Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article approaches educational partnerships from two perspectives not dominant in the current literature. First, it adopts an organizational perspective, analyzing the participants in a school, corporate foundation, university, and college partnership from the institutional dynamics of each agency. Focusing on preexistent organizational characteristics rather than on the group dynamics created by various forms of partnering may provide a more parsimonious way of conceptualizing what is a very complex phenomenon. Second, because partnerships are by definition the creation of networks, success is examined by looking at the potential to create social capital. Following Putnam, social capital refers to dense networks of reciprocal social relations.

Keywords

school partnership assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 421-455.

Bainer, B. L. (1997). A comparison of four models of group efforts and their implications for establishing educational partnerships. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 13 (3), 143-152.

Benson, L. , Harkavy, I. , & Puckett, J. (2000). An implementation revolution as a strategy for fulfilling the democratic promise of university-community partnerships: Penn-West Philadelphia as an experiment in progress. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1) 24-45.

Coca-Cola Foundation . (1998, May). Conference report: Executive summary. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Coca-Cola Foundation . (n.d.a). Guidelines for program evaluation and grant contract. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Coca-Cola Foundation . (n.d.b). Handbook: A guide to a pre-grant site visit (2nd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Author.

Coca-Cola Foundation . (n.d.c). Keeping kids in school, summative assessments, the third round projects, 1998-1999-2000, and the fourth round projects, 1999-2000-2001, keeping kids in school program. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Feuerstein, A. (2001). Selling our schools? Principals’views of schoolhouse commercialism and school-business interactions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37 (3), 322-371.

Gilsinan, J. F. (1991). Public policy and criminology: An historical and philosophical reassessment. Justice Quarterly, 8 (2), 201-216.

10.

Giroux, H. A. (1999). Schools for sale: Public education, corporate culture, and the citizenconsumer. Education Forum, 63 (2), 140-149.

11.

Goldhaber, G. M. (1974). Organizational communication. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.

12.

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

13.

Harris-Stowe State College . (2001). Faculty personnel policies and procedures manual. Saint Louis, MO: Author.

14.

Peterson-del Mar, D. (1994). Community coalitions to restructure schools (Report No. 88). Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management No. SJJ69850)

15.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

16.

Saint Louis Public School System . (2001-2002). An annual report to the community. Saint Louis, MO: Author.

17.

Saint Louis University . (1994). The faculty manual of Saint Louis University. Saint Louis, MO: Author.

18.

Saint Louis University . (2000-2001). Fact book. Saint Louis, MO: Author.

19.

Weiner, L. (1999). Urban teaching: The essentials. New York: Teachers College Press.

20.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Rethinking School Partnerships

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References