Affiliation:
1. HertsCam Network, Wolfson College
Abstract
This paper explores relationships between universities and schools. It draws on the author’s firsthand experience in a long career in the higher education sector working in, and with, many different kinds of universities. It is also informed by his direct involvement in research on school-university partnerships. It considers fundamentals such as the nature of education and the core purposes of both types of institution. Issues that arise in school-university partnerships are considered and the concept of the ‘third space’ in which there can be mutuality and collaboration is explored. The paper highlights challenges to both universities and schools as they navigate partnerships. From my point of view, it is entirely reasonable for schools and teachers to be the dominant partners and for university academics to see themselves as supporters, servants and consultants.In the late 1990s, the author had been asked by the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education to work with a new partnership with schools in the country of Hertfordshire. The HertsCam Network, as it began to be called, established a Steering Committee with members who were school principals and a representative of the district authority. This worked well until the university took steps to try to impose higher fees, compulsory training in quantitative research methods and an end to experienced teachers in the MEd teaching team. The Steering Committee found this unacceptable so took decisive action and declared independence. HertsCam became a registered charity (NGO) governed by a Board of Trustees which is dominated by school principals. This enabled the network members to embrace more fully the idea of non-positional teacher leadership.
Publisher
Bulletin of Kazakh National Women's Teacher Training University
Reference39 articles.
1. Ashby, E. (1946) Universities in Australia, in E. Ashby, Challenge to Education. Sydney & London: Angus and Robertson.
2. Bangs, J. and Frost, D. (2015) ‘Non-positional Teacher Leadership: Distributed leadership and self-efficacy’ in R. Kneyber and J. Evers (Eds.) Flip the System: Changing Education from the Ground Up. London: Routledge.
3. Barnett, R. (2000) University knowledge in an age of supercomplexity, Higher Education 40: 409–422.
4. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
5. Cambridge Assessment: https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/why-choose-us/benefits-of-a-cambridgeeducation/international-curriculum/