0.3 Angelle, a., wilson, n., & Mink, g. (april 2011). building  (Page 10/10)

The significance of the theory-practice connection was repeatedly cited as the most significant outcome of the partnership. Practitioners felt a genuine gratitude for the opportunity to participate, and, more specifically, for the opportunity to do what they love: teach. The practitioner partners and professors expressed the importance of having experts from the field co-teach with professors and, together, the influence on the preparation of the aspiring leaders.

Steering Committee members, district leadership, and practitioner partners noted that they had not been approached for feedback in the past and, prior to the partnership agreements, felt removed from the business of leadership preparation. Respondents were gratified that their voice was now a part of the process. However, each group reported needs and challenges, specific to their group and the communities they serve, which brings to the fore the precarious nature of university-school based partnerships.

This study, though limited in scope because of sample size and focus on one university, should be of interest to other universities contemplating partnerships with school districts and others. Current literature (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Devita et al., 2007; Dilworth&Thomas, 2001; Schmidt-Davis et al., 2009) promotes the concept of partnerships as a means to exemplary leadership preparation. However, universities who enter into these partnerships walk a fine line. Each group of partners in this study supported the partnerships. At the same time, each group perceived the success of the partnership based on the extent to which their group’s needs were addressed and met. University faculty faced a balancing act of meeting the needs of several partners, while also ensuring that the requirements of higher education accrediting agencies, state guidelines for principal licensure, and university administration are met.

Longitudinal data collection is called for in this study to examine partnerships over time. Missing stakeholders in this study are the students who are taught by multiple instructors. While leadership candidates complete faculty evaluation surveys, in depth interviews would add another voice to the findings. Follow up studies of the new leaders in practice will include perceptions of school community, faculty, and district leaders, as well as any changes in the K-12 student achievement, to investigate the wider reach of this preparation program. Partnerships beyond the university classroom support the idea that a community of educators is necessary in the preparation of a school leader. Partnerships must be bi-directional, not unidirectional, for all parties to deem the partnership a success. A common response of all of the participants was the belief that the partnerships are moving in a positive direction that will lead to strengthening leadership preparation while providing benefits for both the university and the school districts. Continuing the conversation is essential.

References

Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K.,&Mangione, T. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher , 31 , 28-38.

Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M.,&Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.

Devita, M. C., Colvin, R. L., Darling-Hammond, L.,&Haycock, K. (2007, October 22-24). A Bridge to School Reform . Paper presented at The Wallace Foundations National Conference, New York, NY.

Dilworth, M. D.,&Thomas, I. K. (2001). PK-12 Educational Leadership and Administration. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Dyson, L. L. (1999). Developing a university-school district partnership: Research-district administrator collaboration for a special education initiative. Canadian Journal of Education, 24 (4), 411-425.

Goodlad, J. I. (1993). School-university partnerships and partner schools. Education Policy, 7 (1), 24-39.

Gutierrez, C., Field, S., Simmons, J.,&Basile, C. G. (2007). Principals as knowledge managers in partner schools. School Leadership and Management, 27 (4), 333 – 346.

Kersh, M. E.,&Masztal, N. B. (1998). An analysis of studies of collaboration between universities and K-12 schools. Educational Forum, 62 (3), 218-225.

Levine, A. (2005). Change in the principal’s office: The role of universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 (32), b16.

Quinn, T. (2005). Leadership development: The principal-university connection. Principal, 84 (5), 12-16.

Schmidt-Davis, J., Bottoms, G.,&O'Neill, K. (2009). Preparing a new breed of principals in Tennessee: Instructional leadership redesign in action. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.