Journal of the Effective Schools Project, Volume 6, 2000 Page: 51
60 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
gram has also been restructured to in-
clude three new courses: bilingual
education, special education and early
childhood education which add to the
preservice students' knowledge of
special student populations. All el-
ementary preservice students are re-
quired to successfully complete these
three courses during the first semes-
ter of the program.
University faculty, public school
teachers and administrators have also
worked together to create and imple-
ment dual language programs. By par-
ticipating in these dual language pro-
grams, all students have an opportu-
nity to become bilingual and biliterate.
Five school districts have committed
to implementing a dual language pro-
gram on some of their campuses. The
teachers and parents/community have
developed a strong sense of owner-
ship and commitment to dual lan-
guage education.
Conclusion
It is evident that establishing a Col-
laborative and sustaining it is difficult.
Furthermore, it is even more difficult
to ascertain whether its activity is hav-
ing a positive impact on all partici-
pants. Qualitative data presented re-
veals that the implementation of
planned activities in each of the five
indicators was both extensive and ef-
fective. The conceptualization of the
collaborative model around the five
indicators encouraged high levels of
involvement, and thus empowerment,
of all participants. This allowed for
greater ownership, and facilitated a
common vision and learner-centered
philosophy by all partners. Evidence
of effectiveness and impact ranged
from in-kind contributions by all part-
ners for various educational functions,
the integration of the partnership ac-
tivity on campus improvement plans,
and extensive field-based experiences
at the participating campuses facili-tated through site lead teachers.
As discussed earlier, the common vi-
sion embraced by all partners was to
positively impact the success of
student's academic achievement in the
public schools. Although we cannot
attribute this increase to one specific
source, we can say that involvement
among educators such as university
faculty, mentor teachers, administra-
tors, and preservice teachers in a suc-
cessful partnership can only positively
impact the learning process in the
classroom.
While this collaborative model con-
tinues to be successful in its regional
area, more research is needed regard-
ing long-term retention of preservice
teachers once they enter the profes-
sion, future academic success of pub-
lic students in this Collaborative, and
long-term improvement of mentor
teachers transforming their teacher-
centered classrooms into learner-cen-
tered communities. ESP
REFERENCES
Button, K., Ponticell, J., & Johnson, J. J.
(1996). Enabling school-university
collaborative research: Lessons
learned in professional development
schools. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 47, 16-20.
Case, C. W., Norlander, K. A., & Reagan,
T. G. (1993). Cultural transformation
in an urban professional development
center: Policy implications for
school-university collaboration. Edu-
cational Policy, 7, 40-60.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (1994). Pro-
fessional development schools:
Schools for developing a profession.
New York: Teacher College Press.
Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Educational re-
newal: Better teachers, better
schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Hall, G. (1993). Field reviews accredita-
tion standards. Quality Teaching: The
National Councilfor Accreditation of
Teacher Education Newsletter 3, 1-Hechinger, F. M. (1994). About partner-
ship: Partnership as a permanent en-
terprise. On common ground:
Strengthening teaching through
school-university partnership, 3,
Fall, p. 2.
Holmes Group, (1990). Tomorrow's
schools: Principles for the design of
professional development schools.
East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group.
Holmes Group, (1995). Tomorrow's
schools of education. East Lansing,
MI: Holmes Group.
Jones, M. G., & Vesilind, E. M. (1996).
Putting practice into theory: Changes
in the organization of preservice
teacher's pedagogical knowledge.
Journal of Teacher Education, 45,
164-171.
Marshall, H. (Ed.). (1992). Redefining stu-
dent learning: Roots of educational
change. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McIntire, R. G. (1995). Characteristics of
effective professional development
schools. Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 45, 199-208.
Robinson, S. P., & Darling-Hammond, L.
(1994). Change for collaboration and
collaboration for change: Transform-
ing teaching through school-univer-
sity partnerships. In L. Darling-Ham-
mond (Ed.), Professional develop-
ment schools: Schools for develop-
ing a profession (pp. 203-219). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Rushcamp, S., & Roehler, L. R. (1992).
Characteristics supporting change in
a professional development school.
Journal of Teacher Education, 44,
345-351.
Teitel, L. (1994). Can school-university
partnerships lead to the simultaneous
renewal of schools and teacher edu-
cation? Journal of Teacher Educa-
tion, 45, 245-252.3.
51
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Tarleton State University. Effective Schools Project. Journal of the Effective Schools Project, Volume 6, 2000, periodical, 2000; Stephenville, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth201683/m1/52/: accessed May 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Tarleton State University.