Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 13 November 2014, At: 00:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Peabody Journal ofEducationPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20
A Partnership of Projects:Becoming an ElementaryProfessional DevelopmentSchoolElizabeth BondyPublished online: 22 Jun 2011.
To cite this article: Elizabeth Bondy (1999) A Partnership of Projects:Becoming an Elementary Professional Development School, Peabody Journalof Education, 74:3-4, 42-57, DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695371
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1999.9695371
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 74(3&4), 42-57 Copyright O 1999, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
A Partnership of Projects: Becoming an Elementary Professional Development School
Elizabeth Bondy
The term Professional Development School (PDS) first appeared in the Holmes Group (1986) publication Tomorrow's Teachers and was elaborated in their 1990 publication, Tomorrow's Schools. In the latter document, a PDS is defined as "a school for the development of novice professionals, for continuing development of experienced professionals and for the research and development of the teaching profession" (p. 1). Valli, Cooper, and Frankes (1997) emphasized that to be a PDS, a school must engage in "teacher preparation, professional development, and research on a school-wide basis" (p. 252). Murray (1993) elaborated on the definition of a PDS in his discussion of 11 key features including the goals and nature of instruction in PDSs. He characterized PDSs as schools in which student understanding of content is the goal of instruction and teachers engage students in interactive lessons to promote construction of knowledge.
This article is about an elementary school that has been called a PDS for 3 years. Does the school satisfy all of the PDS criteria just reviewed? No. How- ever, the school's partnership with the University of Florida College of Edu-
ELIZABETH BONDY is Associate Professor in the School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Elizabeth Bondy, School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611. E-mail: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
cation is a work in progress. At a pace more akin to the turtle than the hare, the PDS has been striving to improve the learning and performance of key participants-teachers, preservice teachers, teacher educators, and stu- dents. In the language of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education's (NCATE; 1997) Draft Standards for Identifying and Supporting Quality Professional Development Schools, the PDS is probably still in the threshold stage of development. At times there is a return to pre-threshold activities of strengthening relationships and trust. At times there is the exhil- arating sensation of approaching Stage 3, quality attainment. In all, the PDS experience has been more one of fits and starts than a well-oiled machine. There has been progress; more work needs to be done.
This article is not an apology for what the PDS is not. In the spirit of NCATE's PDS assessment project, the objective of the article is to examine the real work of the PDS. In this case, the work centers on projects that stem from classroom teachers' concerns about student learning. This article traces the evolution of a project that began as the Learning Environment Project and came to be called the Responsive Classroom (RC) Project. The life of this project provides insight into the process of partnership, a pro- cess of moving toward the core commitments of the PDS: an environment that integrates adult and children's learning, collaboration by university and school participants on issues of practice and policy in the PDS, and si- multaneous renewal of the school and the College of Education (NCATE, 1997). Before the project is described, a brief history of the PDS is provided.
A PDS Is Born
The PDS was born of the will of several highly motivated individuals. Unlike some PDSs, this one was not part of a larger restructuring effort of the school district, the College of Education (COE), or a collaborative effort of the two. It began because a few people at the school and in the COE wanted it very badly.
During the 1994-1995 school year, an informal group of teachers from several elementary schools met regularly with several teacher educators from the COE to talk about forming a whole language school in the school district. These educators were committed to whole language teaching and longed to work together in a school in which this philosophy was shared and promoted. When the superintendent told the group that the only way to accomplish their goal was through working with an individual school's School Advisory Council, the group members were thrown into turmoil. Which principal could they approach? How could they all arrange to work together if they had to begin with an existing school? Were they prepared to request transfers from their current schools to work in another one?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
E. Bondy
What would happen to the teachers already employed in the school who were not interested in whole language? At this time, a new dean was hired at the COE, and representatives from the whole language group met with him for advice. He suggested that a way to approach the matter was through the establishment of a PDS.
The PDS concept was unfamiliar to the teachers. In addition to feeling unsure about what it would mean to teach in a PDS, teachers were disap- pointed that their dream of working together in a whole language school seemed to be beyond their grasp. One, however, went to her principal with the idea. His question to her was, How would this help the boys and girls of our school? He was quickly persuaded as the teacher extolled the bene- fits of collaboration with the college. During this period, relationship building between college faculty and teachers was already underway at the school of 470 students, 65% of whom were students of color and 85% of whom received free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch. For example, several faculty members were participating in the Teachers as Readers (TAR) group on the school campus. The principal invited the dean to speak to the school's faculty about becoming a PDS, and a teacher distributed a questionnaire to ascertain her colleagues' views. Although a small number of teachers were adamantly opposed to what they saw as intrusion from the college, 85% of them voted in favor of the partnership.
A Steering Committee was formed during the spring of 1995 to oversee the establishment of the partnership between the college and elementary school. The committee was composed of representatives from the college, the school, the school district, and the parents. It met monthly during the next school year to discuss expectations for the PDS, develop a philosophy statement and an Interagency Agreement between the school district and the University of Florida, and consider school-based PDS activities for the 1996-1997 school year.
In determining PDS activities, the Steering Committee reviewed the ob- jectives in the School Improvement Plan, and teachers discussed their con- cerns about student learning. One of the areas of concern that teachers identified was classroom management. They perceived that the time they spent addressing disruptive student behavior severely depleted instruc- tional time. They were eager to find ways to reduce student misbehavior and increase academic engaged time. Thus, the Learning Environment Project became one of the first projects of the PDS.
Evolution of the Learning Environment/RC Project
Although the Learning Environment Project was formulated and offi- cially sanctioned as a PDS project in the spring of 1996, the project had been
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
brewing at the school for nearly a year. Figure 1 represents a timeline of the evolution of the project from the fall of 1994 to the fall of 1999. During the fall of 1994, one of the teachers took a graduate elementary curriculum class with a COE faculty member in which she read Charney's (1991) Teaching Children to Care. She was struck by the author's vivid descriptions of a social curriculum in which children develop the attitudes and abilities of cooperation, assertiveness, responsibility, empathy, and self-control. In Chamey's book she saw the teacher she wanted to be, and she thought many of her colleagues would be interested in this approach to teaching that advocated striking a balance between the academic and the social cur- riculum. Her response to the book set in motion the wheels of the Learning Environment Project.
During the 1995-1996 school year, the PDS Steering Committee (later reconstituted as the PDS Advisory Committee) was meeting regularly to establish the partnership. During that period, the TAR group at the school was meeting monthly to discuss Teaching Children to Care. Although they had typically discussed adult fiction, teachers were intrigued by the book their colleague had pitched to them so enthusiastically. The principal helped by purchasing copies of the book, and several COE faculty were in- vited to participate in the TAR group. One or more of them attended five meetings in which teachers talked about the chapters they had read and discussed ways to implement the strategies in their classrooms.
During the next school year, the Learning Environment Project was an official project of the newly formed PDS. Building on the TAR group's en- thusiasm for and experience with Teaching Children to Care, the project called for a volunteer group of teachers and their student teaching interns to (a) examine their classroom learning environments; @) identify prac- tices to continue, reduce, or eliminate, and develop; (c) continue to study Teaching Children to Care; (d) observe one another to provide feedback; and (e) develop plans for the following year based on what they had learned. The COE faculty member's role was to facilitate the group of 12 by observ- ing in each teacher's classroom, providing detailed feedback in the form of field notes, leading monthly meetings, and serving as taskmaster to ensure that the agreed-on project activities would be completed. To everyone's
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
surprise, a state grant became available that fall to support innovative school projects. The PDS applied for the grant to support the Learning En- vironment Project and two other PDS projects, and the funds were awarded late in the fall.
The project used grant funds to bring a consultant who worked with Ruth Charney, author of Teaching Children fo Care, to the school for a 2-day workshop on the approach to teaching called RC. She returned to the school within 1 month to observe each of the participants implement one teaching strategy called Morning Meeting and conduct postobservation conferences. The group's enthusiasm was so great that the principal and other teachers began to inquire about Morning Meeting and the other strategies being implemented by the Learning Environment Project group. A 2-day training session was arranged for the month of June for all inter- ested teachers. In addition, four teachers plus their COE colleague traveled to Minneapolis to attend a weeklong workshop with their original trainer. Their goal was to be trained as trainers so that they could disseminate the RC approach in the local school district, the COE, and beyond.
The original Learning Environment Project group had recommended to the principal that the morning schedule be adjusted to enable teachers to conduct Morning Meetings in their classrooms before students changed classes for reading instruction. The principal obliged, and teachers at all grade levels were excited to try their new skills. During preplanning, an additional 2 days of RC training was provided to help teachers plan care- fully for the all-important first 6 weeks of school. This fall, student teaching interns at the school attended orientation sessions to prepare them to use RC practices in their classrooms. Parents were introduced to the RC through newsletter articles, Back to School Night curriculum overviews, and Family Night workshops. The Responsive Classroom Interest Group (formerly the Learning Environment Project) met monthly to discuss ef- forts to implement RC strategies and to help one another.
This year, the COE faculty member implemented Moming Meeting in a third-grade classroom at the school once a week. The Interest Group de- cided to read Charney's (1997) second book, Habits of Goodness. During the spring, the COE faculty member and a teacher conducted a study of stu- dents' perspectives on Moming Meeting, a strategy she had implemented daily throughout the year. In addition, several teachers, their COE col- league, and an intern presented their experience with the RC at a state con- ference and at the Holrnes Partnership Conference in Orlando, FL. Early in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
the summer, four teachers and their COE colleague returned to Minneapo- lis for the advanced RC workshop.
The 1998-1999 school year began with a 3-hr RC workshop for faculty and interns conducted by the team that attended the Minneapolis work- shop. RC Interest Group monthly meetings at the school were opened to all elementary schools in the district, and RC reading materials were inte- grated into the COE course taken by interns. The teachers and their COE colleague were asked to conduct RC workshops for COE students, and they presented workshops at several state conferences. During the fall, the local Rotary Club put out a grant proposal to fund an action research pro- ject focused on improving student performance. The COE faculty member and two of the teachers-who transferred to another elementary school during the summer of 1998-applied for the grant to fund a project in which three experienced RC teachers would work with three inexperi- enced teachers to implement the Morning Meeting strategy and collect data on student behavior over an 8-week period. They were awarded the grant and implemented the project in January 1999.
Looking Ahead
Growing interest in the RC in the school district has led to arranging for a consultant to conduct a weeklong workshop at a local school during the summer of 1999. During the fall of 1999, the COE will launch a restructured teacher education program. One new course, Core Management Strat- egies, will draw heavily on what has been learned at the PDS and at other local schools where teachers, student teaching interns, and COE faculty have been practicing and studying RC strategies.
The Rocky Road of Partnerships
The RC Project timeline portrays a project that began as a spark of inter- est in one teacher, spread within a school, overflowed into a school district, leapt to the attention of teachers around the state, and became an integral part of a teacher education program. This apparently smoothly paved path of partnership activity is deceptive. In fact, the process of partnership has felt more like traveling a rocky road where bursts of speed are interrupted
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
by occasional flat tires. Three challenges to the project and to the process of partnership are reviewed next.
Assuming Responsibility
The demands of new and changing roles and responsibilities have re- ceived considerable attention in the PDS literature (Book, 1996). Despite 1 year spent in formulating an Interagency Agreement and discussing the goals and operation of the partnership, the PDS continues to bump into the question, Who is supposed to do what here? Confusion and differences of opinion about roles and responsibilities can stall the process of partnership.
What is the individual teacher's responsibility to the PDS? There are teachers at the school who are reluctant to participate in PDS projects. Ac- cording to Valli et al. (1997), schoolwide participation is central to the meaning of a PDS. To this point, teachers have been left to choose whether to become involved in PDS activities, with the exception of a small number of mandatory inservice meetings. Should teachers who choose not to be in- volved have COE interns placed in their classrooms? There is disagree- ment on this point. From some teachers' perspective, the PDS is other people's responsibility. Still other teachers view the PDS as defining the philosophy and functions of the entire school. Debate about teachers' re- sponsibility in a PDS has yet to be held.
Given the mixed views of teachers toward their role in the PDS, it is not surprising that student teaching interns are puzzled about their roles. Some interns regularly attend RC Interest Group meetings with their teachers. Other interns and their teachers do not attend and do not utilize RC strate- gies with students. Although it may seem this matter could be resolved eas- ily by the COE requiring intern attendance at PDS activities, it is a more complicated issue of shared decision making and power between two insti- tutions-the COE and the school. With these matters unresolved, interns have adopted the perspective of their teachers about their responsibility in the PDS. In other words, some are active and others are uninvolved.
The COE liaison to the PDS has continued to face dilemmas about her roles and responsibilities. One dilemma concerns the extent to which she should be involved in engaging teachers in PDS activities. Reluctant and inexperienced teachers, in particular, need coaxing and coaching to imple- ment new practices. Whose responsibility is it to provide this assistance? This dilemma is compounded by the commonly held definition of the COE faculty member as expert or consultant, which can lead school personnel and the faculty member herself to assume it is her role to provide help where it is needed. Another kind of dilemma concerns the concept of PDS
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
and the goals of the Holmes Partnership. Although the partnership has contributed to the professional development of teachers and teacher edu- cators, influenced the lives of children, and shaped the teacher education program, it continues to fall short of commonly accepted definitions of a PDS. What role should the liaison play in promoting examination of the PDS and improvement of its structure and operation?
What are the responsibilities of a principal of a PDS and a dean of a COE involved in PDS work? When two institutions are intertwined, decision making takes on a new level of complexity. COE personnel were disgrun- tled when schoolwide curriculum decisions were made without their in- put. Similarly, changes in student teaching requirements were made in the teacher education program without input from school personnel. Just as a subset of teachers at the school are actively involved in the PDS, a small number of COE faculty have worked with the school. In fact, it is likely that some COE faculty are not aware that the college is involved with a PDS. What role should the principal and dean play to promote participation in and support for the PDS?
Adjusting to Personnel Changes
Confusion about responsibility can be compounded by personnel changes within the PDS. The core group of personnel who supported the PDS and participated in the RC Project remained stable for 3 years. As a re- sult, they developed the relationships and trust needed for the partnership process to proceed toward achievement of the core PDS commitments. In addition, teacher leaders emerged who worked to keep the partnership and the RC Project moving forward. Changes in personnel, however, have proven to be disruptive to the PDS. These changes include the arrival of a new principal, the transfer of two key teachers to a new elementary school, and the hiring of several new teachers.
Following the personnel changes, the partnership seemed to revert to a pre-threshold stage in which building relationships and trust were par- amount. Also important during this period, and not well established at the school, is a process for inducting new personnel into the PDS and its projects. This means revisiting information that has already been shared and conversations that have already been held at the school. Experienced personnel felt frustrated as they retraced their steps to orient newcomers to the partnership. It also has taken some time to adjust to the loss of key players who had actively advanced the interests of the partnership among their colleagues and student teaching interns and within the school district.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
Accommodating New Academic Curricula
Partnership work is challenging for participants under the best condi- tions. When teachers are faced with implementing new curricula, the chal- lenge is particularly great. The effort required to master new curricula can deplete teachers' time and desire to participate in partnership activities. At the PDS, teachers began the 1998 school year with a new reading program and a new mathematics textbook. In addition, there were new expectations for the use of technology in the classroom. Furthermore, nine teachers were assigned to new grade levels. In short, teachers were scurrying to learn and implement the academic curriculum and regain a sense of com- petence and confidence in their work. During this period, some teachers who in the past had participated on the PDS Advisory Committee and at- tended RC Interest Group meetings were less visible. Understandably, they were focusing on their most critical role as classroom teachers.
During this awkward period for the partnership, some participants have sensed a gap between the work of the partnership and the work of the rest of the school. In fact, during the period of adjustment to new curricula, the part- nership did not seem to be in sync with the concerns of teachers. This lack of congruence between partnership work and teachers' concerns may have been due in part to the fact that schoolwide curriculum decisions were made out- side of the purview of the partnership, perhaps reinforcing the belief of some teachers that the partnership was irrelevant to their lives at the school.
On the rocky road of partnership, participants encounter obstacles to the goals of (a) creating an environment that integrates adult and chil- dren's learning, @) developing shared decision making between COE and school partners on practice and policy issues, and (c) promoting simulta- neous renewal of the school and the COE. Although partners can sense when all is not well, it can be difficult to identify the source of the problem. In addition, it can feel awkward to voice a concern for fear of hurting some- one's feelings or behg misinterpreted as placing blame. One strategy re- cently suggested to promote identification and resolution of obstacles to partnership emerged from the work of the RC Project. Based on a strategy used with children, the practice entails adding two items to the Advisory Committee agenda. One item, "How are we doing on the core commit- ments?," forces the committee to review the three PDS goals at every meet- ing and consider progress made and steps to be taken. The second and often related item, "I've been wondering," provides an opportunity for people on and off of the Advisory Committee to share questions, concerns, and thoughts about the PDS. Prior to a meeting, an "I've been wondering" sheet is placed at the staff sign-in notebook. Staff and student teaching in- terns can record their PDS-related wonderings on the sheet, and the PDS li-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
aison teacher brings the sheet to the meeting. These adjustments to the agenda promise to help the Advisory Committee stay focused on moving forward by reviewing goals and examining potential obstacles to achiev- ing them.
Insights Into the Process of Partnership
Some people may view this partnership as an example of a weak or fail- ing PDS. They could point to the lack of fundamental restructuring, the small number of teacher education students involved in PDS activities at the school, resistant teachers, and the absence of a number of Murray's (1993) 11 defining features of a PDS. The evolution of the RC Project, how- ever, provides another perspective. The RC Project is a story of commit- ment to the learning of poor and minority students. It is a story of making friends, learning together, and sharing that learning with others. It is a story about patience with fits and starts and recognition that the process of partnership is not always logical and sequential. The story of the RC Pro- ject reveals insights into the process of partnership.
Becoming Friends
As indicated by the number of studies on the development of collabora- tive relations in PDSs, the development of relationships is central to part- nership work (Book, 1996; Valli et al., 1997). Relationship building began at the school before the PDS was established. One of the teachers was familiar with some of the COE faculty from her student days at the university. In addition, she had participated in the whole language group discussions about starting a whole language school with the COE faculty. It was a logi- cal step for her to invite the COE faculty members to attend TAR group meetings. These meetings provided opportunities for prospective PDS col- leagues to get to know one another. Relationship building, then, preceded the formation of the PDS.
Making It Personal
Partnerships are personal in at least two ways. As just described, they depend on trusting, comfortable relationships among the people involved. This became clear with the arrival of the new principal who did not know anyone at the school and few people in the COE. He needed time to get to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
know people, to catch up with personnel who had been building relation- ships for several years; school and COE staff needed time to get to know him. The power of the personal also became apparent as the most active teachers in the RC Project eagerly planned dinner outings together. As a result of these social experiences that included as many as 14 people, the group became more tightly bonded and energized to learn, implement, and share the RC philosophy and strategies. An unanticipated conse- quence of their strengthening personal relationships was the reaction of some less involved teachers who viewed the RC Project participants as a closed group. Although the "personal" dimension of partnerships is im- portant, if not monitored it can become an "us and them" situation in which some people feel like insiders and others feel excluded.
A second way in which partnerships are personal concerns the personal meaning or passion participants have for the projects that are undertaken. The RC Project grew out of the interests and concerns of teachers. Many were stirred by the philosophy and teaching strategies Charney (1991) de- scribed in Teaching Children to Care. Although many of the practices were unfamiliar, they appealed to the teachers' beliefs about the purposes of schooling, their desire to establish classroom environments conducive to learning, and their commitment to helping all students succeed. The teach- ers' commitment to the project has been an important force in sustaining it through the challenges of changes in personnel and curriculum and confu- sion about who is supposed to do what in the PDS. At times it has seemed that the RC Project is the glue that holds the partnership together. Keeping PDS work close to the lives and experiences of teachers, then, is an impor- tant consideration in the process of partnership.
Learning Together
In the RC Project, COE and public school faculty are co-learners. When the consultant came to the school, the COE faculty member took the training with the teachers. She asked and answered questions and made mistakes alongside her teacher colleagues. When the consultant returned to observe participants implement Morning Meeting, she also observed the faculty member who hadbeen practicing in a third-grade classroom. When the TAR group and RC Interest Group met, people took turns leading the meetings and everyone shared questions and comments. When a team of five traveled to Minneapolis for summer training, the COE colleague participated and re- turned to the school to practiceher new teaching skills. In short, participants in the RC Project set out to learn together some new ways of thinking about teaching and somenew teaching skills that had the potential to help children
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
learn and succeed in and out of school. Learning together contributed to the process of partnership in that it established the expectation that partnership work was a collaborative effort of wide-eyed participants ready to learn all they could to improve the education of children. It helped place learning and teaching at the center of PDS work.
Taking the Time
The time-intensity of PDS work has received considerable attention in PDS literature (Book, 1996). The RC Project highlights the importance of taking time to develop and maintain the partnership. It also indicates that people can need time to move into unfamiliar roles. As described earlier, COE and school personnel were building relationships before the PDS was established. The work of relationship building takes time and attention. It takes place in face-to-face interaction on a regular basis over an extended period. Part of this work can involve breaking down expectations and sus- picions that participants have of one another. For example, teachers may expect COE faculty to be both bossy and out of touch with the real world of classrooms. They may suspect that their real interest in the partnership is to gain a new source of data for journal articles. Similarly, COE faculty may expect teachers to be unfamiliar with recent research on teaching and learning and unwilling to consider changes in their practices and their role definitions. Regular meetings of the TAR group, the RC Interest Group, and the PDS Steering/Advisory Committee facilitated relationships among partners at the school. In addition, informal conversations in the hallway, at lunch, and in the parking lot were helpful. For these conversa- tions to take place, the COE faculty member had to be present at the school at least 1 full day each week. During this time, she led Morning Meetings, observed and conferred with student teaching interns, and met with teach- ers about RC activities.
In addition to its role in relationship building, time is an important fac- tor for participants challenged with new roles. The RC Project has chal- lenged the COE faculty member to be a classroom teacher and function as an elementary school colleague. It has challenged teachers to become re- searchers and presenters at professional conferences. It has challenged a dean and a principal to consider new ways of leading. It can take time for people to adjust to new roles. For example, the PDS expectation of class- room inquiry was overwhelming to teachers who already felt stretched to the limit by their participation in the RC Project and sometimes additional PDS projects plus working with student teaching interns and serving on the PDS Steering and/or Advisory Committee. However, as they became
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
familiar with PDSrelated activities, some teachers began to ask about do- ing some research on the RC Project. Particularly when teachers observed a positive impact on their students, they expressed interest in document- ing the effects of RC practices. For instance, when the lone third-grade teacher who was participating in the RC Project found that her students had scored the highest of all third-grade classes on all subtests of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, she wanted to know more about the impact of RC prac- tices on student learning. During the fall of 1998, teachers applied for and were awarded a grant to fund a study of the impact of RC practices on spe- cific student behaviors that interfere with learning. Such an effort was un- thinkable in 1995; by 1998, the teachers were ready.
Reaching Beyond the Partnership
The RC Project demonstrates that a partnership is not necessarily a closed system. Participants have learned together and then reached out to share that learning with others. This has taken place through opening the monthly RC Interest Group meetings to other schools in 1998, involving student teaching interns, presenting the RC Project at conferences, and building the RC approach into the teacher education program. In addition, by applying for the Rotary Club research grant, teachers are bringing the RC approach to the attention of the larger community. Interest has grown to such an extent, that a consultant is coming during the summer of 1999 to lead a weeklong RC workshop for educators throughout the school dis- trict. The partnership provided the context in which the RC approach could be examined, implemented, and practiced. Participants have taken responsibility for sharing what they have learned with others in positions of improving children's education.
Moving Forth and Back and Forth
If only four teachers attend a RC Interest Group meeting, does it mean the PDS is a failure? If just half the faculty implements a daily Morning Meeting, does it mean the partnership is doomed? To look at the PDS at any one point in time does not provide an accurate picture of its contribu- tion to faculty professional development, teacher education, and student learning. The rocks in the road, including personnel and curriculum changes and confusion about responsibilities, can affect the process of partnership. These challenges to partnership can create the appearance that it is moving back more than it is moving forth. Examination of the evo-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
E. Bondy
lution of the RC Project reveals tremendous progress over its 4-year life. The school has been the workshop in which the RC approach has been and continues to be practiced and studied and from which it has been dissemi- nated to others. The long-range perspective represented in the timeline makes clear the slow but continuing forward motion of the partnership. This perspective provides an important balance to short-term glances that can lead to discouragement.
Nevertheless, there is work to be done if the partnership is to fulfill the PDS mission. In particular, the partnership must grapple with the defini- tion of that mission and the critical attributes of a PDS, perhaps using the NCATE (1997) Draft Standards description of threshold conditions and critical attributes as a discussion guide. One of the dangers of focusing on specific projects is that the participants can lose sight of the aims of the partnership, and larger structural reform can be ignored (Valli et al., 1997; Zeichner, 1992). Similar discussions also should take place within the COE and in the school district for the PDS to receive the support needed to bring about significant and lasting reform in the education of children and those who work with them.
Becoming a PDS
The College of Education's PDS is based on projects identified by teach- ers as significant to student leaming. The projects bring together school and COE personnel and student teachers as learners striving to improve the education of all students. A close look at the RC Project reveals an effort that began with the interest of a single teacher and moved eventually into the school district, the COE, and the state of Florida. This view of the part- nership as a forward-moving force in professional development, teacher education, and student leaming is offset by concerns about the number of participating teachers and student teaching interns involved, and differ- ences of opinion about the purposes and functions of the PDS. In fact, when assessed according to commonly accepted definitions of a PDS, this one is found lacking. What should we make of this?
The RC Project demonstrates that partnership is a process that devel- ops over time and not always in a logical and sequential manner. Al- though it is unwise simply to wait for partnership to happen, it is also not wise to expect it to occur quickly and to judge it harshly when it does not. Structures such as a PDS Advisory Committee and an Interagency Agree- ment can facilitate progress. However, in some settings, participation may grow slowly, resistance may occur periodically, and the PDS may never look the same as the one down the street or the one described in a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Partnership of Projects
conference presentation or professional journal. If the partnership is viewed as a work in progress, the forth and back and forth movement will be seen as normal rather than alarming. Participants can then take steps to deal with those inevitable rocks in the road. In this responsive model the partnership functions more as an "adhocracy" than a carefully preplanned system (Grossman, 1994).
As the partnership continues to become a PDS, it is clear that there is much work ahead. Why should this surprise us? The task is complicated, unfamiliar, and time intensive. As participants move (and sometimes stumble) along, they ask themselves who benefits from the work of the partnership and would these benefits have accrued without the partner- ship. When they see their own progress, the progress of their students, the impact they have had on student teachers and on teachers throughout the state, they conclude that their journey-rocks and all-is worthwhile.
References
Book, C. (1996). Professional development schools. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 19P210). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Charney, R. S. (1991). Teaching children to care. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children.
Chamey, R. S. (1997). Habitsofgoodness. Greenfield, MA: Northeast Foundation for Children. Grossman, P. (1994). In pursuit of a dual agenda: Creating a middle level professional devel-
opment school. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp. 50-73). N e w York: Teachers College Press.
Holmes Group. (1986). Tomowow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomowow's schools. East Lansing, MI: Author. Murray, F. B. (1993). "All or none" criteria for professional development schools. Educational
Policy, 7,61-73. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Dr@ standmds for identzhing
and supporting quality professional development schools. Washington, DC: PDSStandards Pro- ject.
Valli, L., Cooper, D., &Frankes, L. (1997). Professional development schools and equity: A crit- ical analysis of rhetoric and research. In M. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 251-304). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Zeichner, K. (1992). Connecting genuine teacher development to the strugglefor social justice (Issue Paper 92-1). East Lansing: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Nor
thea
ster
n U
nive
rsity
] at
00:
01 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
