|
1
|
- Barbara A. Holland
- Senior Scholar, IUPUI
- Director, National Service-Learning Clearinghouse
|
|
2
|
- Lots going on; hard to get a grasp on quantity, quality, logic, impa=
ct
of partnerships
- Growing institutional differentiation
- Over-reliance on soft money
- Growing academic legitimacy; e.g., accreditation standards; Carnegie
classifications
- plateau of faculty participation and interest
|
|
3
|
- We understand partnership characteristics; questions remain about
reciprocity, power, shared resources
- Infrastructure, curriculum and partnerships are fundamental to
institutionalization
- Engagement as response to current fiscal crisis
- Academic culture changing globally – engagement is core to the
future
|
|
4
|
- Growing enrollment
- Declining funding
- Renewing mission and identity in increasingly diverse communities
- Development of new leadership
- Retention/completion/transfer success
- Responding to changing student needs
- AAHE, 2005
|
|
5
|
- Can a greater commitment to engagement and service-learning help add=
ress
these challenges?
- To what degree should service-learning be part of the experience of =
our
students?
|
|
6
|
- Education for civic responsibility, development of job skills, and
preparation for transfer to a four-year institution are not mutually
exclusive outcomes.
- Louis Albert, 2005
- In combination, these outcomes strengthen the college and community =
as
well as the student.
- Barbara Holland, today.
|
|
7
|
- Effective campus-community partnerships can transform students,
institutional quality and spirit, and community capacity.
- Partnerships are fundamental to successful engagement and
service-learning.
- Truth-telling: Partnerships are high effort/high benefit!
|
|
8
|
- Joint exploration of goals and interests and limitations
- Creation of a mutually rewarding agenda
- Operational design that supports shared leadership, decision-making,
conflict resolution, resources
- Clear benefits and roles for each partner
- Identification of opportunities for early successes for all; shared
celebration of progress
- Focus on knowledge exchange, shared learning and capacity-building=
li>
- Attention to communications patterns, cultivation of trust
- Commitment to continuous assessment of the partnership itself, as we=
ll
as outcomes
|
|
9
|
- Mission, values, goals, outcomes
- Trust, respect, commitment
- Focus: strengths, assets, areas for improvement
- Balanced power, shared resources
- Clear, open communication
- Roles, norms, processes (mutually designed)
- Feedback for continuous improvement
- Shared credit for accomplishments
- Investment of time needed to develop and evolve
|
|
10
|
- Mutually-determined goals and processes
- Shared resources, rewards, risks
- Roles reflect partner capacities and resources
- Respect for expertise of each partner
- Sufficient benefits to justify cost/effort/risk
- Shared vision/excitement/passion
- Accountability for carrying out plans
- Commitment to benefits for all partners
|
|
11
|
- Service relationship – fixed time, fixed task
- Exchange relationship – exchange info for mutual benefit, spec=
ific
project
- Cooperative relationship – joint planning and shared
responsibilities, long-term, multiple projects
- System and Transformative relationship – shared
decision-making/operations/evaluation intended to transform each
organization
- Hugh Sockett, 1998
|
|
12
|
- “Partnerships, at any level, have to be seen first and foremos=
t as
moral frames within which individuals meet, work, and establish comm=
on
purposes, not as pragmatic political treaties between
institutions.”
- Hugh Sockett, 1998
|
|
13
|
- Learning:
- About each other’s capacity and limitations
- About each other’s goals, culture, expectations
- To develop students as active citizens
- To exchange expertise, ideas, fears, concerns
- To share control and direction
- To adapt based on assessment and documentation
- To experiment; to fail; to try again – To Trust!
|
|
14
|
- Motivations
- Teaching students about CBO world and the issue-at-hand
- Inspiring an activist spirit
- Keeping students in the community
- Positive impact on clientele, especially youth
- Access to special expertise; capacity/skills not otherwise availabl=
e
|
|
15
|
- Partners want to:
- Ensure student meet learning objectives
- Distinguish SL from other experiential forms
- Align activity with student ability
- Collaborate with faculty
- Contribute to student evaluation
- Understand their roles/responsibilities
- Enhance impact on their mission
- Meet other partners
|
|
16
|
- Resonates with adult and first-gen students – active learning =
with
consequences
- Greater and more diverse local enrollment
- Retention
- Career/major choice
- Connects student, faculty and community in work toward a common good=
- Strengthens public support – postsecondary education as a publ=
ic
good
|
|
17
|
- Greater attention to reciprocity
- Power,Culture/Race
- Resources: sources and distribution
- Evaluation/documentation strategies
- Visibility for this work: internal and external
- Institutionalization – Leadership commitment, faculty developm=
ent,
hard-funded infrastructure, curricular connections
|
|
18
|
- Increase visibility-internally & externally
- Assess, document, publicize
- Recruit allies – PR, development, IR, alumni, community leader=
s
- Celebrate successes- Let partners and students tell their stories
- Be political – searches, curricular reform, accreditation,
strategic planning
- Link to learning goals & faculty development
- Link to public support - demonstrate education’s role in creat=
ing
public good
|
|
19
|
- Barbara A. Holland, Ph.D.
- Director, National Service-Learning Clearinghouse
- And
- Senior Scholar
- Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
- Phone: 503-638-9424
- E-mail:barbarah@etr.org
- www.servicelearning.org
|