A
PDS Governance Model: Building
Collaboration and Accountability
Doug MacIsaac,
Mercedes Tichenor, and Elizabeth Heins
Stetson
University
Many universities and school districts
have joined together to participate in K-12 education reform through the
establishment of Professional Development School partnerships (PDS) (Clark, 1999). Professional development schools are
committed to developing exemplary practices to maximize student outcomes,
provide optimum sites for teacher preparation, offer research-based teacher
professional development, and implement reflective inquiry to enhance learning
for all (Osguthorpe, Harris, Harris, & Black, 1995). In addition to these purposes, PDSs
serve as vehicles for simultaneous renewal of schooling and teacher preparation
(Goodlad, 1994). In order to
accomplish this educational agenda, PDSs need ongoing opportunities to examine
partnership goals and purpose (Teitel, 1998). The importance of this point is clear
when one considers that as separate and complex institutions, schools and
universities have distinct missions, cultures, and relationships that are not
always mutual and may result in barriers to partnership development as
institutional self-interests operate at cross purposes. For example, the primary
purpose of schools is to provide an education for children and not serve as
field settings for preservice teachers. Further, there may be financial,
time, accountability, and personnel constraints that make it difficult for
schools and universities to merge (Darling-Hammond, 1994). Thus, overcoming these challenges to
establishing and maintaining effective school and university partnerships
require early and ongoing preparation and planning (Moore, Hopkins, &
Tullis, 1991). This preparation and
planning can be accomplished through strong governing bodies representing all
stakeholders in a PDS (Teitel, 1997).
In this article, we describe the four-year development of a PDS
governance model that began with one elementary school partnership and moved to
a multiple site partnership network. Further, we offer recommendations for other
institutions establishing PDS governance frameworks.
The governance models described in this article are based on a union formed between a private university in the southeast and a local school district. This professional development partnership emphasizes shared decision making, collaborative planning, and encourages school faculty to assume leadership roles. The work of the PDS partnership is guided by the following four goals: (1) increase student achievement; (2) implement research-based best practices in teaching (3) provide on-going support for preservice and inservice activities to enhance professionalism; and (4) develop strong professional development partnerships. Further, the following vision statement developed by participating members of the PDS partnership (i.e., school principal, district personnel, classroom teachers, and university faculty) keeps the partnership focused:
The collaborative professional development partnership is dedicated to supporting a diverse community of learners at all levels of educational development. Through mutual trust, respect, and shared decision-making, emphasis [is] placed on professional growth, effective instructional practices and mentoring.
The PDS partnership began with a Title 1 elementary school of approximately 800 students prekindergarten through grade five after a systematic and deliberate selection process (Heins & Tichenor, 1999). Ensuring that the partnership accomplishes the goals established by the participants is a key function of the governance body referred to as the PDS steering council. The steering council, consisting of teacher education faculty, teachers and administrators from the elementary school, district personnel, and the university/school liaison, was formed during the planning stages of the partnership. The primary function of this group is to oversee PDS partnership activities. To carry out this charge, the steering council meets monthly throughout the school year to establish policies for the partnership, coordinate and manage PDS activities, and engage in long term planning and assessment. The steering council plans summer retreats, which are opportunities for members to reflect on and celebrate the year’s accomplishments, formulate priorities for the upcoming year, and establish a time line for new PDS initiatives. Further, as a formal kick-off to the partnership each year, the steering council plans a motivational activity and discussion time to present PDS opportunities to school personnel. PDS adaptations of “Jeopardy” and “Mission Impossible” are examples of PDS kick-off events.
To
facilitate shared decision-making, a university faculty member and a school
faculty member are designated as co-chairs of the council. However, in the first year of the
partnership, PDS governance was predominantly university driven as teacher
education faculty assumed most of the responsibility for planning and conducting
meetings and facilitating PDS activities.
During this time, a classroom teacher was designated as the PDS contact
person who assisted university faculty in planning PDS activities. The second year saw greater
collaboration regarding the planning and facilitation phases of governance with
school and university faculty working together on PDS sponsored
initiatives. The joint planning and
facilitation of the second annual summer retreat by the council co-chairs and a
year long study group on best practices in education co-facilitated by a teacher
and a university faculty member are two examples of the collaboration that has
occurred during the second year as a partnership. During the partnership’s third year and
fourth year, leadership for governance and PDS activities has been predominantly
school driven with university faculty providing support as
needed.
The selection of steering council members
is crucial. An important dimension
of the council is an agreement involving equitable representation of key
personnel in the governance structure (Holmes Group, 1990, Levine, 1996,
Mehaffy, 1992). Early in the
formation of the PDS, members of the steering council drafted a written
partnership agreement outlining specific duties and responsibilities of
university, elementary school, and school district participants. One condition outlined in this agreement
included a commitment by the school, school district, and university personnel
to actively participate in the PDS steering council. Since its formation, the one-site
steering council has maintained a stable membership with representatives from
all areas. At the school level,
participants are selected so that there remains an equitable representation
across administration, grade levels and special areas. Although steering council members are
committed to serving for at least one academic year, they can participate for
longer.
Prior to steering council meetings, all
members are asked to submit agenda items to the co-chairs. Minutes are taken of all meetings,
distributed to members shortly after the meeting, and shared with school
personnel through bulletin board postings.
Meetings are consistently scheduled for the last Thursday of each
month. Typical topics of discussion
at the meetings include a report from the PDS liaison (the PDS liaison is a
university faculty member whose primary responsibility is working with the
partnership schools), grant summaries, program evaluation, teacher professional
development activities, teacher candidate activities, and special PDS sponsored
events such as conference attendance, presentations, or staff development
opportunities (see Figure 1).
Two helpful ways in which PDS activities
are documented are through a tracking chart and a time line. Organized by month, the time line
provides a listing of PDS activities followed by the date. The tracking chart is a more detailed
version of the time line with a listing of the specific activity followed by
location, participant involvement, date started and completed, assessment, and
relationship to partnership goals.
|
PDS Steering
Council Meeting Agenda 1.
Greetings 2.
PDS Network 3.
Application time line for PDS Award (due next
January) 4.
Liaison report
PDS activities
Newsletter stories
Stetson sport tickets for honor roll students
Intern update 5.
Conferences Learn and Serve
Regional Institute Association of Teacher
Educators Annual Meeting 6.
PTA night in March 7.
Literature conference Student
essays
8.
End of year survey
9.
Summer planning/retreat 10.
Other/next meeting date |
An important aspect of beginning any PDS partnership is the signing of an agreement between the district, school, and university. Our formal agreement was written early in the collaboration and committed each institution to the partnership for a period of three years. In the agreement, we included the rationale, duration of partnership, vision statement, partnership goals, and specific roles and responsibilities of all participants. The district superintendent, school board chairman, school principal, university president, college dean, and the chair of the education department all signed the agreement. The agreement was then presented to the district school board.
The governance system described above has
been very effective in overseeing the operation of a single PDS site. However, after three years of working
with one elementary school, the PDS partnership was expanded to include three
additional elementary schools, thus beginning a PDS network. The purpose of the PDS network is to
increase collaboration and support among area elementary schools and the
university by providing opportunities for participants to work with other
network schools in the area of professional development. Under this new direction, the original
PDS site serves as the training center or hub site to disseminate best practices
and provide support for teachers at the expanded sites. For example, a fifth grade teacher
at the hub site helped train a class of fifth grade students at another site on
the use of multimedia technology.
As before, we began the network relationship with a formal signed
agreement between the participating schools, school district, and
university. Although the network
agreement was modeled after the original partnership agreement, it also includes
specific school focus areas and the signatures of the all network school
principals. Once again the
agreement was presented to the district school board.
The essential mechanism for ensuring that
the PDS network remains accountable to all participating educational
organizations and accomplishes the established goals is the governance
structure. Building on the
experience and success of the original PDS steering council, the PDS network
governance structure was designed to address the unique interests and needs of
the four schools, school district, and university involved in the educational
partnership. Thus, a two-tier
system was established. The
overarching tier is a network steering council with at least three
representatives from all the schools (two teachers and the school principal),
university faculty members, and district personnel. This council meets twice a semester to
oversee all PDS network activities.
Here again, co-chairs were identified to lead the council. As this was a new endeavor for most of
the participants, everyone agreed that the co-chairs for the first year would be
university faculty members.
However, as we move into the second year of the network partnership, a
university faculty member and a school principal will serve as co-chairs of the
network steering council. As with
the original steering council, we continue with the distribution of minutes
after each meeting and the upkeep of a network-tracking chart.
In addition to the network steering
council, each participating school has a site-level steering council, which
functions much like the original steering council. To ensure university representation, at
least one university faculty member serves on each site-level steering
council. It is noteworthy to
mention that at two of the schools the steering councils exist as a separate
group whereas in the other schools the steering councils have been assimilated
into an extant group (i.e., school-wide leadership committee). We find these configurations to be
of interest with respect to the implications that might be drawn with regard to
a school’s level of commitment to the PDS and involvement in network
activities.
Although the PDS network adopted the original partnership goals that channel the collective work of the network, one of the first tasks assigned by the network council was for each school-level council to address its areas of need. As noted in Figure 2, the common focus area of closing the gap on student achievement emerged across all network schools. This common focus allows the network partners to plan and coordinate educational activities for all stakeholders. (During the initial network steering council meeting, a decision was made and agreed upon unanimously that network sponsored activities that are scheduled at one school would be open to faculty from other network schools.)
|
Network School’s
Focus Areas |
|
Elementary 1 ·
Closing
the gap on student achievement ·
Responding
to behavior issues ·
Increasing
reading skills and literacy ·
Serving
special needs children ·
Incorporating
technology ·
Building
a team-oriented faculty ·
Providing
educational outdoor activities |
Elementary
2 ·
Closing
the gap on student Achievement ·
Improving
instruction in reading And
literacy ·
Utilizing
multiple alternative Assessments ·
Networking
with other schools to share best
practices |
|
Elementary
3
reading and
math
|
Elementary
4
Achievement
To support students
and families |
Figure 2 School Based Focus Areas
Some topics already addressed by the
network steering council include budgetary issues, school-level governance,
workshops, technology integration, program evaluation, and teacher candidate
preparation. A particularly
successful event has been the distribution of mini-grants to teachers at all
schools. Mini-grants were funded
through university monies that were dedicated to be used to support the work of
the PDS network. In order to
receive these mini-grants, teachers had to submit an application that supported
one or more of the identified focus areas at their schools. Principals from each school were asked
to rank their teachers’ proposals in relation to how well they addressed the
focus areas. A selection committee
comprised of representatives from the university and each school then reviewed
the proposals. In order to ensure
fairness, teachers’ names were removed from the mini-grant proposals prior to
being brought before the selection committee. This is an example of how all schools in
the partnership network participated in the process of allocating resources in
order to support partnership goals.
A critical first year challenge for the
network council was keeping communication lines open among all schools and
participants. It was difficult to
keep all stakeholders apprised of all activities. In an effort to maintain open
communication, a university faculty member was assigned to each partnering
school to serve on the school’s PDS governing body. Further, an interschool mailing system
and a PDS network electronic listserv was started. A second challenge involved the
equitable distribution of both financial and human resources among the network
schools within the context of a small university and education department. (It is important to note that university
faculty members participate in various ways and degrees in the PDS
partnership.) With a teacher
education faculty numbering ten and a small student body, we continued to
struggle with finding ways to work more efficiently. One way this was add addressed was to
encourage preservice teachers who were involved in research projects to consider
undertaking a study that would support a partnership school’s focus area. For example, a study that looked at
alternative approaches to assessment in the area of literacy instruction
provided valuable information to primary teachers at a network school site while
at the same time provided teacher candidates with an authentic field-based
learning experience. This project
satisfied partial university requirements for both a senior research class and a
course in reading methods.
Recommendations
Though
diverse in structure and operation, educational partnerships are engaged in the
work of increasing student achievement, mentoring preservice teachers, and
providing on-going professional development activities for inservice
teachers. An effective governance
structure supports the goals of the partnership and creates opportunities in
which all participants are able to grow professionally. After four years of working within
our governance structure, we have learned many important lessons. We offer the following recommendations
for institutions developing similar frameworks:
1.
Build an
environment of trust among steering council members by starting with
non-threatening activities.
Beginning of the year events such as Kick-Offs and periodic socials along
with activities originating at the school level that address specific student
learning and teacher professional needs have proven to be stable bedrock upon
which to build a strong and enduring foundation of trust. This is especially important when adding
new PDS partners and establishing new steering councils.
2.
Include
representatives from all stakeholder groups. An inclusive policy regarding governance
communicates to individuals and groups that their participation is valued and
necessary in order to accomplish the goals set forth to bring about educational
reform. Although there may be many
individuals who volunteer to participate in the beginning of the partnership,
some attrition of members may occur.
Establishing co-chairs for the council and providing opportunities for
all participants to provide input for agenda items are indicators of an
inclusive governance body.
3.
Schedule
regular meetings with written agendas.
Formalizing the work of the PDS through a governing body such as a
steering council is essential in order to coordinate day to day activities
between partnership schools and the university and to maintain a balance between
the goals of the partnership and the specific focus areas of each individual
school.
4.
Distribute
steering council minutes to all stakeholders. This sends the message that participants
are important to the success of the partnership. Moreover, organizations that work in
partnerships are more likely to realize their mutual self-interests when
communication flows openly between organizations. Council minutes are an excellent form of
communicating, in an abbreviated form, the work of the PDS partnership at the
school, university, and district level.
5.
Outline
short-term as well as long-term plans.
Maintaining the day-to-day work of the PDS is an important function of a
governance body. Equally important
in governance is the ability to focus the lens of day-to-day work in order to
clearly view and monitor the movement of the partnership toward the
accomplishment of long term plans. Providing times during the year to reflect on
what has been accomplished and what still needs to be done is essential in order
adequately address both short-term and long-term planning.
6.
Rotate
steering council membership periodically.
Governance is time-consuming work and people are more likely to volunteer
and serve with genuine commitment if they know the duration of time
involved. Members should also be
free to resign if they find the responsibilities or time requirements too
demanding. A staggered rotational
membership fosters innovation, provides continuity and maintenance, and
minimizes the likelihood of organizational stagnation. Foremost, steering council members must
be committed to the mission and goals of the partnership.
7.
Develop a
formal written partnership agreement early in the relationship, which is
consented to and signed by the key stakeholders. Formalizing the partnership through a
written and signed agreement serves to center the partnership and increase
commitment among participants.
We believe that our governance structure
has served the PDS well over the past four years. Through an active governing body we have
addressed the critical tasks of governance, which include building bridges of
mutual respect and support between the schools and university, managing the
immediate work of the PDS network, engaging in long term network planning, and
supporting the process of mutual renewal (Teitel, 1998). However, to further understand the
effectiveness of a two-tiered governance structure and the implications of
various governance models, additional research in this area will be conducted.
References
Clark, R. W. (1999). Effective professional development
schools. San Francisco:
Jossey-
Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L.
(1994). Developing professional
development schools: Early
lessons, challenge, and promise.
In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Professional development schools: Schools
for a developing profession (pp. 1-27). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Heins, E., & Tichenor,
M. (1999). Building professional
development schools: Specific
steps to initiate the
process. Teacher Educators Journal, 9(1),
25-33.
Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s Schools: Principles for the
design of professional
development
schools. East Lansing, MI:
Authors.
Levine, M. (1996). Professional development school standards
synthesis paper: A work
in progress.
(National
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education PDS Standards Project). Washington, DC:
Author.
Goodlad, J. (1994). The
national network for educational renewal. Phi Delta Kappan, 75
(8),
632-638.
Mehaffy, G. (1992). Issues in the creation and the
implementation of a professional
development
school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the AACTE, San Antonio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346
031)
Moore, K., Hopkins, S.,
& Tullis, R. (1991).
Professional development schools:
Classroom teacher
perceptions. Teacher Education and Practice, 7(1),
45-50.
Osguthorpe, R. T., Harris,
C. R., Harris, M., & Black, S. (1995). Partner schools:
Centers for educational
renewal.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teitel, L. (1997). The organization and governance of professional development schools.
In M. Levine & R. Trachtman (Eds.), Making professional development schools work: Politics, practice, and policy (pp. 115- 133). New York: Teachers College Press
Teitel, L. (1998). Designing professional development school
governance structures.
Washington, DC: AACTE
Publications.
A PDS Governance
Model: Building Collaboration and
Accountability
Many universities and school districts have joined together to participate in K-12 education reform through the establishment of Professional Development School partnerships (PDS) (Clark, 1999). Overcoming the challenges to establishing and maintaining effective school and university partnerships require early and ongoing preparation and planning (Moore, Hopkins, & Tullis, 1991). This preparation and planning can be accomplished through strong governing bodies representing all stakeholders in a PDS (Teitel, 1997). In this article, we describe the development of a PDS governance model that began with one elementary school partnership and moved to a multiple site partnership network. Further, we offer recommendations for other institutions establishing PDS governance frameworks.