Ever since Dewey, School-University Partnerships (SUP) have developed to take on a myriad of forms -- all with a single common denominator: initial teacher education. From the various types and approaches to SUPs Maandag, Deinum, Hofman & Buitink (2007), as cited by Gravett & Loock (2014), describe five models outlining different types of collaboration between schools and teacher education institutions. Of these, the teaching school has a particular appeal in South Africa, with the Faculty of Education at the University of Johannesburg having successfully implemented it at its Soweto Campus. Today, the Funda Ujabule teaching school is testimony to many hours of very hard work from a dedicated team.
The symbiotic relationship between schools and teacher training institutions should be obvious: universities educate recruits for a teaching career in schools, while schools are needed during the education of these recruits to show them how it is/should be done - or not done. From this seemingly symbiotic relationship various benefits are derived as is indeed the case with many SUPs. This is, however, not always the case. Plain sailing is most certainly not guaranteed. A range of factors contribute to tensions that manifest in a myriad of ways. On a meta level the best way to describe these tensions is that of being partners on opposite sides along a theory-practice spectrum. Gravett (2012) laments about the theory-practice divide in an exploration of a particularly successful SUP as practiced at the University of Johannesburg, i.e. the "teaching school". Traditionally, schools are regarded as places where teaching is being practiced. It furthermore assumes little theorising about the practice. At universities, however, it is assumed that there is more thinking (read: theorising) about teaching and learning - and even practice - than being connected to actual teaching and learning in real-world classroom environments. The question thus arises if such a disconnect with actual practice can be overcome through a SUP where an intense involvement is at the order of the day..
The body of literature on SUPs focus mostly on various aspects of teacher training and how universities and schools manage to affect teacher education. At face value, this surely sounds easy and straight-forward enough, but in reality it is far more complex to achieve synergy between the partners. Both come from different - some might say, even opposing - positions: school in practice and university busying itself with theory. Or that is, at least, the traditional view.
However, it is when we change our perspective about SUPs that we start to see possible solutions to the problems that characterize the professional interactions between university teachers and school teachers. When two organisations form a partnership, it is quite possible to see the partnership as a 'third space'. Furthermore, if SUPs' main focus is cultivating best practice the symbiosis between theory and practice grows stronger. Theory gets informed when practice is placed under researchers' gazes, resulting in changed practice once (new) theoretical approaches finally gets applied in real classroom contexts. This cyclical movement moves along a non-linear line reminiscent of how innovation occurs in organisations.
We can borrow from the private sector in search for mechanisms, systems and processes to ensure that a SUP delivers on its promise: the cultivation of best practice. It is when we start seeing SUPs for what they really are that we can begin to understand the importance of knowledge creation and dissemination among all members of the SUP. Finally such knowledge need to find its way into the whole educational sector where theorists and practitioners. Developing best practice through continuous learning is closely associated with Knowledge Management and mechanisms such as Communities of Practice - also referred to as Professional Learning Communities. SUPs are open laboratories in which organisational learning is the main outcome. Since knowledge resides in social networks it becomes imperative to manage relationships among the main stakeholders in the SUP: faculty-students, faculty-teachers, teacher-students, teacher-pupils, teachers-pupils-students, faculty-students-pupils.
Similar to employees in the private sector people need to know the systems and processes through which they can learn. An argument could thus be made out for using tried and tested mechanisms such as Communities of Practice also in partnering schools, as well as among the partners of a formal SUP that involves a new breed of partnering schools, i.e. teaching schools.
Following the views of Wenger and Lave Communities of Practice (some use Professional Learning Networks) are characterized according to a set of criteria. University teachers (faculty) and school teachers in a SUP therefore need to ensure that they are more than a mere work group or a team; certainly more than a community of interest. COPs ought to rely upon, share and generate an array of knowledge artifacts that needs to find its way into an organisational learning repository. The repository's purpose should be to serve a the one-stop source for learning, research and an easily accessible source of data / information / knowledge. All of this has one thing in mind: create wisdom.
The one main question that needs to be asked is how COPs - set within the KM framework - can ensure the development of best practice in a SUP. Here we need to turn to the 4-I knowledge framework. But for now this will require some more thinking about the knowledge practices that characterize the work of partners in a typical SUP; in fact, the flow of information, knowledge and wisdom itself need to be understood first. More on that later, since it is pertinent to to first establish good working relationships among partners that can vary from anything between the characters Jekyll & Hyde. In the meantime it is not far-fetched to envision a true fantasy partnership - a Hansel & Gretel scenario, perhaps. We surely have examples of such -- Finland!
No comments:
Post a Comment