with employer and community 
organizations. 

18 



3, the Collaborative Leadership Center which is helping to develop 
leadership for educational change by sponsoring professional development 
opportunities for school, school district, and university personnel. 

4. the Educational Extension Service which is providing schools and 
communities with information and technical assistance needed for change through 
human and technological networks. A chronology of the activities of the 
Partnership to date is found in Appendix B. 

The analysis of the current situation should provide information on: 

1. the need for possible improvements within the cunent teacher 
preparation program. 

2. information on national and statewide trends relating to Professional 
Development Schools. 

3. a commitment on the part of the University and College administration 
to establish a Task Force or committee to study the concept and implications of 
establishing a Professional Development School within the College. 

Choosing A Task Force 

If an initial review of national, statewide, and local information by the 
Dean of the College and the Administrative Council is favorable toward the 
exploration of a Professional Development School concept for the College, a Task 
Force on School Collaboration should be established. The formation of a Task 
Force on School Collaboration can open communication channels between faculty, 

19 



school district personnel, business and community members, secure commitments 
from College faculty for the concept, and provide additional input for future 
actions and direction by University and College leadership. 

Membership on the Task Force for School Collaboration should include 
individuals reconmiended from each Department within the College. The Task 
Force should perform a number of functions related to school collaboration and 
Professional Development School development. 

The responsibilities of the Task Force on School Collaboration should 
include: 

1. delineating for the University the meaning of the Professional 
Development School in terms of school collaboration, practice, and the study of 
practice. 

2. delineating how the Professional Development School can serve as a 
means of reconceptualizing and restructuring the nature of schooling, the 
preparation of educational personnel and the study of teaching, counseling, and 
administration. 

3. identifying and developing programs and activities essential to inform 
College of Education faculty about school collaboration and the Professional 
Development School concept. 

4. suggesting strategies for working collaboratively with local schools in the 
possible development and implementation of the Professional Development 
School concept. 

20 



5. developing in cooperation with the College of Education Administrative 
Council, a long-range plan for working with local schools to establish Professional 
Development Schools. 

6. determining resources required to accomplish the planning, 
implementation, operation, and evaluation of a Professional Development 
School(s). 

7. suggesting >tegies for collaborating with business and industry in 
planning, implementing, operating, evaluating and financing of a Professional 
Development School(s). 

The College should also explore the possibility of having selected faculty 
members participate iix the post Doctorate Fellowship Program sponsored by the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education. Post doctorate fellows can enhance 
the work of the Task Force by directly participating in exploring and studying 
teacher education reform, school restructuring, and the concept of a Professional 
Development School. Post doctorate fellows work directly in an existing 
Professional Development School for twenty hours a week, and participate in 
decisions relating to policies, research, and instructional issues. Post doctorate 
fellows should provide monthly reports to the Task Force and participate in Task 
Force meetings and planned activities. 

Minimum requirements for selection as a post doctoral fellow should 
include the following: 

1. tenure or tenure-track faculty member. 

21 



2. faculty membership in the College of Education, 

3. submission of a formal letter of application. 

4. written support by the department for the applicant. 

The formal letter of application should detail the professional goals which 
the faculty member would accomplish through participation, a description of prior 
collaborative efforts with public/private school programs, and other qualities and 
experiences possessed by the applicant. 

After members for the Task Force on School Collaboration and post 
Doctoral fellows have been selected, the College administration should inform all 
faculty members within the College and University administration about the Task 
Force's responsibilities and the deadlines for reporting on the findings of the Task 
Force. As part of the informational process, faculty members should be 
encouraged to enter into serious dialogue, discussion, and reflection among 
themselves and with individual members of the Task Force on School 
Collaboration regarding the Professional Development School Concept. 

Securing Commitment From the College 

Faculty must make a commitment to the Professional Development School 
concept, if it is to be successful. The role of the Task Force on School 
Collaboration should be to provide opportunities for members of the College of 
Education and other interested community members to become informed about 
Professional Development Schools. Normally these opportunities include formal 

22 



meetings and presentations by College faculty from members of the Task Force, 
the leadership from the Michigan Partnership for a New Education, and the post 
doctorate fellows. Members of the Task Force also have a special responsibility 
to periodically report on the activities of the Task Force at regular departmental 
and Administrative Council meetings. Invitations should be sent to faculty 
members and individual arrangements should be made for interested faculty to 
visit existing Professional Development Schools within the state. Another effective 
strategy is to use a "retreat" setting to mobilize support and to build consensus 
among faculty members for possible future directions. 

Informal meetings such as 'Thrown bag" conversations and written 
communications such as faculty memoranda, depanmental updates and the 
College newsletter should also be used to provide information and build faculty 
understanding and support for the concept. 

Securing commitment from the faculty involves discussion and consensus 
building which should lead to the establishment of a policy statement for the 
College of Education regarding the concept of a Professional Development 
School. A position statement on Professional Development Schools should 
include a general belief statement about the importance of collaboration, 
fundamental principles under which a partnership will operate, evaluation 
procedures, financial considerations and the leadership required to effectively 
implement a Professional Development School. An example of a Position 
statement on Professional Development Schools is found on Appendix C. 

23 



Making Recommendations 

The Task Force on School Collaboration should make recommenu. ons 
to the University and College administration based upon the resulting analysis of 
the situation and commitment gained by the faculty related to the concept. For 
example, the Task Force should widely distribute any position statement, which 
may have been developed for University administration and faculty in other 
Colleges within the university. In addition, the Task Force may want to 
commission background papers on issues relating to the future implementation of 
Professional Development Schools to enhance the recommendations and findings 
of the Task Force. Topics for background papers should include the following 
general areas: 

1. Administrative Structures to Implement Professional Development 
Schools (Crowell & Jenlink, 1991). 

2. Awareness and Orientation Plan for Shared Understandings (Berkey 
& Jacobson, 1991). 

3. Criteria for Involvement in Professional Development Schools 
(Icabone, 1991). 

4. Evaluation of the Professional Development School Effort (Torres, 
1991). 

5. Nature of School and University Partnerships (Piimegar & Smith, 
1991). 

6. Promotional Plan for the Professional Development School Concept 
among the University and General School Community (Miller, 
1991). 



24 



Background papers developed by Western Michigan University faculty 
members related to the above topics are found in Appendix D. The 
implementation of a Professional Development School must also have the active 
support of the university administration. 

The university president and chief academic officer must thoroughly 
understand the concept, its implications for teacher training and the financial 
considerations regarding its implementation. Tangible support for the effort can 
be shown by University and College administration by reassigning one or more 
faculty members to the implementation of Professional Development Schools. 
Faculty members assigned to the effort should prepare a plan of work to be 
shared and approved by administration. The plan of work should detail specific 
activities, timelines, individuals responsible, and projected outcomes. A sample 
plan of work is shown on Appendix E. 

After college and university support has been obtained for the Professional 
Development School concept, it is time to implement the operational and 
administrative aspects of Professional Development School establishment. Section 
III details the necessary phases and steps involved with selecting, establishing, and 
operating a Professional Development School in conjunction with a local school 
district. 



25 



SECTION III; OPERATING AND ADMINISTERING A PROFESSIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



Professional Development Schools may be defined as working models of 
restructured schools developed and operated by local school and university 
educators functioning as colleagues. These schools: 1) operate exemplary 
programs, 2) serve as a demoni tration site for educatmg teachers and 
administrators, 3) demonstrate new K-12 and professional education practices, and 
4) conduct applied research and product development. Professional Development 
Schools may be thought of as a "linchpin" of the Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education. The schools are "real" community based schools where teachers, 
university faculty, schools and university administrators join together in a working 
relationship to study, plan^ and implement programs and methods designed to 
create new educational institutions. Policy makers, business, conmiunity 
representatives, students, and patents also are partners in these schools and 
provide support for them. 

Commitment to develop a Professional Development School in a 
community occurs after the Partnership has completed an initial assessment of the 
community to determine the depth of interest and local potential for suppo •\ 
Professional Development Schools are expected to proceed through various phases 
of development of exploration, orientation, implementation, and operation. 



26 



ERIC 



6 u 



Exploration 

This is the period of time in the establishment of Professional Development 
Schools (PDS) when potential partners, typically a local school district and a 
university decide whether a school-university alliance might be possible. During 
this period the university and school district learn about the Professional 
Development School concept, develop a vision for education in the local 
community, conduct a community appraisal, make a decision to develop a 
Professional Development School, and engage in a process to select the school 

General guidelines for the university interested in the establishment of a 
Professional Development School involved with this stage of development are to: 

L Choose a school district which is representative of today's student 
population* This is not to say that initial Professional Development School 
schools cannot be located in a rural, suburban, or urban setting. However, 
particular attention should be given to having Professional Development School 
sites in combination, or by themselves, which represent the diversity of the current 
student population. 

Z Build upon existing successfiil school and university relationships. 
Initial Professional Development School sites should be built upon mutual respect 
for each agency, which will ultimately be involved with the school and university 
partnership. Long tenn arrangements, such as student teaching involvement, and, 
short-term special projects, such as in-service programs and personal relationships 



27 



between individual school and university faculty can assist in building a long-term 
commitment for a potential Professional Development School partnership, 

3. Select a school district, which demonstrates a strong commitment 
to the community. Professional Development Schools work best where individual 
school and university faculty have a strong commitment to working with parents 
and other members of the community. Our increasingly complex society demands 
that partnerships be established in areas where responsible citizens can assist in 
the education of students and teachers. 

4. Involve schools and communities which share a united commitment 
to higher learning for all children and youth. Key organizations, including 
employers, in a community should share a willingness to allocate human and 
financial resources to support innovation and change in schools. Change not for 
change sake, but change in the interests of better learning for students and 
teachers. 

5. Involve innovative and progressive school districts. 

There is a high measure of risk-taking (personal, professional, and 
financial) involved with the establishment of professional development schools. 
Accordingly, a school district must be genuinely supportive of change and 
innovation. A school district's overall commitment to developing a core 
curriculum (P.A25) and embracing concepts for improved teaching and learning 
can be an indication of willingness to participate in a long-term school and 
university collaborative effort, 

28 



During the exploration stage teacher association leadership, local and 
university administration, classroom teacher and university faculty, business and 
community members explore the general concept of a Professional Development 
School partnership at large informational meetings. Extensive individual 
discussions, conversations, independent readings and deliberations are held 
following the general informational meetings between association, school and 
university personnel. Visits are scheduled and arranged to operational Professional 
Development School sites, which provide additional background information 
necessary for informed decision-making. 

These activities by the school leadership personnel lead to agreement or 
disagreement as to the feasibility of establishing a Professional Development 
School for the school district with the support and active involvement of the 
university. If an "agreement" is reached to establish a Professional Development 
School, local school administration, university administration, and local 
educational association leadership make a commitment to formally begin the 
orientation phase in the development of a Professional Development School for 
the district. 

Orientation 

After a decision to establish a school/university partnership has been made 
the orientation stage begins. A series of general understandings underlie the 
orientation stage. These understandings are as follows: 

29 



1. A commitment for active participation on the part of influential school, 
university, and community leaders is made to fully understand and further the 
innovation work of the potential Professional Development School(s). 

2. The availability of human talent and financial backing (matching funds), 
together with funding available from the Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education (MPNE), for developing the local area partnership is determined. 

3. The local area partnership makes a commitment to develop annual goals 
and related work plans. In addition a commitment is made to document annual 
achievements and to maintain appropriate records of financial transactions is 
secured. 

4. The local area partnership agrees to participate in studying and working 
with the MPNE network of university partners and other Professional 
Development Schools in workshops, institutes, and related activities. 

Getting Organized 

During the orientation stage an internal steering group of university 
representatives begins to meet to develop the operational guidelines and staffing 
arrangements necessary to bring the partnership into fruition. Concurrent to the 
establishment of an internal university steering committee, a conmiunity-based 
"partnership planning team" is formed to develop the selection criteria for the 
future Professional Development School(s). The partnership planning team 
composed of both university and school staff begin to develop working 

30 



relationships, an understanding of school conditions, the needs and the potential 
of the partnership. In the community a "Roundtable" is formed with business, 
education, and social/community services agencies. 

During the orientation phase extensive active discussion occurs between 
local and university administration, educational associations, personnel, individual 
building administrators, teachers, and community members. 

The partnership planning team is charged with selecting a Professional 
Development School site(s). The partnership planning team should include 
members of the community, district administrators, association leaders, classroom 
teachers, and university officials. 

Selecting the Site 

The partnership planning team or a sub committee of representatives 
should solicit active participation of all school district personnel in the site 
selection process by developing an application, criteria for submitting an 
application, and timelines for submission. This information is shared with local 
building principals, association representatives, and teachers. Although the actual 
process for selection may vary within each local area partnership, the process 
normally includes an application with supporting documentation, site visitations, 
and interviews with building administration, school faculty, and association 
personnel. 



31 



The partnership planning team determines the priorities, procedures, and 
appHcation/approvai process for the selection of the future Professional 
Development School(s). Factors normally considered in the approval and 
selection of a designated Professional Development School site include; but are 
not limited to, institutional commitments for: 

1. long-term, sustained and systemic change. 

2. implementing a collaborative research and development agenda. 

3. using new, research-based ideas to improve instruction and learning. 

4. formal collaboration with private and public agencies and individuals 
(e.g. business, social, and community services) to improve 
programming for children and youth. 

5. participation of staff in school decision making (MPNE, 1991). 

The Partnership School Criteria used in the selection of a local PDS by the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education is shown on Appendix F. 

Th3 Oakland University/Pontiac Schoo ls Partne rship Professional 
Development School Initial Planning Document containing specific criteria for 
selection, and sample application is shown in Appendix G. 

The orientation phase is completed upon reaching a formal agreement 
between the school, university, and the Partnership to collaborate in the school 
and with the selection of a specific site in the district as the Professional 
Development School. 

32 



Implementation 

After the individual school(s) within the school district have been selected 
and designated as a Professional Development School, the implementation phase 
begins. 

The university-school collaborative develops and implements school 
restructuring, focused on teaching and learning for all children. School 
organization^ curriculum^ community relationships, professional inquiry into 
practice, and professional development are all parts of the restructuring program. 

Designing a Management Structure 

In the implementation phase of Professional Development School 
establishment, staffing and procedural relationships between the school site, the 
local educational association, and the university are formalized. 

A representative of the university, usually called the building coordinator, 
fulfills a liaison role between the school and the university. The building 
coordinator is in a unique position. Building coordinators serve as bridges 
between the world of the university and the world of the school- between broad 
visions for comprehensive change and the daily realities of university and school 
life. The building coordinator fosters communication, collaboration, and 
cooperation among a variety of participants with differing agendas and differing 
needs. He/she initiates the Professional Development School effort with the 
principal and teachers at the local school. The building coordinator attempts to 

33 



establish the appropriate ethos and productive possibilities of a Professional 
Development School with the local administration and faculty. The building 
coordinator encourages procedures to build consensus and a staff oriented 
decision-making process at the local site. The decision-making process leads to 
a selection of what individual projects and activities are initiated at the school. 
A central role for a building coordinator is to effectively communicate between 
and among the various projects and individuals, both at the local school and the 
university. 

The building coordinator is also charged with working with the existing 
university administration to redefine the nature of faculty teaching, research, and 
service within a Professional Development School (PDS) setting. The building 
coordinator must work to revise, modify, enhance or improve existing university 
norms to provide opportunities, incentives, and rewards for university paiticipation 
in the Professional Development School effort at the local school. 

A local school, "PDS steering committee" or "PDS school council", is 
established to direct the internal policies of Professional Development School 
involvement at the local site. Often the existing school improvement team or 
another existing internal team of school representatives serves as the PDS steering 
committee. Regardless of its official name, the PDS steering committee is 
typically composed of instructional staff, doctoral students, the building 
coordinator from the university, university documenters, and the school building 
administrator. It is charged with the responsibility of creating and maintaining 

34 



teacher investment and faculty participation in the Professional Development 
School. New roles and decision-making responsibilities are also assumed by the 
steering committee to effectively communicate and work with the building 
administrator(s) and the university coordinator concerning Professional 
Development School initiatives and projects. The PDS steering committee also 
takes a lead role in explaining Professional Development School goals and 
expected outcomes to local board members, faculty members from other district 
buildings, parents, and community members who reside within the school district. 

Implementing Activities 

One of the first steps in implementing a Professional Development School 
is to designate a university building coordinator. The PDS building coordinator 
serves as a liaison between the school and the university. The university building 
coordinator and the Professional Development School steering committee work 
together to find time for planning and for Professional Development School 
activities. Potential roles for university faculty to perform when working in a 
Professional Development School include the following: 

1. facilitator: working with study and improvement teams of school 
personnel, parents, and community representatives to investigate 
issues relating to restructuring, content issues, pedagogy, school 
improvement, etc. 




35 



2. action researcher: helping to identify and solve instructional 
problems through descriptive, ethnographic, quantitative, or 
qualitative methodologies. 

3. team teacher: trying out new instructional ideas through 
collaboration with a classroom teacher. 

4. demonstration teacher: serving as a role model for preservice and 
inservice teachers. 

5. resource person: providing materials, articles, and sharing subject 
matter and pedagogical ideas with classroom teachers. 

6. PDS/ (public school) conmiittee member: serving on Professional 
Development School committees of teachers, university faculty, 
administrators, parents and community members. 

7. field supervisor: supervising and providing instruction for students 
participating in practicum, student teaching or internships. 

School reform, restructuring, improved preservice and inservice 
opportunities, and site based decision-making require the necessary time in an 
already overcrowded schedule for prop:r planning and development. While there 
is no right answer for each Professional Development School site, strategies such 
as purchased time, borrowed time, common time, freed-up time, better-used time, 
new time, and reassigned time are considered, deliberated and hopefully 
implemented. 

36 

ERiC 



The establishment of a Professional Development School requires an 
extraordinary effort on the part of all faculty within the Professional Development 
School. Proper planning and development time will help to avoid initial faculty 
stress, overwork, and employee buraout. 

Operation 

In the operation phase, a "steady state" of continued school restructuring 
activity designed to improve and keep abreast of educational innovation is reached 
in a Professional Development School. Emphasis shifts from awareness of the 
potential benefits of a Professional Development School to the actual 
incorporation of certain elements of school reform and restructuring into the 
climate, culture and general functioning of the school. 

Identi^ng Characteristics of a PDS 

The following list illustrates some of the important new characteristics of 
schools operating as Professional Development Schools. The Professional 
Development School becomes a school: 

1. where there is a linkage of teacher development, curriculum, 
instructional, and organizational development to enhance learning for children. 

2. which formally makes linkages with other private and public agencies 
and practicing professionals, to involve them in the plaiming and implementation 
of better programs for children and youth. 

37 



3. where there is an overriding commitment of all educators in the school 
to student learning with an emphasis on learning for understanding higher order 
thinking, and the development and use of appropriate assessments for this kind 
of student learning. 

4. where risks are taken, and where participants are willing to try new 
things, and are open to change and continuous learning. 

5. which has diverse cultural and socio-economic characteristics and future 

goals. 

6. where provisions are made for integrated preservice and inservice 
education of school and university faculty, i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, 
and other personnel, in the context of a learning community. 

7. which has a memorandum of agreement formally binding the university 
and the school in a shared, long-term sustained collaboration. 

8. which becomes center for inquiry into teacher education, teaching, 
learning, and school organization, including various kinds of research (e.g., 
collaborative, basic, and applied) and development for the purpose of improving 
education for all children. 

9. where there is discussion about and demonstration of "best education 
practice" known at any given time. 

The extraordinary work of faculty from the schools and the university 
should be recogniz d. This implies appropriate adjustments in work load and/or 

38 



compensation, since the occupational complexities and responsibilities clearly grow 
in this new institutional arrangement (MPNE,1991). 

Professional Development Schools are central to the mission of the teacher 
education reform and school restructuring. Through the Michigan Partnership for 
a New Education, they will form a statewide network of schools and universities 
dedicated to high quality teaching and learning for all children. Each Professional 
Development School is expeaed to demonstrate application of the best current 
knowledge of effective teaching, learning, educational management and 
commuriity involvement. These schools also provide the setting for the 
preparation of future teachers and school administrators, action research to 
improve teaching and learning, and the development of community partnerships 
for improved learning (MSU, 1991). 



39 



A 



SECTION IV: PLANNING FINANCES FOR A PROFESSIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



The actual costs of operating a Professional Development School are 
largely dependent upon the nature and faculty at a particular site (elementary, 
middle or high school). Based upon experiences gained from operating 
Professional Development Schools and for statewide plaiming purposes the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education has identified the "typical" staffing 
patterns of various Professional Development School sites. A basic assumption 
for each Professional Development School is that the school would be composed 
of teachers, administrators, counselors, students teachers, inductees (first year 
teachers), student teachers, and pre student teachers. Staffing for each type of 
PDS site might conform to the following staffing patterns: 

Elementary PDS site 
-12 teachers 
-3 inductees 
-3 student teachers 
-3 pre student teachers 
-1 counselor 

-1 counselor (student in training) 
-1 administrator 

-1 administrator (student in training) 
-1,5 teacher educators 
-.33 counselor educator 
-.33 administrator educator 

40 



ERLC 



Middle School PDS site 
-24 teachers 
-6 inductees 
-6 student teachers 
-6 pre student teachers 
-2 counselors 

-2 counselors (students in training) 
-2 administrators 

-1 administrator (students in training) 
-3.0 teacher educators 
-.66 counselor educator 
-.66 administrator educator 

High School PDS site 
-24 teachers 
-6 inductees 
-6 student teachers 
-6 pre student teachers 
-2 counselors 

-2 counselors (students in training) 
-2 administrators 

-1 administrator (students in training) 
-3.0 teacher educators 
-.66 counselor educator 
-.66 administrator educator 

Projected budgets to operate a prospective Professional Development 
School are based upon contributions of both actual and "in kind" resources from 



41 



the local school district, the university, and the Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education, Budget items for the operation of a Professional Development School 
should include university personnel including the teacher educators, administrator 
educator, counselor educator reassigimients, student teacher and pre student 
teachers, consultants (honorarium and travel), publications, local conferences for 
educators, business and community, communications, training sessions, 
printing/reproductions, facility rentals, equipment purchases, supplies and 
materials. Many of the expenses associated with the exploration, orientation, and 
implementation phases of Professional Development Schools are funded by the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education. Some of the expenses associated with 
the actual operation of the Professional Development School are provided by the 
local school district. 

A critical mass within the cormnunity, including the school board, parent, 
goverrmient, business leaders, and the university partner must demonstrate support 
for the establishment and long-term operation of the PDS by committing time, 
talent and resources to the effort. The leveraging of resources between the 
involved parties should assure an amplified voice in dealing with industry, 
government and foundations and an enhanced capacity to attract funds. 

Additional information regarding the financial aspects of operating a 
Professional Development School can be provided by the School and University 
Alliance of the Michigan Partnership for a New Education. 




42 



SECTION V: EVALUATING A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



The establishment of a Professional Development School requires intensive 
communication between institutions and more importantly, between the people 
who work in and are served by the institutions. Collaboration requires new 
relationships, new roles and responsibilities for both university and local school 
personnel. Professional Development Schools require cooperation and 
collaboration, which are based upon shared understandings. These shared 
understandings over time should create a new organization for teaching and 
learning. Becoming a new organization requires change and risk taking. 
Professionals who establish a Professional Development School must wrestle with 
changing their own patterns of thinking and behaving, as they also try to create 
a dynamic new organization. 

At least four aspects of Professional Development Schools support the need 
for evaluation of these new organizations. First, reflection and inquiry are central 
features of each Professional Development School. Second, the improvements 
which Professional Development Schools are designed to make- better teaching 
and learning- can only be achieved through long-term, sustained commitment to 
change by a university, a school district, the local school site, and the community. 
Third, collaboration increases the number of involved individuals and institutions 
and also the need for accountability and improved communication. And lastly. 
Professional Development Schools require that two distinctly different cultures 

43 



(school and university) agree on a shared philosophy of change and school 
improvement issues (Torres, 1991). 

Therefore, the idea of evaluation in a Professional Development School 
must be viewed, as a means to capture the process of development and change, 
as well as the measurement of individual student and organizational improvement. 
The evaluation of a Professional Development School must take into account that 
creating a new organization is a development process with many dimensions. 

Existing school evaluation models, such as 1) compliance evaluations, (i.e., 
regional accreditation bodies, national associations, state departments of 
education), 2) diagnostic evaluations, (i.e., effective schools correlates) and 3) 
performance evaluations (i.e., achievement testing) models are inadequate 
evaluation models for Professional Development Schools. 

Nevertheless, evaluation is central to the development and continuation of 
Professional Development Schools. Evaluation must occur during the awareness, 
orientation, implementation and operational phases of a Professional 
Development School. According to Torres, particular attention in an evaluation 
model f'^^ Professional Development Schools should be focused around the 
following: 

1. Responsiveness to stakeholding groups and individuals, 

2. Issues and meaning orientation, 

3. Formative, ongoing use of evaluation findings, and 

4. Qualitative and quantitative methods addressing processes and outcomes. 

44 



An evaluation model for a Professional Development School will require 
new initiatives in school evaluation which will identify and verify authentic 
indicators of educational and institutional quality. Due to the great variety of 
activities which will take place, a qualitative and quantitative methodology must 
be used. Specific evaluation questions and a framework for an evaluation model 
for Professional Development Schools is outlined in greater detail in the concept 
paper entitled Evaluation of the Professional Development School Effort found 
in Appendix D. 



45 



SECTION VI: OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 



46 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 
IN MICHIGAN 



The following is a list of professional development schools in operation during the 
1991-92 school year. 



Averill Elementary School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



3201 Averill Road 
Lansing, MI 48911 

Bruce Rochowiak, Principal 

(517) 887-3224 

Fran Barger 

(517) 353-4348 



Carpenter Elementary School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



4250 Central Boulevard 
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 

Giannine Perigo, Principal 

(313) 994-1922 

Joe Payne 

(313) 747-0606 



47 



Edmondson Middle School 



Address: 



Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



1800 E. Forest 
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 

Norma Williams, Principal 

(313) 481-8325 

Gary Knowles 

(313) 747^0598 



Elliott Elementary School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



4200 Bond Street 
Holt, MI 48842 

Ramona Berkey, Principal 

(517) 699-2106 

Michelle Parker 

(517) 353-0646 



Holmes Middle School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



6602 Oxley Drive 
Flint, MI 48504 

Art Wright, Principal 

(313) 760-1620 

Jacquelyn Nickerson 

(517) 353-0726 



48 



Holt High School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 

Kendon Elementary School 
Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 

Longfellow Elementary School 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



1784 Aurelius Road 
Holt, MI 48842 

Mr. Tom Davis 

(517) 694-2162 

Perry Lanier 

(517) 353-9760 

827 Kendon Drive 
Lansing. MI 48910 

Minnie Wheeler-Thomas, Principal 

(517) 887-3086 

John Zeuli 

(517) 332-2553 

31 N. Astor Street 
Pontiac, MI 48342 

Brian Castle, Principal 

(313) 858-2257 

Richard Pipan 

(313) 370 -4162 

49 



School 



Mary McGuire Elementary 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



Crosslanes and Isabella 
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858 

Carlene Shortz, Principal 

(517) 773-5500 

Alan Weber 

(517) 774-3975 



Northwestern High School 

Address: 



Lx>cal Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



G-2i38 W. Carpenter 
Flint, MI 48505 

Bessie Straham, Principal 

(313) 762-1780 

Joyce Parker 

(517) 353-0646 



Otto Middle School 



Address: 



Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



500 E. Thomas Street 
Lansing, MI 48906 

Walker Beverly, Principal 

(517) 374^650 

Linda Forrest 

(517) 355-8502 



50 

/ 



Spartan Village Elementaiy 

Address: 

Local Contact: 
Phone: 

University Contact: 
Phone: 



1460 Middlevale Road 
East Lansing, MI 48823 

Jessie Fry, Principal 

(517) 337-6521 

Janet Johnson 

(517) 336-2731 



51 



Clinical Schools Clearinghouse 

Mini-Bibliography No. 1 



Professional Development School Projects 

This mini-bibliography features resources from the ERIC database which relate to professional 
development school projects. References which conclude with an ED or EJ number have been 
abstracted and are currently part of the ERIC system. References which conclude with an SP 
number are being processed at this time and will become part of the ERIC system. 

Broyles, I. L. (1990). Teachers for Secondary Schools Program 
handbook. SP 032 933 

The Teachers for Secondary Schools Program (TSSP) is a 

one-year intensive preparation and certification program 

which utilizes clinical training schools for program 

planning and delivery. This handbook outlines TSSP policies, 

activities, and duties for interns, site coordinators, 

cooperating teachers, principals, and university supervisors 

and instructors. 

King, I. L., & Smith, J. R. (1990). The role of the 
partnership school in the undergraduate teacher training 
program at the University of Hawaii. SP 032 780 

The Hawaii School/University Partnership, a participant in 
the National Network for Educational Renewal, is described. 
This paper discusses partnership school features, roles of university 
and school staff, difficulties in establishing secondary-level 
partnership schools, selection of school sites, and advantages 
and problems for the college, college coordinator, classroom 
teacher, and the school. 

Pasch, S. H., & Pugach, M. C. (1990). Collaborative planning for 
urban professional development schools. Contemporary 
Education, 61(3), 135-143. e 420 756 

This article describes events which led to establishment of four urban 
professional development schools (PDS) by University of 
Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Milwaukee Public Schools. School 
sites, university /school district interaction, preservice 
student activities, and schoolwide change projects are 
described. Results of a survey of site teachers on PDS 
functions are included. 



The Clinical Schools Clearinghouse is a joint project of the 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education/Ford Foundation 
Clinical Schools Project and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Educadon 



ERIC 



52 



Rosean, C. L., & Hoekwater, E. (1990). Collaboration: 
Empowering educators to take charge. Contemporary 
Education, ^1(3), 144-151. SP520 135 

Thjee aspects of the formation and initial development of a 
professional development school (PDS) are discussed: 
developing interpersonal and working relationships^ 
developing a common vocabulary and knowledge base; and 
engaging in genuine problem solving. The PDS is a 
partnership between Michigan State University and Elliott 
Elementary School. 

Ruscoe, G. C, Whitford, B. L.. Egginton.W., & 
Esselman, M. (1989). Quantitative and qualitative 
perspectives on teacher attitudes in professional 
development schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting 
of tlie American Educational Research Association, San 
Francisco, CA. ED 310 068 

This paper examines teacher attitudes relating to two 
central issues in the establishment and functioning of 
professional development schools in Jefferson County, 
Kentucky: teacher effectivess and teacher empowerment. 
Collaborative research was used to gain a more complete 
picture of the day-to-day life in professional development 
schools. 

Stallings, J. A., Bossung, J., 8c Martin, A. (1990). Houston 
Teaching Academy: Partnership in developing teachers. 
Teaching and Teacher Education, ^(4), 355-365. EJ 419 313 

This article discusses the rationale for establishing the 
Houston Teaching Academy, a professional development school 
for preparing teachers to teach in multicultural inner-city 
schools. Program implementation is described, and results of 
formative and summative evaluations are presented. 

Yinger, R. J., & Hendricks, M. S. (1990). An overview of reform in 
Holmes Group institutions. Journal of Teacher Education, 
4i(2), 21-26. EJ 409 632 

Results are reported from an analysis of institutional 
reform efforts of 50 teacher education institutions. Six 
types of reform are discussed: new connections with arts and 
sciences faculty, teacher and school collaborations, 
professional development schools, internships, professional 
studies, and new organizational partnerships. 



Clinical Schools Clearinghouse 
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 
One Dupont Circle, Suite 610 
Washington, DC 20036 
(202) 293-2450 



53 



June 1991 



Clinical Schools Clearinghouse 

Mini-Bibliography No. 2 



Collaboration within the Context of Professional Development Schools 

This mini-bibliography features resources from the ERIC database which relate to collaboration 
within the context of professional development schools. References which conclude with an ED 
or EJ number have been abstracted and are currently part of the ERIC system. References which 
conclude with an SP number are being processed at this time and will become part of the ERIC 
system. 



Clark, R.W. (1990). Wftat school leaders can 
do to help change teacher education, Washing- 
ton: American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education. SP 033 098 
This booklet provides an overview of ways in 
which school leaders can make a significant differ- 
ence in the education of educators. Six tasks are 
outlined, including collaboration with colleges and 
universities in establishing professional develop- 
ment centers. 

Goodiad, J. I. (1990). Why our schools don't 
get much better-And how they might. Teacher 
Education Quarterly y 12(4) 5-21. 
EJ 422 104 

Improving our schools involves reconstruction of 
two interacting ecologies-that of the total array of 
educating institutions and that of the formal system 
of schooling. There is a need to link teacher educa- 
tion and schools simultaneously in improvement. 

Goodman, J. (1988). University culture and the 
problem of reforming field experiences in 
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Educa- 
tion, MS). 45-51. EJ 152 
Four cultural conditions within universities impede 
significant reform of field experiences in teacher 
education: lack of resources, low status, fragmented 



curriculum, and professional persepctives of teacher 
educators. Recommendations are made for altering 
the purpose of field experiences to include more 
than the acquisition of technical competency. 

Hawley, W. D. (1990). Vie prospects for 
collaboration between schools and universities 
to improve American education, 
SP 032 669 

Collaboration between schools and institutions of 
higher education (IHE) is usually effective only 
when values are shared and mutual dependencies 
are recognized. These conditions are uncommon. 
This paper discusses the elements required to 
construct a strong foundation for collaboration, 
forces that might encourage more effective collabo- 
ration, and potential impediments to school-lHE 
collaboration. 

Lawson, H. A. (1990). Constraints on the 
professional service of education faculty. 
Journal of Teacher Education, 4i(4), 57-70, 
SP 520 217 

Increases in external services performed by faculty 
are integral to the reform agendas for K-12 schools 
and departments, colleges, and schools of educa- 
tion. Calling for increased external service and 
collaboration will not by itself achieve this intended 



ERIC 



Tlie Clinical Schools Clearinghouse is a joint project of the 
American Associalion of Colleges for Teacher Educalion/Ford Foundation 
Clinical Schools Project and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education 



54 



1^ 



outcome. First, we need to understand tlie con- 
straints that limit faculty service. Five factors that 
constrain service are identified, and the implications 
of these factors are explored in light of the diversity 
among education faculty and their colleges and 
universities. 



Pasch, S. H., & Pugach, M. (1988). A collabo- 
rative approach to introducing education. 
Teaching Education, 2(2), 62-67. 
EJ 406 254 

This article discusses the context, design, goals 
and objectives, course organization and description, 
and student responsibilities associated with a 
preservice course, "Introduction to Teaching," 
given by the Center for Teacher Education at the 
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Within profes- 
sional development school settings, university 
faculty and public school teachers work together to 
address conditions of work and improvement of 
learning in typical city schools. 



Nystrand, R. O. (1991). Professional develop- 
ment schools: Toward a new relationship for 
schools and universities (Trends and Issues 
Paper No. 3). SP 033 018 
Professional development schools (PDS) offer 
significant promise for restructuring university- 
school district relationships around a common 
agenda of modeling exemplary practice, preparing 



teachers, and conducting research. This paper traces 
the development of the PDS concept and discusses 
issues related to establishing such schools. Topics 
include PDS goals, characteristics, rationale, and 
conceptual bases. 



Rosean, C. L., & Hoekwater, E. (1990). Col- 
laboration: Empowering educators to take 
charge. Contemporary Education, 61(3), 144- 
151. SP 520 135 

Three aspects of the formation and initial develop- 
ment of a professional development school (PDS) 
arediscussd: developing interpersonal and working 
relationships, developing a common vocabulary and 
knowledge base, and engaging in genuine problem 
solving. The PDS described is a partnership be- 
tween Michigan State University and Elliott Ele- 
mentary School. 



Warring, D.; And Others. (1991). Implement- 
ing the vision: The shared experience in Minne- 
sota. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of 
the American Association of Colleges for 
Teacher Education, Atlanta, GA. SP 032 986 
Collaboration of state licensing agencies and uni- 
versity/college and school personnel is essential to 
pursue creative options to meet student needs. This 
collaboration requires a close examination of the 
roles each of the three groups plays in teacher 
preparation at the preservice and inservice levels. 



Clinical Schools Gearinghouse 
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 
One Dupont Circle, Suite 610 



Washington, DC 20036 



<202) 293-2450 



June 1991 

55 



ERLC 



Clinical Schools Clearinghouse 

Mini-Bibliography No^ 3 



Professional Development Schools: Pnnciples and Concepts 

This mini-bibliography features resources from the ERIC database which relate to the principles and 
concepts associated with professional development schools. References which conclude with an ED or EJ 
number have been abstracted and are currently part of the ERIC system. References which conclude with 
an SP number are being processed at this time and will soon become pan of the ERIC system. 



Abdal-Haqq, I. (1989). Vie nature of professional 
development schools. ERIC Digest 4-89. Washington, 
DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. 
ED 032 239 

Three major purposes have been proposed for profes- 
sional development schools: (a) to improve education of 
prospective and practicmg teachers; (b) to strengthen 
knowledge and practice in teaching; and (c) to strengthen 
the profession of teaching by servmg as models of 
promising and productive structural relations. This Digest 
explores the proposed purposes of these schools, dis- 
cusses some the literature that provided the 
conceptual base for these proposals, and presents some 
critiques of various aspects of professional development 
school proposals. 

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). 
A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. 
Washington, DC: Author. ED 268 120 

This report argues that if the United States is to have a 
vibrant democracy, avert the growth of a permanent 
underclass, and have a high-wage economy, schools must 
graduate the vast majority of students with high achieve- 
ment levels long thought possible only for a privileged 
few. An integrated plan is presented for restructunng 
schools, upgrading the status of teachers and redesigning 
the education of teachers. This plan includes creation of 
clinical schools that would serve as sites for the chnical 
education of teachers. 

Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for ournanon's schools. 
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SP 032 960 

A five-year study of teacher education and the institu- 
tional and regulatory context in which it is conducted 
reveals that several conditions undernune teacher educa- 
tion. These conditions include: low prestige of education 
departments; pre-eminence among teacher educators of 
scholarly publishing over teaching; and stifling. 
Slate-mandated curricula and credentialing requirements. 



Nineteen postulates, or presuppositions, are proposed 
regarding the conditions that will need to be in place to 
attract, prepare, and retain able, dedicated teachers. Tlie 
postulates focus on expectations for institutions that 
educate educators^ selection of students, state licensing of 
teachers, clinical training of teachers, university/school 
district collaboration, and teacher education curriculum. 

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of 
the Holmes Group. East Lansmg, MI: Author. 
ED 270 454 

The Holmes Group, a consortium of representatives 
from leading research institutions which are involved in 
teacher education, is organized around the twin goals of 
reform of teacher education and reform of the teaching 
profession. Specific objectives of the group are to: (a) 
make the education of teachers intellectually more solid; 
(b) recognize differences in teachers' knowledge, skill, 
and commitment, in their education, certification, and 
work; (c) create standards of entry into the profession, 
examinations and educational requirements that arc 
professionally relevant and intellectually defensible; (d) 
connect the group's institutions with schools; and (e) 
make schools better places for teachers to work and learn. 
Proposals include creation of a network of professional 
development schools. 

Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schoob: Principles 
for the design of professional development schools. East 
Lansmg. MI: Author. SP 032 871 

The professional development school (PDS) is an effort 
to invent an institutional coalition that will bring togetiier 
universities, schools of education, and public schools. 
This report urges the creation of a relatively small 
number of schools, professional development schools, 
designed to be the focus of professional preparation for 
teachmg, school research, and the improvement of 
teaching. Six principles are offered on how PDSs should 
organize themselves. The rationale for creating a network 
of PDSs and the relationship of these schools to 



TJie Cluiical Schools Clearinghouse is a joint project of the 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education/Ford Foundation 
Clinical Schools Project and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. 



56 



educational reforms are discussed. The report concludes 
by suggesting what Holmes Group universities should do 
to make a start in esublishing PDSs. 

Hopkins, S. & Moore. K. D, (1989, July). Professional 
development schools: An exploratory approach. Paper 
presented at the conference of the Northwest Association 
of Teacher Educators, Tacoma, WA. ED 3 1 1 021 

Recent studies on school improvement have urged the 
formation of partnerships between public schools and 
universities to better prepare teachers for the nation's 
schools and have suggested that these alliances would 
encourage reform in public schools and universities. One 
area of emphasis m this suggested reform network is the 
creation of clinical school settings, professional develop- 
ment schools, where prospective teachers can learn the 
best in research and practice. This paper explores 
possible characteristics of professional development 
schools. Results are reported from a survey of 300 
teacher educators who were asked to mdicate the relative 
importance of 12 PDS components and to identify the 
teacher preparation areas with the greatest need for 
attention. 



Kennedy, M, M. (1990). Professional development 
schools. NCRTE Colloquy. J(2). ED 326 516 

This issue features a review of Building a Professional 
Culture in Schools, edited by Ann Lieberman, and an 
interview with Charles Thompson, associate dean for 
clinical studies at Michigan State University's College of 
Education. The book reviewed focuses on the movement 
to professionalize teaching and the need to alter school 
cultures to accomplish this goal. The mterview, "On the 
Development of Professional Development Schools." 
presents the idea that professional development schools 
are more than sites for preparing new teachers. They are 
also settings for creating a new kind of education that 
reflects the kind of teaching and learning needed to 
respond to the social, demographic, and economic 
realities of late 20lh- and 2!sl-century America. 



Levine, M. (Ed.). (1988). Professional praaice schools: 
Building a model. Washington. DC: American Federa- 
tion of Teachers. ED 313 344 

This report sumjnarizes the discussions of a task force 
which focused on the concept of professional practice 
schools. These schools are public schools which are 
structured, staffed, and supported to achieve three goals: 
student achievement, teacher induction, and support of 
research directed at the continuous improvement of 
practice. The professional practice school should be 
developed as a collaborative institution with a function 
similar to that of a medical teaching hospital. Three 
papers are presented, focusing on issues of accountabil- 
ity, curriculum, and standards for professional practice 
schools. An additional paper provides background for the 
conceptual framework. 

Levine, M. (Ed.). (1990). Professional praaice schools: 
Building a model (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American 
Federation of Teachers. ED 324 299 

This collection of papers addresses three important 
aspects of professional practice schools: student learning, 
teacher development, and implementation issues related 
(o collaboration among institutions and state policy 
environment. The papers include: "The Child as Meaning 
Maker: The Organizing Theme of Professional Practice 
Schools" (Ellen M. Pechman), "Teacher Development in 
Professional Practice Schools* (Ann Lieberman and 
Lynne Miller), "Professional Practice Schools in Context: 
New Mixtures of Institutional Authority" (Barbara 
Neufeld), and "Afterward: A Look at Professional 
Practice Schools with an Eye Toward School Reform" 
(Marsha Levine). 

Zimpher, N. (1990). Creating professional development 
school sites. Theory into Praaice, 29(1), 42-49. 
EJ 419 242 

This article discusses challenges associated with the 
creation of professional development school (PDS) sites 
according to goals set by the Holmes Group and examines 
both assumptions for guiding site development and goals 
for PDSs. 



Clinical Schools Clearinghouse 
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 
One Dupont Circle, Suite 610 
Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 293^2450 



57 



August 1991 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL RESOURCE LIST 



Arends, R. (1982). Beginning teachers as learners. Journal of Educational 
Research . 76(4), 235-242. 

Arends, R.,& Murphy J. (1986). Staff development for teacher educators. Journal 
of Teacher Education . 37(5), 17^22. 

Berliner, D.C. (1985). Laboratory settings and the study of teacher education. 
Journal of Teacher Education . 36(6), 2-8. 

Boyer, E. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America . New 
York: Harper & Row. 

Bradley, B. (1971, May 13). Rationale and definition of the portal school concept . 
Unpublished memorandum to Portal School Project Steering Committee, 
Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools. 

Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, Task Force on Teaching as a 
Profession. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century . New 
York: Author, 

Chambers, M., & Olmstead, B. (1971). Teacher corps and portal schools. Portal 
Schools, 1(1), 7-8. 

Davie, A^R., & Lyman, F.T. (1985\ Action research: A problem-solving approach 
to teacher education . Howard County, MD: University of Maryland, Office 
of Laboratory Experiences, Southern Teacher Education Center. 

Dewey, J. (1896). The university school. University Record , 5, 417-442, 

Ducharme, E. (1987). Teaching teachers facts and figures. Education Professorate , 
Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 

Educational Testing Service. (1980). Study of induction programs for beginning 
teachers . Princeton, NJ: Author, 

Goodland, J.L (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future . New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 

Hall, G.E., & Loucks, S.F. (1978), Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and 
personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record , 80(1), 36-53. 



58 



Harper, CA. (1939). A century of public teacher education . Washington, DC: 
American Association of Teachers Colleges. 

Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers . East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes 
Group. 

Holmes Group. (1986\ Tomorrow's Schools . East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes 
Group. 

Hunter, M. (1970). Expanding roles of laboratory schools. Phi Delta Kapp an, 
21(1), 14-19. 

Jackson, C.L. (1986). Status of laboratory schools . Jacksonville, FL: Florida 
Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 
691) 

Joyce, B. (1972). The teacher innovator: A program for preparing educators. In 
B. Joyce & M. Weil (Eds.), Perspectives for reform in teacher education 
(pp. 4-22). Englewood Chffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 

Kelly, I.H. (1964). College centered laboratory schools in the United States . 
Washington DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 

Kowalski, TJ., Glover, J.A-, & Krug, D. (1988). The role of the laboratory school 
in providing a research base for teacher education. Contemporary 
Ediicatm 60(1), 19-22. 

Levinson, N.S. (1981). School-university collaboration supporting school 
improvement: Vol. 11. The Eastern State Case, Washington, DC: 
Knowledge Transfer Institute. 

Lumpkins, B., & Parker, F.R. (1986). The inservice roles fulfilled by campus 
laboratoiy schools . Paper presented at the annual conference of the 
National Council of States on Inservice Education, Nashville, TN. (ERIC 
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 275 665) 

Lutonsky, L. (1972a). Portal Schools. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City 
Schools. 

Lutonsky, L. (1972b). Toward a definition of "Portal Schools. " Portal Schools, 
1(3), 1-19. 



59 



McCaleb, J, L (1984). An investigation of on-the-job performance of first-year 
teachers who are graduates from the University of Maryland, from 
December 1982 to August 1983 . CoUege Park, MD: University of 
Maryland, Department of Curriculum and Instruction. 

McGeoch, D.M. (1971). The campus laboratory school: Phoenix or dodo bird . 
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Communication. 
(ERIC document Reproduction Service No, ED 050 046) 

National Commission on Excellence in Education^ (1983). A nation at risk: The 
imperative for educational reform . Washington, DC: U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 

Nielsen, R.A. (1986). Laboratory schools: Blue print for success. Paper presented 
at the annual convention of the National Association of Laboratory 
Schools, Chicago* (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 273 626) 

Omstein, A C. (1985). Research on teaching: Issues and trends. Journal of 
Teacher Education . 36(6) 27-3L 

Page, P.M., & Page, J. A- (1981). The development of research as a role in 
laboratory schools , Farmville, VA: National Association of Laboratory 
Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 212 628) 

Page, J. A. (1983). Laboratory schools: Update or outdated? Education , 103, 372- 
374. 

Rucker, W.R. (1952). A critical analysis of current trends in student teaching . 
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Graduate School of Education, Harvard 
University, Cambridge, MA 

Sowards, W. (1969). Rorida State University model for the preparation of 
elementary school teachers. Journal of Research and Development in 
Eiiiicatm 2(3), 22-30. 

Sparks, G. (1983). Inservice education: Training activities^ teacher attitude, and 
behavior change . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, 
Palo Alto, CA, 

Stallings, J. A. (1975). Implementation and child effects of teaching practices in 
follow-through classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research in 
Child Development 40 (Serial No. 163). 



60 



ERIC 



Stallings, J.A, (1986). Effective use of time in secondary reading programs. In J. 
Hoffman (Ed.). Effective teaching of reading: Research and practice (pp. 
85-106). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. 

Stallings, J.A. (1988). The Houston teaching academy: A professional development 
school. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational 
Research Association, New Orleans. 

Stallings, J.A., & Krasavage, E.M. (1986). Program implementation and student 
achievement in a four-year Madeline Hunter follow-through project. 
Elementary School Journal . 87(2), 117-138. 

Van Til, W. (1969). The laboratory school: Its rise and fall? Terre Haute, IN: 
Indiana State University, School of Education. 

Van Til, W. (19851 Laboratory schools and national reports . Paper presented at 
the annual convention of the National Association of Laboratory Schools, 
Denver. 

Varah, LJ., Theune, W.S., & Parker, L. (1986). Beginning teachers: Sink or swim? 
Journal of Teacher Education . 37(1), 30-34. 

Wilbur, P.P., Lambert L.M., & Young, MJ. (1987'). National directory of schools 
partnerships . New York: American Association for Higher Education. 

Wilbur, P.P., Lambert, L.M., & Young, M.J. ( 1988). School college partnership: 
A look at the major national models . Washington, DC: National 
Association of Secondary School Principals. 

Williams, E.L (1942). The actual and p otential use of laboratory schools in state 
normal schools and colleges (Contribution to Education, No. 846). New 
York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications. 

Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Berliner, D.,Haller, E., Praskac, A., 
' Schlechty, P. (1987). Effective teacher selection: From recruitment to 
IfilfinliQD (R-3462-NIE/CSTP). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Zaret, E. (1988). The collaborative teacher education program . Richmond, VA: 
Virginia Commonwealth University. 



61 



APPENDIX A 



MICHIGAN PARTNERSHIP FOR 
A NEW EDUCATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS 



THE MICHIGAN PARTNERSHIP 
Board of Directors 



David Adamany, President 
Joseph Antonini, Qiairman and CEO 
Dorothy Beardmore, President 
Olivia Beverly, Teacher 
Nathel Burtley, Superintendent 
Theodore Cooper, Chairman 
Daniel L. DeGrow, State Senator 
John DiBiaggio, President 
James J. Duderstadt, President 
John Engler, Governor 
Max Fisher 
Frank Garrison, President 
Diether Haenicke, President 
Melleretha Johnson, Teacher 
Damon Keith, Judge 
William E. LaMothe, Chairman and CEO 
Judith E. Lanier, President 
Timothy D. LeuUette, President and CEO 
Loretta Manwaring, President of the Board 
Colleen McNeal, Principal 
Juan Olivarez, Dean 
James E. O'Neill, Jr., State Representative 

Joann Patton, Principal 
William Pickard, CEO 
Harold Poling, Chaimian and CEO 
Frank Popoff, Chairman and CEO 
Colleen Presley, Teacher 
E. Lea Schclke, Teacher 
James S. Shepard, Superintendent 
Robert C. Stempel, Chairman and CEO 
A. Alfred Taubman, Chairman of the Board 

Nancy Usitalo, Teacher 
Marvin Younger, Teacher 



Wayne State University 

Kmart Corporation 

Michigan State Board of Education 

Mumford High School 

Flint Community Schools 

The Upjohn Company 

Michigan Senate 

Michigan State University 

The University of Michigan 

State of Michigan 

Industrialist, financier 

Michigan State AFL-CIO 

Western Michigan University 

Saginaw Public Schools 

U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit 

Kellogg Company 

Michigan Partnership for New Education 
ITT Automotive 

Genesee Intemiediate School District 
Soo Township Elementary School 
Grand Rawids Community College 
Michigan House of Representatives 
Forest Hills High School 
Regal Plastics Company 
Ford Motor Company 
The Dow Chemical Company 
Burger Center for Autistics 
Trenton High School 
Charlevoix-Emmet ISD 
General Motors Corporation 
The Taubman Company 
Silver Creek Elementary School 
Washington Elementary School 



Fehnury. 1992 



APPENDIX B 



CHRONOLOGY OF 
MICHIGAN PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW EDUCATION 



68 



CHRONOLOGY OF MICHIGAN PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW EDUCATION 



Dec. 1989 Minduncament of Partnership Intent 

1990 Planning and Start-up Year 

- Three universities (MSU, U-M, Oakland) are involved 
in Professional Developir.ent Site initiatives. 

- First community initiative is begun in Flint. 

- Partnership's Educational Extension Service publish -s 
first issue of "Changir.g Minds," distributed to 5,000 
educators . 

- First School Leadership Academy is designed and 
piloted, 

1991 Organizational Development Year 

- First board of directors meetings, 

- Kellogg Foundation grant ($6,1 million) approved. 

- National recruiting of management team completed. 

- First residential Leadership Academy is held (55 
school & university faculty from 15 schools in 8 
districts and 4 universities). 

- Mi>v., U-M and Oakland continue development with 
Ann Arbor, East Lansing, Flint, Holt, Lansing, 
Pontiac, Saginaw and Willow Run schools, 

- Six additional universities explore and begin 
planning developmental initiatives (Central, Western, 
Lake Superior, Northern, Grand Valley and Wayne) , 

- Partnership "Summer Institute" is held for all 
faculty in PDSs currently underway. 

- Products developed and technical assistance provided 
to 52 Intermediate School Districts (applying state 
of the art knowledge from research to core 
curriculum development work called for by Public 
Act 25. 

- Partnership works with White House, U.S. Department 
of Education and Congress, helping design federal 
funding programs aligned with Partnership intent. 

- □•v«lopa«nt/fundraising efforts' focus on corporate 
and foundation sources and on two collaborations: 
with state Department of Education to win $10 million 
National Science Foundation math/science systemic 
initiative^ and with U-M and MSU to gain $15 million 
National Literacy Center, 

- Partnership Mission and vision Statements adopted by 
board. 

- Strategic business plan developed and approved by 
board. 

- Comnunicationg plan developed and presented to board. 



ERIC 



69 



1992 



ChronoloqY of Anticipated Activities 



First Fully Operational Year 



- Board approves quality standards and criteria for 
formally establishing Partnership Schools and 
Professional Development Sites . 

- First Professional Development Sites are formally 
established. 

- Partnership announces process for selecting 
additional Professional Development. Sites, (About 
half of the additional sites would be selected in 
this round.) 

- Three more universities begin participation. 

- Strategic alliances are initiated regarding new 
testing and assessments for teaching and learning, 
and new uses of technology (e.g., with ETS, IBM, 
TVO) . 

- State Jjeadership Academy is convened. 

- career Transition Program is launched. 

199 3 second rally operational Year 

- Three more universities begin participation. 

- Complete evaluation of Partnership — performed by 
National Review Panel, as a prelude to determining 
future plans. 

- Plans for development at a more rapid pace are 
devised. (With all 15 public universities now 
participating and initial policies^ practices and 
programs fairly well developed^ we should be able to 
double the productivity achieved in the first five 
years. ) 

1994 Cornerstone Year for the statewide Innovation system 

- The innovation system is in place ^ with 24 (or more) 
Professional Development Sites well underway. 
Approximately half of the sites will be formally 
established by this time. 

- The Partnership announces process for selecting 
additional Professional Development Sites. (The 
second set of sites would be selected.) 



ErJc . 70 



Chronoloov of Anticipated Activitlta 



1995- While speculative at this time, we believe that as many 

1999 as sixty additional Professional Development sites r.ust 

and can be developed and initiated in this period. The 
selection processes in 1992 and 1994 will have begun 
this work. 



2000- Each Professional Development Site will be ''rounded 

2004 out" to create a cluster of "feeder" schools working 

with the Partnership. 



ERIC 



71 



APPENDIX C 



POSITION STATEMENT 
ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 



POSITION STATEMENT 
ON PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 



We believe collaboration of the College of Education with local school systems is 
essential to the improvement of K-12 education, the improvement of teacher, 
counselor, and administrator initial preparation, and the continuing professional 
development of educators. Partnership arrangements designed to enhance the 
teaching/learning enterprise between the College of Education and local school 
systems are strongly encouraged. 

The College of Education endorses the professional development school concept and 
plans to implement these schools in collaboration with local school systems to 
improve the preparation programs for teachers, counselors, and administrators and 
to improve local school education efforts. The professional development schools 
developed by Western Michigan University and collaborating local schools will 
reflect our own unique situation, however they will conform to the general 
framework for establishing professional development schools as established by the 
Michigan Partnership for New Education. Professional development schools are 
defined as regular elementary, middle, or high schools that work in partnership with 
a university to develop and demonstrate 

0 improved learning programs for diverse students 

0 improved initial preparation and continuing professional development 
for teachers, counselors, and administrators 

0 new understandings and professional responsibilities for experienced 
educators 

0 research projects that add to all educators' knowledge about how to 
make schools more productive 

0 teaching for understanding so that students learn for a lifetime 

0 new organizational structures for K-12 schools and the College of 
Education. 

The Western Michigan University College of Education will be an active participant 
in the Michigan Partnership for New Education to the extent we have adequate 
resources. 

Initially the College will engage in continuing dialogue and reflection with a local 
school system to establish a professional development school. We view the 1991-92 
academic year as the time to engage in discussion with a local school system. The 
1991-92 academic year will be a year of planning that involves all significant partners 
with the intent to establish a professional development school by Fall 1992. 



The College of Education will actively pursue formal evaluation of its professional 
development school. Such efforts will include ongoing formative evaluation to 
permit needed modifications to be made and annual summative evaluations to 
provide information to make decisions regarding the nature, scope, and continued 
viability of the professional development school concept. 

The establishment of professional development schools will require additional 
resources and the control of the number of students admitted to our programs. If 
it should be determined that the professional development school model is the way 
the College will prepare educators, then the transition period to this model will 
require greater than normal resource allocations- The College commitment to the 
professional development school model is dependent upon the availability of 
resources through additional WMU allocations, realignment of College resources, 
and the acquisition of external sources. 

The establishment of professional development schools will require leadership and 
management at the college level. The College proposes to estabhsh a Center for 
School Collaboration responsible to an Associate Dean. This Center would provide 
coordination for all College collaboration efforts, provide leadership for College 
involvement in professional development schools, coordinate research activities, and 
secure external funding. 



Western Michigan University 
College of Education 
Administrative Council 



ERIC 



74 



APPENDIX D 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL CONCEPT PAPERS 



ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES 
TO IMPLEMENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOMENT SCHOOLS 



Devaloped for the Scbool Collaboration Task Force 

Western Miohigan University 
College of Education 
Patrick Jenlink, Ph.D. 
Educational Leadership Department 
Ronald crowell, Ph.D. 
Education and Professional Development Department 



Task Force Charge 

To develop and recommend a structure within the 
College of Education to support college-school 
collaboration . 

Focusing Questions ^ 

1. Within the current architecture of the College of 
Education, how do you support, sustain, and nurture 
university-school collaboration? 

2. Embedded within this question are two equally 
important questions: a) how do you interface the 
operation of this infrastructure with the mission 
and goals of the various departments, and b) how do 
you orchestrate the integration of this 
infrastructure to change the nature of the college 
in such a way that collaboration becomes a core 
value of the college, accepted as a part of the 
everyday work of the college? 



ERIC 



' 76 



3. What is the nature of the professional relationship 
that should exist between school personnel and 
college personnel in a collaborative relationship? 

4. How can the university and College of Education 
contribute to the building of a collaborative and 
integrative system for teacher education? 

These were the questions which we felt were critical 
to the development of a useful proposal. However, we felt 
it also was important to define what we mean by 
university-school collaboration and whether collaboration 
is an aspect of the mission of the college. 

Definition of Collaboration 

Although another task force committee is writing a 

paper on the nature of collaboration we have used the 

following definition, developed by Pine and Keane (1986) , 

and related information about collaboration, to help guide 

the development of this proposal. 

Higher education and school collaboration for 
educational purposes is defined as a joint endeavor 
of autonomous agencies to achieve outcomes desired 
by all parties but beyond the grasp of any one of the 
units acting alone. It is a partnership in a 
conceptual and operational sense but is not a legal 
entity. The ensuing collaborative partnership 
includes university faculty, school administrators, 
classroom teachers, intermediate district staff, and 
graduate and undergraduate students who share energy, 

2 

ErJc 77 



expertise , time , and other resources to plan and 
conduct projects and programs of preservice and 
inservice education , action research , curriculum 
development, and/or school improvement programs (Pine 
and Keane, 1986) . 

The definition was used in a recent study of 
university school collaboration in the state of Michigan 
(Hatfield, et al. , 1990) . The study found that four 
general forms of collaboration were identified by school 
superintendents, university deans and presidents. 

Collaborative Service . Primarily of a service nature 
in which an organization/ individual provides a service to 
another institution . 

Collaborative project . A partnership type implying 
some form of project which serves the goals of all 
agencies/ individuals who are participants. 

Collaborative alliance . Established as a partnership 
among multiple agencies and may involve single or multiple 
activities . 

Collaborative consortitim . A consortium of agencies 
for the purpose of providing a means to more effectively 
achieve some of the goals of all participants . The 
consortium provides a structure for continuous 
relationships among the agencies (Hatfield et al., 1990). 

Daly (1985) also has examined major approaches to 
collaboration and has drawn the following conclusions. 

3. 



78 



Collaboration arises from a recognition of mutual 
interest between school and college - between 
community and college - that must become widespread 
if we are to improve our public schools. Within a 
partnership of institutions there should be a coequal 
relationship of colleagues, a volunteer association 
of individuals who choose to work together, of allies 
in league to improve our schools. An equal 
importance must be attached to what each partner 
brings to the relationship. The aim is to work 
together without everybody changing place. 

An early step in establishing a collaborative program 
is to assess the resources that can be made available to 
meet the needs of schools, and then to apply these 
resources in an intensive way where the need is greatest. 
Institutional support must come from both sides of the 
partnership; tangible and highly visible evidence of such 
commitment is essential (Daly, 1985, p. 87). 

Reed and Cejda (1988) have examined school-university 
collaboration nation-wide and developed the following 
basic conditions for collaboration. 

1. Activities should be mutually beneficial and 
contribute to the goals of all participating institutions. 

2 . Individual and institutional participation 
should be guided by established policies. 

3. A centralized communication network should exist 
among participating institutions. 

4 . Collegial relationships should exist among 
participating individuals. 

4 



79 



5. Time, space and resources should be provided for 
carrying out planned activities. 

6. Encouragement and personal rewards should be 
provided by the institutions for individual participation 
in collaborative activities. 

7. Both institutional individual commitment should 
be representative of total institutional backing by all 
partners in the collaborative effort (Reed and Cejda, 
1988) . 

These definitions and an examination of the various 
types of collaboration and functions provides a context 
for examining collaboration in the College of Education. 
The collaboration should focus on two elements: 1) 
facilitating local area schools to successful 
accomplishment of their missions and goals, etc., and 2) 
allowing the College of Education to fulfill their charge 
and mission. It is our premise that the broad array of 
collaborative activities which we engage in can best be 
supported and facilitated through a center structure with 
a clearly understood purpose and specified 
responsibilities . 



5 



80 



PROPOSED 



It is proposed that a Center for University-School 
Collaboration be established within the College of 
Education responsible to an Oversight Board composed of 
the Dean, three department chairs, and three faculty. 

Purpose 

The purpose of the Center is to orchestrate the 
relationships established between the College of Education 
and schools and other educational entities in the field. 
The intent of the Center is to make available in a 
planned way the existing strengths in such a way as to 
expand and to institutionalize the work of university 
faculty members with their colleagues in the schools 
(Daly, p. 83 . ) . 

Assertions underlying the development of a Center: 

1. It is imperative to the future of the College 
of Education that we are involved in schools. 

2 . No current infrastructure currently exists to 
support collaborative efforts in the College of Education. 

3. Before a Center will become effective a context 
for change must be developed in the College of Education. 

4. The college leadership (Dean, Department Chairs) 
must begin to create a context for change* 

6 



ERIC 



^ 81 



5. The establishment of a Center should not 
preclude any of the wide variety of collaborative 
activities entered into by individual faculty but rather 
should nurture and sustain all types of collaboration. 

6. The infrastructure developed to house and 
support this operation of the Center should not provide 
a parallel structure to the regular operation of the 
college and the departments. The Center operation must 
interface with department mission and goals, and planned 
resource utilization. This assertion assumes that 
collaboration will be an aspect of the mission and goals 
of all departments since the Center must complement the 
work of the departments. 

7. There has to be dialogue between colleges of 
education and other colleges; between colleges and the 
practitioner preparation programs , between the setting 
which prepares the educator and the setting which receives 
the trained educator. 

8. Some type of organizational structure is 
required to support collaboration within the organization; 
a different type of structure is required to support 
collaboration across organizational or institutional 
boundaries. 

7 



82 



9. When the current organizational structure 
remains intact, with little change, the design of an 
infrastructure for collaboration is an option to the 
redesign of the college; this new infrastructure must be 
designed to interface with intact organizational structure 
in such a way as to effect change within the setting to 
achieve the goal of collaboration, whether within or 
across boundaries. 

10. A small, representative, core of people within 
the organization, or across multiple organizational and 
institutional boundaries must be brought together to work 
on the collaboration. The selection of this core is 
crucial to the success of interfacing the new 
infrastructure with the intact dynamics of existing 
settings. 

11. Time, as an essential resource, must be 
allocated; designing and interfacing a collaborative 
infrastructure requires adequate time. 

12. Thoughtful, skillful people cooperating in 
synergy enhances and nurtures collaborative work; critical 
in the design of tha infrastructure is the understanding 
of the need to establish a work-life climate conducive to 
collaborative relationships. 

8 

ERLC S3 



13. In the initial stages of design and 
implementation of a collaborative infrastructure, the 
selected activities propel the collaboration, not goals. 

14. Large superordinate goals for collaboration 
become clearer and ownership in the achievement of goals 
accepted, after people have worked together 
collaboratively; a dynamic is established when the people 
work together that provides a context for understanding. 

15. Collaborations require energy levels often 
underestimated in working with other people; work 
relationships within and across boundaries create contexts 
only understood after interaction in the context. 

16. Collaborations are better described by ambiguity 
and flexibility than by certainty and rigidity; 
universities are often rigid, bureaucratic organizations 
while schools are loosely coupled organizations with 
intonations of bureaucracy intermingled - the challenge 
is in the design of a collaborative infrastructure that 
will interface across and within two differing 
organizational structures at the same time. 

17 . Conflict in collaborative work is inevitable; 
the importance is that conflict be of a natural evolution 
and be viewed as positive opportunities providing 
potential for productive learning. 

9 



84 



18. People 



engage 



in 



collaborative 



work 



relationships for different reasons; important to the 



collaborations is the inclusion of wanting to do things 
together. 

19. Over time, collaborative relationships - shared 
work experiences ~ establish and build mutual trust, 
respect, risk-taking, and commitment. 

These assertions about organizations and people offer 
substantiate challenges to those people who engage in 
collaborative activities and for the appropriate and 
effective design of a college structure which can support 
and sustain collaboration. We feel the following 
organization, functions, and operating principles of the 
proposed Center can begin to address these challenges. 

Organization 

The Center should be organized and function from the 
office of the Dean of the College of Education. The 
Center should have a director who reports to the Executive 
Committee of the Oversight Board.. The Center Director 
also should serve as a meinber of the Administrative 
Council. The organization is illustrated on the following 
page. 



success 



of 



cross-organizational/ institutional 



10 



ERIC 



85 



structure 

A Center for University-School Collaboration must 
slice across all departments since the activities 
sponsored or facilitated through the Center may likely 
involve faculty from two or more departments working 
together. Further, its operation must interface with the 
mission and goals of the various departments and, for that 
reason, should be accountable to the college and to the 
departments. The organizational chart and description of 
roles reflect the proposed organizational structure. 

Functions 

1. Provide oversight for collaborative activities 
developed by or through the Center. This should not 
be construed in concept or fact as a monitoring role. 

2. Establish guidelines and criteria for collaborative 
activities as recommended by the Operational Board. 

3 . Establish formal communication linkages with the 
field and within the College of Education. 

4. Formulate policy within the guidelines provided by 
the Executive Committee. 

5. Help devise fiscal plans to recover operational 
costs. 

11 

ERiC - 86 



6. Attempt to secure funding for collaborative 
activities. 

7. Help faculty negotiate contracts with schools. 

8. Servo as a clearinghouse for requests for 
collaboration and services. 

9. Organize and provide staff development (as 
appropriate) for university faculty. 

Operational Principles 

1. The Center is responsible to develop in people the 
skills and expertise to serve in various 
collaborative roles. 

2. The Center must orchestrate the relationships between 
the College in the collective sense and schools in 
the field. 

3. The Center must make allowances for the involvement 
of other colleges in collaborative work. The Center 
must find ways to interface with the work (and 
potential work) of faculty in other colleges. 

4. In order to orchestrate the relationships within the 
college, the Center will have responsibility for the 
Professional Development School coordinating group. 

5- The Center must eventually become a self-sustaining 
effort . 



87 



Dimensions 

Dimensions of the infrastructure necessary to support 
a successful Center operation must be considered as the 
operation and functions of the Center are developed. We 
have used the dimensions of organizations posited by 
Weisbord (1976) and added five others which we feel also 
may be critical to a successful operation. 
1. Relationship Dimension 

• Across departments within the College 

• Co liege /department and an external entity (school, 
another college, etc.) 

• Between individuals within and between departments 
and the external entity 

• Between individuals and the technology they are 
using. 

Considerations : 

Informal roles 
Conflict management 
Processes 

Climate - support for collaboration 
Adequate/ appropriate technology 
Key Questions 

How much dependence or interdependence is required 
within the College and the University? 

13 



How are agreements and disagreements (conflicts) 
managed? 

2. Procedures /Structural Dimeiision 

Co.\siderations 

Rules and policies 

Formal roles 

Physical arrangement 

Processes 
Key Questions 

Does form follow function? 

Is the form (organization) appropriate for the 
functions which need to be performed? 

3. Purpose Dimension 
Cons id era tions 

Goals 

Mission 

Objectives 

Interaction between the surrounding environment 
and members of the organizaiton 
Key Questions 

To what extent do those associated with the Center 

and with the college understand its purposes? 
To what extent do they agree with them? 



14 



ERIC 



89 



Political Dimension 

Con s i dera tions 

Assessing shared decision making 
Politics of a college and policies of the 
schools 

Academic units and existing centers 
College and central administration 
Educational Dimension 
Considerations 

Interfacing with current curriculum and 

instructional practices - university and 
school 

Developing an appropriate approach to knowledge 

building, supported by the Center 
Concern for organizational learning 
Key Questions 

Is there agreement on the knowledge base underlying 

any activil-:; ' 
Is there an adequate knowledge base? 
Are we in a single feedback loop or a double feedback 

loop with respect to organizational learning? 
Reward Dimensions 
Considerations 

How does collaboration pay off? 

15 

. 30 



Extrinsic vs. intrinsic rewards 

Official (formal) rewards 

Informal rewards 

Equity 
Key Questions 
Are the rewards fair? 

Are the behaviors that are being rewarded those which 

the organization wants to encourage? 
What really pays off? 
Fiscal Dimension 
Assumptions - Alternatives 

1. The College of Education may operate on the 
premise that all collaboration needs are to be 
funded externally. 

2. The college and/or the university needs to 
provide equal resources in collaborative 
activities (beyond any PDS monies) . For example 
- start-up money for the Center. 

Considerations 

Cross agency funding 

Operating budget 
Key Questions 

Who provides the funding for activities? 
How can be provide trade-off to schools? 

16 



21 



What fiscal constraint currently exists that 

precludes sucessful collaboration? 
How may these be overcome? 
Change Dimension 
Considerations 

Developing a constancy of purpose and a quality 
approach to promote and sustain change 
— within the College 
— between colleges 

— between college and schools 
Value and belief structure 
Key Questions 

Do we have the knowledge and process skills to 

undertake a change process? 
Is the change process (i.e., the organization) viewed 

as a technical, or orgaizatonal development 

process? 
Are people open to change? 
Legal Dimension 
Con siderations 

Formal, institutional agreements 

Management and labor 
Key Questions 

What contractual agreements must be arrived at - 

17 



S2 



by all groups? 
What are the similarities between schools and 

universities? 
What are the legal boundaries to forraalizing 

collaborative arrangements? 
Helpful Mechanisms - The cement that binds an 
organization together 
Considerations 

Meetings 

Communications 

Space and secretarial support 
Policies 
Reports 
Key Questions 

Are the activities of the Center and the personnel 
adequately supported? 

Are there sufficient means with which to close the 
gaps between what we perceive as current reality 
and what we would like to see happening? 

Cultural Dimension 

Collaborations with schools or colleges demands an 
understanding of these educational entities as 
complex social organizations shaped by the realities 
of their specific contexts; the culture of these two 

18 

^ 93 



organizations are disparate and consideration for 
interfacing a collaborative infrastructure must 
consider the complex and inextricable nature of the 
cultures of both. 

Recommendations 

1. Support an organizational diagnosis of the College 
of Education to examine whether the proposed Center 
can funct^'on effectively within the college. 

2. Do not establish the PDS oversight group. It appears 
to be redundant to the functions of the proposed 
Center. 

3. Do not establish the proposed Center until after the 
new dean is on campus. 

4. Short of number three, develop a coordinated plan for 
the transition from the current context of our 
off-campus activities to the proposed context for 
collaboration which are created by the proposed 
Center. 

5. Broaden the functions and responsibilities of this 
proposed Center to become a Center encompassing 
research and development as well as collaboration. 



G4 



REFERENCES 



Daly, William T, (Ed.)* (December 1985). College-school 
collaboration: Appraising the major approaches. New 
Directions for Teaching and Learning . Number 24 . 
San Francisco CA: Jossey Bass. 

Hatfield, R. , Coppola, R. , Crowell, R. , Diamond, B., 
Kaiser, S., Procunier, D*, Sullivan, K. (1990). A 
study of higher education - school collaboration . 
Lansing MI: Michigan Department of Education. 

Pine, G. , and Keane, W. (1986). Tearing down the wall: 
Collaboration for educational excellence and equity. 
Spectrum, 3 , (4). 

Weisbord, M.R. (December 1976) . Organizational diagnosis: 
Six places to look for trouble with or without a 
theory. Group and Organizational Studies , 430-447. 



AWARENESS AND ORIENTATION PLAN 
FOR SHARED UNDERSTANDINGS 

Dovaloped for the College of Education 
Task Forctt on School "Collaboration 

Western Michigan University 
college of Education 
Debra Berkey 

Health/ Physical Education and Recreation Department 

Jeanne K. Jacobson 
Education and Professional Development Department 



Charge: to develop a response to task #5 (TASKS, 
4/11/91), "Professional Development Plan," as a component 
of the College's plan to develop a Center for University 
School Collaboration. In this report, we have followed 
major headings given in the "TASKS" list. 

COLLEGE OP EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY 

This proposal is being developed at a time when the 
University is under severe financial constraints, which 
have a deleterious impact on staffing in the College of 
Education, and when the College is, and has been for some 
time, without a permanent Dean. Nevertheless we see prompt 
action toward developing a Center for University School 
Collaboration as being both useful and timely. If the 
process of developing and beginning to implement a plan is 
completed successfully, these will be among the 
advantages: 

• A component of the selection process in the 
search for a Dean can include inquiry into the match 



ERIC 



£6 



between candidates' views and experience and this goal of 
the College and University. 

• The new Dean will enter the position at a time 
when members of the various departments in the College 
have taken early steps in engagement with well-planned, 
important and rewarding collaborative effort. 

• Outside funding for the Center for University 
School Collaboration may be sought; if obtained, this will 
help to alleviate financial constraints. 

POTENTIAT . rOTTAR ORATION WITH LOCAL SCHOOLS 

We concur with the definition of collaboration used 
in the task force paper prepared by Jenlink and Crowell: 

The concluding part of the definition is of 
particular interest: (" outcomes desired by all parties 
but beyond the grasp of any one of the units acting 
alone") . This carries the clear implication that the 
collaboration we envision is a true partnership, and not 
a top-down endeavor by presumably knowledgeable university 
faculty to improve the performance of presumably less 
knowledgeable practitioners. In this partnership the 
University faculty who will be involved in the PDS must 
see the collaboration as a means of informing and 
improving our own teaching. In research endeavors 
conducted through the PDS we must be inquirers for whom 
teachers (and also preservice teachers and children in the 

2 



schools) will be intelligent colleagues in intellectual 
inquiry - resources , not simple sources of data. 

William Johnson (1990), in commenting on the Holmes 
Group's report, Tomorrow's Schools, stresses the 
importance of conversation in collaboration. 

"The entire tone of the report is respectful of 
teachers^ precisely the kind of language that makes the 
invitation to conversation believable. The classroom 
teacher is now viewed as one who wants variety and greater 
responsibility^ as a person who is able to think about 
what goes on in the classroom^ and, through a new kind of 
research perspective, is able to improve the educational 
process in small but important ways. Collectively, across 
two or three generations, this kind of practitioner 
reflection and experimentation promises to recharge and 
reform educational practice, first in Professional 
Development Schools but eventually rippling out to affect 
all of American education." 

If the PDS partnership is to succeed, there must be 
valid reasons for faculty members at the PDS school also 
to see the process as enjoyable and valuable. Moreover the 
constituents of the PDS school community — students, 
parents, district and school administrators , local 
citizens — need reasons to value this partnership. We 
suggest a model which focuses attention on outcomes, based 
on the work of Jeannie Oakes. Oakes (1989) , in advocating 

3 



evaluation of schools based on educational indicators 
other than student performance on standardized tests, has 
identified three features which she calls Access, Press 
and Professional Teaching Conditions (See Figure 1, taken 
from Oakes, 1989, page 192.) 

".../"TJhree global school conditions emerge as ideal 
targets for indicator development . The first is access to 
knowledge^ the extent to which schools provide students 
with opportunities to learn various domains of knowledge 
and skills. The second condition is the institutional 
pressure that the school exerts to get students to work 
hard and achieve (i.e,, press for achievement) . The third 
feature is professional teaching conditions^ the 
conditions that can empower or constrain teachers and 
administrators as they attempt to create and implement 
instructional programs'' (Oakes, 1989). 

By giving conscious attention in planning and 
practice to increasing students' access to knowledge, 
fostering school environments which contribute to press 
for achievement, and enhancing professional teaching 
conditions, a PDS partnership could not only enhance 
educational programs, but develop and maintain community 
support. Additionally, within the context of a PDS, the 
concept of access to knowledge has a wider application. 
Expansion of the knowledge base for both school and 
university faculty is a major goal. "...[A] strong focus 



FIGURE 1 



ACCeiS, P«£S3, AHO PAOFESS^ONAL TCACHWO CONOITIOHS 



ACC£SS TO KNOWLEDGE 

Teacher Qualifications 

InstaictionaJ Time 

Course Offerings 

Class Grouping Practices 

Materials, Laboratories, Equipment 

AcadenrHc Support Programs 

Enrichment Activities 

Parent Involvenrtent 

Staff DevelopnDent 

Faculty Beliefs 



\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 




CLASSROOM 
TEACHIMQ ANO 
L£A«NJNa 




PROf ESSiONAL TEACHINO CONCHTIONS 

Teacher Salaries 
Pupil Load/Class Size 
Teacher Time for Planning 
Collegia) Work 

Teacher lnvolvenr«nt In Decision making 
Teacher Certainty 
Teacher Autonomy/Flexibility 
Administrative Support for Innovation 
Clerical Support 



PRESS FOR ACHiEVEMENf 

Focus on Academics 
Graduation Requirements 
Graduation Rates 
Enrollment In Rigorous Programs 
Recognition of Academic Accomplishments 
Academic Expectations for Students 
Uninterrupted Class Instruction 
Administrative Involvement In Academics 
Quantity and Type of Homewori< 
Teacher Evaluation Emphasizing Learning 



/ 



/ 



/ 



/ 



FIGURE I. School coniexl indicaiors 



From Oakes, 19B9 



ERIC 



*100 



should be placed on teachers' cognitions and practical 
knowledge.., and these should be considered in relation 
to actual or potential classrooia activities." (Richardson, 
1990) . 

RecoiuTaendations : 

• Participation in the proposed school collaboration 
should be undertaken on the basis of a choice and a 
voice for the two major constituents: teachers in the 
PDS and University faculty. While willingness and 
ability to participate in the PDS may be stipulated 
as a condition for hiring new faculty, such 
participation should be optional for current faculty 
members. 

Providing a choice will require development of a 
variety of formats for participation so that all faculty 
(school and University) who wish to participate may do so. 
It may also require that planning be sufficiently flexible 
to enable the collaboration to begin even if the number 
of faculty from either the school or the University who 
wish to participate is smaller than anticipated^ 
especially as the program gets underway. Faculty awareness 
that they truly have a choice about whether to participate 
should be useful in establishing a positive climate for 
discussions . 



Providing a voice will involve the development and 
ongoing shaping of a structure for the PDS, one which 
includes not only equitable representation of component 
groups in governance, but also systematic opportunities 
for each individual faculty member to enter into collegial 
discussions of practice and progress, 

• A format for structured dialogue between interested 
faculty members from both the University and local 
schools should be established in the form of 
workshops, through Intermediate School Districts. An 
introductory session could focus on a presentation 
explaining the PDS concept. Additional workshops can 
focused on mutually interesting topics of major 
educational interest. Through such meetings, the 
interest of local administrators and teachers can be 
both fostered and assessed. Such meetings can thus 
provide information useful in the eventual 
identification of PDS locations. Attendance should 
be optional and an effort should be made to free 
teachers from professional obligations so that they 
can attend; for example, participating schools might 
arrange for an assembly at the end of the day, 
staffed in part by administrators and substitute 
teachers, so that other teachers could leave early 
to attend the meeting. 

7 



ERLC 



102 



• Both the pursuit of learning for learning's sake, and 
a desire to improve education for current and future 
students will be motivating factors for members of 
both faculties to participate in the PDS effort. 
However , it is not reasonable to presume that 
participation can be based on altruism alone. 
Inasmuch as teachers typically need continuing 
education units to maintain and enhance status and 
certification, workshops may be structured, through 
the ISD, to provide such credits for the teachers 
who participate. 

An early topic for workshops when these are focused 
directly on PDS development should be the perceptions of 
potential participants about the advantages and 
disadvantages of the endeavor. Such conversations will, 
of course, need to be structured so that no one is led to 
believe that wishes expressed will be wishes fulfilled. 
However, this should be a time for very careful listening 
by all parties. It is possible, indeed it is likely, that 
people's ideas of what constitutes a perquisite will 
differ; for example, some faculty members might regard it 
as an advantage of participating in the PDS process if 
there were a series of Saturday get-togethers; others 
might be deterred from participating if this were a 
requirement. Through thoughtful planning it should be 

8 



103 



possible to arrange for multiple forms of participation 
which would appeal to a variety of people. 

• The Oakes model of Access, Press and Professional 
Teaching Conditions should be considered in planning 
the PDS program. A copy of this article is attached, 
as Appendix I, 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IDENTIFICATION OF TOPICS 

It is clear from reports in the professional 
literature and from our own observation that a major 
element in educational research — teacher involvement — 
has been lacking in the past, and that this lack has 
seriously diminished the usefulness of university-based 
research. 

"Neither interpretive nor process-product classroom 
research has foregrounded the teacher' s role in the 
generation of knowledge about teaching. VJhat is missing 
from the knowledge base for teaching^ therefore^ are the 
voices of the teachers themselves^ the questions teachers 
ask^ the ways teachers use writing and intentional talk 
in their work lives ^ and the interpretive frames teachers 
use to understand and improve their own classroo.n 
practices. Limiting the official knowledge base for 
teaching to what academics have chosen to study and write 
about has contributed to a number of problems^ including 

9 



1G4 



discontinuity between what is taught in universities and 
what is taught in classrooms^ teachers' ambivalence about 
the claims of academic research^ and a general lack of 
information about classroom life^.J' (Smith and Lytle, 
1990.) 

In approaching the development of a PDS university 
faculty need to see themselves as teachers as well as 
teacher educators, whose own practices will be affected 
in this mutual learning process. Conversely, teachers in 
the schools involved in this collaboration need to see 
themselves as effective partners in research. We are 
fortunate in approaching the development of this kind of 
collaboration at a time when many university faculty and 
school teachers share common interests in major elements 
of theory-based practice. In a recent article on staff 
development, Richard W. Stratton and his colleagues (1990) 
have identified five major areas for collaborative 
educational inquiry: "Instructional Theory Into Practice 
(ITIP) , thinking skills, cooperative learning, teaching 
styles and strategies, and reading and writing in the 
content areas." These are among the areas in which various 
members of the College of Education faculty have expertise 
— both theoretical and practical knowledge. Among faculty 
members in area schools there are also people with a 
strong knowledge base and interest in these topics. Other 
topics of shared expertise and strong current interest are 

10 



1C5 



teaching effectively in classrooms which include members 
of handicapped and at-risk groups, and the use of 
alternatives to ability grouping and tracking* 

Recommendations ; 

• Faculty in the College of Education who are 
interested in PDS involvement should develop a series 
of proposals for topic-related inquiry through a PDS. 
These proposals should include statements of how such 
inquiry can be incorporated into undergraduate and 
graduate education programs. 

• As identification of a PDS location progresses, 
faculty members at the school (s) should be involved 
in elaborating the proposals to insure that they are 
fully involved in the inquiry process, and that the 
proposed methods of inquiry have the effect of 
enhancing the school program for students at the 
school. 

IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED FORMATS AND TIMELINES 

A commentary published f ive years ago contains a 
vivid statement which advocates a balance between drive 
and caution in developing collaborative systems between 
school and university. Reading the statement today 
illustrates the importance of a continuing drive toward 
our goals 

11 

iC6 



^The theme of both reports [by the Holmes Group and 
the Carnegie Task Force] is that of cooperation - 
Jbetween labor and management^ between schools and 
universities^ and between the liberal arts and 
pedagogical components of professional teacher 
education programs. Yet we see evidence of inevitable 
confrontation each step of the way. The next five 
years may prove to be a turning point for the 
teaching profession and for American schools. The 
future depends on our individual and collective 
ability to go for the slow dime instead of the quick 
nickel , " (Wiggins, 1986; emphasis ours). 

The implicit prediction that collaborative systems 
might be established too rapidly has not been borne out 
by events over the last five years. This 1986 passage may 
serve as a reminder for us, as we work together in the 
1990 's, that those involved in this effort should not be 
reluctant to move ahead. The future depends on our 
individual and collective ability to act wisely and with 
expedition. 

TIME LINE 1991-1993 

"Initially the College will engage in continuing 
dialogue and reflection with a local school system to 
establish a professional development school. We view the 

12 

107 



1991-92 academic year as the tiniG to engage in discussion 
with a local school system. The 1991-^1992 academic year 
will be a year of planning that involves all significant 
partners with the intent to establish a professional 
development school by Fall 1992," (Task force memo^ Carol 
Payne Smith) 

FALL 1991 INFORMATIONAL PHASE 

SEPTEMBER 

• Review COE Task Force progress. Assign subcoiainittees 
to lead tasks deemed necessary within COE , e.g., 
departmental inservices, workshops at ISD. 

Form coxntnunications committee to develop short (30 
minute) informational package to be used at WMU, 
school districts, business organizations and parent 
advisory groups. (See recommendation in the task 
force paper prepared by Miller: "The Western Michigan 
College of Education needs, first, to create its own 
•package.' a polished 30 minute presentation ") 

Communications committee develops half day workshop 
sessions to be staged at ISD. These workshops have 
a twofold purpose: 1) They will provide additional 
information regarding potential roles and activities 
of PDS. 2) They will provide information and support 

13 



ERLC 



ICS 



for individuals who wish to engage ii directed 
dialogue which may lead to proposals supported by PDS 
structure. (COE faculty topics of interest may serve 
as a focus to initiate pairing of WMU and public 
school faculty.) 

Note: KVISD as well as Calhoun ISD must be informed 
about potential workshops ASAP. 

Form resource committee to investigate potential 
sources of funding. This group should be comprised 
of COE, WMU administrators, public school 
administrators and private and corporate leaders in 
the community. Membership from a member of the state 
and/or federal legislatures would be advantageous. 

Identify potential members of a steering committee 
from COE (Task Force as well as others if necessary) , 
public schools, businesses, and parent groups. 
Note: This step does not constitute forming a 
committee — only developing a list of possible 
members for the eventual steering committee. 
However^ these potential members should be invited 
to workshops and presentations. 

• Present the informational package to the Dean's 
Search Committee. 

14 



ERIC 



109 



OCTOBER 

• Present the informational package to COE, affected 
departments within WMU, public school faculty, 
administrative councils in public schools and WMU, 
business organizations, parent groups, state and federal 
legislators, and community colleges, (Students often take 
courses at local community colleges before transferring 
to WMU, Collaboration with community college faculty could 
result in improved program integration.) 

Note: Presentation to a specific school should not be 
constzned as an invitation to serve as a PDS site. 

• COE faculty should be encouraged to outline topics 
of interest which aay serve as vehicles for collaboration 
in public schools. 

NOVEMBER/ DECEMBER 

• Hold information workshop sessions at ISD sites. 
Session should be held at various times, e..g., 
Saturdays,; morning, afternoon and evening sessions in 
three hour blocks ♦ Time should be allocated to allow 
potential collaborators to gather informally at some point 
within the workshop. 

Note: The use of ISD's as sites for workshops senses a 
threefold purpose. 1) This defrays some of the initial 
cost incurred by the workshop meetings . (School districts 

15 

no 



pay for substitutes so teachers can attend^ and also pay 
a small fee, e.g., $10, to cover duplicating costs*) 2) 
The support of the public school districts which send 
teachers would be indicative of the support in that 
district for PDS collaboration. 3) The workshops could 
provide opportunities for teachers to earn continuing 
education units - an ongoing process in the maintenance 
of their certification status. 

WINTER 1992 RECRUITMENT/ DEVELOPMENT PHASE 

• Form steering coiriinittee based on the response to 
informational sessions and workshop participation. 
Note: COE Task Force should be incorporated into this 
committee* 

• Steering committee decides on the format to be used 
in WMU-sponsored PDS. (One site? Multiple sites throughout 
one district?) Plan pilot program at one site for Fall, 
1992. 

• Steering committee appoints sub-group to develop 
one-day workshops at ISD sites. The objective of these 
sessions is to plan proposals, collaboratively, among 
those individuals who will be participating in the Fall, 
1992 pilot program. 

16 

111 



• steering committee appoints a subcommittee to examine 
and evaluate proposals for Fall, 1992 . This group must 
interface with the resource group previous formed, 

• Evaluate progress of resource group. 
FEBRUARY/MARCH 

• One day workshops at ISD sites using multiple formats 
as suggested above. 

APRIL 

• Submit all proposals to the evaluation subcommittee 
whose task is to decide which proposals will be directly 
supported by the PDS structure. 

MAY 

• Announce projects for Fall, 1992. 
MAY/JUNE 

• Steering coiamittee and affected faculty plan 
implementation phase which will take place in Fall, 1992. 

FALL^ 1992 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE 



17 

,112 



REFERENCES 



Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, & Lytle, Susan L. (1990) . Research 
on teaching and teacher research: The issues that 
divide. Educational Researcher^ 19 (2), 2-11. 

Johnson, William R. (1990) . Inviting conversations: The 
Holmes Group and Tomorrow's Schools. American 
Educational Research Journal^ 27, 581-588. 

Oakes, Jeannie. (1989) . What educational indicators? The 
case for assessing the school context. Educational 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11,, 181-199. 

Pine, G. , and Keane, W. (1986). Tearing down the wall: 
Collaboration for educational excellence and equity. 
Spectrum, 3, 4. 

Richardson, Virginia. (1990) . Significant and worthwhile 
change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 
19 (7), 10-18. 

Strong, Richard W. , Silver, Harvey F. , Hanson, J. Robert, 
Marzano, J. Robert, Wolfe, Pat, Dewing, Tom, & Brock, 
Wende. (1990). Thoughtful education: Staff 
development for the 1990s. Educational Leadership, 
February, 25-29. 

Wiggins, Sam P. (1986) . Revolution in the teaching 
profession: A comparative review of two reform 
reports. Educational Leadership, October, 56-59. 



ER?C 



18 

113 



CRITERIA FOR INVOLVEMENT IN 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 

D«v«lop«<l for thm Collage of Education 
Task Forca oa School Collaboration 

Wastern Mlcblgan Unlvarslty 
Collaga of Education 
Dona 6» lca]x>na 
Spaclal Education Dapartment 

The following report contains four major sections. 
First, some introductory statements describe collaboration 
as both a process and a product. Second, the basic 
assumptions I held as I developed the recommended criteria 
are listed and described. Next, in relation to the 
recommended criteria, each basic participant group is 
identified and individual criteria, with accompanying 
rationales, are listed. This is followed by a summary list 
of the criteria. A final section of the paper proposes a 
sequenced procedure for informing, soliciting and 
selecting among applicants. 

According to a memo from MSU dated March 18, 1991 and 
titled Selecting the Partnership's School Partners ^ "The 
process of developing Professional Development Schools 
involves a complex collaboration of many different 
constituencies (schools, school districts, communities, 
and universities) , all making many different but 
interelated commitments". At one level, then, 

collaboration is a process toward achieving a goal — a goal 
of increased effectiveness of K-12 public education and 
increased effectiveness of university teacher education 



programs. Although there are several different and 
conceptually valid definitions of collaboration each 
commonly emphasizes mutuality in the determination of 1) 
initial needs, 2) final outcomes, and 3) the steps 
necessary to bridge both needs and outcomes. People 
acquainted with the concept of collaboration appear to 
agree that collaboration is a process; in reality, the 
implementation of the "true process of collaboration" is 
a goal in and of itself . Thus the following 

recommendations are to be viewed as a listing of needs, 
outcomes , intermediate steps, etc., in terms of 
partnership criteria. However, taken in the true spirit 
of collaboration, they are to be viewed as starting points 
for collaborative discussions about future partnerships 
rather than solidified, and stultifying, criteria. To 
that end, the recommendations herein would need to be 
operationalized within the context of the Task Force 
report Professional Development Plan written by Berkey and 
Jacobson. 

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS 
The following basic assumptions structured my 
conceptualization and expression of the content of this 
report. 



2 

115 



WE WILL BE INVOLVED WITH A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN 



IMPLEMENTING A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL (PDSi , 
Although the PDS with which we are involved may not, 
indeed should not , look like any other PDS , it is 
helpful to use this terminology when referring to the 
actual collaborative program. One way I see the PDS 
as a distinct, and useful term, is its emphasis on 
preservice and inservice education at the university 
level. Other restructuring efforts of which I am 
aware seem not to stress that component. 

KALAMAZOO PUBLIC SCHOOLS WILL BE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT 
INVOLVED. 

This eliminates a step in determining criteria for 
district involvement. If Battle Creek Public Schools 
is to be involved, again, there would not need to be 
criteria for district selection. These criteria may 
have to be developed in the future if a WMU PDS is 
to replicated in other districts. A good resource 
for determining criteria for school district 
participation is the March 18, 1991 memo on Selecting 
the Partnership's School Partners (see Appendix A) . 

AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILL BE THE FIRST LEVEL INVOLVED 
AT KPS . 

Since we do not have the personnel to start a PDS at 

3 

116 



each of the three levels in schooling within KPS, it 
appears that we may as well start with the elementary 
level, the level for which most of our faculty are 
trained. Also, at the present time within KPS, middle 
schools are in the third year of their new programs 
and one of the two high schools will be involved in 
a collaborative, restructuring effort with a faculty 
member within the College. 

FACULTY MEMBERS FROM WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY WILL 
BE INVOLVED IN VARYING DEGREES. PROBABLY WITH LESS 
TIME COMMITTED PER INDIVIDUAL FACULTY MEMBER THAN AT 
MSU, 

It would appear that, given the financial exigencies 
of WMU and the Provost's seeming reluctance to commit 
new dollars to this enterprise, we may have several 
faculty members working together in one school who 
may or may not receive released time for their 
activities. It is realized that, for MSU faculty, 
a half time university work load might only mean one 
or two courses to be taught over three ten-week 
quarters. For WMU, a half time work load, should 
even this option be a reality, might still entail a 
faculty member teaching four, five or six courses 
over two semesters. Thus, at WMU, there may be a 
smaller time commitment of individual faculty to a 

4 

117 



PDS school. Therefore, in relation to MSU, there may 
need to be more faculty involved, each doing a small 
piece, to achieve the aggregate sum of time that 
appears to need to be spent by faculty on site at a 
PDS. 

BUSINESS/INDUSTRY/LABOR IN THE KALAMAZOO AREA WILL 
BE ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED TO BECOME INVOLVED IN A PDS 
SCHOOL. 

At the present time there is a precedent in KPS for 
active involvement in the schools by various business 
and industry concerns. Most notable has been the 
infusion of financial and personnel support for the 
Kalamazoo Area Math and Science Center (KAMSC) 
provided by Upjohn and the mentoring program between 
individual schools and representatives of Kalamzoo 
Rotary. This anticipated PDS participation could 
take the form of directly working with children in 
the classroom on academic skills; working with 
teachers either in the classroom as co-teachers or 
in providing expertise to develop curricular items 
and instructional activities related to career 
education and the "world of work"; providing 
mentoring relationships related to business 
activities; and/or providing organizational/ 

5 

lis 



administrative/ managerial support for the principal. 
It would seem that, in this community, the active 
involvement of a representative or representatives 
of the business community would be a valuable asset 
to a WMU PDS, 

COMMUNITY AGENCIES WITHIN KALAMAZOO COUNTY WILL BE 
ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROFESSIONAL 
COIJABORATION, 

Like many urban school districts, Kalamazoo has a 
number of children who have active contact with a 
number of community agencies. Since the school 
experience of each child is but one portion of that 
child's existence, it is imperative that the 
representatives of community agencies with which 
children might be involved be participants in this 
process. 

PARENTS OF CHILDREN IN THE PARTICIPATING SCHOOL WILL 
BE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS UNDERTAKING, 
Parents, undoubtably, are the single most important 
influence upon a child, positively or negatively. 
To that end, a true collaborative, restructured 
school program would depend upon representation by 
parents in all collaborative discussions and actions. 

6 

119 



8. A COHORT OF WMU STUDENTS IN TEACHER PREPARATION 



PROGRAMS . BUT NOT ALL, WILL BE INVOLVED IN A 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL FOR THE MAJORITY, IF 
NOT ALL, OF THEIR PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION COURSE AND 
FIELD ACTIVITIES, 

The students who will participate in a professional 
development school will be receiving intensive, 
heavily supervised, child-oriented educational 
experiences with public school personnel and 
university faculty interacting as equals. It is 
hoped that these students will act as change agents 
in their future schools when they begin their 
professional teaching careers. Although MSU was able 
to commit an entire teacher preparation strand to a 
PDS, we have no similar educational structure in 
place. Therefore, we would want to have a 
representative sample of students working toward a 
degree in elementary education. 



9. ADVANCED GRADUATE STUDENTS IN PROGRAMS WITHIN THE 
(^Q^.T.EfiR OF EDUCATION SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE 
PROCESS OF DEVELOPING PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATIONS 
AND IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING A PROFESSIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL, 

7 



ERIC 



"120 



If the College of Education at Western Michigan 
University is comTuitted to the concept of 
professional collaboration, in whatever form finally 
emerges, then we must allow our advanced graduate 
students to participate in a PDS. This would include 
those receiving graduate education in teaching, 
counseling, and administration. We should involve 
not only those who will be direct service providers 
in the public schools, but also those who will be 
involved at the university level in educating future 
practitioners. This experience in collaboration 
should become an integral portion of their advanced 
graduate education experience if we want to assure 
that our graduates are exposed to the most current 
trends in education. 

10. AT THE BASIS OF ANY GOOD REIATIQNSHIP IS A MATCH 
BETWEEN THE ENTITIES INVOLVED, 

Like pornography, collaboration cannot be easily 
defined, but it can be easily recognized when seen. 
We need to look for a "spark" , or a good feeling, 
among schools, businesses and faculty. At the basis 
of a good and beneficial collaborative relationship 
is "chemistry", that undefinable match between and 
among people that ma^es for mutual respect and 

8 



ERLC 



121 



concern. The degree to which we can find this 
loodness of fit" is the degree to which a positive 
and viable collaborative effort can be established. 

11. THE RESULTING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL WILL 
NOT RESEMBLE ANY PUBLIC SCHOOIi ENTITY THAT WAS IN 
EXISTENCE BEFORE. NOR WILL IT RESEMBLE ANY OTHER 
P ROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL NOW IN EXISTENCE , 
PREVIOUSLY IN EXISTENCE OR ANTICIPATED TO BE IN 
EXISTENCE . 

The public school program will change, the 
university ' 3 teacher preparation program and its 
faculty members* perceptions of teacher preparation 
and public schools • work will change, and 
business/ industry/ labor 's prior perceptions of and 
interactions with public school programs will change. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CRITERIA 

SCHOOLS ; The following criteria are recommended to select 
finalists from among applicants : 

1. CRITERION: History of prior interactions with College 
of Education professional preparation 
programs in the form of: 
a. having had practicum students 
9 



ERLC 



122 



having had student teachers 
c. having worked with faculty members 
doing research in the public schools. 

RATIONALE: MSU stresses that a PDS has the best chance 
for success if prior relationships between 
university and school have been established 
and viewed positively. Thus the slogan 
"go with our friends". 
2 . CRITERION: Ability to provide physical space and 
educational materials for university 
students and faculty. 

RATIONALE: At a logistical level, if a group of 2 0- 
40 different WMU students will be in a PDS 
for participation and possibly have courses 
taught at the school, space needs to be 
provided for meetings. In addition, 
faculty need a secured place and a desk 
from which they can work while at the 
school . Also , educational materials , in 
the form of textbooks, need to be provided 
to those students and faculty actively 
engaged in classroom teaching. There is 
nothing more frustrating than trying to 
review textbook content when many people 
have to share one book. 
10 



ERIC 



123 



3. CRITERION: Willingness to provide release time for 

staff to participate in PDS activities. 
RATIONALE: The initiation and implementation of the 
collaborative process is a time-consuming 
process. Because each PDS is unique in 
terms of needs, outcomes and personalities 
involved, indeed each must reinvent the 
wheel . To work collaboratively involves 
time, the time needed to listen to other 
peoples opinions with respect and the time 
to arrive at consensus. Included too is 
time for inservice on whatever topics are 
identified. There must be an understanding 
that a PDS will not be a "quick fix" but 
may take years for measurable, quantitative 
outcomes to occur. 

4. CRITERION: Evidence of a commitment by the school's 

parent organization to be involved for the 
duration of the collaborative process. 
RATIONALE: Parent participation is necessary for at 
least two reasons . First , parents have 
been and continue to be an active, 
ancillary force in running schools. 
Whether they are providing direct, tutorial 
services to students or running bake sales 
11 



ERIC 



'124 



to raise money for school trips , their 
participation is necessary for schools to 
exist. Second, if parents aren't aware of 
and supportive of the numbers of new people 
who will be in their children's classes, 
there will be complaints to school 
personnel . 

CRITERION: Delineation of past discussions and/or 
innovative activities related to 
educational improvement , over and above 
those required by law and/or the school 
district. 

RATIONALE: One would hope to eliminate those schools 
that are interested in participating merely 
because they see the extra personnel as a 
bonus or because they want help in 
implementing their school improvement 
plans. Schools which have been interested 
in educational improvement prior to this 
opportunity might show more of a commitment 
to the PDS collaborative process. 

CRITERION: Enthusiasm for the concept. 

RATIONALE: Enthusiastic people tend to be more highly 
committed to a concept and more able to 
stay with it when difficulties arise. 



7. CRITERION: Commitment to the concept that all children 

can learn, with evidence of prior 
activities to substantiate that commitment. 
RATIONALE: One of the basic premises of a PDS is a 
commitment to good teaching and the concept 
that all children can learn. Schools and 
personnel that work on a "normal curve" 
mentality with its commitment to an 
"acceptable" number of failures would 
violate a basic concept of t:he PDS. 

8. CRITERION: Willingness to accept role changes. 
RATIONALE: Restructuring involves, at a minimum, a 

change in how things have been done in the 
past. Therefore, schools interested in 
becoming a PDS must understand that long- 
held and -revered role distinctions will 
crumble; teachers, administrators, teacher 
educators , parents , businesspersons , 
university students, public school 
students, community agency representatives, 
etc. will find their roles changed, 
overlapped and different from what they 
presently (pre-col labor at ion) are. 



ERIC 



13 



126 



FACULTY; The following criteria are recoimnended to select 
finalists from among applicants: 

1. CRITERION: History of prior interactions with 
public/private school programs. 
RATIONALE: As it is important for WMU to "go with our 
friends" it is just as important for public 
schools to "go with their friends". In 
relation to prior history of interactions, 
we would like to choose from among those 
faculty who have already developed strong, 
positive relationships with the schools . 



2. CRITERION: History of self -initiated professional 

development activities. 
RATIONALE: Since no one can predict the particular 
directions a PDS will take, nor the 
particular skills and knowledge that 
faculty members might be called upon to 
use , we need to know that faculty 
interested in these positions are self- 
starters and able to work under a minimum 
of direction. 

3. CRITERION: Demonstrated skills in leadership, 

pcirticularly leadership for change. 
RATIONALE: Although the collaborative process implies 

14 



ERIC 



127 



a mutuality of respect and concern among 
participants, it does not negate the fact 
that individual people possess different 
strengths to different degrees. It would 
be helpful to assure that at least one 
member in the PDS col laborat ive process 
possesses skills in providing leadership 
for change. 

4. CRITERION: Evidence of personal skills amenable to the 

collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others' opinions, flexibility in thought 
and actions, and a sense of humor. 
RATIONALE: Since this will involve a collaborative 
effort and entail major time commitments, 
faculty need to be exceptionally skilled 
in working with others. A sense of humor 
is essential when working in uncharted 
waters. 

5. CRITERION: Commitment to the need for change fro]a the 

educational preparation system in which we 
are currently engaged at WMU. 
RATIONALE: It would be antithetical to the purpose of 
school restructuring to have faculty 
members participating in the process who 
15 



12S 



wish to preserve the status quo of the 
university's teacher preparation program, 

6, CRITERION: Respect for the work done in the public 

schools and the contributions that public 
school practitioners can and should make 
toward the ongoing educational preparation 
programs at the university, 
RATIONALE: Faculty who evidence the belief that public 
school teachers are not able to provide 
valuable input into the teacher preparation 
program at the University would sabotage 
an important aspect of PDS work, 

7, CRITERION: Willingness to accept changes in roles and 

responsibilities and an understanding that 
roles of all participants will change, 
overlap and in general become murky. 
RATIONALE: Faculty who need to have clearly defined 
roles to play and who need others to play 
clearly articulated roles, with no overlap 
at the edges , will be ineffective and 
frustrated in a collaborative enterprise, 

8, CRITERION: Demonstration of risk-taking behavior, 
RATIONALE: University faculty, especially tenured 

faculty, do not have to take risks. Thus 
some may have become unwilling or unable 



ERIC 



129 



ERIC 



to experience risk-taking behaviors. 
Conunitment to school collaboration could 
include facing a class of young children, 
interacting in new ways with students and 
former students, changing course structure 
and content, "throwing away the textbook", 
"throwing away the lecture notes" These are 
all big risks. 

V?MU STUDENTS; The following criteria are recommended to 
select finalists from among applicants: 

1. CRITERION: Participation in this program should be by 

student choice. 
RATIONALE: Since all participants, public school, 
faculty , etc . will be charting known 
waters, it would make the tasks inherent 
in establishing a PDS a bit easier if the 
students involved were all there by choice, 
not coercion. 

2. CRITERION: Evidence of flexibility, sense of humor, 

risk-taking behavior , capacity for 
independent learning . 
RATIONALE: Since the guidelines under which people 
will initially be working may be unclear, 
undeveloped, and constantly changing, 
17 

■ 130 



students need to be flexible, roll with the 
punches, and not complain when directions 
are in a state of flux. This is important 
since there are a number of students who 
would feel very uncomfortable in this 
situation. 

3. CRITERION: Sample should be balanced, in light of 
above criteria, in terms of age, sex, and 
race. 

RATIONALE: It would help us to generalize the results 
of the effectiveness of this type of 
teacher preparation program if the sample 
were a heterogeneous one. 

BUSINESS / INDUSTRY / LABOR 2 The following criteria are 

recommended to select finalists 
from among applicants. 

1. Management should: 

a. CRITERION: Be willing to commit personnel to 
spending time working with a school. 

RATIONALE: If a businessperson cannot make a 
commitment to participate in school 
' collaborative activities during the 
working day, then he/she will never 
18 



ERIC 



131 



become an active participant in the 
collaborative process, 
b. CRITERION: Have developed an educational 

statement delineating their views on 
the purpose of education, the roles 
of classroom teachers in that process, 
and the roles of universities in that 
process. 

RATIONALE: In effect, this would allow us to see 
if management is committed to 
collaboration, since the "win-win" 
concept is usually not a modus 
operandi for business/ industry/ 
labor. 

Person or persons to be directly involved in the 
project should: 

a. CRITERION: Evidence personal skills amenable to 
the collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others ' opinions, flexibility in 
thought and actions , and a sense of 
humor . 

RATIONALE: It always helps to have people 
involved in the collaborative process 
who genuinely like and respect other 



people. More gets accomplished, 
b. CRITERION: Be willing to accept changes in roles 
and responsibilities and an 
understanding that roles of all 
participants will change, overlap and 
in general become murky, 
RATIONALE : University faculty and school 
personnel are used to being 
professionally involved in K-12 
education: businesspersons are not. 
Business participants need to 
understand that their unique 
viewpoints on education will be 
solicited and considered. 



ERIC 



COMMUNITY AGENCIES: The following criteria should be used 

to select among applicants from 
community agencies: 
1, The agency should provide 

a. CRITERION: A statement of its willingness and 

ability to provide some release time 
for an agency worker to participate 
on an on-going basis with the school. 
RATIONALE: Unless the participant is able to 
attend meetings and become an active 
20 



» 133 



team member, their participation will 
not be truly collaborative. 
2, The prospective agency participant should: 

a. CRITERION: Evidence personal skills amenable to 

the collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others * opinions, flexibility in 
thought and actions , and a sense of 
humor . 

RATIONALE: We need good people to work with other 
good people. 

b. CRITERION: Be willing to accept changes in roles 

and responsibilities and an 
understanding that roles of all 
participants will change, overlap and 
in general become murky. 
RATIONALE : Agency personnel need to see 
themselves as a part of the 
educational procjess rather than 
separate from it if we are to deal 
with the major problems confronting 
school children today. 



21 



ERIC 



12'i 



In summary, the following is a list of suggested 
criteria for those wishing to participate in a WMU PDS: 



SCHOOLS : The following criteria are recommended to select 
finalists from among applicants : 

1. CRITERION: History of prior interactions with College 

of Education professional preparation 
programs in the form of: 

a. having had practicum students 

b. having had student teachers 

c. having worked with faculty members 
doing research in the public schools. 

2. CRITERION: Ability to provide physical space and 

educational materials for university 
students and faculty. 

3. CRITERION: Willingness to provide release time for 

staff to participate in PDS activities. 

4. CRITERION: Evidence of a commitment by the school's 

parent organization to be involved for the 
duration of the collaborative process. 

5. CRITERION: Delineation of past discussions and/or 

innovative activities related to 
educational improvement, over and above 
those required by law and/ or the school 
district. 



6, CRITERION: Enthusiasm for the concept, 

?• CRITERION: Commitment to the concept that all children 
can learn, with evidence of prior 
activities to substantiate that commitment. 

8. CRITERION: Willingness to accept role changes. 

FACULTY : The following criteria are recommended to select 
finalists from among applicants: 

1. CRITERION: History of prior interactions with 

public/private school programs. 

2. CRITERION: History of self-initiated professional 

development activities. 

3. CRITERION: Demonstrated skills in leadership, 

particularly leadership for change. 

4. CRITERION: Evidence of personal skills amenable to the 

collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others ' opinions , flexibility in thought 
and actions, and a sense of humor. 

5. CRITERION: Commitment to the need ^or change from the 

educational preparation system in which we 
are currently engaged at WMU. 

6. CRITERION: Respect for the work done in the public 

schools and the contributions that public 
school practitioners can and should make 
23 



136 



toward the ongoing educational preparation 
programs at the university. 

7. CRITERION: Willingness to accept changes in roles and 

responsibilities and an understanding that 
roles of all participants will change, 
overlap and in general become murky. 

8. CRITERION: Demonstration of risk-taking behavior. 

WMU STUDENTS: The following criteria are recommended to 
select finalists from among applicants: 

1. CRITERION: Participation in this program should be by 

student choice. 

2. CRITERION: Evidence of flexibility, sense of humor, 

risk-taking behavior, capacity for 
independent learning . 

3. CRITERION: Sample should be balanced, in light of 

above criteria, in terms of age, sex, and 
race. 

BUSINESS / INDUSTRY / LABOR : The following criteria are 

recommended to select finalists 
from among applicants. 

1. Management should: 

a. CRITERION: Be willing to commit personnel to 
spending time working with a school. 
24 



ERIC 137 



b. CRITERION: Have developed an educational 
statement delineating their views on 
the purpose of education, the roles 
of classroom teachers in that process, 
and the roles of universities in that 
process • 

2. Person or persons to be directly involved in the 
pro j ect should : 

a. CRITERION: Evidence personal skills amenable to 
the collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others ' opinions, flexibility in 
thought and actions, and a sense of 
humor . 

b» CRITERION: Be willing to accept changes in roles 
and responsibilities and an 
understanding that roles of all 
participants will change, overlap and 
in general become murky. 

CX)MWUNITY AGENCIES: The following criteria should be used 

to select among applicants from 
community agencies: 



The agency should provide: 

a. CRITERION: A statement of its willingness and 
ability to provide some release time 
for an agency worker to participate 
on an on-going basis with the school. 

The prospective agency participant should: 

a. CRITERION: Evidence personal skills amenable to 

the collaborative process such as good 
listening skills, genuine respect for 
others* opinions, flexibility in 
thought and actions, and a sense of 
humor . 

b. CRITERION: Be willing to accept changes in roles 

and responsibilities and an 
understanding that roles of all 
participants will change, overlap and 
in general become murky. 

PROCEDURES 

First, a general informational meeting needs to be 
scheduled to which possible participant groups are 
invited. Prospective invitees would 

representatives from: public schools, including 



parents, teachers, other educational personnel, 
principals; the business/ industry/ labor sector and 
from community agencies; the university, including 
College of Education faculty and interested faculties 
from other Colleges such as Health and Human Services 
(especially speech pathology) and Arts and Science. 

Second, participant-specific meetings need to be held 
for interested subgroups such as principals, parents, 
faculty members, etc. to explain the special 
activities/roles/expectations for members of a 
specific group. At this point, incoming freshman 
education majors would be told of the opportunity to 
participate in this program. They would also be 
required to apply for acceptance in the program, but 
their applications would be screened by a committee 
within the College at the end of their freshman year. 
To begin with, this would be the only entry point; 
student who drop out would not be replaced. In the 
future, we may want to reconsider this entry point. 

Third, formal applications would be accepted and 
screened for adherence (with room for leeway) to 
above-mentioned criteria. 

27 



'140 



4. Fourth, meetings would be arranged among interested 
parties. Thus each potential faculty participant 
would meet with representatives from each potential 
school and each potential business and community 
agency participant. These meetings would be led by 
a group facilitator, someone who would not be a 
participant in the eventual professional development 
school. This person would lend continuity to the 
meetings and allow for each potential participant to 
not have to fall into the role of "leader" at this 
stage, 

5. Fifth, participants in step four would indicate their 
preferences for partners,' or their wish to proceed 
no further and final commitments would be made. 

6. Sixth, all interested parties not actually 
participating in a PDS, even those who did not meet 
the initial selection criteria in step 3 , would be 
referred for matching under the type of collaborative 
enterprise envisioned by Crowell and Jenlink in their 
paper Essential Structural Elements to Be Developed 
to Enhance Collaboration ♦ 



28 



ERIC 



141 



In conclusion, this report contains recommended 
criteria for selecting among interested participants in 
a PDS in the Kalamazoo School District. Should we choose 
to participate with another school district (s) or should 
we choose to engage with schools in ways other then a PDS, 
I still believe the criteria suggested would be valid for 
any collaborative enterprise. Again, it is hoped that 
these criteria serve as suggestions, and not be cast in 
stone. 



EVALUATION 07 THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL EFFORT 



Westorn Klohlgan Univarsity 
Collciga of Education 
Rosalia T« Terras, Ph«D. 
Dapartmant of Educational Laadarship 

This evaluation plan is submitted to the College of 
Education's (COE) Task Force on School Collaboration. The 
charge from the Task Force was to develop and present an 
evaluation plan for university/ local district partnership 
schools^ . This evaluation plan is presented in terms of 
— focusing questions for the evaluation (see Table 1) . 

TABLE 1 

Focusing Quastions for tha Evaluation 

1 . What is the status of the partnership schools effort? 

2. What guideiines, principies, etc. wHI shape the development and implementation of the 
partnership schooi(s)? 

3. What issues and conclusions are presented in the literature on partnership schools? 

4. Why evaluate the partnership school(s)? 

5. What evaluation approach is most appropriate? 

6. What questions should the evaluation address? 

7. What resources are needed to conduct the evaluation? 



1 

An attempt has been made throughout this document to consistently use the 
term, partnership Bchool(8). Some other relevant documents use the term, 
professional development 8chool(s)* When they are quoted, that term has been 
used. For the general purposes of this plan, both terms are assumed to have the 
same meaning. 



ERIC 



143 



These questions are addressed in separate sections 
below. They cover the background information, issues, and 
approach upon which it is proposed that the actual 
evaluation be based. They are intended to provide a focus 
for detailed planning in the future. 

At present a specific implementation plan for a 
COE/ local district partnership school does not exist. 
While developing the evaluation plan at this time 
signifies a proactive commitment to the evaluation of any 
partnership school efforts, it also has the disadvantage 
of being more general than specific. Moreover, the plan 
is being written by an evaluator who will not necessarily 
be involved in the actual evaluation. At a time closer 
to the implementation of a partnership school and its 
evaluation, this information should be (a) examined to 
determine its accuracy and applicability, (b) modified to 
reflect current circumstances, and (c) developed in 
further detail sensitive to the individuals and 
organizational c ntexts involved. 

1. What is the status of the partnership school (s) 
effort? 

The Michigan Partnership for New Education (MPNE) has 
identified four stages through which any partnership 
school project progresses: 

1. initiation/exploration: the phase in which PDS 
participants get to know each other, establish 

2 



ERIC 



144 



working relationships , educate each other , and 
agree on how to define the problems they are up 
against; 

2. design: the phase in which PDS participants 
develop initial approaches and theories about the 
problems they have defined; 

3. pilot: the phase in which PDS participants try 
out the approaches they have designed and assess 
and revise the approaches (as well as the 
theories on which they are based) ; and 

4. stabilization/refinement: the phase in which PDS 
participants use the capacity they have built and 
engage in continuous refinement over long periods 
of time. (College of Education, Michigan State 
University, 1990, p. 8) 

At the present time the COE's efforts are clearly in 

the initiation/exploration phase. The COE's 

Administrative Council position statement on partnership 

schools (endorsed by the COE Task Force on School 

Collaboration) states that in the 1991-92 academic year 

the COE will engage in discussion and planning with all 

significant partners of a local school system with the 

intent to establish a least one partnership school site 

by Fall 1992. 

Discussions are currently being held among individuals 
from WMU, MSU, the Battle Creek Public Schools, and the 
Kalamazoo Public Schools which suggest an even earlier 
implementation. It is anticipated that one partnership 
school site will be established with Kalamazoo Public 
Schools in late fall, 1991; and another partnership school 
site will be established with Battle Creek Public Schools 



and Michigan State University by winter, 1992. 

2. What guidelines, principles, etc. will shape the 

development and implementation of the partnership 

school (s) ? 

Details about the activities, personnel, and resources 
for a WMU/ local district partnership school are currently 
being considered. Available information likely to shape 
the character of a VfMU/ local district partnership school 
includes (a) the basic principals for partnership schools 
identified by the Holmes Group, (b) criteria for 
partnership schools identified by the Michigan Partnership 
for New Education (MPNE) , (c) the COE Administrative 
Council position statement on professional development 
schools, and (d) a COE draft paper on a vision and 
strategy for implementing a partnership school. 

Holmes Group Principles for Partnership Schools 

The overall design and concept for partnerships 
schools in Michigan has been developed by the Holmes 
Group. They identified the following six principles for 
how a professional development school should organize 
itself (Holmes Group, 1990) : 

1. Lasting learning — the kind that allows students 
to go on learning for a lifetime — is what we call 
teaching for understanding. 

2. Such learning will take place only in schools and 
classrooms that work as communities of learning. 



3. Against the grain of an unequal society, to make 
teaching and learning for understanding available 
for everybody's children. 

4. In this school adults — teachers, teacher 
educators, and administrators — are expected to 
go on learning, too. 

5. Make reflection and inquiry a central feature of 
the school and a visible, well-organized presence 
in the school district. 

6. The school's management, leadership, and faculty- 
-including colleagues from the university — work 
together to invent a new organizational structure 
in line with the school ' s new purposes and 
principles about teaching and learning. 



MPNE Criteria for Partnership Schools 

Further, the Michigan Partnership for New Education 
(MPNE) has identified 20 partnership schools criteria in 
three areas — institutional commitments, location and 
capacity, and shared understandings (Michigan Partnership 
for New Education, 1991) : 

I. Institutional Commitments to: 

A. Long-term, sustained, and systematic process 
of change. 

B. Implementing a collaborative research and 
development agenda. 

C. Using new, research-based ideas to improve 
instruction and learning. 

D. Formal collaboration with private and public 
agencies and individuals (e.g. , business, 
social , and community services , juvenile 
court officers) . 

E. Participation of staff in school decision- 
making. 



Support the partnership with time, space, 
and materials. 



G. Multicultural perspectives in instruction 
and curriculum, 

H. Participation in demonstration and 
dissemination activities. 

I. Active parent involvement. 

J. Participation in Partnership activities 
(e.g. , Leadership Academy) « 

K. A memorandum of agreement to formally bind 
the university and the school in a shared, 
long-term partnership. 

II. Location and Capacity 

A. Cultural and socio-economic diversity within 
the school and community. 

B. Assignment by a university of a least the 
equivalent of two full-time faculty to work 
in the school. 

C. Potential for clinical experiences for at 
least five teacher interns. 

D. Financial support needed to participate, 
and/or commitment to help secure the 
financial resources from community, 
business, foundation, or other sources. 

E. Potential for a cluster of 3-4 Partnership 
Schools to span elementary , middle , and 
secondary schools. 

III. Shared Understandings 

A. Community, school and university 
collaboration is central to educational 
improvement. 

B. Learn "ing for understanding and higher order 
skill development (e.g. , application of 
knowledge to analyze and solve problems, 
evaluate or synthesize) for all children is 
the goal. 

6 



ERIC 



148 



C. The Partnership will require flexibility 
and risk-taking behavior. 

D. A shared research agenda will be developed 
and implemented. 



CQE Administrative Council Position Statement 

The following excerpt is from the position statement 

on professional development schools adopted by the COE's 

Administrative Council: 

The professional development schools developed by 
Western Michigan University will reflect our own 
unique situation, however they will conform to the 
general framework for establishing professional 
development schools as established by the Michigan 
Partnership for New Education. Professional 
development schools are defined as regular, middle, 
or high schools that work in partnership with a 
university to develop and demonstrate: 

1. improved learning programs for diverse students 

2. improved initial preparation and continuing 
professional development for teachers, 
counselors, and administrators 

3. new understandings and professional 
responsibilities for experienced educators 

4. research projects that add to all educators' 
knowledge about how to make schools more 
productive 

5. teaching for understanding so that students learn 
for a lifetime 

6. new organizational structures for K-12 schools 
and for the College of Education. (p. 1) 



CQE Draft Paper on Vision and Strategies 



Potential problems that could emerge in the formation 



of partnership schools have been identified in a draft COE 



paper on vision and strategy for implementing a 
partnership school (College of Education, Western Michigan 
University, 1991, January). They are as follows: 

1. Objection to the idea of "experimenting" on 
students. The concepts and guidelines for 
responsible innovation must be developed, and 
school board/parental choice must be honored. 

2. University reward systems which do not recognize 
the contributions faculty would make to 
partnership schools. 

3. School rules and regulations which will interfere 
with new directions of the partnership school. 

4. Increased effort to recruit and prepare faculty 
able and willing to participate. 

5. University and local district personnel 
unaccustomed to and unskilled in the conducting 
collaborative research and development 
activities . 



6. Increased time and financial resources needed to 
conduct collaborative inquiry and program 
development at a time when university and school 
staff sizes and resources are limited. 



7. The challenge of studying and implementing 
innovations in a setting which must at the same 
time successfully educate students. 

8. Complicated negotiations with school boards and 
unions for teacher compensation and different 
approaches to differentiated staffing. 

9 . Increased cost of educator preparation for 
universities, an education process as difficult 
and costly as producing medical professionals. 



3. What issues and conclusions are presented in the 
lirerature on partnership schools? 



8 



ERLC 



150 



The literature on school-university collaboration and 
partnership schools is extensive (see Appendix A for a 
bibliography) . At least two aspects of this ongoing 
conversation are particularly relevant to any evaluation 
efforts: one concerns the nature of school and university 
cultures, the other identifies characteristics of 
successful partnerships. 

Critical differences exist between the workplace 
cultures of the school and university. Brookhart and 
Loadman (1990, cited by Podeschi, 1991, p. 20) describe 
the differences as follows: 

1. Whereas schools are concerned with matters of 
practical application, universities value seeing 
ideas in relationship to other ideas, and in 
expanding thought; and 

2. Professors have more autonomy than teachers, and 
activities in the university setting are more 
controlled by the individual than the 
institution. 

Podeschi ( 1991) , a university faculty member, 

summarizes five years of experience in a partnership 

school this way: 

In looking back, my attempt to integrate these two 
cultures together had positive results for teacher 
education students in studying ideas in real contexts; 
when the cultures conflicted rather than integrated, 
negative consequences resulted. .. .What we need is not 
assimilation, where a culture is surrendered. Nor 
should we realistically expect a melting pot, where 
cultures are melted together. What we should work for 
is a pluralism of cultures, one in which tensions and 
dilemmas are continually mediated, (p. 20) 

Van de Water (1989; cited by Gomez et al, 1990) 

9 



151 



illuminates specific areas in which these two cultures 
must be mediated. His summarization of the 

characteristics of successful partnership schools cited 
in the literature are as follows: 



1. 


Mutual self-interest and common goals, 


2. 


Mutual trust and respect. 


3. 


Shared decision-making, 


4. 


Clear focus. 


5. 


Manageable agenda, 


6, 


Commitment from top leadership. 


7. 


Fiscal support, 


8, 


Long-term commitment. 


9, 


Dynamic nature, 


10. 


Information sharing. 



4. Why evaluate the partnership school (s)? 

At least four aspects of partnership schools 

themselves support the notion that they should be 

evaluated. First, reflection and inquiry for adults are 

assumed to be central features of any partnership school, 

as reflected in two of the six principles for professional 

development schools promoted by the Holmes Group (1990). 

In this school adults — teachers, teacher educators, 
and administrators — are expected to go on learning, 
too. 

Reflection and inquiry are a central feature of the 
Professional Development School and a visible, well 
organized presence in the school district. 

10 



Second, the improvements which partnership schools are 
designed to make — better teaching and learning in our 
schools — can only be achieved through sustained, long- 
term commitments to change by universities, school 
districts, schools, and the community. The effort for all 
parties constitutes an evolving experience which will 
continue to change and develop. 

Third, the reason for collaboration is to achieve an 
outcome no single party could have forged alone. With 
partnership schools the number of organizations and 
individuals participating increases dramatically as does 
the demand for accountability to and communication with 
each other. A systematic, adequately supported means for 
this communication and accountability is needed. 

Fourth, as discussed in Question 3 above, partnership 

schools call for two different workplace cultures to come 

together in a unified effort with a shared philosophy for 

organizational change and school improvement. This 

interaction must be mediated. A draft COE paper on vision 

and strategy for implementing a partnership school 

(College of Education, Western Michigan University, 1991) 

makes the point well: 

The format iow of PDSs will require skills and a 
disposition to address policy and implementation 
issues as they emerge. Many questions will be 
answered only by experience. Starting PDSs is not 
only a design process, it is also a negotiation 



process . It is a back-and-f orth dialogue between 
people and universities and people in school 
districts; and between principles and actions. What 
is called for is an exercise in mutuality where there 
is a climate that addresses differences as they arise, 
and a desire to arrive at solutions in spite of the 
obstacles that may present themselves. 

Existing partnership schools in Michigan are already 

being evaluated through extensive documentation efforts. 

The following excerpt from the 1990-91 plan for 

partnership schools at seven sites in Michigan further 

explains this effort: 

As in the past, the main thrust of the 1990"-91 
evaluation component will be to document for each PDS 
site its evolution of goals, activities, 
accomplishments, problems, and coping strategies for 
dealing with the tensions of change. The 
documentation will continue to use a combination of 
methods (observation, in-depth interviewing^ document 
collection) for gathering information both on what 
happens in each site and on how participants view 
their progress and problems in pursuing PDS goals. 
It is the overall purpose of these data gathering 
activities to be able to compare and contrast across 
sites what is involved in developing PDSs, for 
internal uses as the development processes proceed as 
well as for disseminating lessons learned for the 
benefit of others who are or will be trying similar 
things. (College of Education, Michigan State 
University, 1990, p. 132) 

While these efforts are currently in place and are 
likely to be part of any partnership school co-sponsored 
by the COE, without further articulation and development, 
documentation alone is unlikely to serve all the 
evaluation purposes at any one site, particularly for 
ongoing program change and improvement. For instance, at 
present it is not clear to what extent these data are 

12 



ERIC 



being analyzed and used for this purpose. 

Finally, the position statement on professional 
development schools adopted by the COE's Administrative 
Council makes a clear commitment to the evaluation of this 
effort: 

The College of Education will actively pursue formal 
evaluation of its professional development school . 
Such efforts will include ongoing formative evaluation 
to permit needed modifications to be made and annual 
summative evaluations to provide information to make 
decisions regarding the nature, ^.cope, and continued 
viability of the professional development school 
concept. (p. 2) 

5. What evaluation approach it. most appropriate? 

The evaluation approach used should follow accepted 

guidelines for good evaluation practice (e.g, Standards 

for Evaluation of Educational Procrrams. Projects, and 

Materials , Joint Committee, 1981) . In particular the 

evaluation of partnership schools should emphasize these 

features: 

1. Responsiveness to stakeholding groups, 

2. Issues and meaning orientation, 

3. Formative, ongoing use of evaluation findings, 
and 

4. Qualitative and quantitative methods addressing 
processes and outcomes. 

Responsiveness to Stakeholding Groups 

The recommended approach takes a responsive 

perspective, based upon the claims, concerns, and issues 

about the partnership school identified by stakeholding 

13 



groups (Cuba & Lincoln, 1981, 1989; Stake, 1980). 

Stakeholders are persons or groups put at risk by the 
partnership school and its evaluation. That is, 
stakeholders include both participants and non- 
participants from both institutions, the local district 
and the university. Specifically, they include (a) 
agents, persons involved in producing, using, and 
implementing the partnership school; (b) beneficiaries, 
persons who profit in some way from implementation of the 
partnership school; and (c) victims, persons who are 
negatively af^.ected by implementation of the partnership 
school (Cuba & Lincoln, 1981) . Several examples of how 
stakeholding groups are put at risk by the partnership 
school and its evaluation are: 

1. partnership school participants are put at risk 
by the possibility of failure of the partnership 
school (agents and beneficiaries) 

2. Non-partnership school participants are put at 
risk by being excluded from participation 
(victims) 

3. Non-partnership school participants are put at 
risk by possible negative side effects of the 
partnership school such as a reallocation of 
resources away from programs they benefit from 
in order to support the partnership school 
(victims) 

Table 2 below provides an initial list of stakeholding 
groups in the local district, university, and community. 
In the beginning discussions with members of each group, 
other additional stakeholding groups are likely to be 

14 

156 



identified. 



Issues and Meaning Orientation 

The goal of this evaluation effort should be to 
represent with fairness and sensitivity varying issues and 
multiple perspectives in an effort to promote empathetic 
and responsible decision making for change and 
improvement. Toward this end the evaluator raises issues 
and illuminates perspectives on questions of primary 
interest to the stakeholding groups (Torres, 1991) . 

The success of this collaborative effort is dependent 
upon negotiation and mediation among the various parties 
involved. This negotiation and mediation is reflected in 
the perceptions of all involved. The evaluation effort 
should focus on the meaning of the endeavor for 
participants and non-participants from all stakeholding 
groups . 

Formative, Ongoing Use of Evaluation Findings 

The focus of this evaluation should be on mediation, 
discussion, and formative, ongoing use of information for 
evolution, change, and improvement. In other words, it 
should facilitate a natural movement toward achievement 
of the partnership schools' goals — better teaching and 
learning. 

Partnership schools in particular hold promise for 

15 



effective use of evaluation in this way. The trust, 
rapport; and shared understanding of mutual goals seen in 
successful partnership schools are also necessary for 
receptivity and use of ongoing feedback. 



Table 2 

Initial List of Stakeholding Groups 



Local District 



On-Site 

PS* Participants 



Students 

Teacher Candidates 
Tenured Teachers 
Teacher Aides / Subs 
Sch. Administrators 
Adminr. Interns 
Counselors 
Counselor Interns 
Parents 

*PS = Partnership 



On-Site 

PS Non-participants 
Students 

Teacher Candidates 
Tenured Teachers 
Teacher Aides / Subs 
Sch. Administrators 
Adminr. Interns 
Counselors 
Counselor Interns 
Parents 



Off-Site PS 
Participants 



District Admin. 
Board Members 
Superintendent 
KEA Representative 



Off-Site 

PS Non-Participant 



District Admin. 
Non-PSs 



University 



On-Site 

PS Participants 

Teacher Educators 
Counselor Educators 
Administrator Edrs. 



Off-Site 

P S Participants 

Administrators 



Off-Site 

Non-Participants 

Adnninistrators 
Teacher Educators 
Counselor Educators 
Administrator Educators 
Teacher Candidates 
Counselor lnterr>s 
Administrator Interns 
other University 
Students 



On-Srte 

PS Participants 



Community 



Local Business 
Community Services 



Off-Site 

PS Participants 

Local Businesses 
Conmunity Services 



16 

158 

ERIC 



Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Addressing Processes 
and Outcomes 

In order to reflect issues and meaning, and promote 
discussion the evaluation should rely heavily on the 
qualitative methods already being used in the 
documentation efforts of existing partnership schools in 
Michigan (i.e., interviews, observation, document 
analysis) . 

However, "the methodological considerations.. .for all 
evaluation efforts are relative. The methodology must fit 
the situation. ... Sensitivity to ways of knowing that are 
familiar to the evaluation audiences is important" 
(Torres, 1991, p. 194) . Many individuals and 

organizations are oriented to traditional quantitative 
evaluation measures which promise some proof of 
effectiveness . 

Such measures are particularly important for 
documenting target group (students, teachers, parents, 
teacher candidates, etc.) outcomes of individual projects 
within the partnership school. For example, quantitative 
measures can be designed around the following question: 
Given that the activities in question are implemented, 
what change do you expect in the target group's knowledge, 
skill, behavior, or attitude? Put another way, what do 
you expect the target group to be or do differently as a 

17 



result of this activity or program. Appropriate 
instrumentation can be developed or obtained to measure 
the changes identified by these kinds of questions. Thus, 
the change measured is specifically tied to the project 
being implemented, not (unless specifically appropriate) 
to longer-term and farther-reaching outcomes such as 
student test scores. The outcomes actually measured can 
then be incorporated into ongoing discussion about the 
workings of the project. And, within that discussion 
appropriate interpretation and modification of the 
measures can be made. 

6. What questions should the evaluation address? 

The questions addressed by the evaluation should be 
determined by the claims, concerns, and issues of the 
stakeholding groups. Thus, the evaluation design begins 
in detail at the same time that the evaluation begins as 
stakeholding groups are identified and interviewed, and 
their perspectives illuminated. Some questions likely to 
emerge are: 

1. To what extent is there a shared understanding 
among stakeholders about the meaning and purpose 
of the partnership school? 

2. To what extent is the partnership school effort 
reflective of the principles upon which it is 
based (i.e., the six principles identified by the 



Holmes Group) ? 

3. How has the school climate changed? 

4. How have teachers roles changed? 

5. What is the impact of individual partnership 
school projects? 

6. Has student learning improved? 

Once an initial set of evaluation questions have been 
identified and agreed upon, appropriate data collection, 
analysis, and reporting activities can be designed. The 
reporting plan should be designed to serve two purposes: 
(a) to facilitate the ongoing use of feedback about the 
partnership school to make changes in its implementation 
for improved effectiveness, and (b) to report periodically 
and formally about partnership school progress and 
outcomes to funding bodies and other stakeholding groups, 
7. What resources are needed to conduct the evaluation? 

Once a detailed and comprehensive evaluation plan is 

established, those responsible for commissioni. g and 

implementing ''he evaluation can determine an appropriate 

level of support for the evaluation and to select from an 

array of evaluation activities. At this point, however, 

consideration should be given for the following ways in 

which the evaluation might be supported and implemented: 

1. In conjunction with the role of the partnership 
school documenter, 

19 

161 



2. Through the use of interns and graduate students, 

3. With the overall facilitation and coordination 
by an evaluator assigned at least one-half time, 

4. As part of ongoing school improvement efforts 
which already require evaluation activities. 

Few evaluation endeavors have sufficient support to 

be as comprehensive as most evaluation audiences would 

like. Studied consideration should be given to the use 

of various personnel to contribute to an overall 

systematic and coordinated evaluation effort. As 

suggested above some relevant evaluation activities may 

already be in place. In any case, given the resources 

appropriated, both the evaluator (s) and the evaluation 

audiences should have a full understanding of what the 

evaluation can be expected to accomplish. 



20 

162 



REFERENCES 



Brookhart, S. and Loadman, W. (1990). School - 
university collaboration: Different workplace 
cultures . Contemporary Education , Spring . 

College of Education, Michigan State University ( 1990 , 
September) . Education Extension Service Third Year 
(1990-91) Plan (submitted to the 1990-91 Education 
Innovation Grants Program , Michigan Department of 
Education). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State 
University. 

College of Education, Western Michigan University (1991, 
January) . Reshaping the vision and the strategy 
(draft) . Unpublished planning document. 

Gomez, M. N. , Bissell, J., Danziger, L. , & Casselman, R. 
(1990) . To advance learning: A handbook on 
developing K-12 postsecondarv partnerships . Lanham , 
MD: University Press of America. 

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective 
evaluation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation 
evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Holmes Group (1990) . Tomorrow' s schools: Principles for 
the design of professional development schools . East 
Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group. 

Joint Committee on Educational Evaluation (1981) . 
Standards for Evaluation of Educational Programs^ 
Projects, and Materials . New York: McGraw Hill. 

Mah, L.S. (1991, June 23). School's finger-pointing a 
waste . Kalamazoo Gazette , p . Al 1 . 

Michigan Partnership for New Education (1991, May). 
School and university alliance (draft 2) . 
Unpublished paper. Michigan State University, East 
Lansing, MI. 

Podeschi, R. (1991). School-university collaboration: 
Tensions and dilemnas ahead? Paper presented at the 
Ttoerican Educational Research Association Meeting, 
Chicago. 



21 

163 



stake, R. E. (1980) . Program evaluation, particularly 
responsive evaluation . In W. B . Dockrell & D . 
Hamilton (Eds.) , Rethinking educational research 
(pp. 72-87) . London: Hodder & Stoughton. 

Torres, R. T. (1991) . Improving the quality of internal 
evaluation: The evaluator as consultant -mediator . 
Evaluation and Program Planning , 14 , 189-198. 

Van de Water, G. B. (1989) . The governance of school- 
college collaboratives: Lessons learned from the 
Col!l,ege Board's Educational Equality Project Models 
Program for School-College Collaboration * New York: 
The College Board. 



22 

164 



APPENDIX A 



Bibliography on School-University Partnerships 



Brookhart, S. and Loadman, W. (1990) . School-university 
collaboration: Different workplace cultures • 
Contemporary Education . Spring. 

Gifford, B.R. (1987) . Images, recommendations, and best 
next steps. Education and Urban Society . 19.(4) , 421- 
40. 

Goodlad, J.I. (1987). Schools and universities can and 
must work together. Principal, 67(1)/ 9-15. 

Gomez, M. N. , Bissell, J. , Danziger, L. , & Casselman, R. 
(1990). To iu, rce learning; A handbook on 
developing K-12 postsecondary partnerships . Lanham, 
MD: University Press of America. 

Holmes Group (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for 
the design of professional development schools . 
East Lansing, MI; The Holmes Group. 

Kennedy, M.M. (1990) . Professional development schools. 
Colloauv . 3(2), 5-13. 

Mah, L.S. (1991, June 23). School's finger-pointing a 
waste. Kalamazoo Gazette , p. All. 

Mclnerney, W. D. & Kolter, G. E. (1988). Enhancing 
thinking skills with school-university 
collaboration. NASSP Bulletin , 22.(509), 109-14. 

Molner, L.A., & Killion, J. P. (1989). A school- 
university collaboration that works . Journal of 
Staff Development . 10(2), 26-31. 

Oja, S.N. (1988). Some promising endeavors in school- 
university collaboration ; Collaborative research 
and collaborative supervision in the University of 
New Hampshire five-year program . Paper presented at 
the Holmes Group Second Annual Conference, 
Washington, D.C. 



ERIC 



23 

165 



Pcj-ish, R., Underwood, E., & Eubanks, E.E. (1987). We 
do not make change: School-university collaboration. 
Metropolitan Education , 3, 44-55. 

Podeschi, R. (1991). School-universitv colla boration; 
Tensions and dilemnas ahead? Paper presented at the 
American Educational Research Association Meeting, 
Chicago. 

Ruscoe, G.C. Quantitative and qualitat ive perspectiv^LS 
on teacher attitudes in professional development 
schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of 
the American Educational Research Association, San 
Francisco. 

Sachs, M. (1982). Two-way traffic: Some reflections on 
schoo 1-uni ver s ity col laborat ion . ADFL Bu lletin , 
14(1) , 17-19. 

Sirotnik, K.A., & Goodlad, J.I., Eds. (1988). School- 
university partnerships in acti on. New York: 
Teachers College Press. 

Smith, R.B. (1986). Public school-university 

partnership: Observations of a dean . 

Van de Water, G. B. (1989). The gover nance of school- 
college collaboratives: Lessons learned from the 

College Board's Educational Eauali ty Project Models 
Program for School-College Collaboration . New York: 
The College Board. 

Wu, P.C. (1986). Lessons for collaboration between 
educational agencies. Potpourri, 37(5), 61-64. 



I 



ERIC 



24 

16C 



NATURE OF SCHCX)L AND UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIPS 

Developed for the College of Education 
Task Force on School Collaboration 

Western Michigan University 
College of Education 
Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Jo smith 
Education and Professional Development Department 

TASK FORCE CHARGE 

To develop an understanding about the nature of 
collaboration by conducting a literature based review of 
various university-school collaboration models, and to 
provide an analytical framework which differentiates the 
forms of these collaborative efforts. 
FOCUSING QUESTIONS 

1. What are the various ways in which public schools 
and universities cooperate, collaborate, or form 
partnerships? 

2. What are the key dimensions of a collaborative 
program among or between educational institutions? 

3. Who are the institutional participants? 

4 . What are the focuses or purposes of the 
collaboration? 

5. What are the components of effective collaboration 
models? 

These questions served to guide our analysis of 100 
various university-school collaborations and provided a 
basis for categorizing the literature into types or forms 
of collaboration, and identifying the key components anu 
purposes of these collaborations. 



ERIC 



167 



2 



DEFINITION OF COLLABORATION 

In our examination of the literature on collaborative 
endeavors, we found that a premise underlying ideal collaborative 
relationships was that the K-12 schools and the pos tsecondar y 
institutions would work together, as equals, to achieve mutual 
goals. The organizational features of a collaboration are in 
ideal situations characterized by shared decision-making, open 
and frequent communication, exchange of resources, and consensus 
on educational goals. Pine and Keane (1986) define collaboration 
as a "joint endeavor of autonomous agencies to achieve outcomes 
desired by all parties but beyond the grasp of any one of the 
units acting alone." 

Clark (1986) provides the following general definition of 
col labora t ion : 

Collaboration: shared decision-making in governance, 
planning, delivery and evaluation of programs. It is a 
pluralistic form of education where people of dissimilar 
backgrounds work together with equal status (As cited in 
Gomez, et al, 1990, p. 40). 
Partnerships are currently seen as a particular form of 
collaboration, the majority a part of a network created by 
Goodlad. Goodlad (1990) states that one o£ the Eundamental ideaj 
behind such symbiotic school -universi ty partnerships is the 
establishment of a common agenda. Schools and universities in 
thesf^ partnerships commit, to working together to solve 



Er|c 163 



3 

educational issues and problems which have traditionally been 
addressed by each institution separately. He points out that the 
partners are equal, that is, each has an equal voice in 
addressing problems which have traditionally been embraced 
primarily or exclusively by the schools or the universities. For 
example, though the site for student teaching is often provided 
by the schools, it is seen as the problem of the university. In 
addition, staff development often provided by university 
consultants has been seen as the problem of school districts. In 
partnerships and other kinds of cooperative or collaborative 
efforts, both institutions assume new responsibilities for these 
endeavors. However, this joining together to address common 
problems is not easy. The difficulties of negotiating 
collaborations often raises new issues that must be resolved in 
order for the institutions to work together on the problems that 
they initially began collaborating about. As Goodlad (1990) has 
suggested, "The dynamics of creating a collaborative process 
often obfuscate the nature of the problem being addressed 
(Foreword ) . " 

In this report, we attempt to help collaborators in two way^- 
by presenting an framework for categorizing possible 
collaborations. This framework emerged from an analysis of the 
collaborative, cooperative, and partnership relationships 
mentioned in the literature. It suggests the traditional siLes 
o f coope r a t i ve efforts be twee n schools and universities. Tn 
addition we present a framework for dnalyzing the elements ol a 

169 

ERIC 



collaborative effort and identify the cycle of negotiation that 
underlies collaborative efforts. 

FRAMEWORK FOR CATEGORIZING COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS 

There have been and continue to be numerous ways that public 
schools and universities cooperate, collaborate or form 
partnerships with each other. Figure one presents a diagram of 
the categories of collaborations we found through our examination 
of all the partnership, cooperative, and collaborative efforts 
presented in ERIC from 1980 to 1991. We will review the 
categories presented in the figure: general collaborations, 
teacher/administrator/counselor education, curricular or 
instructional change, prevent ion/ intervention programs, higher 
education transitions . 
General Col la bo rat ion 

General Collaborations are overarching partnerships or 
collaborations. They involve at least public school personnel 
and university personnel, but generally these overarching 
partnerships include personnel from all levels at the public 
school (district administration, principals, and teachers) and 
all levels at the university (administrators at the college 
level, department level administrators, and f acul ty ) . In 
addition they usually include representatives from the community 
both public service and parents or volunteer groups and business. 
When funding is required they may be funded by government 
agencies, foundations, or jointly by the university and the 
schoo 1 s . 

ERLC 



p 




ERIC 



5 

They have either one or more of the following purposes: 

They serve as a clearinghouse for proposed collaborative 
ventures between the schools and others, deciding which 
projects proposed to them by university, public school, or 
community groups will be allowed. 

They request help with priorities, programs, and projects 
needed by public schools, teaching or administrative 
personnel, or student populations' need. Such requests may 
focus on academic, affective, or physical development needs. 
In other words the group decides what the schools need and 
asks help in meeting those needs. Such cases may include 
evaluation of current programs or a needs assessment. 

They develop and implement programs or projects 
cooperatively which serve the educational needs of students 
and faculty in public schools at universities. 

They monitor and evaluate the progress of collaborative 
efforts and make decisions about which will be suspended and 
which will be allowed to expand. 

They seek funding for projects and programs that tliey decide 
need to be implemented. 

The purpose and focus of general collaborations, the 
relationship between the participants and the institutions that 

ERIC ^3 



are collaborating, the roles of the participants in the 
institutions being served and in the collaboration effort are all 
factors that produce a particular collaboration. Different 
general collaborations may meet all or only one of the purposes 
listed above. There are consortiums and academic partnerships 
with committee members representing various constituents which 
meet regularly to decide which proposals for programs to be 
conducted ' in the public schools will be sanctioned. Outside 
agents, such as, faculty from the schools or the university, 
parent groups, or community service groups may propose particular 
projects and the collaborative decides which of those projects 
can be supported in the schools. 

One example of a General Collaboration, Brown University's 
Coalition for Essential Schools, was established in 1984 as a 
high school -univers i ty partnership devoted to strengthening the 
learning of students by reforming each school's priorities and 
simplifying its structure. Although each representative school - 
vivolves a plan appropriate to its own setting, participating 
schools embrace a common set of nine principles that provide the 
focus of their efforts. A second example is Project STEP 
(Student/Teacher Educational Partnership) which links the Santa 
Anna Unified School District with three pos tsecondary 
institutions. Partnership activities are directed toward three 
broad areas of focus: interdisciplinary and discipline-specific 
curriculum and revision projects, improved preparation for 
teaching-^preservice and staff develop me nt, and curricular 



7 

guidance and support for students in the secondary schools 
(Gomez, et al, 1990). Two final examples are the BYU-Public 
School Partnership and the University of Washington's Puget Sound 
Educational Consortium. These are interesting contrast cases. 
The BYU-Public School Partnership is a general collaborative 
effort between Brigham Young University and several public 
schools. The projects of the partnership include teacher 
education, staff development, administrator education, as well as 
involvement in the general student curriculum and testing and 
assessment. On going research projects are present at the 
various sites (Harris & Harris, 1990). 

The Puget Sound Educational Consortium involves the 
University of Washington, as well as other colleges such as 
Whitmore College and several school districts in activities 
similar to those in the BYU collaborative, but the negotiations 
involve more institutions. 

Some collaborative efforts involve members in much more pro- 
active role in the daily life of a particular school or schools 
than do others. The extent of involvement is determined by the 
purposes and focus of the general collaboration. 

In addition to the general or overarching collaborations, 
there is ample evidence from the literature that schools, 
community, business, and universities can be involved in more 
focused or particularized kinds of collaborations. Figure 1. 
represents these as being of four types. They include 
collaborations centered on teacher (or other personnel) 



175 



ERIC 



8 

education, curr icular change projects, prevention programs, 
transition or integration efforts. Any or all of these types of 
collaborations may exist when there is an overarch! ng 
collaboration but all may exist without any other collaboration. 
Teacher /Administrator /Counselor Educat ion 

Teacher/Administrator /Counselor education collaborations are 
collaborations that focus on the either the preservice education 
of school personnel, the provision of sites for field experiences 
or observation, or on personnel improvement or staff development. 
These collaborations can be focused on both undergraduate and 
graduate work or even non-credit short term efforts. The 
category can be divided into two forms: University Centered and 
Field Initiated. 

One example of such a collaboration involves Utah State 
University and Davis School District . They collaborate on a 
leadership training program for new school administrators with 
practical training courses delivered on site in the school 
district (Ashbaker & Bench, 1987). Another example is the Mew 
Teacher Retention Project which involves a partnership between 
San Diego State University and San Diego Unified School District. 
These two institutions developed a practical model of support and 
assistance to new teachers, particularly those working with 
students from culturally diverse, backgrounds, and promote 
teacher retention (Cooper & Horey, (1989). The University of 
Northern Iowa and six state regional centers created a regional 
partnership program. It was a field-responsive, center-specific 

176 



model established at the university to oversee clinical field 
experiences for student teachers (Stahlhut, et aU 1990). 

Univers ity Centered. These include those which have a 
university impetus and are usually constructed around university 
course work. The collaborations usually center on field 
experiences such as student teaching but also internships; 
graduate programs; and continuing education coursework. The 
reason graduate programs and continuing education are included is 
that they represent staff development opportunities for school 
personnel often required by state law. They also represent 
collaborations built between schools and universities to provide 
alternative certification for post-baccalaureate students who may 
be working as school personnel during the time they are 
completing coursework that allows them to gain certification 
(Denton & Armstrong ,1989). In addition, there are currently 
graduate programs- such as those offered by National -Lewis 
University where graduate programs are provided on site across 
two years to a group of 15 to 18 students who agree to complete 
the two year program together. 

Another kind of collaboration under this category is the 
Cooperating Teacher Project at the University of Arizona (Olson, 
Carter, & Pinnegar, 1989). This cooperative effort engaged the 
university and five local school districts in joining together in 
developing selection procedures for cooperating teachers for 
student teaching. The selection procedures both improved the 
quality and increased the number of cooperating teachers 



10 

available £or student teaching placements. 

Another example of this category of collaboration is Hath 
Engl ish Science Technology Education Pro j ect — MESTEP which is a 
partnership between the University of Massachusetts, public 
schools, and private industry. This is a 15 month Master of 
Education Program comprised of course work at the university 
followed by student teaching in a high school summer session in 
conjunction with university mentors and supervisors. It was 
developed as part of the move to recruit, select, prepare, 
support, and retain in teaching talented and ethnically diverse 
college graduates with academic majors in math, science or 
English (Clark & Fischetti, 1990). 

Field Initiated. A second form of collaborative effort 
focused on personnel education is generally more clearly 
considered as staff development, but instead of being university 
initiated, schools initiate the requests. These collaborative 
may often be considered consultations more than collaborations 
but they include staff development, mentoring of teachers by 
other teachers with specific requests to the university to 
provide additional training for the mentee (in their induction 
year) or retraining for the mentor. In add i t ion, when school s 
decide to revitalize or change directions they may ask a 
particular college or university to participate with them in the 
re-education of faculty. Often these collaborations may result 
in graduate coursework being offered at schools as part of staff 
development, but the content of the course is directed by the 

ErJc 17S 



11 

needs of the teachers or the schools and not necessarily directed 

by university programs. 

CURRICULAR OR INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE 

Another category of collaborations focus on curricular or 
instructional change. In some ways^ Coalitions for Essential 
Schools has such work as their focus since a major purpose of 
these general collaborative is instructional change. One of the 
difficulties we encountered in categorizing collaboration efforts 
is most evident in this category. This was the difficulty of 
overlapping purposes. When a school district or a university 
research team attempts to present a curricular or instructional 
change it almost always^ but not necessarily, involves staff 
development. We identified as curricular or instructional change 
collaborations those whose major focus was on changing specific 
curriculum or instructional practices rather than on staff 
development gene rally. 

One example of this category of collaboration is Pennsy Iv^ania* 
Academy for the Profession of Teaching: A Science Curriculum 
Development Partnership which involves K-3 activity-oriented 
science curriculum developed with objectives employing current 
methods of science education which also attempts to influence In 
positive ways teacher and student attitudes towards 
science ( Beisel , 1990 ). Another example is the Valley Educat.ion 
Censor tium--Oregon State University, Western Oregon State College 
School of Education, Oregon State System of Higher Educat i •od, 
three county education service districts and ten scliool 

• 



12 

districts created a collaboration focused on achieving concurrent 
improvements in secondary school curriculum and assessment 
(Fielding, 1989). A final example is University of Maryland and 
Baltimore City Schools' writing program project (Fowler & Martin, 
1989 ) , 

Curricular change collaborations may involve a single 
classroom or school or numerous schools from across the nation. 
These may be driven by field initiative. Usually, in these 
instances a school leader or a group of teachers may decide to 
change school practices and they approach university faculty with 
a request to help them institute the change. Colton, a school in 
Idaho, approached a University of Idaho professor and asked help 
in changing from a basal approach to teaching reading to a whole 
language approach. The professor then came to Colton on a weekly 
basis, providing in-service and daily support as the teachers 
worked to change their strategies for teaching literacy 
(Guilfoyle, personal communication) . 

When these collaborations are initiated by the University, 
they are frequently driven by the research questions or grant 
writing of university professors. In these cases, university 
professors approach local school personnel and propose a 
particular curricular innovation. Finally, collaborations 
between schools and universities focusing on curricular change 
may be brought about through legislativ^e mandate. The retooling 
of the MAEP test might be an example where school personnel and 
university faculty across the state hav^ been brought totjether to 




180 



ERIC 



13 

work on the objectives and test items. Another example is the 
mandate by the California legislature that all elementary school 
programs will conform to the program called, "Math Their Way." 
PREVENTION/INTERVENTION PROGRAMS 

Prevention programs form another site for collaboration 
between schools and universities. These may be research 
invest igat ions into problems particular to school -aged 
populations or they may be evaluation of or validation for 
particular programs. For example, schools and universities may 
collaborate to examine ani define teen-age depression or they may 
work together to implement ^ program focused on reducing drug use 
on school campuses. Such progra:?s may a] so be initiated by the 
school, the community, or business. One example of this category 
is State University of New York and East Harlem School 
District's college tuition program for at-risk students (Koff, 
1990). Another is Fordham University and New York City Board of 
Education's dropout prevention program which focuses on minority 
children in an urban school district (Baecher, et al, 1989). 
Towson State University, Maryland and Northwestern High School 
collaborate on a dropout prevention program. This partnership 
formed to open university resources to the high school and 
encourage teenagers to reconsider career opportunities (Lawlor, 
1989) . 

TRANSITION TO HIGHER EDUCATION 

Finally, the literature describing collaborations indicates 
that there are col 1 aborat ioxis to help students and teachers with 

181 



14 

transition to higher education. These programs focus usually on 
a particular school curriculum such as foreign language 
instruction. The collaborative effort involves bringing together 
teachers of foreign languages to focus on the scope and sequence 
of the curriculum in that area. 

A second kind of collaborative effort focuses on the 
students. A particular kind of student, black athletes, for 
example^ are brought to post -secondary education institutions 
while they are still in high school and given realistic 
experience with the demand so college life in order to insure a 
smoother transition from high school to post-secondary education. 

Examples of these kinds of programs include University of 
Missouri and Kansas City School D i s tr i c t --pr eco 1 1 eg i a te 
assistance for high school athletes (Mares, et al, 1986), Murray 
State University, Kentucky and surrounding rural school 
districts — increase college attendance and enrollment in rural 
areas (Hazier, 1989), California Academic Partner ship Program 
(CAPPP — improved learning, academic preparation, and access to 
postsecondar y degree programs (Gomez, et al , 1990). 
EXAMPLES OF COLLABORATION 

In preparing this report we examined examples of more than 
100 collaborative efforts. We sorted these into the five 
categories reported outlined in Figure 1. Table 1 reports the 
per cent of collaborations we investigated in each category. 

As Table 1 indicates, the largest number of collaborative 
efforts are involved in teacher/ad in inistrri tor/counselor 



182 



15 



education. This is hardly surprising since preservice education 
of teachers and the advanced training of administrators is often 
a central task of Colleges of Education. If students are to be 
given practical experience in these ventures^ sites for such 
exper iences must be negotiated with schools . 

The second most frequent category of collaboration found in 
the documents we examined is the curricular or instructional 
change category. It is important to note that there are probably 
even more collaborative efforts in the category of curricular or 
instructional change. However, these may often be seen as 
research projects rather than collaborations. This is especially 
true since we examined the literature including only those 
programs or projects that labeled themselves as collaborations, 
partnerships, or cooperations between schools and universities. 



Number in Each Category of Collaboration 



Number 



Col labo ration Category 



12 



General Col la bo rations 



52 



Teacher /Admin is tr a tor /Counselor Educa t ion 



26 



Curr icular or Instructional Change 



15 



Prevent ion/ In ter vent ion Programs 



7 



Transition to Higher Education 



Table 1 



1S3 



16 

Although we have classified the collaborative forms into 
five basic categories, it should be noted that many of our 
examples overlap or fall into more than one category. In 
categorizing them we attempted to assign them to the category 
that most clearly accounted for their central purpose . Any 
curricular change, prevention program or transition program may 
involve staff development. Staff development may be supportive 
of a particular instructional or curricular approach or may focus 
on strategies for dealing with problems particular to school-aged 
populations. In all cases, we identified the central or clearest 
purpose of the collaboration. Those which involved multiple 
institutions and seemed to be directed toward multiple purposes 
we categorized as general collaborations since they exhibited at 
least one of the characteristics of general collaborations 
outlined earlier. A table presenting all of the collaborations 
we examined is presented in Appendix A. 
FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT 

A system for categorizing collaborations is helpful for 
examining which kinds of collaborative efforts might be most 
productive for particular institutions to engage in. However as 
we examined the literature, we determined that a more helpful 
tool for examining collaborations would be a framework for 
analyzing collaborative efforts. Our framework focuses 
particularly on the underlying cycle of a collaboration and the 
components which contribute to the initial formulation of a 
col 1 abo r a t ion . 

'184 



17 

Cycle o£ Collaboration 

In examining the ways in which evaluation of a 
collaborative effor is a shared enterprise, Olson, Carter and 
Pinnegar (1989) propose that there is a cycle underlying 
collaborations (See Fig. 2). The cycle includes separation, 
compromise^ and consensus. Collaborative efforts are usually 
seen as beginning at separation but movement on the cycle can be 
in any direction. Thus a collaborative effort may move quickly 
from separation to consensus or from separation to compromise to 
consensus. According to Oison^ et a', movement from consensus 
back to separation is abrupt, while movement from consensus to 
compromise is usually marked by the emergence of scorekeeping 
where participants suddenly begin noticing how much they and the 
other participants either individually or at an institutional 
level are contributir i to the effort. Olson, Carter, Pinnegar 
(1989) propose a model for analyzing collaborative efforts. 
Components o £ Collaborations 

When a collaborative effort is initiated, it is 
conceptualized as beginning at Separation. The institutions (or 
groups) involved, the relationships among them, the selection of 
participants, and the issues all have initial and on going impact 
on the collaborative effort (See Fig. 3), 

I ns t i tu t ions 

Several aspects of institutions engaged in a ccjI 1 abo r a t i ve 
effort can limit and facilitate collaboration. Those which seem 



ERIC 



165 



THE COLLABORATWE CYCLE 




INSTITUTIOh . 

Organizational Structure 

Overlap 

Power/Support 



RELATIONSHIPS 
History 

Current Dynamics 
Domination 



HEMBERS 

Selection 
Participation 



ISSUES 

Directional ity 

Benefits 

Needs 

History of Issue 



COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIONS 
Fig. 3 



187 



18 

most critical include the organizational structure of each 
institution, the overlap in structure of participants in a 
collaboration, and the po we r / s u ppo r t delegated to the 
collaboration by each institution. 

Organizational Structure the important aspect of the 
institutional structure for a collaboration is the internal 
connectedness or cohesiveness of the institutions involved. 
If one part of an organization makes a commitment to the 
collaborative effort, is there regular communication with 
other parts of the organization? Do the decision-making 
processes within an organization include all parts of r.he 
organization? How much impact does a change in one part of 
an organization have on the organization as a whole? For 
example, if a foundation of a corporation commits funds to a 
collaborative effort a reversal in the financial well-being 
of a corporation may have an immediate impact on the funding 
of the collaboration. 

Overlap refers to the relationship between the 
organizational structure of an organization and the areas of 
responsibility (mandated, imp licit, accepted , professional, 
moral) of the collaborators. How much and in what ways do 
the organizational structure and responsibilities to the 
collaboration co incide? 

Power / suppor t Collaborators have varying amounts of control 

18S 



19 

over the physical and financial resources of the 
organizations they represent. For example, a collaborator 
may commit their organization to an action without the 
authority or without being able to guarantee that the 
action will occur. 

At times, a collaborative effort may involve two or mere 
parts of the same organization. The organizational structure 
(particularly the internal connectedness of the institutions or 
businesses involved) the overlap in both relationships to the 
collaboration and responsibilities within the institution would 
contribute to the collaborative orocess. When there is strong 
cohesion within an organization, when responsibilities to the 
collaborative effort strongly coincide with the typical 
responsibilities a person holds in the organization they 
represent, then power /support may be more readily available as 
well. For example when universities, schools, and businesses" 
form collaborative efforts, the university participants may 
represent the university administration, college of education 
administration, faculty members from various departments across 
the entire university and faculty members and staff from the 
teacher education or special education departments. If faculty 
members from outside the college of education are assigned 
responsibilities for shaping and implementing field experiences 
in coursework over which they have no control, then t.hey may 
simply because of the dynamics of the institution be unable to 



20 



fulfill commitments to the collaboration. 
Relationships 

This component concerns the relationships among 
participants, individually and collectively, in the collaborative 
effort. Three aspects which appear to be critical are the 
history of relationships among the collaborators, the current 
dynamics in these relationships, and the ability of one 
institutions to dominate the others. 

History refers to the past relationships among the 
participants in the collaboration both the organizations and 
the indi vidu^il s . For example, if a university and a school 
have been involved in many failed experiences involving 
joint ventures in the past that past history may restrict 
the col labor at ion in signi f icant ways . In addition, i f two 
people assigned to the task force have personally worked on 
community projects and been able to work cooperatively and 
achieve the goals they set, it may enhance the collaborative 
effort in spite a poor record of institutional 
CO 1 labor at ions . 

Current Dynamics refers to the current interactions among 
the organizations. What kinds of communications, feelings, 
and collaborative structures currently exist among the 
ins ti tut ions? These include the publ ic relationships and 



190 



21 

shared enterprises as well as the private. For example, a 
new university president committed to building strong 
relationships with local public schools may have begun to 
communicate with the school s and been involved in one or two 
positive minor events. These new initiatives could moderate 
(or exacerbate) feelings concerning the past history of 
negotiations and collaborations between the two 
institutions . 

Domination refers to the influences both outside and inside 
the collaboration that one institution or person has over 
others* How much can one organization or person impose on 
others to accomplish goals in a specific ways? This 
influence may be structural, financial, or social. The 
source of the influence may range from a charismatic leader 
to actual hierarchical control. For example, one member of 
a col labor at ive effort might be a person who is director of 
a group of foundation leaders. This person's ability to 
influence funding from several major sources may give them 
disproportionate power in decisions made within the 
collaborative ecfort. 



ERIC 



Selection of Participants 

Individual members of a collaborative team also have a 
critical impact on the outcomes of a collaboration. In addition 
to the personalities of the team members, there are two aspects 

181 



associated with the initial construction of a collaborative 
These include three dimensions of the selection process and 
dimensions of participation. 



team . 
three 



Selection Process includes three interactive dimensions: 

volunteer vs appointed membership, the use or non~use of 
procedures for inclusion and where present whether those 
procedures are formal vs informal. As Table 2 indicates 
this interaction produces eight possible configurations of 
the selection process. 

Se lection Processes 

1. appointment to collaborative team with formal procedures 

2. appointment to team with informal procedures 

3. appointment to team without formal procedures 

4. appointment to team without informal procedures 

5. volunteer for the team with formal procedures 

6. volunteer for the team with nformal procedures 

7. volunteer for the team without formal procedures 

8. volunteer for the team without informal procedures 

Table 2 

Often participants in a collaboration emerge as part of a 
team through a variety of selection processes. Although formal 

192 



23 

procedures may be in place, many participants may end up on the 
team through the use of informal structures. Such additions to a 
collaboration may cause no difficulty at all. But on some 
occasions, when most of the participants are selected for 
participation according to configuration 5 (volunteer for the 
team with formal procedures) and a superintendent or other 
powerful leader suddenly appoints someone to the task force 
according to configuration 3 (appointment without formal 
procedures), this may cause initial and on going difficulty both 
within the collaborative group and in the current dynamics of the 
relationships of the institutions involved. 

Participation of individual team members also varies along 
three interactive dimensions: Whether or not participation 
was required by the organization, wil 1 ingness of the team 
member to participate, and the personal and organizational 
power of the team member either within their own 
organization or within the context of the collaboration. As 
Table 3 indicates this also produces eight configurations 6f 
part tc ipa t ion . 



193 



24 



Participation Style of Collaborative Team Members 

1. required, willing, with power 

2. required, willing, no power 

3 . required, unwill ing, with power 

4. required, unwilling, no power 

5. not required, willing, with power 

6 . no t requ ired, w 11 1 ing, no power 

7. not required, unwilling, with power 

8. not required, unwilling, no power 

Table 3 

Of course the most successful collaborative efforts are 
those in which the participants are willing to participate' 
regardless of whether are not they are required to and some of 
them have either organizational (control over resources necessary 
to successfully accomplish the goals of the effort) or personal 
(the ability to enlist the commitment of participants) power or 
both. The least successful efforts are those in which 

participants with power are unwilling but required to 
participate. People who are not required to participate, are 
unwilling, and have no power, may be a constant drain on the 
energy of the effort. 

194 



25 



Issues of Collaboration 

This component represents aspects focusing on the issues of 
the collaboration that are to be resolved, investigated or 
discussed. The aspects include directionality of initiation of 
the effort, benefits that will result, needs that will be met, 
and the history of the issue(s) for collaboration. 

Directi onality of initiation focuses on who initiated the 
collaborative effort. Was the initiation unidirectional, 
bidirectional or imposed by one of the collaborative 
institutions or by a third party who is never actually 
involved in the effort? Regardless of the ultimate 
benefits to all parties involved, the direction of 
initiation often has an impact on the quality of the goals, 
the negotiations and actions which occur during the 
collaborative effort, and in some cases decisions about when 
to end the col labor at ion . 

Benefits focuses on who is perceived as getting the most 
either initially or ultimately from the resolution of the 
issues . 

Need concerns the importance to the institutions for 
successful collaboration. As we reviewed the literature we 
found certain kinds of issues were on going and repeated 

ERIC 



ERIC 



26 

issues for collaboration between public schools and 
universities and business or the community, these issues 
seem to represent real needs which repeatedly concern the 
institutions and therefore would seem to be more productive 
sites for collaborative efforts. Important elements include 
which party is perceived as most needy, for whom is 
resolution most necessary for growth or survival, and do all 
parties have at least some intrinsic or extrinsic need for 
the collaboration to be successful? 

"^^^"'^y °f issues among organizations is as important as the 
history of their collaborative efforts. Regardless of the 
institutions involved this time, the history of the issue 
can have a polarizing or facilitating impact on the 
collaborative effort. For example, there are some issues 
such as gifted education which has a long history and has 
often been the focus of collaborative efforts among schools, 
universities, and business. Peoples personal feelings about 
the true need for gifted education may hinder the successful 
completion of a collaboration designed to reach more 
talented and gifted children with appropriate educational 
ser V ices . 

The cycle of collaboration is represented as a process of 
reciprocal interactions in which initial states are not 
necessarily end states. Thus, though initial components may feed 



27 

into the cycle of collaboration and have a disruptive or 
ameliorative impact on the success or failure of the 
collaborative efforts these initial components do not remain 
static. They are constantly shaped and changed through 
negotiation and action during the cycle of collaboration. 
Changes in the context or frame of reference result in changes in 
meanings as meaning inheres in how events are perceived and from 
what per spec t ive . 



erJc 



197 



APPENDIX A 
SELECTED SCHOOL-UNIVERSnT COLLABORATIONS 



CATEGORY 
Curriculum/Instruction 

Curriculum/Instruction 

Curriculum/Instruction 

Transition to Higher Education 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Transitions to Higher Education 
Prevention/Intervention 



Teacher Education 



Curriculum/Instruction 



General collaboration 



FOCUS 

Utilize computers in 
teaching history courses 
at secondary level 

Improve teaching of 
elementary social studies 



Improve basic skills 

instruction at the 
secondary level 



PARTICIPANTS 

University of California 

and California Public 
Schools 

University of Arizona 
pnd Arizona Public 
Schools 

Southwest Texas Schools 
Southwest Texas 
University 



Preparation of ninth-grade Morgan State University 
at-risk students for college Maryland, Lake Clifton/ 

Eastern High School, 
Educational Opportunity 
Program 



Implement literature-based 
elementary language arts 
program 



University of Texas & 
San Antonia Schools 



Articulation of K-12 music Ohio State University 
program Ohio Public Schools 



Develop district- wide 
tutoring program for 
at-risk students 

Improve field experience 
program and teacher 
preparation 

Improve social studies 
teaching 



Pennsylvania rural 
university & urban 
school district 

Mills College, California 
& local public school 



University of Arizona & 
Phoenix schools 



Develop school improvement Greenwood Texas 
plan school district & 

Texas Tech University 



General collaboration 



Project SCOPE- school 
improvement plan 



Brooklyn College, NY. & 
Public School 152 



ERLC 



198 



Teacher Education 

Transitions to Higher Education 



Tutoring program to 
improve the academic 
performance and 
college readiness of 
language minority 
students. Program pairs 
undergraduates with 
high school students. 



University of 
Massachusetts & a 
public school district 



General collaboration 



Exploration and application University of 
of effective schools research Massachusetts & 

Springfield (MA) 
Public Schools 



Teacher Education 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Established commission to 
produce a set of standards 
for teacher education 



District- wide curriculum 
innovation(Sheffield 
Curriculum Initiative) 



Indiana University of 
Pennsylvania & 
various urban & rural 
public schools 

university & public 
schools 



General collaboration 



Consortium formed to University of Toronto & 

improve the quality of 4 Ontario school boards 

education in Canadian schools 



Curriculum/Instruction 



KEY Program designed to 
expand course offerings 
to high school students 
through distance delivery 
systems 



Rochester Institute of 
Technology & Livingston 
-Steuben-Wyoming 
Board of Cooperative 
Educational Services 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Transitions to Higher Education 



Prevention/Intervention 



Teacher/Administrator Education 



Computer training for 
junior high girls or 
minorities and staff 
training workshops 

Partnership formed to 
open university resources 
to high school students 

Siaying-in-School- 
Partnership -Program 
drop-out prevention 
for at-risk students 

Establish model leadership 
academy for advanced 
preparation of administrators 



Cleveland State 
University, Cleveland 

area schooisLogo 
Computer Systems, Inc. 

Towson State University 
& Northwestern High 
School (Baltimore, MA) 

New York City College, 
City University of New 
York, New York City 
Board of Education 

Kansas State University 
& Topeka Public Schools 



ERIC 



199 



Teacher/Administrator Educaiicn 



Improve skills of 
experienced teachers using 
university faculty as peer 
coaches 



Limestone Schools & 
Maine State University 



Teacher/ Administrator Education 



General Collaboration 



Teacher/ Administrator Education 



General Collaboration 



Teacher/ Administrator Education 



General Collaboration 



Improve quality of teacher University of Tennessee 
education program & local public schools 

Train and retrain teachers, San Diego State 

explore effective instruction. University & La Mesa- 
clinical supervision, and Spring Valley Schools 
curriculum strategies 



Train teachers in 

administrative/supervisory 

program 

Initiate forty educational 
improvement projects 



Placement of university 
faculty in classrooms to 
serve as resources, exchange 
teachers, and mentors 

School-University- 



Uiah Stale Unive;siiy & 
Davis School District 



Indiana University of 
Pennsylvania, Indiana 
Counties' Intermediate 
Unit #28 & counties' 
eleven school districts 

Texas Tech University & 
Lubbock Texas Schools 



University of California 



Partnership for Educational Berkeley & 16 public 



Renewal 



schools 



General Collaboration 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Bridge research and practice Stanford University & 
through ongoing exchanges public schools 
between university and 
school practitioners 



Establish consortium to 
design, plan, implement, 
and evaluate staff 
development 

Implement Madeline 
Hunter*s Clinical Teaching 
Model 



Idaho State University 
College of Education 
15 school districts 



Kansas Sta^e University 
local school district 



Teacher/ Administrator Education 



Improve teacher preparation Memphis State 

University & University 
of Tennesse & public 
schools 



200 

ERIC 



Teacher/Administrator Education 



Curriculum/Instruction 



Teacher/Administrator Education 



Transitions to Higher Education 



Teacher/Administrator Education 



Design leadership academy 
to foster innovative 
educational experiences 
for administrative preparation 



Kansas State University 
Topeka Public Schools 



Design and implement a 
middle school science 
curriculum improvement 
project 



New Jersey Institute of 
Technology & Fairleigh 
Dickinson University 



Improve delivery of support West Virginia 

and instructional services University 

in implementing special 33 West Virginia county 

education mandates school districts 

Develop and conduct a pilot University of Missouri 

program to prepare high Kansas City Schools 
athletes for college 

Improve teacher preparation Dallas Independent 

program of bilingual School District & 

teachers East Texas State 

University 



ERLC 



201 



REFERENCES 



Ashbaker. B. .S. Bench, V. (1987). Davis Countu School Pis., .jt/ Utah State 
University: Development of leadership in school administration. 
Paper presented at the National Conference of the National Council 
of State.s on Inservice Education, San Diego, CA. 

Baecher, R. E. et a). (1989). Correlates of successful dropout prevention: 
Strategies for at-risk children in urban schools . Paper presented at 
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 
San Francisco, CA. 

Beisel, R. W. (1990). The Pennsylvania Academy for the Profession of 
Teaching Rural Fellowship Program: A science curriculum 
development partnership . Paper presented at the annual meeting 
of the National Rural and Small Schools Consortium, Tucson, AZ. 

Clark, R. J.S. Fischetti, J. (1987). Candidate selection in a fifth year 
teacher education recruitment model: A multi-state partnership 
approach. Joarndl of Tesctter E ^ucetion, 58 ( 2 ) , 26-30. 

Cooper, M. G. 5-, Morey, A. I. (1989). Developing thoughtful practitioners 
through school/university collaboration. Washington, D.C.: 
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 

Denton, J. J. & Armstrong, D. G. (1989). A content-focused evaluation model 
for developing and assessing an alternative teache. preparation 
program. In J. J. Denton &. D. G. Armstrong (Fds.). Shaping Policy in 
Teacher Education Through Program Evaluation. 113-126. College 
Station, TX.: Texas A & M University, Instructional Re search 
Laboratory. 

Fielding, Glen D. (1989). Improving curriculum and assessment through a 
school/university partnership. NAASF dulletin^'ULl'^Wi. 63-68, 



Fovf'ler, J. Martin, S. (1989;. School-college partnerships and their 
impact on wri ti ng programs. Wnting Proardm Admimsirdifon, 
12 (3). 43-56. 

Gomez, M., Bissell, J., Danziger, L., .S. Casselrnan, R. (1990). To advance 

f earning: A handbook on developing l(- ! 2 postsecondary partnerships. 
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. 



70-74. 



ERIC 




Harris, R. C. & Harris, M. F. (1990) Sumbiosis on trial in educational 
renewa l. Paper prfisented at the annual meeting of the Northern 
Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Tucson, AZ. 

Hazier, R.J. (19'=^9). Expanding the universitu enrollment in rural 

communities. Report from American Association of State Colleges 
and Universities, Washington, D.C.. 

Koff, R. H. 6. Ward, D. (1990). Philanthropy, the public schools, 

and the university; A model for at-risk youth. Phi Delia Kdppan, 
12 (3). 223-226. 

L9\Y!or, J. C. (1989). This school-college teami scores a win for 
ci ty ki ds. Amencdr/ School BodrhjournaJ, 176 ( 1 ), 36. 

Hares, K. R. et al. (1986). Providing precollegiate assistance for 

highschool athletes in a big city school district. NACADA Journal. 
6(1), 13-17. 

Olson, P. n., Carter, K .5. Pinnegar, S. (1989). Evaluation as a shared 
enterprise. In J. J. Denton D. G. Armstrong (Eds.). Shaping 
Policy in Teacher Education Through Program Evaluation. 61-72. 
College Station, TX.: Texas A & M University, Instructional 
Research Laboratory. 

Pine, G. & Keane, W. (1966). Tearing down the wall- Collaboration for 
educational excellence and equity. 5pectrum,Z_K^). 

Stahlhut, R. G. et al. (1990). T he realities of implementing a 

partnership program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of 
the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 
Chicago, IL. 



ERIC 



203 



PROMOTIONAL PLAN FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 
CONCEPT AMONG THE UNIVERSITY AND GENERAL SCHOOL COMMUNITY 



Western Michigan University 
College of Education 
George Mille;)?, Ph.D. 
Education and Professional Development Department 

Objective s 

An Awareness/Orientation Plan should be primarily 
informational rather than persuasive. It's content and 
its delivery style should be planned on the assumption 
that if partnership schools are a good idea, the idea will 
sell itself to reasonable people once they have adequate 
information about it. 

The obvious questions an awareness plan needs to address 
are: 

1. What do we want to tell others? (Content) 

2. Who should be invited to receive this 
information? (Audiences) ? 

3. How and by whom should it be developed and 
presented? 

(Implementation) 

4. How can the plan be evaluated and revised? 
(Evaluation) These questions are addressed, 
sequentially, in the pages which follow. 



ERIC 



204 



!• Content 

Information about Partnership Schools must respond 
to questions such as: 

1. What types of general changes need to occur in 
public schools during the next 10 years? These 
changes must enable schools to better meet the 
new obligations and responsibilities thrust upon 
them by a rapidly changing American society and 
its changing relationships with a charging world 
community. 

2. What types of general changes need to occur in 
educational research practices, in the 
preparation of professional school personnel and 
in communities which would permit and facilitate 
the changes needed in public schools? 

3. What forms might a W.M.U. /Public School 
Partnership take, what might a partnership 
school look like and how might it be different 
from schools as they are now? 

4. How would partnership schools better enable 
colleges of education and public schools to 
identify and implement needed changes in both 
public school and university programs? 



ERIC 



205 



5. What is the history of the Michigan Partnership, 
the Professional Development School concept and 
Western Michigan University ' s involvement in 
developing its own school partnerships? 

Implementation; Step One 

The Western Michigan College of Education needs, 
first, to create its own "package." An outline of a 
general presentation should be prepared from the many 
materials already available from the files of the Task 
Force. (The "Themes" in the Appendix are examples one 
might begin with. ) The presentation should be prepared 
by a member of the Task Force and reviewed by the Dean of 
the College and any others he/she chooses to review it. 
Transparencies should be prepared and a polished 3 0 minute 
presentation should be finished by October 1, 1991. The 
Task Force member who prepares the presentation should do 
the presentations. 

Preparing this presentation will require monetary or 
reassigned time compensation. 

Presentations should first be made within the 
university. The following schedule could be followed: 
October 15-2 0 Presentation to the College of Education 



3 

2QG 



November 1-10 Presentation to the President, members of 
the Board of Trustees (if approved by the 
President) , Provost and Council of Deans 

December 1-10 Presentation to the Department Chairs 

January 10-20 Presentation to the Faculty Senate 
Undergraauate Studies Council 

February Presentations to the AAUP and Faculty 

Senate 

When and if appropriate - Potential Partnership Schools. 
2 . Audiences 

Information about partnership schools; what they are, 
what they're designed to do and how they would do it; 
needs to be widely disseminated throughout Southerwestern 
Michigan. We need not be concerned about developing 
expectations which cannot be met because we lack resources 
if the focus of the awareness programs is informational. 
If the concept sells itself, others may join the effort 
to secure the resources needed to do the job. 

In addition to presentations made at Western, other 
presentations need to be provided for r-^t least the 
following local and state organizations at one or more of 
their regular meetings: 

1. Meetings of faculty and administrators at both 
four year and two year public higher-education 
institutions in Southwest Michigan. 



ERIC 



20' 



2. Meetings of faculty, parents and administrators 
of non-public K-12 schools and higher education 
institutions. 

3. Meetings of business organizations, labor unions 
and social welfare organizations. 

3 . Imp lament at ion 

We should first establish an office which would be 
responsible for developing and implementing an awareness 
plan for the above audiences as soon as the first 
partnership school commitment is agreed to. The 
establishment of this office should be part of that 
agreement. A representative or representatives from both 
Western's College of Education (one representative should 
be the author of the College's presentation) and the 
Public School System in which the partnership is 
established need to be assigned to this task. Perhaps co- 
directors, one from the university and one from the public 
school would be workable. This office should work closely 
with established information offices in the university and 
the public school system. 

Those who work in this office must be released from 
some of their other responsibilities by their respective 
employers. The office should report to whatever task 
force or committee is created to administer the 

5 



208 



partnership. 



This office or these two people accomplish the 
following tasks: 

a . Prepare an outline/draft of a general 
presentation. This presentation would use the 
program prepared by Western as a beginning would 
be modified to fit the particular partnership 
school situation. 

b. Secure feedback from both partners on the draft. 

c. Revise the draft, prepare a finished 
presentation. 

d. Invite representatives from the business 
community, labor organizations, parent-teacher 
associations and an organization such as the 
N.A.A.CoP. to review the proposed presentation, 
to suggest changes and, if they are willing, to 
assist with the presentations. 

e. Use the media services of both partners to 
create professional materials which would be 
used in making the presentations most 
effectively; charts, photographs, and, perhaps, 
video tapes. 

f . Identify and prioritize opportunities for doing 
the presentation to large groups, first in the 
Kalamazoo area and then in Southwestern 
Michigan. Begin making the presentations. If 
business is good, and demand grows, train other 
pairs or teams to make the presentation. Once 
started; at least one presentation should be 
made each week. 

g. Identify persons in key leadership roles both 
inside and outside of the educational community 
whose support would be helpful and arrange 
small, informal meetings between the leadership 
from both partners in the partnership and these 
individuals. 

h. Develop a mailing list which includes 
organizations and individuals who are or might 

6 



ERIC 



209 



be interested in changes in the public schools; 
including, of course, the media in the area. 

i. Publish a monthly newsletter and send it to 
organizations and individuals on the mailing 
list and to all others in the university and the 
public school system who would like to have it. 
Visits to partnership school sites and 
interviews with partnership personnel will be 
necessary to obtain current news for the 
newsletter. 

Specific time lines and audiences cannot be 
identified for presentations outside of Western until 
agreements are reached with partnership schools. 
Presentations outside of Western need to be joint 
presentations and the awareness plan must therefore, also 
be a joint creation. 

However, Western should make the establishment of an 
adequately-supported joint "Information Office" a 
condition for agreeing to enter into a partnership with 
a public school. Western should insist that this office 
be responsible for: 

1. Developing a formal presentation package and 
presenting it to audiences within each 
partnership and to interested audiences outside 
the partnership. 

2. Developing a mailing list of interested people, 
organization and media publishing a monthly 
newsletter and sending the newsletter to those 

7 



210 



on the list. 

3. Creating opportunities to explain the Public 
School Partnership through interviews and 
stories in the print media and interviews and 
presentations on television and radio. 

4. Arrange regular, informal meetings between the 
partnership leaders and community leaders. 

4 . Evaluation 

Partnership leaders must assume this responsibility. 
Feedback should be collected after each presentation 
through the use of a feedback form. The results should 
be summarized by the Information Office and sent to 
Partnership leaders. A similar feedback system should be 
developed for printed material distributed by the 
Information Office. Finally, the partnership may wish to 
employ an outside firm to sample awareness of the program 
in the university, the public school partners and the 
coinmunity at large after twelve or eighteen months. 



8 



ERIC 



211 



APPENDIX 



Possible "CONTENT" Themes 
Changes in public schools. 

1. All students need instruction which will help 
them become better thinkers and problem solvers. 

2. Poor children^ in particular^ need this kind of 
instruction as well as needing instruction which 
adequately provides them with an early mastery 
of the basic language arts and mathematics 
skills. 

3. All children need better training in working 
collaboratively with others; skills they will 
need both as workers and as citizens. 

4. Out of school concerns which interfere with 
learning such as poor emotional and/or physical 
health must be at least partially remedied 
through efforts which begin in the schools. 

Changes in Colleges of Education. 

1. Pre-service teachers need more teaching 
experiences in more carefully selected and more 
diverse public school classrooms. 

2. First year teachers need more help with 
individual problems from both the university and 
the school system which employs them. 

3. Research agendas in colleges of education should 
be more often tied to research problems 
identified by public school teachers and 
administrators . 

4. University faculty need closer and more frequent 
contact with public schools and their students, 
teachers and administrators . They should be 
able to and, on occasion, should teach public 
school students. 



9 



212 



APPENDIX (Continued) 



C. The Partner sihip School Concept. 

1. The partnership school or the professional 
development school is more adequ tely explained 
as a process than as a product or a place. 

2. The process is one in which public school 
personnel, university faculty and students in 
teacher preparation or graduate education 
programs work together in schools to improve 
student learning, the initial preparation of 
professional school personnel and the on-the 
job, professional development of practicing 
teachers and administrators. 

3. The process begins with the identification and 
resolution of problems in the schools; problems 
of learning, teaching, administering and 
community support. 

4. Collaborative efforts to resolve these problems 
will usually involve a joint, university-public 
school research effort of some kind. Any 
findings from this research effort will be 
disseminated to others in the field and used to 
improve both public school programs and 
teaching, and undergraduate and graduate 
programs for the preparation of public school 
professionals . 



10 



ERIC 



APPENDIX E 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL WORK PLAN FOR V/MU 



01 

o 

u 



o 

u 









n/budg 


cpted 
posals 


etings/ 
lutes 






w .— 




< a. 





c 








o 




C/3 








i:x} 




CO 


.S 


G 




v« 


«— « 






O 


u 




tiviti 

;ets 


o ^ 


Me 


Me 










" !^ 


o 


O 


3 


o 






•O OQ 


^ o 


-a 










Ui 






O 


O 






o 


o 




« O 


o 


t) 




H CO 






3 cu 



a 

o 

< 



T3 



CO 





c: 




o 








OS 








o 
















O 








>> 












u 




a> 
>• 


u 




o 


'5 












1 


o 








c 




iS 






o 




o 
















u 




o 




















e 











c: 
o 

U 



c 
B 



01 



< 



cu 

o 
u 











>^ 


>^ 




M 


NJ 


CO 


CO 


SO 




o 


O 








O 


O 


O 








CO 


CO 


CO 








> 


> 


> 








a 


Q 


a 



o 
O 



CO 



to 
a 
o 

•a 

3 



to 
a 

o 
to 

a 
O 



e 
o 

u 

C 

i 
< 



00 



> 



c 

CO 

o 

O o 



Is 

> 



C 



CO 

« o 
Cu 



o o 

3 - 
> 

a G 

> *- 



^ CO 

. im CO 

"O ^ 

CO ^ 

c« G 



S.2 



O 3 
O 3 3 



CO 



J4 

>^ 

SI 

O 



> 

Q 



G 

O 



o 

CO 

> 

O 

C3 O 

E ^ 

G 

Et 
o 

.5 E 
o 



CO 

-2 
o 



> 



c 

^ s 

3 C3 

^^■^ 
•l " > 

o 

*r o 

o 
o 

o 

o 



>^ 
CO 

o 



CO n 
00 w 

o 

? w 

ic 

o E 

^ & 

oQ 

o 

o 



> 



> 



CO 

*G 



^ CO 

*i C 

CO S 
CO — 

^ < 

O — 

w • — 

O- O 
G 

<D O 
>^ 



CO 

O 



> 



to 


00 




W3 


c 


G 




c 


c 


o 




o 


00 


to 




to 


1 


1 


c« 


1 


G 


G 


3 


c 


o 


O 


c 


o 



T3 

G 

G 

3 O 

a, 

CO 

•c: o 

G 



C<1 



ERLC 



i2 « w 
u o o 
•r o o 

CI. 

^ 03 



C 

o 
o 



c 



C5 

o o c 

« . « 



V5 

c 

C3 



O ' 
CO 

o ^ 

c/2 c«3 



o o 

-S ' c 

^ o 

cS o o 
C3 

^ Q ^ 
c 



3 

Q 



s 
o 



23 



C/3 



o 

CO 



c 

o 



3 

E 

E 
o 



c 



u .2 o 

so 3 

C o 





CO 






CP 


u 




> 


O 




Urn 




Cm 










o 


w 




3 




TJ 


no 


O 


CO 


u 




0. 










>^ 




:^ 




CO 














s 




c 






CO 


L. 


> 




03 


QU 





C 



CA 
0^ 



S 3 £ ^ 

« o E ^ 

CO o 



a; 
<^ 

•—I 
o 
u 



CO 

C 

C 



o 



c 
a. 

> u- 

O c3 

Q -a 
c: 

CO U 



S3 



o 



> 



o 



> 

C3 

Q 



On 

w C 

O o 

^ so 

CO o 



.2 

c - o 

ijO O > 

-ZT 3 ^- 



CO 

CO o 
CO § 



> c 
« .2 



O CO 



w i_ 



" o 

a CU 

CO 



^ c« H 

X 

CO «^ 

O u- CO 

O W Q 

O G 3 

CU s-i^ 



to 
a 

o 

1 

G 

O 

c 
o 

B 

C 



*> «^ 

O 3 

*- o 
O. CO 

CO 



«5 

-5 



On 



CO 



u 

B " 

o a 
o 

E 



> 



CO 



*^ i« O 

O ^ 

c if 

c E o 

o -o ^ 

CO w CO 

o 



"5 2 



3 

cc2 



c 

59 



E ^ 

o 2 E 

.!2 E 

c 2 3 



u < 



SI 



o 
o 



> 

C3 



6I> 

a 
'5 

c 
o 



GO 



s 

O 



3 



CO 

< 



-a 
c 



^ S3 



2 CO c: tu 
c ^ cj 

CQ 

EU 
ca ^ 

^ is 



X 

u 
c 

o 



CO 

w 

'co 
c 



S3 fc- r/^ 3 
OX) Cii: X) 



GO 



o -5 o 

5 -o o 

C CO r) 

C X) 



V3 3 

2 o E 

c= b o 

Cv r> 



> 

s 

3 



o o 



C3 »- 

o ^ 

^ o .2 
o 



c 
o 

C3 

E 



c 

>>"o ,2 
. ti c 

O ^ 3 

>■ CO 

c 



CO 



CO 



° o -a 

0^:0 

•z; o 

_0 ^ CO 

o 

CO 



E 

CO 



c 
o 



c 

T3 CO 

O CO 

E -2 



<* GO 

1 ^ 

c c 

O CO 



cx 



3 

CO 

7: CO ^ 

C5 CA ^ 
3 "O 

H ca 



CO 

c 

OP o 



CO 

>> o 



a 

o 



3 z:".^ <^ 



CO 



CO 
SJ 

c = 

CO c 

^- "O 

O CO 



CA 
CA 

Qi 
o 



■3 
o 
u 
CU 



c 
o 

CA 

u 

0^ 

CU 



CA 

c 

o 
E 



CA 



■a 

OP 

o 
u 
CU 



45 

CO 

CO 

CO ^ 



X) 

CO 



CO 

00 
G 



3 

O 



CO 

O 

o 



> 

CO 

o 



On 
On 



a. 

CO 

















a 


c 




^0 


CO 




cat 


< 


G 


3 




CO 














*5 






3 


ii 


Ne 


mm 




CO 


0 




U 


















G 


e wor 


rship 


ess a 






G 


c 


c 


CO 




n 


3 


-0 

Urn 


Pa 


£ 












0 







CO 



ERIC 

















o 


o 


CO 












e 


ule 


ish( 


ent 


E 






T3 


Co 




x> 




is 






CO 




to 


CO 
















.2 


Clin 


Teams 


ateg 








Jo S 




CO 











>^ 


>> 


>> 


>> 


N 


N 


vS 


N 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


O 


O 


O 


O 










O 




O 












CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 










*> 


> 


> 


> 


CO 




CO 


CO 


o 


o 


Q 


Q 




DO 


00 




c: 


C 


a 


c 


o 


'o 


'o 


'o 




1 


00 

1 


00 


1 

a 


a 


c 


a 


o 


o 


o 


o 






1 






a\ 


OS 


OS 




d 






CQ 




CO 


<0 




> 







O O 

"Z^ 

1^ s 

C ^ CO 

o C 

O CO C 
<D CO 

00-^ "co 
<-> ^ 

CO 



00 C3 

c o 

S ^ 

»-* CO 

O 2 

O CO 



o 
o 



CO 

2 

CO 



2 

> 
o 

2 



a 

CO 
3 



X5 
CO 



CO 



CO 

O 

'ob 
4^ 



2 

> 
o 



o 
o 

o 



T3 



O 
O 

CO 



d 

2 -d 

2 ^ 

O (4-, 

0 o 

1 S 

3 d 

o O 



d 
2 

2 



T3 
d 

CO 



2 
o 
o 



CO 
CO 



d 
o 

CO ^ 

N 3 

•s g 

CO o 
00 



CO 

CX O 
O O 

00 



4^ 
> 

T3 



d 

2 
> 

T3 



Ou CO ^ 

r! CO 

CO t> § 

W 3 CO 

d w CO 

CO a> 

2 ^ O 

CO CX 



O !r d 

oa ^ 

o 

CO 00 <U 

- S 2 

0> CX 

> 

d -o o 

H .2 



C o 

o 
c 



3 . 
CO O 

d 
o 



CX 



CO — 

,W O 

^ CO 



00 ^ ^ 

d a- o 

3 CO 3 

2 2 w w 

CO CO t:^ 

^ CO ^ CO 

r- o o o 

t- h« b« 







CO 












d 








C 






u 










3 






00 




ed 


CO 


3 


> 


CO 


•o 


o 




O 


w 
CX 


O 


u 


CX 






< 


£X 



C 



(A 
0^ 



— n 
o 
u 



Q 

I 

o 
O 



CO 



.2 § 



CO CO 

.5 o 

3 00 
bO^ 

x: o 

CO O 



Mi ^ 
CO O 



3 

<^ 

O 00 

o s: 

CO 

d ^ 

d V- 

3 CO 

o o 
o ^ 

Q 2 







M 




>v 


>v 










CO 


CO 




O 


o 


CA 












c 






o 








CO 


CO 


u 


> 


> 




CO 


CO 


Oh 


Q 


Q 



OS 



3 



d 

CO 



■So 

CO 



d 

o 



CO 



CO -o 

T'Zi CO 
o — ' 

^ o 

CO X) 

CO t: CO 
c £: o 

.3 W O 



d 
o 



d 
2 

3 

O 

Q 



On 



>> 
"3 



d 

CO 



CO 

O 
1> 



o d 
w .2 

'=3 eS 

CO 

■S3 



:^ CO 

= •1 

d 

*co 

CO 
CO 



CO 

CO 

o 

CX 



J3 
O 

CO 

CO 



00 

d 
o 

00 
I 

d 
O 



00 

d 



^.2 

«d ^ 
o u 

CO o 
to iS 

^ o 
o 

"cO — 
3 O 

•o o 

> o 

CO 

•S o 



cx^ 

2 '3 
o 



d 
o 



CO 



d 







M 


>> 


>> 


>v 


N 


N 


N 


CO 


CO 


CO 


O 


O 


O 




"o 


O 








CO 


CO 


CO 








> 


> 


> 


CO 


CO 


CO 


Q 


Q 


a 



00 

d 
o 

00 
I 

d 
O 



00 ^ 

a 

CO 



^ 'Tit 



CO 
t— • 

CO CO 



> 

;i 

.2 ^^ 
-r CO 

o — 

o 

o 



CO 



o 

CO 



'Cl, 



M 

>% 
N 

CO 

O 



> 

CO 

Q 
d 

3 



OS 



CX 

< 



3 



d 

> 

o 

1 CX ^ 



o 

> «^ o 

) O J3 

2 
d 

CJ CX CO 

" 2.^ 

i^*" > 
T3 w 
d d o 

U CO CO 

•T3 



o 

C\2 



•2 I 



ERIC 



a 



s 

en 
u 

o 



X3 



4^ 
> 



t3 



£ 
o 



c 

op 

CO 

73 



3 

CJ 

O 

OJO 

c 



3 







00 






Q 










w 

O 


w 
















c 




O 














a. o 




c 


c a. 




o 


.2 1^ 


np 






c 


i s 


c« O 


u 




> w 









o 

o 

"a 

S 
o 



CQ 
< 



o 



c 



T3 



E 
o 
U 



CO 



> 
Q 



On 



a. 



00 

Q 

Ou 



^ CO 



O4 W. 



S o 

CU 



?^ 

N 

CO 

o 



> 



ON 



C3 



c o 



g S UJ U 



3 



CO 



E 

E 
3 



c 
u 

E 

e 



CO 



O 
O 

o 



T3 



c 
o 

CQ 

CO 

to — 



CC3 ^ 
C 

o S 
2 

o .b 
*z: > 

CQ 

SI 
Oil's 

d CO 

'o 

00 2 

C 

c 

CQ 

I 

5 cjo 

w ^ 

Q CO 



Cu 

E 



fi, 2 













N 




CO 




-2 










£ 




0 






CO 


U 


> 


a> 


CQ 


Cu 


Q 




00 




.s 








*o 




00 




1 

a 




0 
1 








On 






a> 




E 


a* 








00 



c 
o 





Ian 


0 


or 




0 








CQ 












c 


00 


"o 




0 






CO 




c 




(U 


CQ 


0 










>s 


w 










cQ 






> 


> 


*co 






c 


u 






0 


> 


< 


CO 


the 


un 




















CQ 




CQ 


ec 


est 












0 








u 








Cu 









N 

CO 

O 



> 

CQ 

Q 



3 



C 
CQ 



CO 



O 
O 

_ 4^ N 

^ w «^ 
CQ ^ p 

w CQ 

O CO 

CQ > 

> > 
.5 ^ 



CQ 



CQ c/5 

CO 



N 

GO 

o 
o 



> 

CQ 

Q 



00 
s 

< 



OS 



3 



Cm 




c 




0 




C3 




3 




CQ 




> 










CQ 




4^ 


a 




CQ 




CO 


"o 


CO 


0 




jr 




0 




CO 


c: 




CQ 




4^ 


1 


4^ 






E 




0 




0 





N 

CO 

O 



> 
CQ 

D 



OS 
00 

I 

ON 

3 



G 

cQ 

O 

en 
OS 

ON 
ON 



vH 



APPENDIX F 
PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS CRITERIA 



PARTNERSHIP SCHOOLS CRITERIA * 

L Institutional Commttments to: 

A. Long-term, sustained, and systematic process of change. 

B. Implementing a collaborative research and development agenda. 

C. Using new, research-based ideas to Improve instruction and leamlng. 

D. Formal collaboration with private and public agencies and individuals (e.g., business, social, and 
community sen/ices, Juvenile court officers). Their involvement in program planning and 
Implementation of fc>etter programs for children and youth, 

E. Participation of staff in school decision-mai<ing. 

F. Support the partnership with time, space and materials. 

G. Multicultural perspectives in instruction and curiculum. 

H. Partlcipatbn in demonstratbn and dissemination activities, 
i. Active parent involvment. 

J. Participation In Partnership activities (e.g.. Leadership Academy), 

K. A memorandum of agreement to fomnally bind the university and tlie school in a shared, long-term 
partnership. 

II. Location and Capacity 

A. Cultural and socio-economic diversity within the school and community, 

B. Assignment by a university of at ieast the equivalent of two full-time faculty to work in tlie scliool. 

C. Potential for clinical experiences for at least five teacher interns. 

D. Financial support needed to participate, and/or commitment to help secure tlie financial resources 
from community, business, foundation or other sources. 

E. Potential for a cluster of 3-4 Partnership Schools to span elementary, middle, and secondary sclioois. 
ill. Shared Understandings 

A. Community, school and university collaboration Is central to educational Improvement. 

B. Learning for understanding and higher order sl<ill development (e.g., application of knowledge to 
analyze and solve problems, evaluate or synthesize) for all children Is the goaL 

C. The Partnership will require flexibility and risk-taking behavior. 

D. A shared research agenda will be developed and implemented. ^ 

* By definition, a Partnership School must have a school base; the school site having a defined faculty, 
facility, and students. 



224 



APPENDIX G 



OAKLAND UNIVERSITY/PONTIAC SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP, 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 
INITIAL PLANNING DOCUMENT 



OAKLAND UNIVERSITY 
PONTIAC SCHOOLS 
PARTNERSHIP 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 
INITIAL PLANNING DOCUMENT 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



CHARACTERISTICS 



1. Center for inquiry into teacher education, teaching, learning, and school 
organization^ including various kinds of research (e.g., collaborative, basic, 
applied) and development for the purpose of improving education for 
children. 

2. Place where clinical education of high quality takes place of teachers, 
administrators, and other school personnel. 

3. Site where there is discussion about and demonstration of "best education 
practice" known at any given time. 

4. Provision of integrated preservice and in-service education of school and 
university faculty, i.e., teachers, administrators, parents, and other personnel, 
in the context of a learning community, 

5. A memorandum of agreement formally binds the university and the school 
in this shared, long-term, sustained involvement. 

6. The school is comprised of a student population with an emphasis on 
youngsters in at risk situations. 

7. A place where there is a linkage of teacher development, curriculum 
development, and organizational development to enhance learning for 
children. 

8. The school formally makes linkages with other public agencies and practicing 
professionals (e.g., social workers, juvenile court officers) 

9. The extraordinary work of PDS faculty from the schools and the university 
is recognized. This implies appropriate adjustments in work load and/or 
compensation, since the occupational complexities and responsibilities clearly 
grow in this new institutional arrangement. 

10. There is an overriding commitment of learners in the school to student 
learning with an emphasis on learning for understanding, higher order 
thinking, and the development and use of appropriate assessments for this 
kind of student learning. 

11. A place where risks are taken, where the participants are willing to try new 
things, and are open to change and continuous learning. 



o 227 
ERIC 



2nd DRAFT 



2nd DRAFT 



2nd DRAFT 



OAKLAND UNIVERSITY AND PONTL\C SCHOOLS 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS 
CRITERIA FOR PARTNERS 

1. Location 

1.1 Proximity 

1.2 Cultural diversity 

1.3 Socio economic mix 

2. Institutional commitments to 

2.1 Long term, sustained, and development process of change 

2.2 Trying out new approaches to improve instruction £md learning 

2.3 Collaboration between school and university and with external agencies 

2.4 Support partnership with time, space, and materials 

2.5 Release time for staff to participate in development (staff, curriculum, program and 
Ri&D) 

2.6 Educational improvement 

2.7 Excellence with equity 

2.8 Multicultural curriculum and instruction 

2.9 Integration of preservice and inservice education 

2.10 Active parental involvement 

3. Institutional compatibility 

3.1 Congenial with school/university interests^ talents, capacities 

3.2 Congenial with university and Pontiac Schools mission^philosophy, goals, and 
resources 

3.3 Reciprocal enthusiasm for and commitment to partnership between school and 
university 

4. Persomiel 

4.1 Demonstrated leadership for change 

4.2 Commitment to quality, coUegiality, and equity 

43 Demonstrated potential for clinical, mentoring, and leadership roles 

4.4 Receptive to long term university presence (school) 
AS Receptive to working on-site in schools (university) 

5. Shared understandings that 

5.1 There are no simple answers to complex problems - no quick fixes 

5.2 Everyone in the partnership is committed to long term learning 

5.3 There is a commitment to building a community of support and inquiry to improve 
education for all children 

5.4 Roles and responsibilities may change, overlap, conjoin^ etc. 

5.5 Partnership wi'l require flexibility and risk taking behavior 



ERIC 



22S 



APPUCATION 



for 

OAKLAND UmVERSnr-PONTIAC 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 



Wc appreciate and applaud your interest in and commitment to 
becoming a Professional Devebpment School. As part of the application 
to become a Professional Development School wc invite you to share 
with us information and perspectives regarding five key areas in your 
school: staff involvement in pluming^ current school improvement plans, 
parental involvement in the schools, receptivity to school changCj and 
staff interest and commitment to implement the concept of a 
Professional Development School. 

Wc ask that this application be signed by the Principal, Chair of the 
Coordinating Council and the PTA President of the school indicating 
their approval and support of the application* 

Application to become a Professional Development School should be 
submitted by December 10. 1990 to: 

Minnie Phillips 
Executive Director, K-12 Instruction/Management 
Administration Building 



BEST COPY AVAILABl 



229 



o 
c 

o 

0/3 



C/3 

c 



■a 
c 



C3 

o 
c 

3 



o 
o 

O 

:5 g 
E 

> 
o 



j= a. 



en 



o ^ 



O 
CV2 



ERLC 



o o 
c 

i 

3 .2 



Ji -a 



CO 



T3 

> 
C 

S3 
a 
u 

o 



2 
O 

I 

(X 



c 

•c: CO 

£2 o 
o 7) 
> 

CTJ o 
2 *S 



.4> 



IE 
O «0 

CO r- 



II 



J 2 




8 

X 

o 

CO 



< 
Q. 

O 
0. 



o 
z 

o 

O 



Q 
CC 
O 
O 

o 

$ 

o 



UJ 
Q 



LU 

9 

UJ 
CC 
CL 

< 



O C 

o 
c 

C 

a, g 

<1> 

DO B 
C D. 

5 S 

c > 
O "1> 

Q 



03 



> 



0) "2 
*^ ^ o 

i-» O QJ 



ERLC 



CM 



APPENDIX H 

CHRONOLOGY OF 
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL ACTIVmES AT WMU 



23G 



CHRONOLOGY OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL 

ACTIVITIES AT WMU 



^Q^l: Planning / Orie ntation Yeai- 

January 7: Floyd McKinney, Interim Dean, College of Education prepares 
progress report for President Haenicke and WMU administration 

January 17: Joint meeting conducted with College of Education 
Administrative Council and Task Force 

February 7: Meeting of Task Force on School Collaboration and Kalamazoo 
Education Association (KEA) executive council to update KEA 
about PDS planning efforts at WMU 

February: Task Force on School Collaboration meetings are conducted 

March 13: Representatives from Battle Creek Public Schools, Kalamazoo 
Public Schools, Comstock Public Schools and WMU College of 
Education meet regarding school collaboration and school 
improvement 



March 14: 



March 24/25: 



Joint meeting with Task Force on School Collaboration and 
College of Education Administrative Council regarding PDS 

Retreat sponsored by Task Force on School Collaboration for 
Task Force members, College of Education administrative council 
members, and selected faculty members at the Fetzer Institute 



April: Meetings of Task Force on School Collaboration continues; 

Notification of Proposals to develop Collaboration Papers sent to 
WMU College of Education faculty 

April/May: Visits by interested WMU faculty to Holt High School and Averill 
Elementary School 

April 8: First Draft of Position Statement on School Collaboration 

prepared 

April 17: Second meeting with Kalamazoo Public School representatives 
and College of Education representatives is conducted 

April 19: Seminar conducted by Dr. Judith Lanier, Executive Director of 
MPNE to WMU College of Education administrators and faculty 



ERIC 



237 



May: 



Position Statement on Professional Development Schools 
approved by WMU College of Education Administrative council 



May/June: Papers on School Collaboration commissioned 

July 18: Meeting with Provost Nancy Barrett to update her on PDS 

July: "Project Partnership" Proposal developed by Woloszyk and 

Supported by Kalamazoo Public Schools and Kalamazoo 
Education Association submitted under the Innovation in 
Education program to the U.S. Department of Education 

July/ August: Papers on School Collaboration prepared by the Following WMU 
faculty: 

Dr. Dona Icabone, "Criteria for Involvement in Collaborative 
Partnerships" 

Drs. Ron Crowell and Patrick Jenlink, "Center for University- 
School Collaboration" 



Dr. Rosalie Torres, "Evaluation Plan for University /Lx)cal District 
Partnership School" 

Drs. Stefinee Pinnegar and Mary Jo Smith, "University-School 
Collaborations: A Literature Based Framework for 
Categorization and Analysis" 

Dr. George Miller, "Proposed Plan for Informing Others About 
Western Michigan University-Public School Partnerships" 

Drs. Debra Berkey and Jeanne Jacobson, "Professional 
Development Plan" 

September: Drs. Davis and Woloszyk return from MSU Fellowships and are 
reassigned to development of Professional Development Schools 
in Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties; activities are identified 
through a Management Work Plan 

September 13: Last meeting of the Task Force on School Collaboration. 

commissioned papers received and accepted by the Task Force 

October: Plan of Work for Professional Development Schools approved for 
Woloszyk and Davis for 1991-92 school year 



ERLC 



238 



October: "Brown Bag" conversations conducted for WMU faculty related to 
school and university collaboration 

November: Fall Institute conducted by Michigan Partnership for a Nc sv 
Education 

December: On campus visits to WMU by Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education to build shared understandings and MSU faculty 
members 

1992: Awareness, Orie ntation. Exploration, and Implementation Year 

January/ Community-wide assessment conducted for Calhoun County 
February: (Battle Creek and Battle Creek Lakeview Public Schools) 

January: Meeting with MPNE and WMU faculty at WMU 

February 18: Awareness session for public school personnel in Battle Creek and 
Battle Creek Lakeview conducted by MPNE with MSU and 
WMU institutional representation. 

March 3: District Leadership Academy Orientation 

March 18-20: District Leadership Academy Residential training session 

April-May: Continued: Planning with Battle Creek and Battle Creek 
Lakeview Schools 

May 16: Orientation: School Leadership Academy at Michigan State 

University 

June 22 - State Residential Leadership Academy - Mackinac Island 
July 3: 

July/ August: Continued, Planning for Fall implementation 



ERIC 



239 



APPENDIX I 

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL GLOSSARY OF TERMS 



240 



ERIC 



PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL GLOSSARY OF TERMS 

Administrative Council - the administrative team within the College of 
Education at Western Michigan University composed of Dean, Associate Dean, 
Chairs of Departments, and Center Directors. 

Affiliated schools or districts, co mmunity organizations nr agencies, and private 
businesses or industries - institutions, agencies, and organizations that enter into 
agreements with a college or university engaged in teacher preparation to provide 
professional experiences for prospective teachers. 

Affiliated supervisors - faculty and staff members of affiliated schools, school 
districts, community organizations, or agencies and private businesses or industries 
to whom a student of teaching, counseling, and administration is assigned for the 
purpose of engaging in professional experiences. When such supervisors are staff 
members of affiliated schools, they are often called cooperating or supervising 
teachers. 

Awareness/Exploration - a stage in the development of a professional 
development school (PDS) in which a university and a school district learn about 
the PDS concept, develop a vision for education in the local community, conduct 
a community appraisal, make the decision to develop a PDS, and engage in a 
process to select a school. 

Better-used time - a restructuring strategy whereby faculty meetings deal 
exclusively with planning, not announcements or administrative details. 

Borrowed timg - a restructuring strategy whereby each school day is lengthened 
by a few minutes so that students can eventually be released for a partial day of 
teacher planning. Or in team teaching, team members alternate between teaching 
and planning. 



ERIC 



241 



Building Coordinator - an individual assigned by the university to coordinate 
professional development school activities between the local school site(s) and the 
university. 

Business a nd Community Alliance - program unit or "component" of the 
Michigan Partnership for a New Education, which develops locally-based 
coalitions which mobilize employers, neighborhoods, community agencies, and 
citizens to share responsibilities with schools for higher-level learning for children. 

Changing Minds - a quarterly bulletin of the Michigan Educational Extension 
Service. 

Cohort - a group of people who work together cooperatively to contribute to 
program coherence. Cohorts can be formed around students, school and 
university faculty by discipline, faculty from a set of K-12 school affiliated with a 
university faculty group, university faculty representing pedagogical studies. 

Collaborative Leadership Center - program unit or "component" of the Michigan 
Partnership for a New Education, which develops leaders who share the 
understanding, energy, and commitment needed to effect continuous educational 
renewal in local innovation sites and across the state. 

Collaborative(s^ - a term used for study and improvement teams organized at a 
local professional development site often formed around instructional issues i.e. 
teacher education, cooperative learning, technology, outcomes, etc. 

Common time - A restructuring strategy whereby the entire day is rescheduled 
so several teachers will have the same free period. 



ERIC 



242 



Communities of Learning - democratic schools in which young citizens learn 
critical thinking and civic consciousness; where knowledge operates in the service 
of values; where students under adult guidance, begin to assume responsibility for 
their thought and action. 

Cooperating Teacher - an individual assigned by a local school district to 
supervise university intenis/student teachers (also called supervising teacher, critic 
teacher and mentors). 

Coordinat or of professional experience?^ - the person designated by the preparing 
institution as the one responsible for coordinating the program of professional 
experiences. 

Directed Teaching - a term used by College of Education at Western Michigan 
University to describe the senior year of directed teaching, which is placement in 
a full-time teaching situation for at least one full semester (also called student 
teaching, practice teaching, or intern teaching). 

Educational Extensio n Service - program unit or "component" of the Michigan 
Partnership for a New Education, which provides the state's schools and 
communities with access to up-to-date, practical,research-based knowledge needed 
to ensure that all students achieve a high quality of learning. 

Freed-up time - a restructuring strategy whereby student teachers, parents, 
community members, volunteers, or administrators take on teacher tasks or 
classes. 

Holmes Group - a national consortium of approximately 100 major research 
universities involved in efforts to improve teacher preparation. 



243 



Implementation - a stage in the development of a professional development 
school (PDS) in which the university-school collaborative develops and implements 
school restructuring focused on teaching and learning for all children. School 
organization, curriculum, community relationships, professional inquiry into 
practice, and professional development are all parts of the restructuring program. 

Induction Year Teacher - a first year teacher who has successfully completed an 
initial program of professional preparation, has temporary certification and is 
effectively a beginning teacher (also known as an inductee). 

Intern - a person engaged in the major "clinical education" experience or 
directed teaching associated with their initial preparation (also known as a student 
teacher). 

Michigan Partnership for a New Education (MPNE;^ - a Michigan non-profit 
corporation formed as a collaboration among business, education, and government 
in 1990 to modernize teaching and learning for a changing world; both in schools 
and communities that prepare children and youth, and in colleges that prepare 
educators. 

New time - a restructuring strategy whereby teachers are compensated in new 
ways-for example, with inservice credit for using their own time. 

Observation - a term used in the College of Education at Western Michigan 
University for the first field experience usually required during the sophomore 
year and part of the required courses for a prospective teacher candidate. 
Prospective candidates are sometimes required to observe the interactions 
between students and teachers and to work one-to-one with students, (also called 
tutoring). 



Operation - a stage in the development of a professional development school in 
which a ''steady state" of continued school restructuring activities occurs designed 
to improve and keep abreast of educational innovations. 

O rientation - a stage in the development of a Professional development school 
(PDS) which begins with the selection of a specific PDS site. University and 
school staff begin to develop working relationships, understanding of school 
conditions and needs, and the potential of collaboration. A community 
"Roundtable " is formed with business, education and community service groups. 
This stage is completed upon reaching a formal agreement between the school 
and university to collaborate in the school. 

P.A. 25 - a Michigan law passed in 1990 which requires local school districts to 
prepare an annual educational report for each school in the school district; 
requires a school district to adopt and implement a three to five-year school 
improvement plan for each school within the district; requires districts to establish 
a core curriculum based upon a school district mission statement, goals, and 
objectives; and requires that each school within a district be accredited. 

Participation - term used in the College of Education at Western Michigan 
University for a second field experience typically taken in the junior year in which 
a prospective teacher candidate serves as a teacher's assistant, (also called 
pre-intem). 

Partnership Board - a 31-member board of business, school, university, and 
government individuals who set policy for the Michigan Partnership for a New 
Education (MPNE), a Michigan non-profit corporation. 

Planning Team - a group of school administrators, school faculty, and 
university faculty who are charged with the responsibility of exploring the 
feasibility and desirability of establishing a professional development school within 



ERIC 



245 



the school district. The planning team is established during the orientation stage 
of professional development school development (also called local area 
partnership planning team). 

Practitioner-Scholar - a term used to describe new professional trained to work 
in professional development schools and serve as a catalyst for education reform 
and continuous renewal (also called pre and post doctoral candidates). 

Profession al Development School (?DS) - a site for the demonstration of good 
teaching practice, and a site for future educators to leam new practices under the 
tutelage of school and university faculty with a greater emphasis on research than 
a professional practice site (PPS). 

Professional Development School (PDS;^ criteria - a list of criteria used by a 
PDS planning team to determine a potential school site's willingness to become 
a PDS. Criteria usually involve the following major elements: institutional 
commitment, location and capacity, and shared understandings. 

Professional experiences - activities that involve teacher education students in 
a variety of professional tasks and a systematic study of teaching under 
supervision. These experiences include but are not limited to observing , assisting 
planning, teaching, and evaluating. They may take place in laboratory settings 
-on campus, in schools, in community organizations or agencies, and in private 
businesses or industries. Professional experiences include early or pre-students 
teaching, practicums, student teaching, and internships. 

Professional Practice Sites (F?S) - a site for the demonstration of good teaching 
practice, and places for future educators to leam new practices under the tutelage 
of school and university faculty with a greater emphasis on demonstration than 
research which might occur in a professional development school (PDS). 



ERIC 



246 



Purchased time- a restructuring strategy whereby a school district pays teachers 
for coming in on vacation days or over the summer, or a fund which pays 
substitutes to take over classes. 



Rescheduled time - a restructuring strategy whereby the school calendar or 
weekly schedule is changed to provide more teacher planning days (also called 
reassigned time). 

School and University Alliance - program unit or "component" of the Michigan 
Partnership for a New Education, which helps innovating schools and universities 
develop and evaluate new approaches to teaching and learning, education 
management, and the preparation of teachers. 

School Im provement - term used to describe activities which must occur in the 
development of three to five year plans for school districts in the state of 
Michigan and includes the following elements: 1) school mission, 2) student 
outcomes, 3) curriculum based upon goals, 4) evaluation processes, 5) staff 
development 6) building level decision making and 7) input from the all education 
stakeholders (students, parents, employees, teachers, administrators, and other 
residents) in the school district. 

School Restructuring - the re-forming of the interrelationships of an 
organization; a strategy used to analyze and redesign the organization or structure 
of education in order to achieve improved student outcomes. 

Steering Committee(s'> (PDSt - building level committee charged with 
determining policy and procedures involving PDS activities at the site. 

Student teacher - A person engaged in the major clinical experience or directed 
teaching with their initial preparation (also known as an intern). 



ERIC 



247 



Supervising Teacher - an individual assigned by a local school district to 
supervise university interns (also called coordinating teacher, critic teacher and 
mentor). 

Task Force of School and Universitv Collaboration - an ad hoc committee 
appointed by the Dean of the WMU College of Education during the 1990-91 
school year to study and make recommendations regarding future College of 
Education involvement with professional development schools. 

Teaching for Understanding - involving students in conversation, experience, 
interpretation, criticism, engagement, voice, participation, and purpose. Students 
who are active producers of thought, not passive consumers. 

Universitv Coordinator - an individual employed by WMU to supervise student 
teachers while they participate in the senior year field experience. 

Universitv steering team - group of university faculty members who act as a 
planning team to consider operational guidelines, procedures, and staffing 
arrangements needed to operationalize university involvement with a newly 
designated PDS (also called a university partnership planning team). 



248 



APPENDIX J 
REFERENCES 



249 



REFERENCES 



Association of Teacher Educators. (1986). Guidelines for Professional 
Experiences in Teacher Education. Reston, Va: Author. 

Berkey, D. & Jacobson, J. (1991) Professional Development Plan. (Working 
Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 

Crowell, R. & Jenlink, P. (1991) Center for University-School Collaboration. 
(Working Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 

Davis, S., Smith, CP. & Woloszyk, C.A (1991, October) Professional 
Development Schools. Western Michigan University, College of Education 
Newsletter. Kalamazoo, MI. 

Dewey, J. (1896). The university school. Umversit>^ Record , 5, 417-442. Holmes 
Group. (1986). A Report of the Holmes Group: Tomorrow's Teachers. 
East Lansing, MI: Author. 

Holmes Group. (1990). A Report of the Holmes Group: Tomorrow's Schools: 
Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools. East 
Lansing, MI: Author. 

Holmes Group. (1991). Tomorrow's Schools: Principles For The Design Of 
Professional Development Schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. 

Icabone, D. (1991). Criteria for Involvement in Collaborative Partnerships. 
(Working Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 

Michigan Partnership for a New Education. (1991). Quality Local School And 
University Alliances: Guidelines for Investing in Exploration, Development 
and Operations of Professional Development Schools. (Working Paper, 
Board of Directors Meeting, September 26, 1991), East Lansing, MI: 
Author. 

Michigan Partnership for a New Education, (1991). Partnership School Criteria. 
(School and University Alliance). East Lansing, MI: Author. 

Michigan State University, College of Education. (1991). School and University 
Alliance and Educational Extension Service Third Year (1990-91) Rep ort. 
East Lansing, MI: Author Miller, G. (1991). Proposed Plan for Informing 
Others About Western Michigan University-Public School Partnerships. 
(Working Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 



ERIC 



250 



National Education Association. (December 1991). It's About Time. NEA 
Joday. Reston: VA: Author. 

Oakland University/Pontiac Schools Partnership. (1990). Professional 
Development School Partnership Initial Plarming Document . Rochester, 
MI: Author. 

Omstein. A,C. (1985). Research on teaching: Issues and trends. Journal of 
Teacher Education. 36 (6) 27-31. 

Pinnegar, S. & Smith, MJ. (1991) University-School Collaborations: A 

Literature Based Framework for Categorization and Analysis. (Working 
Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 

Torres, D. (1991). Evaluation Plan for a University/Local Partnership School. 
(Working Paper, Western Michigan University). Kalamazoo, MI. 

Van Til, W. (1985) Laboratory schools and the national reports . Paper 
presented at "he aimual convention of the National Association of 
Laboratory Schools, Denver. 



251