This document discusses a university-elementary school partnership project that used a systemic framework to raise academic achievement for children living in poverty in a sustainable way. It describes how the partnership applied systems thinking principles like stakeholder involvement, shared leadership through an advisory board, and identifying shared incentives to gain buy-in from both institutions. The project implemented tutoring, technology nights, and other interventions over multiple years, building trust between the partners and increasing participation each year.

1. Systemic Framework
Supports Sustainability:
University – Elementary School
Partnership Project
to Raise Academic Achievement for
Children Living in Poverty
Beth Rajan Sockman Ph.D.
Instructional Technology
East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania
Regina Sayles Koilparampil M.Ed.
Instructional Technology
Singer/Song Writer

2. Abstract
• When applying for grants, funders often require
sustaining plans beyond the project’s funding period.
Systemic theory provides a framework for sustainability
through analysis of the systems that influence the
interventions’ effectiveness proposed by the grant. This
presentation reviews a specific grant, Volunteers in
Service to America (VISTA), that uses a systemic
theory framework to inform implementation. The
VISTA grant funds collaboration between a university and
an elementary school focused on raising academic
achievement with children living in poverty.

3. Grant funding problem
• How do you raise academic achievement of children
living in poverty within three years in a university –
school partnership?

4. Problem
• What are the ways to use systemic thinking for
sustainability of a positive initiative that is grant funded?
• How do you get a school to buy-into a partnership?
• How do you get university leaders to buy into a
partnership?

5. “Systems not only change in response to the
environment, but the environment changes in
response to the system within it” (Hutchinson).
SYSTEMS THEORY

7. Perspective - Banathy
• interconnectedness between the supra-system ,sub
systems, and peer systems.
Sub-system Sub-system
Supra-system
Sub-system Sub-system
Peer
Systems
Peer
Systems

8. Systems Perspective
• interconnectedness between the supra-system ,sub
systems, and peer systems.
University School District
Peer Systems Peer Systems
Departments Elementary
School

9. 3 strategies discussed in this presentation
STRATEGIES USING SYSTEMS THINKING

10. Strategy – Stakeholder
Involvement
1.Stakeholder involvement
in order to build ownership
(Havelock, 1995),
leadership (C.M. Reigeluth
& Karnopp, 2013),

11. Key stakeholders
• University
• Administration
• Faculty
• Departments
• Students
•School
• Board
• Principal
• Teachers
• Parents
• Students

12. What it sometimes feels like if
you don’t get communication
…

13. 2. Strategy – Shared Leadership
School University
Shared leadership (C.M.
Reigeluth & Karnopp, 2013
ADVISORY
BOARD
Principal
Teachers
Faculty
Parent
University
Student

14. Communication &
Collaboration
• Lastly, groups need to have tools for communication and
collaboration (Le Cornu & Peters 2009), which can be
effectively used for the purpose of developing trust,
awareness, and contextualization. With today’s
technology collaboration tools, selecting the most
beneficial tool for the project is easy as long as
contextual elements are understood. Coordinated action
requires communication and supportive tools which are
vital to planning and executing joint action (Banathy,
1996).

15. 3. Strategies Shared Incentives
& Leverage Points

16. SYSTEM incentives
Supra Systems & Sub Systems – Peer
Systems
• What are the primary concerns for the school?
• What are the skills that university students need to
develop?
• It is valuable for both parties to be open to the needs
of the other?

17. Leverage & Incentive
School District-
AYP -
Technology
University – AACU
- Enrollment
Peer Systems Peer Systems
Departments –
Faculty 
Enrollment
Research
Elementary
School – AYP –
Exams -
Technology
PACC - VISTA
National Goals & Concerns

18. VISTA Grant
• GOAL of VISTA
• Wrote a VISTA grant to get help with the
• VISTA would help establish the
programs in order to make the work
sustainable.

19. PACC - VISTA – Goal
• Fight Poverty
• AACU – Crucible
Moment: College
Learning & Democracy’s
Future, 2012
• PACC – VISTA -
Increase academic
achievement of students
living in poverty

20. Supra System
Children living in Poverty
• Locally and nationally, the academic needs of students
who live in poverty have been voiced (Darling-Hammond,
2010). – Super systems
• Northwestern 2009 study – Dropout High School 63 times
more likely to incarcerated
• 2012 Study: Lack of 3rd literacy + Poverty = Increase risk
for high school dropout
• School – Keystone Exam  Annual Yearly Progress
• School - 66% of its students are receiving free or
reduced lunch

21. Elementary School… Systems
• Supra-system of the elementary school desires
academic achievement where the students reach
adequate yearly progress with greater numbers of
children attaining proficient on the standardized test.
• The Mega-system of the school districts has an
industrial age model of instruction with self-contained
classes within the elementary school. Also, the district
has invested in technology with some support of
technology integration. Low income parents are rarely
involved in students progress. 66% Free & Reduced
Lunch

22. University …System
• Supra-system American Association of Colleges and
Universities, accreditation and measures of institutional
effectiveness espousing a strong relationship with the
community by espousing “theory into practice”
http://www.aacu.org/bringing_theory/.
• Low Enrollment
• High impact practices
• The Mega-system – Social Capital - has a strong
education department, cultural events, and learning
facilities for students. The vast social capital available for
tutoring and programs available was systematically used
to address specific goals established by the elementary
school community

23. MULTIPLE APPROACHES TO
COLLABORATION

24. Stakeholders & Needs – Agreed on
leadership stakeholders
University Students
College Professor -
Reading
LA Literacy Tutoring
Mat
h
Elementary
Students
Shared Leadership
Advisory &
Technology Night
Board
University
Students College
Professor –
Elementary Math
Elementary Students &
4-6 TEACHERS
Technology
Night
University Students (few)
Technology Professor
Elementary Students
MANY TEACHERS
PARENTS - Families

25. Four Prong Interventions – that
was supportive and respectful
1.) Language/literacy tutoring: Happen after school with
University student volunteers.
2.) Math tutoring: conducted with University student small group
in-class sessions that work directly with a schoolteacher.
Indirect academic achievement interventions:
3.) Family Technology Night: Once a year to encourage the
teachers use of technology, with university support. The hope is
to slowly bridge the gap of the digital divide, college access, and
encourage positive parent/guardian involvement their children’s
education. The event brings together the mega-system in a
positive experience.
4.)Advisory board: Encourages communication with shared
leadership through members composition from both communities
who oversee implementation.

26. Not stepping on each other’s shoes- and allowing
each to help the other
TRUST

27. DOES NOT WORK

28. Key Players – Trust Builders
• Principal
• VISTA (Recruiting and collaborating to stay on task)
• PI on Grant (Focus and sustainability – cost/ratio benefit)
• Graduate Student
• Teacher - leaders

29. Interview: Graduate Student –
on Advisory Board
• What was your role in the school before you began the
partnership?
• How did change when you became a graduate
student?
• What was the technology advisory board like for you
as a graduate student?
• How did you leverage you role to gain trust?

30. Used to think about
MOTION PICTURE MODEL

31. Traditional Input – Output
Model

32. Motion Picture Model – Model
of General Systems
Input Transformation Output
Feedback &
Adjustment

33. Motion Picture Model
(Banathy, 1973)
• Input Processing is identified as the first step, which
addresses the interaction system and the environment or
supra-systems.
• The second operation is the Transformation
Intervention, implying operations that support conditions
in which the input will be “transformed into output.”
• The third operation is Output, which provides
identification and assessment of the environment to then
inform the new input. The model then becomes dynamic
as the iterations provide evidence for new input that
stimulates growth, which can potentially transform the
organization. The iterative nature becomes a renewing
process, the essence of a learning organization (Senge,
1990, 2000; Senge & Lannon-Kim, 1991).

34. Motion Picture Model –
Determined by Input
Input -
Students -
Curriculum –
Faculty-
Parents
Output –
Increase
Test Score
– Trust –
Increase
Involvemen
t
Transformation –
Tutoring – Mentoring–
Advisory Board
Feedback
(Observation -
Formative Evaluation
& Advisory Board)
Adjustment

35. Output
HOW IS THIS WORKING?

36. SHARED LEADERSHIP
Advisory Boards
Spring
2013
Spring
2014
Elementary School Faculty &
Administrators
4 5
University Faculty 2 4
University Students 0 2
Parent 1 1

37. STAKEHOLDER Involvement –
Elementary School
Spring 2013 Spring 2014
Elementary
Students for
tutoring
26 45
Technology Night
– Elementary
School
75 (total) 69 (total)
Teachers work
with Graduate
students for
technology
projects
0 4

38. STAKEHOLDER Involvement
University
Spring 2013 Spring 2014
University Tutors 15 18
University Faculty 3 (3 Departments) 5 (5 Departments)
University Grad
3 6
Students

39. Lesson Learned for
Sustainability
• Keep modifying to be sustainable – VISIT
GOALS & Leverage Points
• Keep building trust – from both sides
• Keep value added
• Keep looking for incentives and rewards
• Keep mutual respect - compassion

40. References
Abell, S. K. (2000). From professor to colleague: Creating a professional identity as collaborator in elementary science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37(6), 548-562. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<548::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-D
Banathy, B. H. (1996). Conversation as a medium for change in education. Educational Technology, 36(1), 39-41.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in Schools : A Core Resource for School Reform What Is Relational Trust ?, 60(6), 40-45.
Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2010). Transformational Partnerships: A New Agenda for Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education,
36(1), 29-40. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9155-7
Cornu, R. L., & Peters, J. (2009). Sustaining School-university Collaboration for Reciprocal Learning. International Journal, 16(9).
Ertmer, P. A., Hruskocy, C., & Technology, E. (1999). Impacts of a university-elementary school partnership designed to support technology
integration. Text.
Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships : Cas studies of stu ... Education.
Peel, H. a., Peel, B. B., & Baker, M. E. (2002). School/university partnerships: a viable model. International Journal of Educational Management,
16(7), 319-325. doi:10.1108/09513540210448077
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). NY: Free Press.
Zelleramayer, M., & Margolin, I. (2005). Transitions to school-college partnership: a phenomenological inquiry. Journal of Educational Change,
6(2), 147-176. doi:10.1007/s10833-004-2203-2
Banathy, B. H. (1973). Developing a Systems View of Education: The Systems Model Approach. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Darling-Hammond. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future NY: Teachers College
Press
Duffy, F. M. (2010). Dream! Create! Sustain! Mastering the art and science of transforming school systems. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Education.
Goodman, J. (1995). Change without Difference. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 1-32.
Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional leaning communities during
standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.
Havelock, R. G. Z. S. (1995). The change agents guide (2 ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1993). Principles of educational systems design. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. H. Banathy & J. R. Olson (Eds.), Comprehensive
systems design: A new educational technology. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Karnopp, J. R. (2013). Reinventing schools: It's time to break the mold. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform: Can we change course before it's too late? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. NY: Bantam Double Day Dell Publishing.
Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn: A Fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. NY:
DoubleDay.
Senge, P., & Lannon-Kim, C. (1991). Recapturing the spirit of learning through a systems approach. The school administrator.
Stringer, E. (2007). Action research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.