A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

J. Assessment of Outcomes: Overview of General Findings: Professionalism and Institutionalization (continued)

J.1.6 Institutionalization

Nonetheless, there are indicators that can be examined to assess the durability of changes made in individuals and organizations. These indicators included the extent to which practices have "become routinized as part of the organization’s operations," "provide continuing benefits to key stakeholders," "achieved stable funding," and "survived the departure of key original staff members."

Looking across cases, six conditions appeared to contribute to positive outcomes in these initiatives. The derivation of these conditions is discussed further in the next section, the Causal Analysis. The stabilizing conditions identified were shared decision making, stability of leadership, commitment to the enterprise, professional development opportunities, assistance, strong relationships, and stable funding. These indicators also address the scope of the reform, or its systemic impact by looking across organizations within a site, to assess the degree to which these practices have become standards of operation in each member institution. Table J.2 summarizes the presence of these stabilizing conditions that indicate routinized practices within each organization. The last four variables, Commitment to Enterprise, Professional Development Opportunities, Assistance, and Relationships provide an indication of the continuing benefits to key stakeholders. Reading across rows provides an indication of the strength of presence of these indicators within organizations across sites.

Consistent with the dimensions of professionalism outcomes, levels of institutionalization are stronger within schools and school districts, and in the partnership organization than within the university faculty. There is an obvious interrelationship between the dimensions of professionalism (Table J.1) and institutionalization (Table J.2). The greater the consistency in the outcomes across institutions, the greater the institutionalization. Unless these developments are occurring in all sectors, the durability of these reforms remains in doubt. Again it is important to remember that these relationships also co-vary with the length of involvement in the partnership ventures. The longer the partnership has been in existence, the greater the degree of institutionalization. These reform initiatives are dynamic enterprises, and these outcomes should be viewed as indicators of development to date.

TABLE J-2. Elements of Institutionalization

Stabilizing Conditions1	Toronto	Southern Maine	West Virginia
Shared Decision Making
• Within Schools	4	4	4
• Within Partnership	4	4	4
• Within University	3	D.K.	2
Stability of Leadership2
• Within Schools	2	4	4
• Within Partnership	4	4	2
• Within University	4	4	2
Commitment to Enterprise
• Within Schools	4	4	4
• Within Partnership	4	4	4/D.K3
• Within University	3	4	3
Professional Development Opportunities
• Within Schools	4	4	4
• Within University	3	D.K.	2
Assistance for School/District Development	4	4	4
Assistance for University Faculty	3	D.K.	1
Strong Relationships
• Between University & Schools	3	4	3
• Within Partnership	4	4	4/D.K
Stable Funding	4	3	1

¹ Stabilizing conditions are those that are routine practices.

² Stability of Leadership does not refer to individuals but rather to the partnership’s ability to survive the departure of key leaders.

³ Due to the transition that was occurring, the first number represents early days of the enterprise. Beyond that is unknown, as the transition is still in progress.

KEY

Present = 4
Partially Present = 3
Weak = 2
Dubious = 1
Absent = 0
D.K. = Don’t know (insufficient data)

Long-term continuance (institutionalization) appears to be built on five elements:

1. sustained support from the district, which is manifested in attitudes, behavior, and dollars/resources;

2. a like kind of support from the university;

3. a continuing and evolving (adapting) program of activities in which both school and university personnel are mutually engaged and/or find mutual benefit;

4. stable leadership, demonstrated through continuity of strong leaders who are able to transition from the initiating (catalytic) leader to succeeding leaders who have the energy and clout necessary to maintain commitment;

5. and a culture of collaboration and mutual respect.

J. 2 Causal Analysis

The cross-site analysis included an attempt to look across the three cases for common patterns that accounted for partnership outcomes. Specifically the analysis looked across cases at a profile of outcomes: (e.g., a culture of inquiry, teacher development, collaborative cultures, professional networks, client orientation, and institutionalization), to determine the configuration of factors that led to such outcomes, and whether there was an overlap between configurations across cases. Cross-site analysis was an inductive process based on qualitative data. The data collection process began, guided by our emergent conceptual framework.

In the summer of 1994, The NETWORK hosted a working conference to engage educators from various roles in each partnership in cross-site comparisons and analysis of their own reform initiatives. We invited teams of educators from each of the partnerships, representing educators from every level: the partnership organization, teacher education faculty and administrators, the district, and school administration and faculty. One of the major activities of the conference was the construction of each partnership’s "journey." A journey (Cox & deFrees, 1991) is a kind of historical map or time line developed from the participants’ recollections of their own development. It attempts to identify key events, milestones, and critical factors that have been significant in determining how the partnership has gotten to where it is today. The journey technique is loosely based on "causal mapping" methodology developed by qualitative researchers to depict and explain the relationships among key variables in a study (Miles and Huberman, 1994). A unique aspect of the strategy used to construct these three journeys was that they incorporated input from participants representing a number of different roles, and therefore represented different perspectives in identifying the significant events.

After many additions and revisions, the final versions completed by each site became the outline, from which the research team identified questions to explore to further understand the processes used to facilitate and support change, and to understand what it took to bring about the changes that had occurred. In this way, the journeys served as an important research tool for guiding the investigation, as well as useful storyboards for describing these reform initiatives. Throughout the research, we have been committed to ensuring that all roles were represented and all voices were heard. The composition of the cross-role teams from each site at the working conference was designed for this purpose. The data collection process has included interviews with student teachers, cooperating teachers, both school and university faculty and administrators, partnership coordinators, and district-level central office personnel.

J.2.1 General Model

As an understanding of each partnership was developing, important themes were identified in each site. These dominant recurring themes were explored in more depth because they appeared salient to the site. For each case, a list of variables was generated that seemed to be important in the development of the partnership. For the cross-case comparisons, the lists from each of the three cases were compared and common variables were identified that were empirically meaningful in all cases, allowing for some case-specific variables that were particularly important in a given site. A core set of 25 variables was produced.

The general model for the three sites studied is shown in Figure J-1. The 25 variables are grouped into 10 thematic categories. The variables were then arrayed temporally as in a path model. The general model describes the key ingredients that seemed to be critical to the partnership’s formation, its development, and the outcomes of the collaborative arrangement.

A number of common antecedent variables contributed to the development of the school-university partnerships. Strong leadership within the university and schools provided both inspiration and the clout to gather the resources needed to initiate reform. Political support for reform from within the university and the state or province provided important stimulus in each site. The commitment of internal funds from both the university and school districts helped launch the partnership, with additional support from external funds.

"Shared vision" was an antecedent variable in the sense that the parties coming together had a common conception of the possibilities, but the vision continued to evolve and became more concrete after the partners had joined, began to work together, and gained greater insight into the potential of the arrangement -- but it was not a static event. In Toronto, it began with a general agreement among the dean and three district directors who shared the initial vision, but the vision really took shape after the planning group worked together and realized the possibilities, and it continues to evolve as conditions and needs change. In Southern Maine, the partnership was created based on the shared vision of a singe faculty member and six district superintendents committed to school improvement. The vision grew and was further defined by the hundreds of educators who came to use the partnership for their own professional growth. The purpose and focus of the SMP also continues to evolve. In West Virginia, the partnership formation was the product of a planning year, where educators from all sectors came together to develop a vision of what the Benedum Project could do. Again the vision continued to take shape after the partners began to work together and develop more clearly defined goals. So in that sense, "shared vision" was both an antecedent and an intervening variable that contributed to the partnerships’ development.

Commitment to the partnership enterprise was demonstrated by leadership support and the resource commitment from both the school districts and the colleges of education, and strengthened by the perceived benefits of membership for each partner. The strength of these commitments reinforced the efforts of staff members to the organization’s goals. Successful partnership programs were characterized by a strong focus on professional development, and direct assistance for school and district renewal, shared decision making, and strong relationships with school-based constituents. Programs were also strengthened by external inputs in the form of funding and/or knowledge and expertise. The success of program efforts thus far can be judged by development on two fronts: reform of teacher education, and teacher, school, and district developments, including enhanced professionalism, and the degree to which these reforms have produced durable changes in each institution. Differing degrees of development are expected to result in differing outcomes.

J.2.2 Cross-Site Comparisons

TABLE J-3. Antecedents to Partnership Formation

Antecedents to Partnership Formation	Toronto	Southern Maine	West Virginia
1. Political Support for Reform	High	High	High
2. Higher Ed. Leadership	High	High	High
3. District Leadership	High	High	High
4. Turbulence	High	High1	Low
5. External Funds	Moderate	Moderate	High
6. Internal Funds	High	Moderate	Moderate
7. External Networks	Not Present	High	Moderate
8. Shared Vision	High	High	High

¹ This turbulence was predominantly in one school district.

1 The commitment of financial resources was from the district. There was a high commitment from schools in terms of time and energy.

J.2.3 The Antecedents of Partnership Formation

Turbulence was a significant factor in Toronto and in one district in Maine, as dissatisfaction with current conditions grew and became more public. In West Virginia, the political support or push was in response to a general concern for the state of education within West Virginia, a state that ranks 49th out of 50 states in educational achievement.

Support from external funds was an important factor in each site, but in somewhat different ways. In Toronto, funding from the Ministry of Education for start-up costs, was an important contribution but less significant than the investment of internal funds that each of the members was willing to commit on an annual basis. In Southern Maine, the availability of external funds was not directly for support of the partnership itself. Rather it was the availability of state grants to support school renewal efforts that enabled the partnership to move from planning to action. In West Virginia, on the other hand, the possibility of significant external funds was a significant motivator in launching the partnership.

While in absolute dollars the size of the investment on the part of school districts in Southern Maine and West Virginia is substantially smaller than that in Toronto, relative to the size of the district and their annual budgets, the investment in Southern Maine could be viewed as quite large. In addition, the investment of internal funds on the part of the university in West Virginia was quite substantial, while the investment on the part of the College of Education was minimal. However, in all cases the investment of time and energy on the part of all members has been extraordinary.

Table J-4 lists the variables that played a prominent role in gaining commitment to these reform efforts. Once again leadership plays a prominent role. In all cases, leaders in the university and in the schools/school districts made public commitments to the goals established by the partnership. This observation may appear inconsistent with the assessment of only moderate levels of perceived benefits of the university partners in Toronto and West Virginia. There is no question that the leadership within the colleges of education felt that there was much to be gained from the partnership. Similarly, those beliefs were shared by a core of university faculty. There was a significant proportion of the faculty, however, who were either uninformed, uninterested, or at least not committed to the partnership enterprise.

Previous research (Havelock, et al., 1983; Darling-Hammond, 1994) has reported the importance of previous collaborative experience in making school-university partnerships work. Darling-Hammond suggests that the capacity to collaborate is part of a developmental process that cannot be short-circuited. Those Professional Development Schools (PDSs) that got off to strong starts were the ones that grew out of preexisting personal and organizational relationships. The common history and shared understandings provided a foundation for building a shared vision and working relationships in the new enterprise.

Interestingly, in each of the three school-university partnerships studied, there was no history of "collaboration" prior to the development of the partnership arrangement. In fact, there had been a history of somewhat antagonistic relations. Schools were "used" for practicum placements for student teaching, but the relationships were strained by traditional hierarchies, little involvement from university faculty in the schools, and feelings of exploitation. The establishment of the partnerships took time to develop trust and mutual respect for the unique knowledge, perspectives, and roles of all the partners. In each case, the school-based teacher education collaboration was not initiated until relationships had been built.

In Maine, several years of nonhierarchical interactions with the university through the Southern Maine Partnership had established a strong culture of reflection, and mutual respect among the university and school-based faculty who participated. The Partnership had established norms of shared decision making and commitment to collaboration, so that when the university invited the schools to help them design a new field-based preservice program, the schools were ready and committed to working together, even though there had been a history of bad experiences.

In Toronto, the University of Toronto had always used Toronto area schools to place students for their practicum experiences, but there had been little involvement on the part of university faculty. In fact, in much of the current program that is still the case. The successful venture into school-based partnerships for teacher preparation was built on a short but very positive relationship that had developed during the first year of the Consortium. A faculty member who had conducted the first summer institute for the Consortium continued to work with the member boards the next year, providing ongoing support and additional training for school-based educators. When she proposed a pilot preservice program in partnership schools, the schools were receptive because she had already earned their trust and respect.

Similarly in West Virginia, the first PDSs were given time to develop their own direction with the support and assistance of university faculty. There too, there had been a history of bad relations with the university, and few school-based faculty were interested in taking student teachers into their classrooms. Many teachers were skeptical of the university’s hidden motives, but once they saw that there were none, attitudes changed and many strong relationships developed with individual university faculty. When the idea of a teacher education center was introduced, it received a positive reception, and many teachers now value working with student teachers.

J.2.4 The Intervening Development of Partnerships

It is not surprising to find so many high ratings, as these are the factors that were found to be consistently important across the three school-university partnerships. Funding was particularly important for providing the breadth of professional development opportunities in each site. The high level of funding in Toronto, however, was not a result of external funds, but was made possible due to the reallocation and commitment of existing funds from each member organization.

TABLE J-5. Intervening Factors in Partnership Development

Intervening Variables	Toronto	Southern Maine	West Virginia
Level of Commitment	High/Mod1	High	High/Mod2
Stability of Leadership	High	High	Low
Emphasis on Professional Development	High	High	High
Shared Decision Making	High	High	High/D.K.3
Relationships between University and Schools	High/Low4	High	Moderate5
Funding	High	High	High
Knowledge Resources	High	High	High
Intensity of Linkages	High/Mod6	High	High/Mod6

¹ In Toronto, the level of commitment to the partnership’s mission is very high among those representatives of each institution most active in the Consortium, most importantly from the leadership within each institution, but knowledge of and commitment to the partnership on the part of the broad-based population with schools and the Faculty of Education is moderate.

² In West Virginia, commitment to the partnership’s mission is high among the leadership of each institution but less prevalent among the broad-base population within the College.

³ The commitment to shared decisionmaking was critical to the partnership’s development, and at its height the commitment was high. The current transition to a new governance structure is not yet in place.

⁴ The relationships between the university and school districts is very high, as it is with individual schools. However, given the great size of the districts, only a small number of strong relationships have been developed with individual schools.

⁵ Relationships vary by schools. Some are very strong, and some are not. Also, many of these relationships are among individuals within schools and the university, rather than with the institutions as a whole.

⁶ The intensity of linkages with school districts is very high, as it is with some individual schools. The intensity of linkages with the majority of university faculty has been moderate.

While each partnership has made a strong investment in professional development within the schools, only Toronto has begun to develop some formal mechanisms for addressing the professional development of university faculty. On the other hand, the collaborative efforts in developing site-based teacher education programs, where faculty have worked extensively in schools, have been an important source of professional learning for both school and university-based teacher educators. In all cases, the emphasis on professional development, shared decision making, and access to knowledge and expertise has been critical in strengthening the infrastructure of the partnerships and the commitment to collaborative mission.
-###-

[Assessment of Outcomes: Overview of General Findings: Professionalism and Institutionalization (part 2 of 4)]

[Assessment of Outcomes: Overview of General Findings: Professionalism and Institutionalization (part 4 of 4)]