Designing and Tailoring School/University Partnerships: A Straightjacket, Security Blanket, or Just a Loose Coat?.

Formalized partnerships between colleges or universities and public schools have gained in popularity even though their impact remains uncertain. Such partnerships, existing under a variety of terms (the most common of which is Professional Development Schools [PDS}), are meant to bring together the resources and the expertise of the university and those of one or more public schools. PDSs typically center on three fundamental domains of activity: the preparation of new educational professionals, the continuing professional development of current staff, and the collaborative field-based research on issues of common interest. This paper focuses on the process by which such partnerships are formed. Specifically, it addresses the oftentimes contentious issues of how an agenda of mutual benefit to both parties is established and implemented. Based on our own experiences in the formation of such partnerships, we discuss how partners are identified and then describe the negotiations as to the scope of work to be carried out. We examine in detail the provision of a formalized letter of agreement between the partners and whether such an agreement is restrictive or facilitative. We conclude that the crafting of partnerships between school and universities is a delicate process, one requiring candor, careful attention to the language used, and faith in the evolving nature of the partnership. Professional Development Schools (P0Ss) often emerge from an explicit partnership between one or more public schools and a university School or Department of Education. These partnerships, while they vary somewhat in their focus, generally are dedicated to lithe development of novice professionals, the continuing development of experienced professionals, and research and development of the teaching profession" (Holmes, Group, 1990, p. 1). While evidence about the impact of a PDS is mixed (Teitle, 1996; Valli, Cooper, & Franks, 1997), the absence of convincing data has not, it seems, diminished the popularity of these partnerships. Many universities regularly tout their involvementinPDSlike organizations, though it is doubtful that all of these partnerships are as comprehensive as their proponents claim. Even the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) recognizes the popularity of POS arrangements, having recently issued preliminary standards on POSS and created NCATE-funded pilot sites in order to learn more about POSs. Oearly, POSs are an idea whose time has arrived. Given the broad range of objectives that PDSs are said to meet, it is important to better understand how such partnerships are initiated and sustained. This paper addresses some of the broad issues which typically arise in the partnership formation process. In order to achieve greater clarity in the establishment of POSS, some partnerships have formalized their objectives and their expectations in the fonn of a written document Such documents are meant to make explicit some of the many issues that might facilitate a strong partnership. Often integral to such written documents are discussions pertaining to govemancewithin the partnership, toresponsibility for resources, and to overall goals and objectives. An essential value of written agreements lies in the clarification of expectations. Yet, an excessive specification of expectations can serve as a straightjacket, making the agreement too rigid and too inflexible and thereby limiting the partnership's ability to take advantage of opportunities. As an example, the partnership might initially agree to Volume XXII • Number 2 • Spring 2000 39 Dannelle D. Stevens & Robert B. Everhart support a particular reading curriculum in one of its schools. Yet, if a new principal were to be assigned to the school and decided to explore changing the reading programs, the partnership might lack the flexibility to explore these changes due to the rigidness of prior agreements. On the other hand, a well-conceived formal agreement can create a sense of comfort and of certainty which serves as a security blanket for the partners as they move out of the comfort zone of working separately and enter into the new territory of collaboration. The presence of such a security blanket provides the user(s) something on which to depend in times of uncertainty which usually accompany entering uncharted territory. Specification of mutual expectations then may work especially well when the partnership is young and