Unfinishedness: Striving for a Viable Partnership Between TFA and Its University Partner

Abstract

Background/Context

Teach For America (TFA) affiliates with universities in most of its 40 regions nationally; however, few researchers intentionally study the content and processes of a partnership between TFA and a college of education.

Purpose/Research Question/Focus of Study

To ensure that investments both organizations were making had a direct and positive relationship with the constituents, leaders from TFA and Georgia State University began a joint study of our partnership. Researchers believed that participatory collaborative research, utilizing the emic insights, could illuminate needed modifications to best serve novice teachers. Research conducted by only one of the partners is less likely to promote mutuality of respect, reveal salient cultural reference points, honor all stakeholder voices, and enhance a common understanding. The driving question for this strand of this comprehensive 5-year inquiry: What happens when two seemingly disparate institutions with the same mission for educational equity come together to develop urban educators?

Participants

Thirty-three purposefully selected stakeholders were individually interviewed and included (a) university and TFA leadership (e.g., executive director, deans, department chairs) who were involved in the initiation of this partnership (n = 16); and (b) university coaches, faculty, and TFA Program Directors (PDs) who worked as supervisors and mentors in the field and/or instructors in coursework (n = 17). Additionally, 45 TFA Corps Members’ written reflections about their participation in their degree program provided feedback and analysis of their program and the partnership.

Research Design

University faculty and TFA personnel codesigned a multiyear qualitative examination of their joint enterprise of developing urban teachers to promote equitable educative opportunities for all children. A contribution of this study is the empirical and coconstructed nature of its design.

Data Collection/Analysis

The team analyzed data from transcribed verbatim interviews conducted with university and TFA participants, and documents/publications such as Web sites, Memoranda of Understanding, mission statements, emails, meeting memos, program handbook, course syllabi, and TFA Corps Member reflections.

Findings/Results

An examination of this partnership revealed struggles with: (a) contract negotiation, (b) communication, (c) procedural and pragmatic congruence, (d) response to constituent needs, and (e) creation of an authentic and sustainable partnership.

Conclusions/Recommendations

Our partnership fluctuated between an instrumental process focused on survival of complexities and triaging crises and self-focused explorations of organizational priorities and possibilities. Stakeholders collaborated to move beyond institutional paradigms for practices toward more mutually constructed engagements. Recommendations are offered to guide other university/TFA partners as they collaborate for the purpose of urban teacher development.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ballou

, & Podgursky

(2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102, 5–27.

Collay

(1995). Creating a common ground: The facilitator's role in creating school-university partnerships. In Petrie

H. G.

(Ed.), Professionalism, partnership, and power: Building professional development schools (pp. 145–157). New York: State University of New York Press.

Costelloe

(2008). Multiple perspectives on the preparation and support of alternative certification teachers: A case for content-and context-specific support (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations. (UMI No. 3309418)

Creswell

J. W.

(2007) Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166–173.

Darling-Hammond

(2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters, what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13.

Feiman-Nemser

(2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013–1055.

Fisher

(2009). To stay and to change: Beginning social justice educators creating collaborative Third Space(s) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ScholarWorks Dissertation Repository http://scholarworks.gsu.edu. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Fisher

, & Many

J. E.

(in press) From PDS classroom teachers to urban teacher educators: Learning from professional development school boundary spanners. School-University Partnerships. 7(1) 49–63.

10.

Freire

(1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

11.

Fullan

(1991). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

12.

Fullan

(2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Georgia State University. (2012a). Early Childhood Education MAT Program handbook. Atlanta, GA.

14.

Georgia State University (2012b). Georgia State University [Web site]. Available at http://gsu.edu

15.

Georgia State University and Teach for America. (2012). Teach for America @ Georgia State University [Web site]. Available at http://oldcoe.gsu.edu/tfa/

16.

Heineke

, Carter

, Desimone

, & Cameron

(2010). Working together in urban schools: How a university teacher education program and Teach For America partner to support alternatively certified teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 123–136.

17.

Hill

C. E.

, Thompson

B. J.

, Hess

S. A.

, Knox

, Nutt Williams

, & Ladanay

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.196

18.

Koerner

, Lynch

, & Martin

(2008). Why we partner with Teach For America: Changing the conversation. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(10), 726–729.

19.

Kopp

(2003). One day all children: The unlikely triumph of Teach For America and what I learned along the way. New York: PublicAffairs.

20.

Labaree

D. F.

(2010). Teach For America and teacher ed: Heads they win, tails we lose. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 48–55. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347317

21.

Lahann

, & Reagan

E. M.

(2011). Teach for America and the politics of progressive neoliberalism. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 7–27.

22.

Lincoln

Y. S.

, & Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

24.

Merriam

S. B.

(2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Many

, Fisher

, Ogletree

, & Taylor

(2012). Crisscrossing the university and public school contexts as professional development school boundary spanners. Issues in Teacher Education, 21(2). 83–102.

26.

Many

, Fisher

, Taylor

, & Benson

(2011). The work and insights of Professional Development School Boundary Spanners. In Haeussler Bohan

& Many

(Eds.), Clinical Teacher Education: Reflections from an urban Professional Development School network. Information Age Publishing.

27.

Meyers

(2002). The contract negotiation stage of a cross-cultural consultation: A case study. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(3), 151–183.

28.

Miller

P. M.

(2008). Examining the work of boundary spanning leaders in community contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 11(4), 353–377.

29.

Nastasi

B. K.

, Moore

R. B.

, & Varjas

K.M.

(2004). School-based mental health services: Creating comprehensive and culturally specific programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

30.

Nastasi

B. K.

, Varjas

, Bernstein

, & Jayasena

(2000). Conducting participatory culture-specific consultation: A global perspective on multicultural consultation. School Psychology Review, 29, 401–413.

31.

Sandholtz

, & Finan

(1990). Blurring the boundaries to promote school/university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 49(1), 13–25.

32.

Sarason

(1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York: Teachers College Press.

33.

Sarason

S. B.

(1971). The culture of the school and the problem of change. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

34.

Schensul

S. L.

, Schensul

J. J.

, & LeCompte

M. D.

(1999). Essential ethnographic methods: Observations, interviews, and questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

35.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

36.

Stevens

D. D.

(1999). The ideal, real, and surreal in school-university partnerships: Reflections of a boundary spanner. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 287–299.

37.

Strauss

, & Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Swars

, Meyers

, Mays

, & Lack

(2009). A two-dimensional model of teacher retention and mobility: Classroom teachers and their university partners take a closer look at a vexing problem. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 168–183.

39.

Teach For America. (2012). Teach For America [Web site]. Available at http://www.teachforamerica.org

40.

United States Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

41.

United States Department of Education. (2010). Investing in Innovation Fund: Scale Up Grants CFDA 84.396A. Retrieved from http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?oppId=52786&mode=VIEW

42.

Veltri

B. T.

(2008, July). Teaching or service? The site-based realities of Teach For America teachers in poor urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40(5).

43.

Veltri

B. T.

(2010). Learning on other people's kids: Becoming a Teach For America teacher. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

44.

Wilson

, & Daviss

(1994). Redesigning Education. New York: Henry Holt.

45.

Yin

R. K.

(2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.