The Higher Education– District Partnership Self-Assessment Rubric ...

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University a

RHODE ISLAND COLLEGE

CENTRAL FALLS SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Higher Education–

District Partnership

Self-Assessment Rubric:

An Indicator Tool

And Lessons from Rhode Island College and Central Falls, Rhode Island

Prepared by

b THE HIGHER EDUCATION–DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC: An Indicator Tool

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the members of the Innovation Lab leadership team for their candor and their

tremendous support of and contributions to this study. The leadership team includes Julie Horwitz, Jen Giroux,

Ron Pitt, Roberta Sue Pearlmutter, and Lisa Smolski (Rhode Island College), and Amy Burns, Edda Carmadello,

Ann Lynch, Superintendent Fran Gallo, and Patricia Martinez (Central Falls School District). Finally, the authors

would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

ABOUT THE ANNENBERG INSTITUTE FOR SCHOOL REFORM

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) is a national policy-research and reform-support organization,

affiliated with Brown University, that focuses on improving conditions and outcomes for all students in urban

public schools, especially those attended by traditionally underserved children. AISR’s vision is the transformation

of traditional school systems into “smart education systems” that develop and integrate high-quality learning

opportunities in all areas of students’ lives – at school, at home, and in the community. AISR conducts research;

works with a variety of partners committed to educational improvement to build capacity in school districts and

communities; and shares its work through print and Web publications.

Rather than providing a specific reform design or model to be implemented, AISR’s approach is to offer an array

of tools and strategies to help districts and communities strengthen their local capacity to provide and sustain

high-quality education for all students.

http://annenberginstitute.org

AUTHORS Sara McAlister, Principal Associate, Joanna Geller, Senior Research Associate, and Rosann Tung,Director of Research and Policy, Annenberg Institute for School Reform, Brown University

EDITINGMargaret Balch-Gonzalez and Sheryl Kaskowitz

DESIGN Haewon Kim

PHOTOSCover: Top photo, Philip Gloudemans; bottom photo, Eugene St. Pierre|Interior: Courtesy Central FallsPublic Schools

SUGGESTED CITATIONMcAlister, Sara, Joanna Geller, and Rosann Tung. 2015. The Higher Education–District Part-nership Self-Assessment Rubric: An Indicator Tool and Lessons from Central Falls, Rhode Island. Providence, RI:Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

© 2015 Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform

Contents

Framework and Findings

Introduction

The Need for Partnerships between Higher Education and K–12 Districts

The Need for Indicators of Higher Education–District Partnerships

About This Report

Positive Change and Innovation: Collaboration and Engagement in Central Falls

Rebounding from Multiple Crises

Achieving Together: The Central Falls–Rhode Island College Innovation Lab

About the Study

A Framework of Indicators for Higher Education-District Partnerships

Findings and Discussion: Promising University–District Partnership Practicesin the CFSD-RIC Innovation Lab

Values and Commitments

Communication

Capacity

Inclusivity and Influence

Impacts

Committing to an Equal, Reciprocal Partnership

Bibliography: Literature and Guides Informing Our Framework

Appendix: Additional Frameworks and Rubrics for Higher Education–DistrictPartnerships

The Higher Education–District Partnership Self-Assessment Rubric

About the Rubric

Instructions for Completing the Rubric

The Higher Education–District Partnership Rubric

z

1

3

6

8

11

20

21

23

z

25

26

Framework and Findings

Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University 1

IntroductionSchools and districts are not isolated entities: localcontext and system-level factors affect how studentslearn and grow, but they often lie outside of thecontrol of schools. The work of the AnnenbergInstitute for School Reform at Brown University(AISR) is guided by the “smart education system”theory of action, which holds that a web of strong,overlapping collaborations between school systems,community institutions, higher education partners,and families is crucial to transforming urban educa-tion. The extent of collaboration across these mul-tiple sectors helps determine to what extenteducational options for all students improve.

To be successful, these collaborations must beintentional, aligned, and consistent with evidence-based best practices, but there are few tools toinform the development and ongoing maintenanceof such collaborations. The purpose of the researchwe describe in this report was to develop a practicalset of indicators1 for two key types of collabora-tions: family engagement in district-level reformand partnerships between school districts andhigher education institutions.

We chose to conduct our research in Central Falls,Rhode Island, to capture lessons from the schooldistrict’s (CFSD) exemplary practices in both ofthese areas. In this report, we describe CFSD’s partnership with Rhode Island College (RIC),“Achieving Together: The Central Falls–RhodeIsland College Innovation Lab.” A companionreport2 describes CFSD’s work to support authenticfamily leadership. Our research in Central Fallsdraws on AISR’s experience developing indicatorsfor factors that affect learning at a systemic level aswell as on the theoretical and empirical literatureon higher education–school district partnerships.We anticipate that these indicators will be useful tostakeholders in Central Falls and RIC in reflectingon and advancing their work, and to other schoolsystems and their higher education partners as theyseek to deepen engagement.

The Need for Partnerships between HigherEducation and K–12 DistrictsCollaboration between universities and K–12schools dates at least to the mid-1800s. Collegesand universities have provided professional devel-opment and curricular interventions for schools,and schools have served as sites of research for university faculty and as clinical preparation foreducation students (Moran et al. 2009). In recentdecades, universities have taken over the manage-ment of entire schools, networks of schools, and inthe case of Boston University’s ten-year manage-ment of the entire Chelsea, Massachusetts schoolsystem, entire districts (Borthwick et al. 2003;Greenes 1994). Historically, these partnershipshave often been framed as a one-way flow of knowl-edge and expertise from universities to K–12schools. While universities have much to offerschools and districts in research capacity, theoreti-cal and technical knowledge, and instructionalstrategies, scholars and practitioners have called formore equal partnerships where learning flows inboth directions (Weerts & Sandmann 2008). Espe-cially as college completion replaces high schoolgraduation as a goal for all students, higher educa-tion has much to learn from K–12 educators aboutserving diverse students with a wide range of needsand engaging families and communities as corepartners. PK–16 and PK–20 coalitions at the city,state, and regional level have emerged as an impor-tant strategy for aligning expectations across pri-mary, secondary, and postsecondary education,removing barriers to access and increasing clinicalpreparation for future educators (Nuñez & Oliva2009; Noel & Sessoms 2009; Lee et al. 2013)

1 Education indicators are “yardsticks” that can inform a system byhighlighting areas in need of development as well as areas thathave experienced growth and improvements.

2 See http://annenberginstitute.org/?q=publication/central-falls-collaboration.

2 THE HIGHER EDUCATION–DISTRICT PARTNERSHIP SELF-ASSESSMENT RUBRIC: An Indicator Tool

The Need for Indicators of Higher Education–District PartnershipsDespite interest in cross-sector collaboration, thefield lacks empirical evidence of best practices andclear indicators that collaborators can use to assessprogress and plan strategically. Educational indica-tor systems act as applied research tools that aremeasurable, easy to understand, and lead to clearaction (Del Razo et al. 2014). Practitioners appreci-ate indicators that offer formative data in sufficienttime for course correction and can spur meaningfulconversations that inform action (Foley et al.2008). Indicator frameworks also provide defini-tional clarity for nebulous concepts such as“engagement” (Shavelson, McDonnell & Oakes1991); such clarity particularly helps cross-sectorinitiatives involving numerous organizations har-boring various paradigms.

Many recent AISR projects have grappled withhow cross-sector sets of stakeholders maintain com-munication, negotiate visions and goals, and sharefeedback and best practices. In recent work, AISRhas co-developed systems-level indicators for fac-tors affecting the quality and quantity of learningtime,3 college and career readiness,4 and data-shar-ing partnerships between districts and their part-ners.5 Building on that experience, we created aframework of concrete, actionable indicators tohelp school systems and higher-education institu-tions to form effective partnerships grounded incommunity engagement. We drew on a number ofhelpful frameworks for university-community anduniversity-school partnerships developed by otherscholars and intermediaries (see Bibliography), keythemes from empirical literature on higher educa-tion collaboration with schools and districts, andthe experiences and reflections of Innovation Lableaders.

About This ReportIn this report, we give a brief overview of CentralFalls, RIC, and the evolution of their partnership.Next, we describe our research methods and ourframework for higher education–district partner-ship, and present our analysis of CFSD’s and RIC’swork to develop a strong and sustainable partner-ship, organized according to our framework. At theend of the main body of the report, we share a self-assessment rubric of indicators aligned to our frame-work, informed by the Innovation Lab and vettedby CFSD and RIC. We anticipate this rubric will beuseful as a reflection tool for other districts andhigher education institutions in strengthening theircollaborations.

3 See http://timeforequity.org. 4 See http://vue.annenberginstitute.org/issues/38.5 See http://annenberginstitute.org/?q=publication/data-collaboration-new-york-city-challenges-linking-high-school-and-post-secondary-data.


Positive Change and Innovation:Collaboration and Engagement in Central FallsThe city of Central Falls, Rhode Island is just onesquare mile in area with a population of approxi-mately 19,000, making it one of the densest citiesin New England. The city is culturally and linguis-tically diverse, with 71 percent of the populationspeaking a language aside from English in the homeand 40 percent having been born outside of theU.S. (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). One-third of fam-ilies with children under the age of eighteen are inpoverty. CFSD has an enrollment of approximately2,800 students across a high school, a middleschool, and four elementary schools. Within thedistrict, 81 percent of students qualify for free orreduced-price lunch, and the student body is 73percent Latino, 12 percent Black, 13 percent

White, and 2 percent other races. Another 1,058students from Central Falls attend charter schools,and 142 students attend parochial and privateschools.

Rebounding from Multiple Crises In 2010, the school district made national head-lines when the school board voted to fire all of theteachers in the high school when the union did notagree to stipulations required for a federal SchoolImprovement Grant. The next year, the cityappeared in the news once again when it becameone of only a few cities nationwide to have filed forbankruptcy. These two incidents – in addition tohigh rates of crime, poverty, and unemployment(Federal Bureau of Investigation 2013; RhodeIsland Department of Labor and Training 2014) –have brought the city and school district amplenegative attention.


However, the past few years have been ones of posi-tive change and innovation, as the school districtand city rebound and resist negative stereotypes.Central Falls High School (CFHS) has imple-mented a comprehensive transformation plan tostrengthen academics and student support. The dis-trict received a $1 million grant from the U.S.Department of Justice to expand its school-basedrestorative justice programming and has strength-ened collaboration with local charter schoolsthrough a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Char-ter-District Compact grant. In 2012, Central Fallselected its first Latino mayor, a Central Falls nativeand son of Colombian immigrants. Thus, despitethe same structural injustices that plague othercities with a high proportion of people of color –high crime rates, inadequate municipal services,

insufficient and underpaid jobs, and police harass-ment – many residents and school personnel are fullof hope and optimism.

Achieving Together: The Central Falls–RhodeIsland College Innovation LabThe partnership with RIC and the major invest-ments in family engagement have been central tothe district’s efforts to transform itself into a modelfor urban education. In 2013, Central Falls signed amemorandum of understanding with RIC to form acomprehensive “Innovation Lab” engaging theentire university and entire district in experimenta-tion and innovation. In the same year, Central Fallssecured a $3 million federal Investing in Innova-tion (i3) grant to transform family engagement ingrades PK–3.


RIC serves 9,000 undergraduate and graduate stu-dents on a 180-acre campus in the Mount Pleasantsection of Providence, about seven miles from Cen-tral Falls. RIC was founded in 1854 as the RhodeIsland State Normal School, the first public highereducation institution in the state, to prepare publicschool teachers. While its academic offerings haveexpanded greatly in the last century and a half, RICis still the main pipeline for teacher candidates inthe state, and also prepares many social workers,nurses, and other professionals who work in thestate’s PK–12 schools. RIC is a “college of opportu-nity” for first-generation college students. The col-lege’s enrollment has become more diverse inrecent years, with nearly 20 percent students ofcolor in undergraduate programs.

RIC has faced some reputational challenges analo-gous to those of Central Falls. In 2013, a controver-sial report by the National Council on TeacherQuality and U.S. News and World Report gave RIClow ratings for the selectiveness of its admissionsrequirements for teacher preparation programs. In2013, CFSD Superintendent Frances Galloapproached RIC’s dean of the School of Educationand Human Development, Sasha Sidorkin, andasked him to arrange a meeting with the college’spresident to discuss an unprecedented collabora-tion. Shortly thereafter, Superintendent Gallo andVictor Capellan, deputy superintendent for trans-formation at CFHS, were invited to meet withDean Sidorkin and the college’s vice president foracademic affairs, Ronald Pitt, to discuss the pro-posal.

Superintendent Gallo envisioned an arrangementby which the district would become a second cam-pus of the college, and RIC would bring itsresources and expertise to bear in every aspect ofthe district’s work. Herself a RIC alumna, Superin-tendent Gallo also believed that hands-on clinicalexperience in Central Falls schools would better

prepare RIC students and faculty for the realities ofurban education. The RIC leaders were intrigued byher proposal and saw the potential for it to advanceRIC’s mission of preparing diverse leaders and posi-tively impacting the state’s economy and culture.

RIC and CFSD put together a leadership team,consisting of five leaders from each institution, anddeveloped a vision and a memorandum of under-standing. The leadership team looked to other uni-versity-school partnerships, including the ClarkUniversity Park Partnership (Brown & Geoghegan2007), which they visited. But they envisionedsomething unprecedented in scope that wouldtouch every school at RIC, create seamless postsec-ondary transitions for CFSD students, and, eventu-ally, help transform Central Falls into aneconomically vibrant city. The leadership teamdeveloped the following mission statement for thepartnership, which they named “AchievingTogether: The Rhode Island College Central FallsInnovation Lab”:

The Innovation Lab is a unique, first-in-the-nation PK–20 collaboration designed to be acatalyst for creating a vibrant shared commu-nity where new models of learning, teaching,and services are developed, piloted, andresearched. This mutually beneficial CF/RICpartnership is meant to meet the diverse needsof all Central Falls residents; advance teach-ing, learning and research at RIC; and serve asan innovation laboratory for developing andpiloting sustainable and replicable programs inurban education, community development,and healthy communities.


As a result of three community-wide open meetingsheld between the partner students, faculty, teach-ers, families, and community members, approxi-mately twenty collaborative projects were proposedby members of the RIC and CFSD communities.These projects were approved by the leadershipteam, with most now in their second year. RIC fac-ulty, students, and interns spend time in CentralFalls schools every day. CFSD students and familiesvisit RIC on “campus Fridays” and use RIC facilitieslike science labs, the dining center, and the swim-ming pool. Summer retreats and professional devel-opment days for CFSD teachers have been held onthe RIC campus, as well as a Parent College6 gradu-ation ceremony. CFSD has also bought a houseacross the street from Central Falls High School,which the partners are currently redeveloping toserve as a physical hub for the Lab, open to stake-holders and community members.

About the StudyThe research questions guiding our approach were:

• What are the conditions, practices, and strategiesthat foster sustainable, mutually beneficial collab-oration between school systems and higher edu-cation partners to transform urban education?

• How can these conditions, practices, and strate-gies be represented in a system of actionable indi-cators?

We based our initial understanding of the goals andfeatures of the Innovation Lab partnership on con-versations with CFSD and RIC leaders, as well asAISR’s experiences documenting and evaluatinghigher education–district partnerships. Using ourreview of the literature on higher education–districtpartnerships7 and relevant AISR-developed indica-tor systems, we developed a conceptual frameworkfor higher education–district partnership. Theframework is organized into four broad categories ofindicators, adapted from Wilson and Wilde (2003):

• Values and Commitments

• Communication

• Capacity

• Inclusivity and Influence

The categories are interconnected and interde-pendent, and in practice the borders between themare often blurred. (The full framework is presentedin the next section.)

6 For more on Central Falls’ Parent College, see http://annenberginstitute.org/ ?q=publication/central-falls-collaboration.

7 The Bibliography includes a complete list of the literature thatinformed our frameworks. Because the literature on partnershipsbetween universities and entire K–12 districts is limited, we alsoconsulted literature on university-school partnerships and univer-sity-community partnerships more broadly.


We used the draft frameworks to generate struc-tured interview and focus group protocols. We con-ducted one-on-one interviews with nine of tenmembers of the Innovation Lab leadership team(five leaders from RIC and four from CFSD).8 Aftercoding and analyzing our interview data, we devel-oped findings organized by the four domains speci-fied above. We also revised our frameworks to moreaccurately reflect the experiences in Central Falls.

We next developed rubrics for indicators in twocategories – inclusivity and influence, and capacity.(See the Appendix for suggestions of such tools.)We tested the rubrics through focus groups withInnovation Lab leadership team members usingcognitive interview protocols (Willis 1999), andincorporated their insights and feedback. The fullrubric can be found in the final section of thisreport.

8 Because of the limited scope of this study, we were only able tointerview senior partnership leaders. We were not able to inter-view additional RIC or CFSD faculty, staff, or students involved inInnovation Lab projects, or observe projects in action.

A Framework of Indicators for Higher Education-District Part-nershipsOur literature review and empirical research yieldedthe indicator framework for higher education–dis-trict partnerships that is presented in Figure 1. Thecategories “Capacity” and “Inclusivity and Influ-ence” are highlighted because they are featured inthe rubric at the end of this report.

In the next section, we present a case study of theRIC-CFSD Innovation Lab to illustrate what theseindicators look like in practice.


FIGURE 1. Framework of Indicators for Higher Education–District Partnerships

VALUES AND COMMITMENTS

Partners demonstrate mutual respect for each other's experience, credibility, knowledge, andcommitment.

Partners commit to balancing each institution's priorities and constraints and ensuring that thepartnership benefits both institutions.

Partners approach the work with optimism about what can be done together and flexibility abouthow to achieve goals.

Partners share a vision for the partnership and a theory of change about how to realize thevision.

COMMUNICATION

Partnership governance is spread across multiple, overlapping structures that span hierarchiesand respond to different needs.

Partners meet regularly and consistently.

Partnership roles, responsibilities, and goals are codified on contracts or other written docu-ments.

Partners document process, projects, and outcomes.

Partners engage in continuous assessment.

CAPACITY

1. Partners raise and contribute sufficient resources to accomplish goals.

1.1 Partners work together to ensure that funding supports partnership goals.

1.2 Partners share physical space in support of partnership activities.

1.3 Partners dedicate staff/faculty time to support partnership goals.

1.4 Partners deploy staff/faculty expertise to support partnership goals.

1.5 Partners work together to provide transportation and other supports for participation.

2. Senior leaders hold vision and goals and ensure sustainability of partnership.

2.1 Senior leaders develop a vision and goals to guide partnership.

2.2 Senior leaders use vision and goals to guide strategic planning.

2.3 Senior leaders revisit vision and goals as partnership deepens.

2.4 Senior leaders align structures and practices to partnership goals.

3. Senior leaders deepen collaborative capacity.

3.1 Senior leaders have time to build and maintain interpersonal trust and relationships.

3.2 Senior leaders invest resources in strengthening collaborative processes.


FIGURE 1. Framework of Indicators for Higher Education–District Partnerships

INCLUSIVITY AND INFLUENCE

4. Front-line staff take an active role in implementing partnership activities.

4.1 Partners encourage broad participation by faculty and staff.

4.2 Partners develop processes to ensure that front-line staff participation advances partner-ship goals.

4.3 Front-line staff make decisions about implementing partnership activities.

4.4 Front-line staff have the necessary resources to carry out the daily work of the partnership.

5. “Boundary-spanners” operate across settings and ensure communication across partners.

6. Stakeholders of both institutions have opportunities to learn about and engage in partnership.

6.1 Stakeholders of both institutions are aware of partnership goals and activities.

6.2 Stakeholders are invited to learn about and provide feedback on partnership goals andactivities.

6.3 Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in partnership activities.

7. Community members and institutions have opportunities to learn about and engage in partnership.

7.1 Community members are invited to learn about and provide feedback on partnership goalsand activities.

7.2 Community members are invited to engage in partnership activities.

7.3 Community institutions are invited to engage as partners.

8. Partnership has high visibility across both institutions.

8.1 Partners regularly reference the partnership in written and in-person communications.

8.2 Senior leaders work to raise the visibility of the partnership inside and outside their institu-tions.

8.3 Front-line staff work to raise the visibility of the partnership among peers.

9. Senior leaders understand and consider each other's culture and context in shaping partnership.

10. Senior leaders acknowledge and respect differing viewpoints and priorities.


Findings and Discussion: Promising University–District Partnership Practices in the CFSD-RIC Innovation LabBelow, we review our findings about how CFSDand RIC have developed the Innovation Lab, situ-ating our findings in relevant themes from the liter-ature on higher education–school districtcollaboration. Although the Innovation Lab part-nership is young, and leaders rated many of theLab’s practices in the “minimal” or “developing”categories at this point, we highlight practices thatare “established” or “transformative” and could bereplicated by other partnerships. We also highlightareas of challenge and places for growth. We haveorganized our findings according to the fourdomains of our conceptual framework: the valuesand commitments that RIC and CFSD bring totheir collaboration; the communication processesused to sustain, promote, and document the part-nership; efforts to build capacity for partnershipwork; and the ways in which RIC and CFSD haveworked to include a broad swath of stakeholders inshaping and implementing the partnership.

Values and CommitmentsStrong partnerships rest on a foundation of sharedvalues and commitments. These include: mutualrespect for the different types of knowledge, expert-ise, and credibility that universities and districtsbring to shared work; a commitment to balancingeach institution’s priorities and ensuring that part-nerships are mutually beneficial; optimism and flex-ibility about what can be achieved together; and ashared vision and theory of change.

Mutual respect and mutual benefit

Many university-community partnerships, and uni-versity-school partnerships in particular, emphasizea one-way flow of expertise and knowledge from theuniversity to the community or school (Weerts &Sandmann 2008). This has been especially true inrecent years as efforts to intervene in “failing”schools bring universities into relationships withschools as reform partners (Borthwick et al. 2003).Literature on successful partnerships emphasizes theimportance of mutual respect for the expertise,knowledge, and commitment of both partners –that is, valuing the practical, clinical expertise ofPK–12 educators as equally important to the aca-demic, often more theoretical expertise of univer-sity faculty (Bosma et al. 2010; Nuñez & Oliva2009; Weerts & Sandmann 2008). Sustainablepartnerships require the development of sharedvision (Darling-Hammond 1994; Goldring & Sims2005; Moran et al. 2009), and should provide clearbenefits to both partners (Nichols-Solomon 2006;Torres & Shaffer 2000).

The Innovation Lab leadership team took thesecautions to heart as they approached partnership.Several of the RIC leaders emphasized that theyexplicitly worked to avoid the traditional approachto university as expert. One leader noted, “Onething that is very important on the RIC side is toput aside one’s ego, to not assume that we’re incharge, that we’re the experts and they’re thereceivers of our great wisdom.” Several RIC leadersnoted the deep knowledge of students’ and families’needs among CFSD leaders and staff, as well astheir ability to manage the difficult circumstancesthey observed in Central Falls schools.

The Innovation Lab vision is framed around mutualbenefit, and leaders are careful to always emphasizethe importance of mutual benefit “up front andcenter” when they discuss the partnership andmake decisions about activities. The leadership


team has occasionally turned down projects thatadvanced the work of only one institution. A Cen-tral Falls leader reflected:

We’re learning from Rhode Island Collegeprofessors and Rhode Island College students.And at the same time it’s really reciprocal.They’re here and they’re learning from us andfrom our students as well. . . . There is not oneinstitution that is accessing more than theother. It’s really that we’re both benefitting atthe same time.

Finally, leaders noted that the partnership hasextended beyond official Innovation Lab activitiesto influence how both institutions think about newopportunities. One leader said:

When we are writing a grant proposal or some-thing, Central Falls is always part of the dis-cussion now. So when we are saying, “We’regoing to be going for this grant,” it is always,“How does Central Falls fit in?” So that’s won-derful to hear, that it is not just the leadershipteam saying that. There are other individualshere now making sure that Central Falls is partof the dialogue.

Optimism and flexibility

Innovation Lab leaders also stressed the value ofoptimism, which was not addressed in the litera-ture. Almost all leaders mentioned that a beliefthat things could be done better, and a willingnessto experiment with new approaches, was central totheir success. One RIC leader explained, “There’s aclear belief that there are possibilities we haven’ttapped into, that all of our communities could bedoing more and better. And we have the resourcesand the intelligence and the drive to do that.” Theleadership team maintains a focus on finding cre-ative solutions to obstacles. One Central Fallsleader described how the partners ensured that a

RIC faculty member could transport her educationstudents to Central Falls while maintaining herinstructional time:

Parking is a nightmare so when you bringtwenty-five kids, no one is finding parking.How do we overcome that? A bus! But we loseinstructional time. So teach on the bus! [TheRIC professor’s] instructional time is just asimportant as mine.

The RIC professor lectured and led class discussionson the bus ride between campuses, and devotedtime at the high school to observations and discus-sions with CFSD teachers and students.

CommunicationStrong partnerships require clear roles, equal partic-ipation in decision-making, open and consistentcommunication, and processes for examining andacting on data about the effectiveness of strategies.

Clear roles and shared decision-making

Discussing and documenting the roles and responsi-bilities of each institution clarifies authority, facili-tates shared decision-making, and helps partnershold each other accountable to the vision and goalsof the partnership (Coburn, Bae & Turner 2008;Nichols-Solomon 2006). Regular meetings of seniorleaders should provide space for updates and prob-lem solving and should be carefully structured toensure that partners contribute equally to decisionsand co-construct the partnership (Bosma et al.2010; Goldring & Sims 2005; Coburn, Bae &Turner 2008).

The Innovation Lab vision and the roles andresponsibilities of leadership team members arecodified in a memorandum of understandingbetween RIC and CFSD, which has been updatedto reflect the evolving structure of the partnershipand to add detail to roles and responsibilities. In ourinterviews, leadership team members agreed thatthe university and district participate equally inmaking decisions and that all leadership team


members have a voice in constructing the partner-ship. They noted that it has for the most part beeneasy to reach agreement about activities and thatteam members are willing to have “deep conversa-tions” when they disagree. A few members notedthat while they are working to strengthen norms forshared decision-making, the process has not beenperfect, in part because of different cultures arounddecision-making and authority. One RIC leaderreflected:

We want it to be collective. So we try not tomake decisions for the partnership withoutconsulting the partnership. But it still some-times happens. . . . Sometimes we have to pulleach other back a little bit. . . . But again,that’s where it’s a little different in how K–12and higher education work. . . . In CentralFalls, they can implement something in thetime it takes us just to set up the first meetingto discuss it.

Documentation and continuous assessment

Leaders of partnerships should engage in cycles ofevidence-based decision-making where they engagein dialogue, examine evidence about their practicesusing measurable objectives, make evidence-baseddecisions using shared principles, act on their deci-sions, and reflect together (Moran et al. 2009;Gadja & Koliba 2007). The Innovation Lab leader-ship team has focused so far on building relation-ships and developing widespread buy-in to thepossibilities of partnership, rather than document-ing and measuring outcomes. Leaders agreed thatimportant next steps include translating theirshared vision into more concrete goals and objec-tives and strengthening their documentation ofprojects, processes, and outcomes. The absence ofoutside funding has been a challenge in settingaside staff time to develop the data systems thatwould allow them to collect evidence of the impactof partnership activities. They have taken some firststeps, however. The front-line staff membersinvolved in each project are expected to plan for

objectives and outcomes when making their initialrequest seeking approval to conduct the project andcontinue to identify objectives and reflect on thesuccesses and challenges of their project at a yearlyInnovation Lab “birthday party” open to the RICand CFSD communities.

CapacityThoughtful investments in capacity, both tangibleand intangible, provide a crucial foundation fortransformative partnerships. Collaborative workrequires funding, human capital, and time. Leadersshould use their shared vision and goals to guidecareful strategic planning and to align institutionalresources and practices to partnership goals. Leadersin strong partnerships also invest directly in theirown collaborative capacity – trust, relationships,and democratic practices.


Raising and allocating sufficient resources

A key role of senior leaders in partnerships is ensur-ing that the necessary resources and skills to accom-plish partnership goals are in place. Partnershipsthat change practice require funding, major com-mitments of human capital, and supports such asspace and transportation (Goldring & Simms 2005;Moran et al. 2009; Weerts & Sandmann 2008).Studies of university-district partnerships have cau-tioned that well-intentioned partnerships oftenstumble for lack of dedicated resources, and thatleaders must have the authority and will to aligneach institution’s resources and practices to partner-ship goals (Acar & Robertson 2004; Firestone &Fisler 2002; Nuñez & Oliva 2009).

To date, most of the funding for the Innovation Labhas come from the existing budgets of the univer-sity and the district, much of it in the form of in-kind contributions. The partners have securedgrants to support a few specific activities, includinga documentary on the Innovation Lab produced byRIC faculty and students, but so far they have strug-gled to raise significant outside funding. Severalleadership team members attributed this challengeto the newness of the partnership, the emphasis onrelationship building and exploration during theLab’s first few years, and the unprecedented broad-ness of the partnership vision. While the flexibilityand creativity of leadership team members in find-ing resources within existing budgets was a recur-rent theme, additional funding will be critical tomaking the partnership sustainable and institution-alized. One leader said, “In the beginning you cankind of do it on, ‘Well, I can take like $1,000 out ofmy budget. It doesn’t matter if I work this week-end.’ But that’s also not sustainable, not for thelong term.”

Staff time and expertise, of both senior leaders andfront-line staff members, has been the major in-kind contribution of both partners. The universityand district have jointly hired several VISTA vol-unteers to coordinate partnership activities, andthese are the only staff working full-time for theInnovation Lab. Additionally, as a reflection ofshared commitment to the partnership, the RICvice president for academic affairs has joined theCFSD board of trustees, and the CFSD transforma-tion director sits on the RIC Institutional ReviewBoard.

Leadership team members noted that there is some-what more capacity on the RIC side to devote stafftime to managing the partnership, given RIC’smuch larger faculty and the pressure on CFSD lead-ers to attend to students’ and families’ immediateneeds. So far, many leaders and front-line staffmembers participate in the partnership in additionto their regular duties; RIC has been able to allo-cate a portion of one leader’s time to coordinate the


Lab. CFSD leaders noted that their teachers havesometimes been reluctant to participate in partner-ship activities because of the many demands ontheir time, even when they were excited aboutpotential projects. Leaders hope to eventually rene-gotiate collective bargaining agreements at boththe college and the district to formally allocate staffand faculty time to partnership activities.

Strategic planning and alignment of practices tovision and goals

Leaders note that the Innovation Lab is at aninflection point, where rather than expanding proj-ects, the emphasis must shift to consolidating,deepening, and institutionalizing collaboration.While leaders have revised their memorandum ofunderstanding to spell out specific roles and respon-sibilities, they have not yet developed a multi-yearstrategic plan with concrete goals. Most leadersagreed that this is a priority for the coming year.The impending departure of Superintendent Gallohas highlighted dependence of the partnership onthe vision and commitment of individual leadersand the urgency of embedding partnership practicesmore deeply in both institutions.

The leadership team hopes to shift the partnershipfrom a disconnected set of projects to a coherent set of practices that reshape how both institutionsoperate. A RIC leader described their current challenge:

I think in the first year it was pretty easybecause we were very focused on gettingstarted. We’ve had – I guess I can’t stress thisenough. The way that we started was by devel-oping different projects all across the campusand across Central Falls that would be puttogether. And that was relatively easy. In thesecond year and in this year it’s been more dif-ficult to figure out, okay, where do we go fromhere? So we have projects intersecting. Wehave students looking across their departmen-tal affiliations to explore their learning. . . .We are just now understanding all of the chal-lenges to deepening involvement. . . . It’s not

that the things in place aren’t working or thatnew and exciting things aren’t happening.They are just not deepening the connection.

Both institutions have taken some initial steps toalign practices and policies to partnership goals, forexample by including Innovation Lab activities aspart of job descriptions for new hires. The leader-ship team is also exploring a new admissions processfor Central Falls graduates, and a redesign of clini-cal preparation for RIC students working in schoolsthat will be based on the projects that have broughtstudents into CFSD schools. The eagerness andwillingness of CFSD’s superintendent and a RICvice president to serve on the leadership team givesthe team the authority to make impactful decisionsand demonstrates both institutions’ deep commit-ment to their collaboration.

Strengthening collaborative capacity

Time to develop the interpersonal trust that facili-tates honest reflections on practice and sharedlearning is crucial to sustainable partnership(Bosma et al. 2010; Goldring & Sims 2005; Nuñez& Oliva 2009). Gadja and Koliba (2007) note theimportance of developing “collaboration literacy,”or language for reflecting explicitly on collaborativepractices. While Innovation Lab leaders recognizethat the next phase of strategic planning will neces-sitate more difficult conversations, they have laid astrong foundation for a collaborative, reflective pro-fessional community among themselves. Skills anddispositions that the leaders named as having facili-tated collaboration include patience, compromise,curiosity, flexibility, and the ability to accept thatthere are several valid ways of accomplishing thesame goal. The leadership team has invested timeand resources into regular meetings, retreats (one ofwhich was facilitated by an external facilitator), andone-on-one discussions about problems of practice.

All the leadership team members agreed that theyhave developed a high degree of trust across institu-tions. As an example of their willingness to learn


from one another, one RIC leader recently spent aday shadowing a CFSD leader at her school and wasstruck by the close teamwork among staff and deepknowledge of students’ individual needs. A CFSDleader reflected on how the partnership has deep-ened cross-institutional relationships:

I mean, for me, directly working with thesocial work department, I already knew somepeople and had conversations on certainthings. But now there’s more of the, “Let’s sitdown and think and really just expand whatwe are doing. What are some of the ideas? . . .What do we think our students need? Howcan Rhode Island College help support that?”So I think if [the partnership ended] tomorrowit would still continue because there are a lotof things that for both institutions right now Ithink are embedded in the work. None of uswould want to stop.

Inclusivity and Influence In order to change culture and practice, partner-ships must penetrate beyond senior leaders toengage staff and faculty, students and families, andcommunity members. Senior leaders should work toraise the partnership’s profile within and outsideboth institutions and create opportunities for awide range of stakeholders to take authentic rolesin shaping collaborative activities and in fosteringstronger cross-institutional relationships. Leadersshould also attend to differences in culture and con-text across universities and districts and acknowl-edge various perspectives.

Increasing visibility

Raising the profile of the Innovation Lab has beena priority for the leadership team. Both institutionsfeature the Lab on their websites and in writtenmaterials, and RIC President Carriuolo and CFSDSuperintendent Gallo regularly mention the Lab infaculty and staff meetings, as well as during publicappearances and parent coffee hours in Central

Falls. Large-scale events, including open planningmeetings and the yearly birthday party celebratingInnovation Lab projects, provide opportunities forstakeholders and community members to learnabout the partnership and explore opportunities toget involved. Leadership team members have ele-vated the partnership through multiple scholarlyoutlets, local media, and a documentary film.

So far, the Lab’s visibility and buy-in varies acrossCFSD and RIC schools. Central Falls High Schoolhas been a hub of partnership activity, with severalRIC classes being taught on-site and RIC studentsengaging in clinical experiences, but every schoolin Central Falls had at least one project under waythis year. Leadership team members sensed thatmany people have heard of the Lab, but fewer havea deep sense of vision and goals. Building awarenessof the Lab among RIC stakeholders has been morechallenging, given that RIC has many more stu-dents and faculty than CFSD. The RIC schools ofeducation and social work have been deeplyinvolved in shaping the partnership and hostingprojects, while it has been a challenge to help otherschools, such as the School of Business, imagineentry points for their students and faculty. As thefirst steps toward a remedy, the leadership teamestablished a planning council, which includes awide array of RIC faculty and staff drawn from dif-ferent schools. Raising the profile of the InnovationLab and encouraging peers to get involved is a keyrole of the planning council.

Engaging front-line staff, stakeholders, and community members

Research on successful partnerships emphasizes thedistinct roles of senior leaders, who hold vision andgoals and build partnership capacity, and those whowe have termed “front-line staff” – the faculty, staff,and administrators who lead and shape the day-to-day work of the partnership (Goldring & Sims2005; Moran et al. 2009; Nuñez & Oliva 2009;White, Deegan & Allexsaht-Snider 1997; Miller &Hafner 2008). Engaging a diverse set of students,families, and community members in shaping ini-


tiatives is imperative for ensuring that they meetthe needs and interests of those who stand to bene-fit, and that they are sustained through turnoveramong senior leaders (Fruchter, Gray & Branch-Smith 2006).

RIC and CFSD stakeholders and community insti-tutions have had various opportunities to learnabout and help shape the partnership. Before sign-ing the memorandum of understanding, the part-ners held open planning meetings wherecommunity leaders and interested faculty of bothinstitutions brainstormed community needs andassets and offered input on the vision of the Lab.Last spring’s first birthday party featured displays oneach project and its goals and brought togetherCentral Falls students, families, and teachers; RICfaculty and students; and university and districtleaders. Before launching Parent College, leaders

held focus groups with families to identify needsand interests, and leaders met with parent groups inCFSD schools. CFSD home-school liaisons helprecruit parents for each semester of Parent College.

The Lab’s design allows partnership activities tobubble up from the interests of stakeholders in eachinstitution. Faculty and staff who are interested in aproject complete a brief online form, which theleadership team uses to assess the potential of eachproposed project to benefit both institutions. Allprojects require sponsors from both partners, andleadership team members help make appropriateconnections. Leaders reflected on the importanceof letting the ideas of front-line staff drive projectdesign while ensuring that the projects avoid thetraditional dynamic of the university “fixing” K–12schools or treating K–12 students and teachers asresearch subjects. Several also reflected that this


process ensures that the staff and faculty who areengaged are committed to and excited about thepartnership and can build excitement among theirpeers. One reflected, “Everybody doesn’t have to beinvolved in this. I think the people that believe[that the clinical knowledge of K–12 staff matters]are the ones who gravitate to this. And I thinksome of the projects we’ve said no to were peoplewho wouldn’t.”

Cultivating boundary-spanners

Scholarship on university-district partnershipshighlights the crucial role of “boundary-spanners”or “bridgers,” who comfortably navigate both cul-tures and can help the partnership navigate powerdynamics and institutional differences (Bosma et al.2010; Weerts & Sandmann 2008; Firestone &Fisler 2002; Goldring & Sims 2005; Stevens 1999).Boundary-spanners can take on formal or informal

roles, and spend much of their time in one-on-oneconversation with leaders and front-line staff atboth institutions (Weerts & Sandmann 2008; Fire-stone & Fisler 2002). Leaders named a wide rangeof people who take on boundary-spanning roles inthe Innovation Lab, generally informally. The RICInnovation Lab coordinator, who is a former K–12teacher and teaches a class in Central Falls,described a large portion of her role as sharing cof-fee and making connections between individuals atRIC and CFSD. Superintendent Gallo and thechair of the CFSD board of trustees, both RIC grad-uates, were suggested as boundary-spanners, as werea number of front-line staff who have forged cross-institutional relationships. The appointment of aRIC leader to the CFSD board of trustees and aCFSD leader to the RIC Institutional ReviewBoard, mentioned above, is an institutionalizationof boundary-spanning.

Attending to culture and context

Leaders have also worked to surface and examinecultural differences to prevent them from derailingtheir collaboration (Acar & Robertson 2004). OneRIC leader contrasted their faculty’s “debate andfreewheeling discussion and a lot of freedom and alot of flexibility” with the more structured, hierar-chical K–12 culture in which educators’ roles areconstrained by classroom responsibilities and stateand federal mandates. Leaders have had many con-versations about the implications of these differ-ences for the partnership. One RIC leader reflectedon the many demands on teachers’ time, forinstance:

It’s tough for those teachers. But I think we’resensitive to that. . . . I think this kind of stuffreally takes time. You know, Fran Gallo is allfor, “Come on, we can do that.” But for thepeople on the ground who are being asked todo all kinds of things and Common Core andtests . . . this takes time.


Impacts The Innovation Lab’s emphasis on inclusivity andbottom-up change has produced observable earlyimpacts. The partnership has begun to demystifycollege and reduce the psychic distance betweenthe two institutions for CFSD students and parents,who spend time on the RIC campus, meet withadmissions officers and faculty, and see RIC stu-dents learning and taking classes in Central Falls.At the same time, RIC admissions staff and facultyhave developed a more nuanced conversation aboutaccess and diversity, and new awareness of some ofthe barriers to college attendance that exist forCentral Falls families, including transportation.One Central Falls leader said of the exposure toRIC, “College was never on parents’ radar becauseof the expense. . . . People say they’re blown awayby the feedback from parents. We have a lot of par-ents who, when they see it and feel it and experi-ence it, it makes a difference.” Several RIC leadersreflected that RIC faculty and staff are deepeningtheir understanding of the experiences, assets, andneeds of Central Falls students before they makethe transition to college. One said:

I think it has created so many more opportuni-ties for us to live up to our mission. We arestill primarily a first-generation college. And Ialways see Rhode Island College as a land ofopportunity because it is affordable. It’s onpublic transportation. The support servicesthat we can offer any individual coming hereare unbelievable. But this has provided thisopportunity for us to really get to know stu-dents way before we would any other, proba-bly, college student, so to establish arelationship with them much sooner, to learnfrom their teachers in their classroom, to learnfrom their social workers – to learn from theadministration of Central Falls and what theirchallenges are, their opportunities, what theywant to do.

CFSD leaders appreciate the additional supportsthat the partnership has made available for studentsand families, particularly the social work interns

working in every Central Falls school under thesupervision of a RIC professor who spends four daysa week in Central Falls. Parent College has alsohelped meet the demand for English as a SecondLanguage and other classes for families. Conversely,the opportunities for RIC students to spend somuch time learning from CFSD staff and receivestrong clinical preparation in urban education hasdeeply impacted their learning. Several leadersfrom RIC and CFSD emphasized the importance ofseeing the realities of what happens inside schoolsand how students’ behavioral and emotional needsimpact classrooms. Experiencing these practical les-sons alongside the theoretical approaches of tradi-tional teacher preparation has enhanced theteacher preparation program at RIC. One RICleader noted:

It’s really the work at the high school, under-standing who those kids are and their families,going out to the homes of kids, really beingable to look at the kinds of pressure that someof those kids are under. . . . What are the assetsof these kids and their families and how canwe build on those? So we see our studentsreally beginning to think that way, not justunderstanding it as a philosophical way toapproach people. They are really understand-ing what you have to look for and how yourlanguage has to change.

As we noted above, building widespread engage-ment among CFSD teachers has been slower going,in large part because of historical dynamics sur-rounding outside intervention in K–12 schools.One RIC leader noted, “I’ve seen slow things. . . .I’ve seen teachers who glared at me all last yearwho a couple of weeks ago were asking me a ques-tion.” However, many teachers have been excitedto partner with RIC faculty and have taken advan-tage of opportunities for professional learning. Thesame RIC leader noted that a high school teacherwith whom she works closely has sat in on RICclasses taught at CFHS and implementedapproaches she’s heard the RIC leader present toher RIC students in her high school classroom.


Committing to an Equal, ReciprocalPartnership Though the Innovation Lab is a new partnershipand is in many ways still taking shape, we believethe Lab offers important strategies and lessons toother higher education–district collaborations. Inparticular, we have been impressed with the com-mitment to a truly equal, reciprocal partnership,and the efforts to build broad visibility and partici-pation across both campuses. We briefly highlightkey themes:

Deep commitment to mutual benefit and mutualrespect: Leadership team members articulatemutual benefit as a core value in written materialsabout the Lab, and returned to it again and again ininterviews. They are proud of their policy thatrequires co-sponsors from CFSD and RIC for everyproject.

Willingness to have hard conversations about cul-ture and context: Leaders have evolved from jokingabout the slow, deliberative culture of higher educa-tion and the action-oriented K–12 culture to facili-tated, honest conversations about how work stylesand organizational culture impact the partnership.

Commitment to inclusivity and bottom-up change:The partnership has existed as a series of projectsproposed and designed by RIC and CFSD facultyaround their interests and priorities. This approachhas generated interest and excitement around col-laboration, bringing RIC and CFSD stakeholdersinto constant contact on both campuses and begin-ning to shift perceptions of “urban schools” and“college” within both institutions.

Optimism and flexibility: Leaders and front-line staffhave been remarkably creative in finding waysaround obstacles and reallocating existing resourcesto support joint endeavors. Leaders noted theimportance of getting comfortable with differentapproaches to problem-solving and trusting thateach partner’s commitment to the partnership isstrong enough to weather setbacks or disagree-ments.

Institutionalizing partnership requires substantialresources: No matter the appetite of everyoneinvolved for working past obstacles, the InnovationLab draws heavily on staff and faculty expertise,time, space, and funding. To thrive beyondturnover in senior leaders, the partnership will needto be embedded in structures and policies and willrequire a stable funding source or sources.


Bibliography: Literature and GuidesInforming Our FrameworkAcar, M., and J. Robertson. 2004. “AccountabilityChallenges in Networks and Partnerships: Evi-dence from Educational Partnerships in theUnited States,” International Review of Administra-tive Sciences 70, no. 2:331–344.

Borthwick, A., T. Stirling, A. Nauman, and D.Cook. 2003. “Achieving Successful School-Uni-versity Collaboration,” Urban Education 38, no.3:330–371.

Bosma, L., R. Sieving, A. Ericson, P. Russ, L.Cavender, and M. Bonine. 2010. “Elements forSuccessful Collaboration between K–8 School,Community Agency, and University Partners:The Lead Peace Partnership,” Journal of SchoolHealth 80, no. 10:501–507.

Brown, J., and J. Geoghegan. 2007. Bringing Cam-pus to the Community: An Examination of the ClarkUniversity Park Partnership after Ten Years. Cam-bridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Coburn, C., S. Bae, and E. Turner. 2008. “Author-ity, Status and the Dynamics of Insider-OutsiderPartnerships at the District Level,” Peabody Jour-nal of Education 83, no. 3:364–399.

Darling-Hammond, L. 2005. Professional Develop-ment Schools: Schools for Developing a Profession.2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press, 1994.

Del Razo, J., M. Saunders, M. Reneé, R. López, andK. Ullucci. 2014. Leveraging Time for Equity: Indi-cators to Measure More and Better Learning Time.Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform at Brown University.

Firestone, W., and Fisler, J. 2002. “Politics, Com-munity, and Leadership in a School-UniversityPartnership,” Educational Administration Quarterly38, no. 4:449–493.

Foley, E., J. Mishook, J. Thompson, M. Kubiak, J.Supovitz, and M. Rhude-Faust. 2008. Beyond Test Scores: Leading Indicators for Education.Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform at Brown University.

Fruchter, N., R. Gray, and E. Branch-Smith. 2006.“Mobilizing Community Engagement.” In AFramework for Success for All Students: CollectedPapers of the Technical Support Team for the Schoolsfor a New Society Initiative and Carnegie Corpora-tion of New York. New York: Carnegie Corpora-tion.

Gadja, R., and C. Koliba. 2007. “Evaluating theImperative of Intraorganizational Collaboration:A School Improvement Perspective,” AmericanJournal of Evaluation 28, no. 1:26–44.

Goldring, E., and P. Sims. 2005. “Modeling Cre-ative and Courageous School Leadership throughDistrict-Community-University Partnerships,”Educational Policy 19, no. 1:223–249.

Greenes, C. 1994. “The Partnership: The History,”Special Issue: The Boston University/ChelseaPublic Schools Partnership 1986-1994, Journal ofEducation 176, no. 1:9–19.

Hargreaves, A., and M. Fullan. 2012. ProfessionalCapital: Transforming Teaching in Every School.New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, J., S. McAlister, J. Mishook, and G. Santner.2013. Partnerships for College Readiness. Provi-dence, RI: The Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform at Brown University.

Miller, P., and M. Hafner. 2008. “Moving towardDialogical Collaboration: A Critical Examinationof a University-School-Community Partnership,”Educational Administration Quarterly 44, no. 1:66–110.


Moran, C., C. Cooper, A. López, and B. Goza.2009. “Developing Effective P–20 Partnerships toBenefit Chicano/Latino Students and Families,”Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 8, no. 4:340–356.

Nichols-Solomon, R. 2006. “Working with CorePartners.” In A Framework for Success for All Stu-dents: Collected Papers of the Technical SupportTeam for the Schools for a New Society Initiative andCarnegie Corporation of New York. New York:Carnegie Corporation.

Noel, J., and D. Sessoms. 2009. “Structural Shiftsand Cultural Transformations: University Facultyand their Work in PDSs.” In Prioritizing UrbanChildren, Teachers and Schools through ProfessionalDevelopment Schools, edited by P. Wong and R.Glass. New York: State University of New YorkPress.

Núñez, A.-M., and M. Oliva. “Organizational Col-laboration to Promote College Access: A P–20Framework,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education8, no. 4:322–339.

Shavelson, R., L. McDonnell, and J. Oakes. 1991.“What Are Educational Indicators and IndicatorSystems?” Practical Assessment, Research & Evalu-ation 2, no. 11.

Torres, J., and J. Schaffer, eds. 2000. Benchmarks forCampus/Community Partnerships. Providence, RI:Campus Compact.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. “2009–2013 5-YearAmerican Community Survey: Central Falls,Rhode Island,” American FactFinder. Report canbe generated at http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml.

Weerts, D., and L. Sandmann. 2008. “Building aTwo-Way Street: Challenges and Opportunitiesfor Community Engagement at Research Univer-sities,” Review of Higher Education 32, no. 1:73–106.

White, C., J. Deegan, and M. Allexsaht-Snider.1997. “Changes in Roles and Relationships in aSchool-University Partnership,” Teacher Educa-tion Quarterly 24, no. 1:53–66.

Willis, G. 1999. Cognitive Interviewing: A “How To”Guide. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Tri-angle Institute.

Wilson, M. and P. Wilde. 2003. Benchmarking Com-munity Participation: Developing and Implementingthe Active Partners Benchmarks. York, UK: JosephRowntree Foundation.


Appendix: Additional Frameworksand Rubrics for Higher Education–District Partnerships

Campus-community partnershipsIn 1998, Campus Compact convened a conferenceof eight teams of campus-community partners toidentify benchmarks of democratic collaboration.Campus Compact developed a framework, “Bench-marks for Campus / Community Partnerships,” with extensive examples drawn from participatingpartnerships.

https://www.e2e-store.com/compact/compact-product.cgi?category_id=10&product_id=132

PK–16 school-based partnershipsThe Rhode Island Partnership for Success workedwith advisory board members from PK–12 schools,universities, and intermediaries to develop a rubric for school-university partnerships focused on college readiness.

http://ripartnerships.org/additional-resources/

Inter-organizational collaborationsWilder Research has developed an inventory oftwenty research-supported factors for successful col-laboration. The inventory can be completed andscored online.

http://www.wilder.org/wilder-research/research-services/pages/wilder-collaboration-factors-inventory.aspx

The Higher Education–District Partnership Self-Assessment Rubric


About the RubricThis rubric was developed from the literature onuniversity–school district partnerships, AISR’s pre-vious work on cross-sector collaboration, and ouranalysis of interviews with Innovation Lab leader-ship team members. It focuses on two categories ofsuccessful partnerships – capacity, and inclusivityand influence – that don’t seem to be thoroughlyaddressed in existing rubrics. Two other domains –values and commitments, and communication – areno less important to successful partnerships, butseveral useful tools exist to assess them (see theAppendix).

This rubric is intended for self-assessment, not forevaluation purposes. We hope that it will be usefulin assessing progress, taking stock of partnershipdynamics, and highlighting areas for future growth.We anticipate that very few partnerships would ratethemselves in the “transformative” category onmost indicators in this rubric. Most partnershipslikely vary in their development from indicator toindicator. We hope the “established” and “transfor-mative” categories can provide aspirational goals forinclusive, sustainable, authentic collaboration.

Instructions for Completing theRubricFor each indicator, you will find statements organ-ized into four columns – “minimal,” “developing,”“established,” and “transformative.” Some indica-tors have one statement in each column, while oth-ers have several statements.

Check the boxes next to the statements that youfeel best apply to your partnership. Even within anindicator, you may check boxes in more than onecolumn.

Usually, statements in the same row of the rubricchange qualitatively as you move from left (“mini-mal”) to right (“transformative”). However, some rows are additive – that is, an “established”partnership would check the statements in both the “developing” and “established” columns, and a“transformative” partnership would mark state-ments in the “developing,” “established,” and“transformative” columns. These rows are markedwith the heading “developing and” or “establishedand.”

For ease of interpretation, we have included a scor-ing row where you can add the statements checkedin each column for each indicator to get a sense ofwhich column best represents your partnership atits current stage. However, we think the rubric willbe most useful in identifying areas of strength andareas for growth, rather than focusing on numericscores.


The Higher Education–District Partnership RubricCAPACITY

1. PARTNERS raise and contribute sufficient resources to accomplish partnership goals.

1.1 PARTNERS work together to ensure that funding supports partnership goals.

MINIMAL DEVELOPING ESTABLISHED TRANSFORMATIVE

n Partners do notallocate fundingor in-kind sup-ports to partner-ship.

n Partners allocate exist-ing funds or in-kind sup-ports to partnershipwhere possible.

Developing, and:n Partners work to raiseexternal funds to supportpartnership.

Established, and:n Partners jointly develop amulti-year partnershipbudget aligned to partner-ship goals.

Developing, and:n Partners consult eachother on the allocation ofexisting funds to supportpartnership.

Established, and:n Each partner treats partner-ship as a core institutionalpriority in its own budget.

1.2 PARTNERS share physical space to support partnership activities.


n All or most part-nership activitieshappen in oneinstitution’sspace.

n Partners make an effortto rotate meetings andactivities between eachinstitution's space.

n Partners maintain a con-sistent and equitablerotation of meeting andactivity locations acrossspaces.

Established, and:n Partners acquire or developa shared, dedicated physi-cal space to house partner-ship activities.

1.3 PARTNERS dedicate staff/faculty time to support partnership goals.


n Little or nostaff/faculty timeis spent on part-nership activities.

n When staff/faculty par-ticipate in partnershipactivities, they do so ontop of their regularlyscheduled duties.

n Staff/faculty time is for-mally allocated to part-nership activities to theextent possible underexisting contracts.

n Collective bargaining oremployment contracts aremodified to support the reg-ular allocation of staff/fac-ulty time to partnershipactivities.

n Each partner makes sep-arate decisions aboutallocating staff/facultytime to partnership activ-ities.

n Partners strategizetogether to ensure equi-table use of staff/facultytime while respecting theconstraints of each insti-tution.

Established, and:n Partners create new sharedstaff/faculty positions tosupport partnership goals,and/or staff/faculty of oneinstitution take on formalroles within the partnerinstitution.


CAPACITY

1. PARTNERS raise and contribute sufficient resources to accomplish partnership goals.

1.4 PARTNERS deploy staff/faculty expertise to support partnership goals.


n Staff/faculty arerarely asked toparticipate inpartnership activ-ities.

n Staff/faculty are asked toparticipate in partnershipactivities on the basis ofinterest or convenience.

n Partners strategizetogether to recruitstaff/faculty with expert-ise and skills needed tomeet partnership goals.

Established, and:n Partnership goals and needsare reflected in each part-ner’s professional develop-ment priorities.

n Senior leaders informallyor inconsistently recog-nize staff/faculty contri-butions to partnershipactivities.

n Senior leaders regularlyand publicly acknowl-edge staff/faculty contri-butions to partnershipactivities.

Established, and:n Each partner’s hiring, evalu-ation, and promotion poli-cies encourage andrecognize contributions topartnership activities.

1.5 PARTNERS work together to provide transportation and other supports for participation.


n Limited supportsare available forpartnership activ-ities.

n Each institution con-tributes in-kind supportsor funding for supportson an ad-hoc basis.

n Partners strategizetogether about what sup-ports are necessary tomaximize participationand decide togetherwhich to provide.

n Partners develop a policyand a sufficient budget tomanage the provision ofsupports to maximize partic-ipation in partnership activi-ties.

/5 /7 /8 /8


CAPACITY

2. SENIOR LEADERS hold vision and goals and ensure sustainability of partnership.

2.1 SENIOR LEADERS develop a vision and goals to guide partnership.


n Vision and goalsare undefined orare developed byonly one institu-tion.

n Leaders from both insti-tutions develop a sharedvision statement.

n Leaders develop ashared vision thatreflects the missions ofboth institutions anddevelop measurablegoals.

Established, and:n Leaders seek input fromfront-line staff and stake-holders of both institutionson vision and goals.

2.2 SENIOR LEADERS use vision and goals to guide strategic planning.


n Partnership activ-ities are notaligned to goals.

n Leaders make decisionstogether about partner-ship activities on a case-by-case basis.

n Leaders use clear crite-ria aligned to vision andgoals to make decisionsabout partnership activi-ties.

Established, and:n Strategic planning includessuccession planning forsenior leaders and keyfront-line staff.

n Leaders develop plans toaccomplish short-termgoals.

n Leaders develop plans toaccomplish short- andlong-term goals.

2.3 SENIOR LEADERS revisit vision and goals as partnership deepens.


n Vision and goalsare undefined, orare developed byonly one institu-tion.

n Vision statement is astatic document.

n Leaders acknowledgethat vision and goals aredynamic documents butrevisit them on an adhoc, infrequent basis.

Established, and:n Leaders set aside time torevisit vision annually orsemi-annually, and as part-nership deepens and needsevolve.

2.4 SENIOR LEADERS align structures and practices to partnership goals.


n Each partner’sstructures andpractices remainunchanged, evenwhere they con-tradict partner-ship goals.

n Leaders have the author-ity to modify structuresand practices to supportpartnership activities.

Developing, and:n Leaders reflect togetherand develop action plansabout structures, prac-tices, and proceduresthat support or hinderprocesses.

Established, and:n Partners codify partnershipgoals in their institution'sstructures and practices.

/4 /5 /5 /4


CAPACITY

3. SENIOR LEADERS deepen collaborative capacity.

3.1 SENIOR LEADERS have time to build and maintain interpersonal trust and relationships.


n Leaders rarelyengage acrossinstitutions anddo not have trust-ing relationships.

n Leaders develop trustand relationships inci-dentally through partner-ship activities.

n Leaders dedicate time totrust- and relationship-building activities as partof regular meetings.

Established, and:n Leaders reflect together ontrust and relationships, anddirectly address sources oftension.

n Leaders rarely shareproblems of practicewith peers across institu-tions.

n Leaders regularly solicitand receive feedback onproblems of practicefrom peers across insti-tutions.

n Leaders mostly interactacross partners throughpartnership meetings.

n Leaders dedicate time tolearning about eachother's roles, responsi-bilities, priorities, andcontexts (for example,through visits and jobshadowing).

3.2 SENIOR LEADERS invest time and resources in strengthening collaborative processes within the leader-ship team.


n Leaders give lim-ited or no atten-tion tocollaborativeprocesses.

n Leaders use collabora-tive processes to includeboth institutions in deci-sion-making.

Developing, and:n Leaders regularly reflecton and make adjust-ments to the efficacy,equity, and inclusivity ofmeetings and decision-making processes.

Established, and:n Leaders invest in supportssuch as trainings and neu-tral facilitation when neededto strengthen collaborativeprocesses.

/2 /4 /4 /2


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

4. FRONT-LINE STAFF take an active role in implementing and refining partnership activities.

4.1 Partners encourage broad participation by faculty and staff.


n In any given year,fewer than 5% ofhigher educationfaculty and staffengage as front-line staff carryingout partnershipactivities.

n In any given year,between 5% and 10% ofhigher education facultyand staff engage asfront-line staff carryingout partnership activities.

n In any given year,between 10% and 25% ofhigher education facultyand staff engage asfront-line staff carryingout partnership activities.

n In any given year, more than25% of higher educationfaculty and staff engage asfront-line staff carrying outpartnership activities.

n All front-linehigher educationstaff work in onedepartment orschool.

n Front-line higher educa-tion staff are drawn frommore than one depart-ment or school.

n Front-line higher educa-tion staff are drawn fromabout half of depart-ments or schools.

n Front-line higher educationstaff are drawn from mostdepartments or schools.

n In any given year,fewer than 5% ofdistrict facultyand staff engageas front-line staffcarrying out part-nership activities.

n In any given year,between 5% and 10% ofdistrict faculty and staffengage as front-line staffcarrying out partnershipactivities.

n In any given year,between 10% and 25% ofdistrict faculty and staffengage as front-line staffcarrying out partnershipactivities.

n In any given year, more than25% of district faculty andstaff engage as front-linestaff carrying out partner-ship activities.

n All front-line dis-trict staff aredrawn from oneschool or the dis-trict office.

n Front-line district staffare drawn from morethan one school.

n Front-line district staffare drawn from abouthalf of schools.

n Front-line district staff aredrawn from most schools.

4.2 Partners develop processes to ensure that FRONT-LINE STAFF participation advances partnership goals.


n Front-line staffparticipation isnot consistentlyaligned to part-nership goals.

n Senior leaders reviewfront-line staff participa-tion to ensure alignmentto partnership goals on acase-by-case basis.

n Clear guidelines aredeveloped and communi-cated to front-line staff toensure that front-lineactivities align to part-nership goals and benefitboth institutions.

Established, and:n Front-line staff participate indeveloping, reviewing, andapplying guidelines toensure partnership activitiesadvance goals and benefitboth institutions.


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

4. FRONT-LINE STAFF take an active role in implementing and refining partnership activities.

4.3 FRONT-LINE STAFF make decisions about implementing partnership activities.


n Front-line staff rarelyengage in partnershipactivities or engage onlywhen required by seniorleaders, and have littleor no say about how tocarry out activities.

n Front-line staff canmake decisions aboutwhether to engage inpartnership activitiesbut have little say overhow to carry out activi-ties.

n Front-line staff can makedecisions about how tocarry out partnershipactivities, in consultationwith senior leaders anddirect supervisors.

Established, and:n Front-line staff areengaged in designingand implementing part-nership activities along-side senior leaders.

n Senior leaders do notsolicit feedback andsuggestions from front-line staff about partner-ship activities.

n Senior leaders solicitfeedback and sugges-tions from front-linestaff about partnershipactivities infrequently,on an ad-hoc basis.

n Senior leaders solicitfeedback and sugges-tions from front-line staffon a regular schedule.

4.4 FRONT-LINE STAFF have the necessary resources to carry out the daily work of the partnership.


n Front line staff do nothave access toresources (funding,transportation, meetingspace) to carry out part-nership activities.

n Front-line staff canrequest resources(funding, transporta-tion, meeting space) tocarry out partnershipactivities on a case-by-case basis.

n Front-line staff have reg-ular and predictableaccess to resources(funding, transportation,meeting space) to carryout partnership activities.

Established, and:n Front-line staff haveaccess to training andother supports forworking across institu-tional contexts and cul-tures.

/8 /8 /8 /7


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

5. BOUNDARY-SPANNERS operate comfortably across settings and facilitate communication between partners.


n No one acts as aboundary-span-ner.

n Individuals take on infor-mal roles as boundary-spanners.

n Boundary-spanners havetime dedicated specifi-cally to cross-institutionrelationship-building andlistening.

Established, and:n Boundary-spanners' rolesare institutionalized, andnew boundary-spanners arecultivated among front-linestaff.

n All or most boundary-spanners are drawn fromone institution.

n Boundary-spanners aredrawn from both institu-tions.

n Boundary-spannerscomfortably navigateboth institutional cul-tures.

n Boundary spanners sur-face and manage cul-tural/contextualdifferences and powerdynamics.

Established, and:n Boundary-spanners helpleaders and front-line staffreflect on and manage cul-tural/contextual differencesand power dynamics.

n Boundary-spanners forma few individual relation-ships across institutions.

n Boundary-spannersfacilitate cross-institu-tion relationshipsbetween individuals withsimilar interests or com-plementary skills.

/1 /4 /4 /2


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

6. STAKEHOLDERS of both institutions have opportunities to learn about and engage in partnership.

6.1 STAKEHOLDERS of both institutions are aware of partnership goals and activities.


n Under 10% of stake-holders in the followinggroups are aware ofpartnership ACTIVITIES:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n Between 10% and 25%of stakeholders in thefollowing groups areaware of partnershipACTIVITIES:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n Between 25% and 50%of stakeholders in thefollowing groups areaware of partnershipACTIVITIES:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n More than 50% ofstakeholders in the fol-lowing groups areaware of partnershipACTIVITIES:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n Under 10% of stake-holders in the followinggroups understand part-nership VISION ANDGOALS:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n Between 10% and 25%of stakeholders in thefollowing groups under-stand partnershipVISION AND GOALS:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n Between 25% and 50%of stakeholders in thefollowing groups under-stand partnershipVISION AND GOALS:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families

n More than 50% ofstakeholders in the fol-lowing groups under-stand partnershipVISION AND GOALS:• Higher education staffand faculty• District staff and faculty• Higher education stu-dents• District students• District families


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

6. STAKEHOLDERS of both institutions have opportunities to learn about and engage in partnership.

6.2 STAKEHOLDERS are invited to learn about and provide feedback on partnership goals and activities.


n Little information aboutthe partnership is avail-able to stakeholderswho are not alreadyengaged.

n Information about part-nership activities iscommunicated to stake-holders with few oppor-tunities for feedback.

n Stakeholders are invitedto well-publicizedevents to learn aboutpartnership activitiesand provide feedback.

Established, and:n Senior leaders andfront-line staff recruit adiverse group of stake-holders to learn aboutand provide feedbackon partnership activi-ties.

6.3 STAKEHOLDERS are encouraged to participate in partnership activities.


n Partnership activitiesare not open to stake-holders.

n Interested stakeholdersmust seek out ways toengage in partnership.

n Senior leaders andfront-line staff provideclear entry-points forstakeholders who wantto get involved.

Established, and:n Senior leaders andfront-line staff takeactive steps to recruit adiverse group of stake-holders to participate inpartnership activities.n Stakeholders have no

opportunities to spendtime in the physicalspace of the other insti-tution or interact acrossinstitutions.

n Stakeholders are occa-sionally invited to spendtime in the physicalspace of the other insti-tution and interactacross institutions.

n Stakeholders have reg-ular opportunities tospend time in the physi-cal space of the otherinstitution and interactacross institutions.

/5 /5 /5 /4


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

7. COMMUNITY MEMBERS and INSTITUTIONS have opportunities to learn about andengage in partnership.

7.1 COMMUNITY MEMBERS are invited to learn about and provide feedback on partnership goals and activities.


n Little information aboutthe partnership is avail-able to communitymembers.

n Information about part-nership activities iscommunicated to com-munity members with noopportunities for feed-back.

n Community membersare invited to well-publi-cized events to learnabout partnership activ-ities and provide feed-back.

Established, and:n Leaders seek out a rep-resentative group ofcommunity members forfeedback on partnershipactivities, to ensure thatthe partnershipaddresses communitypriorities.

7.2 COMMUNITY MEMBERS are invited to engage in partnership activities.


n Partnership activitiesare not open to commu-nity members.

n Community membersmust seek out ways toengage in the partner-ship.

n Senior leaders andfront-line staff provideclear entry points forcommunity memberswho want to getinvolved.

Established, and:n Senior leaders andfront-line staff takeactive steps to recruit adiverse group of com-munity members to par-ticipate in partnershipactivities.

n Community membershave no opportunities tospend time in the physi-cal space of the otherinstitution or interactacross institutions.

n Community membersare occasionally invitedto spend time in thephysical space of bothinstitutions and interactwith stakeholdersacross institutions.

n Community membershave regular opportuni-ties to spend time in thephysical space of bothinstitutions and interactwith stakeholdersacross institutions.

7.3 COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS are invited to engage as partners.


n Senior leaders do notattempt to engage com-munity institutions in thepartnership.

n Senior leaders engageknown community insti-tutions in partnershipactivities.

n Senior leaders reachout to new communityinstitutions as potentialpartners.

Established, and:n Senior leaders seekopportunities tobroaden the partnershipto include communityinstitutions at the lead-ership level.

n Partners are not awareof each other’s relation-ships with communityinstitutions.

n Partners learn abouteach other’s relation-ships with communityinstitutions incidentally.

n Partners strategizetogether about whetherand how to facilitaterelationships with eachother’s community-insti-tution partners.

/5 /5 /5 /3


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

8. Partnership has high visibility across both institutions.

8.1 PARTNERS regularly reference the partnership in written and in-person communications.


n The partnership israrely mentioned inpublic documents.

n Written materialsdescribing the partner-ship are available tosome stakeholders.

n Both institutionsdescribe the partner-ship in public writtenand online materials.

Established, and:n Each institution includesthe partnership in itsrecruitment and promo-tional materials.

n Partnership activitiesare occasionally men-tioned in meetings onboth campuses.

n Partnership activitiesare regularly advertisedon both campuses andmentioned in regularmeetings.

Established, and:n Each institutionaddresses the partner-ship in orientation fornew staff/faculty, stu-dents, and families.

8.2 SENIOR LEADERS work to raise the visibility of the partnership inside and outside their institutions.


n Leaders seldom discusspartnership in public.

n Leaders promote thepartnership publicly asopportunities arise.

n Leaders regularly men-tion partnership activi-ties during public eventsand meetings, withinand beyond their institu-tion.

Established, and:n Leaders reflect theneeds, priorities, andvalues of both institu-tions when promotingthe partnership.

8.3 FRONT-LINE STAFF work to raise the visibility of the partnership among peers.


n Front-line staff rarelydiscuss partnershipactivities.

n Front-line staff discusspartnership with peersinformally.

Developing, and:n Front-line staff haveregular opportunities todiscuss partnershipactivities duringstaff/faculty meetings,professional develop-ment, and other venues.

Established, and:n Front-line staff haveopportunities to publiclyreflect on the process,successes, and chal-lenges of partnershipactivities and solicitfeedback from col-leagues.

/3 /4 /4 /4


INCLUSIVITY A

ND I

NFLUENCE

9. SENIOR LEADERS understand and consider each other’s culture and context in shapingpartnership.


n Leaders do not attend todifferences in culture,context, staff/facultyroles, or leadershipstructures.

n Leaders are aware ofdifferences in culture,context, staff/facultyroles, and leadershipstructures, but do notregularly discuss thosedifferences.

n On a regular basis, lead-ers openly and honestlydiscuss differences inculture, context,staff/faculty roles, andleadership structures,as well as how thosedifferences impact col-laboration.

Established, and:n Leaders understand andtreat differences in cul-ture and context asstrategic opportunitiesto reassess their owninstitution's culture andapproach to the work.

n Leaders avoid or aban-don activities that sur-face differences inculture, context, or con-straints.

n Leaders do not antici-pate challenges in mov-ing on from activitiesthat surface differencesin culture, context, andconstraints.

n Leaders anticipate andtolerate some misstepsor misunderstandingsamong themselves andfront-line staff arisingfrom differences in cul-ture, context, and con-straints.

Established, and:n Leaders support front-line staff, stakeholders,and community mem-bers to explore differ-ences in culture,context, and constraintsand productivelyaddress those differ-ences in partnershipactivities.

/2 /2 /2 /2

10. SENIOR LEADERS acknowledge and respect differing viewpoints and priorities.


n The viewpoints and pri-orities of a few leadersdominate decision-making.

n Leaders are open toconsidering differingviewpoints as they arise.

n Leaders use meetingprocesses designed tosurface and give con-sideration to differingviewpoints and priori-ties.

Established, and:n Front-line staff andstakeholders haveaccess to training andsupport for surfacingand considering differ-ent viewpoints and pri-orities in partnershipactivities.

/1 /1 /1 /1

The Higher Education– District Partnership Self-Assessment Rubric ...

Documents

Transcript of The Higher Education– District Partnership Self-Assessment Rubric ...