This article examines urban school–university partnership research after No Child Left Behind. Central to the review is an analysis in the trend of research methods utilized across studies. It was found that many studies are single-case studies or anecdotal. There are few quantitative, sustained qualitative, or mixed-methods studies represented in the literature sampled. We suggest that significant hurdles make more reliable studies difficult to mount. In light of that, we offer suggestions about issues and factors for consideration when such partnerships are created.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcarM., & RobertsonP. J. (2004). Accountability challenges in networks and partnerships: Evidence from educational partnerships in the United States.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70, 331–344.
2.
BernardH. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
3.
BorreroN. (2010). Urban–school connections: A university–K–8 partnership.Catholic Education: Journal of Theory and Practice,14, 47–66.
4.
BursteinN., CzechM., KretschmerD., LombardiJ., & SmithC. (2009). Providing qualified teachers for urban schools: The effectiveness of the accelerated collaborative teacher preparation program in recruiting, preparing, and retaining teachers.Action in Teacher Education,31, 24–37.
5.
Causton-TheoharisJ., TheoharisG., BullT., CosierM., & Dempf-AldrichK. (2011). Schools of promise: A school district–university partnership centered on inclusive school reform.Remedial and Special Education,32, 192–205.
6.
ChristensenL., EpanchinB., HarrisD., RosselliH., SmithR. L., & StoddardK. (1996). Anatomy of six public school–university partnerships.Teacher Education and Special Education,19, 169–179.
7.
ChuM., CarrollD., FloresM. T., & FrenchK. (2011). Critical inquiry and collaborative action: Transforming a college of education o recruit and retain under-represented populations to teacher education.Northwest Passage Journal of Education Practices,9, 60–71.
8.
ClandininD. J., & ConnellyF. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
CostiganA. T. (2013). New urban teachers transcending neoliberal educational reforms: Embracing aesthetic education as a curriculum of political action.Urban Education,48(1), 116–148.
10.
CroccoM. S., & CostiganA. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out.Urban Education,42(6), 512–535.
11.
CreswellJ., & Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Darling-HammondL. (1999). Investing in teaching as the learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. In Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 376–412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fals BordaO., & RahmanM. A. (Eds.). (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
15.
FeistritzerC. E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information.
16.
FlynnJ., Cooper ShawC., & DorschN. (2009). Urban legends: Representing the urban teacher in urban teacher film (1955–2007).Society for the Study of Curriculum History,1, 84–98.
17.
HarrisR. C., & HarrisM. F. (1994). University/school partnerships: Exploring tangible and intangible costs and benefits. In O'HairM. J., & OdellS. J. (Eds.), Partnerships in education: Teacher education yearbook II (pp. 45–68). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
18.
JeffreyJ. V., & PolleckJ. N. (2010). Reciprocity through co-instructed site-based courses: Perceived benefit and challenge overlap in an urban school–university partnership.Teacher Education Quarterly,37(3), 81–99.
19.
JohnsonR. B., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher,33(7), 14–26.
20.
KanpolB., & AbbottJ. (2006). Constructing a university/public school partnership: Scholar–practitioner pursuits.Scholarlypartnerships.edu,1(1), 5–16.
21.
KindonS., PainR., & KesbyM. (Eds.). (2007). Participatory action research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation, and place.New York: Routledge.
22.
LeeR. E., EckrichL. T., LackeyC., & ShowalterB. D. (2010). Pre-service teacher pathways to urban teaching: A partnership model for nurturing community-based urban teacher preparation.Teacher Education Quarterly,37(3), 101–122.
23.
LedouxM. W., & McHenryN. (2008). Pitfalls of school–university partnerships.The Clearinghouse,81, 155–160.
24.
LeslieD. A. (2011). Seeking symmetry in a school–university partnership: University of Chicago and Chicago public schools. A collaborative approach to developing models and tools for professional development and teacher preparation.Planning and Changing,42, 120–154.
25.
LewisC. W., JamesM., HancockS., & Hill-JacksonV. (2008). Framing African American students’ success and failure in urban settings: A typology for change.Urban Education,43(2), 127–153.
26.
LewisonM., & HollidayS. (1997). Control, trust, and rethinking traditional roles: Critical elements in creating a mutually beneficial university–school partnership.Teacher Education Quarterly,24(1), 105–126.
27.
MartinD., EganT. M., McWilliamsA. S., WilsonE. E., & HoltM. L. (2008). Meeting teacher demand, increasing teacher performance.Scholarlypartnerships.edu,3(2), 5–33.
28.
McKeeA.2005. Textual analysis.London: Sage.
29.
McLaughlinM. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context. In LittleJ. W., & McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 79–103). New York: Teachers College Press.
30.
McTaggartR. (1991). Principles for participatory action research.Adult Education Quarterly,41(3), 168–187.
31.
MillerP. M., & HafnerM. M. (2008). Moving toward dialogic collaboration: A critical examination of a university–school–community partnerships.Educational Administration Quarterly,44(1), 66–110.
32.
MorrellJ. (2010). Teacher preparation and diversity: When American pre-service teachers aren't White and middle class.International Journal of Multicultural Education,12(1), 1–17.
33.
NietoS. (2009). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities (10th anniversary Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
NogueraP., & WingJ. Y. (2006). Unfinished business: Closing the achievement gap in our schools.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
OnoreC., & GildinB. (2010). Preparing urban teachers as public professionals through a university–community partnership.Teacher Education Quarterly,37(3), 27–44.
37.
RavidR., & HandlerM. (2001). The many faces of school–university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships.Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
38.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.New York: Basic Books.
39.
SlavikinM., BraysmithH., & FaustN. (2010). The process of engagement: Developing civic literacy via school–university partnerships.School–University Partnerships,4, 45–77.
40.
SmileyA., DrakeJ., & SheehyC. (2010). Blazing a new path: Collaborating toward best practice in urban teacher education. In 2010 Yearbook: Urban learning, teaching, and research (pp. 4–16). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
41.
StairsA. J. (2010). The learning and service of preservice teachers in an urban school university partnership: The struggle to enact culturally responsive pedagogy. In 2010 Yearbook: Urban learning, teaching, and research (pp. 26–36). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
42.
Thomas-BrownK., BrunvandS., LueraG., HentrelB., & BarlowL. (2010). Breaking down the ivory tower: Creating a school–university partnership where everyone benefits.Scholarlypartnerships.edu,5(2), 3–12.
43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
44.
WalkerD. A., & DowneyP. M. (2012). Leadership for learning.Source Educational Forum,76, 13–24.
45.
WalkerD. A., SorensenC. K., SmaldinoS. E., & DowneyP. M. (2007). A model for a professional development school intervention: REAL findings.School–University Partnerships,2, 6–26.
46.
WitsellK., KeenanD., NelsonF., DanielL., SyverudS., HallK. (2009). Evolving through collaboration and commitment: The story of the north Florida urban professional development school partnership.School–University Partnerships,3, 42–57.
