DOCUMENT RESUME UD 022 202 AUTHOR Collins, R
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED .215 045 UD 022 202 AUTHOR Collins, R.; And Others TIME Case Studies of Three Urban University-School . Coilaboratives Mandated for the Improvement of Educational Practice. Volute II, Final Report. INSTITUTION TDR AssOciates, Inc., Newton, Mass. SPONS AGENCY National Ingt. of.Education (ED), -qshington, D.C. PUB DATE Oct 81 CONTRACT 400-79-0064 NOTE '277p.; For related documents,see UD 022 201-203. EDRS.PRtCE MF01/PC1A-Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Case studies; *College School Cooperation; Community Involvement; *Cooperative Programs; Educational Cooperation; Educational Facilities Improvement; *Educational Improvementy Elementary Secondary Eddcation; *Improvement Programs; *Information Utilization; Instructional Improvement;' *Organizational Communication; Organizational . Theories; Program Effectiveness; Systems Analysis IDENTIFIERS *Boston Public Schools MA ABSTRACT , . This s Volume II of a two- volume,final report of a study on the exchange and use of knowledge for school improvementin three pairedieducational systems inBoston, Massachusett-S.The pairings, which involved the collaboration ofa college/university 'with one or more of the Boston public schools in carryingout school .4improvement programs,were among 26, such collaborative arrangements . mandaed by court order in 1975 as part of Boston's desegregation program,'The first'volume of the report provides background information, describes the conceptual modll andmethodology used in the study, and summarizes conclusioniend recommendations:This-' volume contains reports on.the case s udies of the three paired' Systems. The pairs inOestigatA' we: (1) Harris University-District A; (2), Massadhusetts College-District B; and (3) Dunfey University-District C. Each case,study describes the paired institutions and their settings, explains the studymethodology., describes projects studies 'in each paired system, providesa cross project analysis of the collaborativeprocesses involved; analyzes the'nature of roles/functions that evolved from the collaboration, andexamines factors that contributed to programsuccess. The'case stu4tes cbnclude with a.discussion of the,types of knowledge exchange th4.occuired within the pairing-sponsoredprojects. (Author/Mn) *********************************************4************************ * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcanbe made * * , * from the'original document. * / *********************************************************************** , - U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION . CENTER (ERIC) /isdocument has been reproduced as recmved from the person or organuation onginatins it Minor changes have been made to Improve TDR Associates, Inc.Training/Development/Researc reproduction quality Points of wew or opinions stated In this docu ment do not necessarily represent official NIE position or policy "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY WIL. 'hotel T-ENail A A--rz.s. 1114 A, TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) FINAL REPORT Volume II Case Studies of Three Urban University-School Collaboratives Mandated for the Improvement of Educational Practice Prepared for the: National Institute of Education Prepared by: 0 TDR Associates, Inc. October, 1981 Contract No. 400-79-0064 rJ 0 w It 00 ritO . 385 Elliot Street, Newton, Mas(achusetts 02164 / (617) 969-0651 - .1 I Abstract dr This 1 1/2 year study (1979-1981) examined factors and c ditions affecting the exchange anduse of'knowledge resotrces n three (of twenty -six) larger and more complex Pairing ofcolleges/universities and the Boston Public Schools, mandated by urt order in,1975 as part of Boston1sdesegregationcise. It was -found -that knowledge exchange/ use for school improvement in these complex inteiorganizationalarrange- ments (collaboratives) is governeelargelyby an interaction of:.their structural arrangements; theirparticular history and environment; several, staged inter-organizationalprocesses; and a discrete hierarchy of needs and resources (withparallel risk and impact levels). These Pairings were foundto be highly person-dependent (versus product-dependent), in which individualadvocacy, networking and verbal change are the primary modes of cost-ineffective initiation,knowledge flow, and knowledge use. The predominant type ofeducational knowledge flow/use was found to be situationalknowledge firgt (47%-$3%), craft knowledge ,second (36%-41%), andresearch knowledgpthird (5%-16%). In the Pairings surprisingly littleuse was made of available federal /state/ private R & D products for schoolimkovement: Absence of sufficient feedback/altering mechanisms as a design flaw in the struc ualapparatus of the Pairing's, was identifiedas the major barrier to Ting beyond mid-level fv ctibning and impact. 3 t. r TABLE 9F CONTENTS -Page Abstract A. HARRIS UNIVERSITY AND DISTRICT A 1 , B. DUNFEY UNIVERSITY AND DISTRICT B 79 C. MASSACHUSETTS COILEGE ANDDISTRICT C 174 ok 4 4 o i 4, U- 4 PREFACE This is a final reportof a study of factors and conditionsaffect- ing the exchange anduse of knowledge resources in three (of twenty:- six) pairings of colleges /universities and theBoston Public 'chools, mandated by court orderin'1975 as part of Boston's desegregationcase. The eighteen -monthstudy was conducted of these (continued)operational pairings between_1979,19814by-TDR-Associates', Inc. of Newton, Massachusetts, under a contract with ' r the National Instituteof Education. 4 . The report is presented in two volumes. 4 Volume II consistsof the threecase studies. Volume I begins with an introduction whichincludes: a statemrt of the purpose of th'study, definitionof key terms used, a description of the three pairings studied, theirbackground setting, and the appfoach)andmethods used in the study, We thenpresent a conceptual at. model deri:Ved'fromthe case, studies followed by an application otthe model in'our crosb-caseanalysis. We then move on toa summary of ciz, conclusions, fromyhich wederive recommendation'sfor both practitioners Ow and researchers concernedwith college/university Ar and school collaborations. 9 The details of our cross-case coding schemes,a bibliography, and a directory . o similar'collaborativesare included as appendices. The study yas conducted by and with theassietans,e of many people, The three case studies:were conducted and writtenseparately by Roger ' Collins, JosephFerreira, and Linda Pertotto, They are based ona _jointly,developednalytiC framework refined andmodified through fregu'ent ,,discussiops with' me and others durint.the course of theirwork. Patricia Lawrence served as Project/Coordinator aSsistingin all aspects of the study. John D. herzoggand George B. Thomas consultatedwith us on design, issues and data interpretation': -Together we developeda. draft 5 A cross-case analysis. This draft was revised.and expandied into the , conceptual model presented ough'an independent analysis of thecases, , conducted by JosephB.PaPpa, with the assistance,a of Jdilin D. Herzog and William .7.\enova... We are particulaiy indebted to themany people as:sociated with the pairings studied, for their,timeand thoughtfulness inour interviews 'with them. Our thanks also to Ward Mason, Project Mdnitbrfor the National'Institute of Education, fox' hisfull cooperatimm and support. However, we accept full responsibility'forconclusions and opinions expressed in this report. Robert Chin Principal Insrestigator TDRAssociate:s, October, 1981 1 L t O A. HARRISH S UNIVERSITY AND DISTRICT A 1. Overview (r This case investigates the collaboration of'HarrisUniversity, Community District A of the City of Boston Schools,and parents of the five4 neighborhoods involved. A description of the collaborative-partners follows. The University Harris University is a large, urban-based, privately-fundedinstitution. It enrolls, more than 25,000 students in sixteen schools4andcolleges, and ranks N%t as one of the largest private universities in the United States.Over 100. years old, Harris is changing from a regiOnal university toone which draws, its students from outside New England. Of.its 110,000 alumni, less than half reside in Massachusetts and forty percent live outsideNew_ England. About half. of the student* live in university housing, indicatingthe degree towhich the Univeriity serves non-commuters. More than eight hundred students from seventlAseven foreign countries are also enrolled. Privately funded; with a smallendowment, the University is dependent 1on tuition which is currently set at over $5500-per year.Admissions criteria are high and inchingfuither upward. The average entering freshban-a/chieves SAT scores in the.75th percentile. The University recently has not attracted lafge numbers of Boston high.school graduates because the metropolitanarea is replete with other private institutions, as wellas low-st state colleges. All of Harris University's academic units are located within the( boundaries of the City. Fourteen of its colleges i.e., all except the Iduate . hools of Medicine and.Dentistryi lie within the borders of Community District . In spite of its locat' the University has not had a marked orientation to- . ward direct service to the urban community.The faculty of Harris University is * - 0 , ;. 7 ,composed of non-local persona. For example, in the School of Education,a key unit in the pairing, only three of ninety-onefaculty members are Boston natives and less than twenty percent were raised in Boston or in New England. Similarly, only 23% received terminal