Search

Researchers have long lamented the lack of research regarding the preparation of school leaders. In response, we offer lessons about school and university partnerships from exemplary professional development school (PDS) research to inform collaborative efforts for leadership preparation. We conducted an extensive literature review of 250 studies spanning a 15-year period. Based upon three levels of qualitative meta-synthesis, we identified 49 exemplary studies from the original 250. We then identified themes involving resources, change, and relationships. Based upon these themes, we concluded the following: (1) In partnerships, resources become a far more significant element in terms of both use and flexibility than they do in more traditional preparation programmes; (2) The nature of change in a partnership is more idiosyncratic because of the diverse stakeholders involved; (3) Relationships are a vital element in the success or failure of a partnership. Therefore, time and energy are necessary to develop and sustain relationships among stakeholders; (4) Partnerships should develop enabling bureaucracies in order to promote meaningful engagement among partners; and (5) Organizational theory offers valuable insights regarding partnerships, but it remains largely an untapped resource in current partnership efforts. We conclude with recommendations for stakeholders interested in developing partnerships between leadership preparation programmes in universities and K-12 schools.

This paper reports on the results of a study in which the discourse within 75 professional development school (PDS)-related publications was examined to determine where the power, influence, and representation lies in PDS partnerships, as indicated by how those partnerships are described in writing. The results found that while university faculty overwhelmingly wrote the articles, their perspectives and experiences were under-represented in the literature and, moreover, their influence within the partnerships appeared to be negligible. School and university administrators were similarly absent in PDS writing. Significantly, university authors and researchers represented themselves in a way that was highly deferential to practitioners and denigrated the role of theory and research in PDS work. In contrast to the traditional image of university dominance of partnerships, this research suggests that the real power and influence in PDS partnerships are the classroom teachers. The paper concludes with suggestions for creating a new, shared PDS discourse that tries to blur the artificial lines between theory and practice.