Collaborating on Problems of Practice: A University/District Partnership Model

• In Event: Partnerships for School Improvement: A Synthesis of Research and Opportunities for Future Research

Abstract

University/district partnerships are critical to leadership development (Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, Meyerson, & Orr, 2007; Mendels, 2016; Orr, King, LaPointe, 2010). This study seeks to understand more about how universities/ districts can partner for in-service professional learning by answering the research question:
How does a university/district partnership use Design Thinking (DT) and Improvement Science (IS) to plan for school improvement in one Western urban district?
The partnership used DT (Kelley & Kelley, 2013) and IS (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LaMahieu, 2015) to enhance the capacity of school leaders to engage in quick cycles of improvement to build new patterns of behavior and alter the trajectory of low-performing schools. The iceberg model (Goodman, 2002) is a systems-thinking tool that operationalizes the partnership model, which diverges from many current turnaround models that share “proven” evidence-based practices to scale up in a school or district setting. The philosophical approach to change, based in organizational learning is that school and district leaders must act deliberately, yet with urgency, to build sustainability by expanding school-based leadership and leveraging the insights and strengths of students, teachers and communities.
The partnership was studied using a case study design to capture learning from the initial year of a multi-year improvement project supported with funding from the state. Data included observation and document analysis of planning meetings and notes, professional learning sessions, and project assignments. Thirty-minute interviews were conducted with principals and the three to five school-based participants. Additionally, all three district project leads were interviewed; however, only two out of nine instructional superintendents participated. Lastly, interviews were conducted with all six university faculty members serving as coaches and/or project managers. Interviews consisted of questions about the problem of practice, the design thinking and improvement science process, the program structure, and benefits and challenges of the work. The entirety of the transcript was coded, line by line, using in vivo codes and then categorized into themes (Saldana, 2016). Findings were shared with the district in order to ensure the credibility of the data
The features that fostered a strong and productive partnership included (a) shared beliefs about turnaround and fit of the program; (b) responsiveness of the university to district needs; (c) the iterative, feedback driven structure of design; (d) a supportive learning culture; and (e) an existing well-established partnership. The hindrances to partnership success were closely related to the generative nature of the partnership, and included regulatory and cultural factors, such as the tension of urgency versus systematic development of solutions and the differences in learning cultures, as well as structural factors, such as program structure, communication, and role clarity. The results of this study indicate that strong alignment between shared mental models and patterns of behavior can support the development and responsiveness of structures and help withstand the impact of events that may threaten partnerships and co-constructed programs. The history of trust and partnership between the district and the university contributed to the collaborative and generative nature of the partnership.

Authors

• Erin Anderson, University of Denver

• Susan Korach, University of Denver