| During the 1990s, K-12 education reform efforts undertaken by the National Science Foundation (NSF) employed large-scale, "systemic" approaches to improve science and mathematics learning in elementary and secondary classrooms in the United States (Vinovskis, 1996). An underlying assumption of the systemic approach employed by the NSF was that student learning outcomes in science and mathematics could be improved through partnerships uniting school districts, university faculty in arts and sciences, and university teacher education programs (see Appendix A: Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation, Request for Proposals), and a key element of this assumption was that these partnerships would develop collaborative working relationships able to bridge the "overlapping and often conflicting formal and informal policy components" (Smith & O'Day, 1991, p. 237) that had served to limit the effectiveness of previous reform efforts.;This study, an analytic paper, investigates how one such partnership, the TEAMS-BC Project, interpreted and applied "collaboration" during its tenure as a systemic reform initiative within the NSF's Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation program (CETP). It uses a case study approach to document how collaboration worked in practice in the TEAMS-BC Project, a project uniting two school districts (the Boston Public Schools and the Cambridge Schools) and four teacher education programs (Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Massachusetts-Boston, and Wheelock College). The analysis focuses on (1) how collaboration affected, and was affected by, the financial, governance, and organizational structures of the TEAMS-BC Project, and on (2) how the dynamics of those effects in turn served to promote or impede the Project's ability to achieve its stated goals and objectives. Data sources for the analysis include TEAMS-BC artifacts, outside evaluations, and participant interviews.;In reflecting on the experiences of the TEAMS-BC Project, the analysis contributes to educators' and policymakers' understanding of the theories and assumptions underlying collaboration and how those theories and assumptions might or might not provide an effective means for managing a large-scale, systemic reform effort in practice. |
