Expanding University Faculty's Vision of a PDS: So This Is What Partnership Really Means?.

The authors’ conception of a Professional Development School has been in the making for six years; they have nurtured their high school/university partnership over that period of time with little involvement from other university personnel. Through a self-study approach, they investigated the intricacies of how professional relationships, both in and out of academia. evolve and inform our practice within the partnership. In this article, they address the challenges involved in expanding the professorial roles of PDS activities within an existing school and subsequently adding another. While they believed their philosophies and ideas of working with and in the schools was a shared vision among the university faculty involved, they realized that it was a much more complex task than originally conceived. School and university partnerships come in a variety of configurations, one being that of the professional development school (PDS). While it might appear intuitive that faculty members who work in teacher preparation programs would embrace opportunities to participate extensively in a PDS, the literature reflects a different perspective. Although teacher educators may espouse valuing the importance of working closely with classroom teachers and each other, the intricacies of working collaboratively can provide several unforeseen challenges (Campoy, 2000). First and foremost, the differing perspectives with which each member of the collaborative approaches teacher education challenge the partnership arrangement. Specifically, the continuum of theory and practice is quite often a source of differing opinions between the university faculty members and the classroom teachers who work closely in the partnership. Secondly, changes in personnel (both in the university faculty members and the host school) necessitate frequently revisiting the purpose and goals of the partnership as the configuration ebbs and flows. Other barriers such as fluctuating student enrollment, unforeseen schedule changes, administrative directives, and funding concerns impact the operation, feasibility, and implementation of an original plan. Additional hurdles that factor into the inner workings of a PDS partnership influence the willingness of university faculty members to become actively engaged in the process. Certain aspects unique to academia such as the university’s tenure and promotion structure often leave PDS work largely unrewarded, particularly in research intensive institutions. Furthermore, university faculty members who decide to enter into these types of professional relationships may be unaccustomed to having their own teaching practice closely examined by colleagues and those in the field (Campoy, 2000). The resulting inclination is for the professors to remain as outsiders from the university rather than expose themselves to the scrutiny of practitioners whose venue is fieldbased practice. As often occurs in collaborative endeavors, mutual trust can take a long time to develop; and tensions among stakeholders often arise. Factor into the mix differences in individual teaching philosophies, varied communication styles, and the immense time required implementing a PDS, and it is not surprising that successful and enduring collaborations are School—University Partnerships Vol. 4, No. 2 81 difficult to maintain, particularly at the secondary school level. University faculty members unfamiliar with developing these types of structures may not completely comprehend the enormity of embarking on this type of long-term professional commitment. What may initially appear to be simply an extension of teacher preparation courses at a remote site may catch initiated faculty members unaware of the juggling required to balance research interests with teaching responsibilities. There are numerous program descriptions available that relate anecdotal evidence about the complexities of relationships among partnership stakeholders in PDSs. These narratives typically focus on how school and university personnel interact (Campoy, 2000; Gallego, Hollingsworth, & Whitemack, 2001). It may be a foregone conclusion that when university instructors engage in these partnerships that each member possesses the same philosophical background, has similar pedagogical beliefs, and is entering into the partnership with the same intended outcomes. However, our experience was that these are not assumptions that can be made, but must be openly examined and discussed throughout the duration of the relationship.