Greenberg (1992) accounts for the growing interest in College-High School partnerships as including the changing student population, democratisation of higher education admissions policies, beginning teachers' lack of skill preparedness, awareness of a need for new models of inservice for staff development for high school teachers and greater competition in college student recruitment. Added to this are factors such as increased awareness of the need for 'enhanced articulation between levels of institutions by administrators, parents and system education officials', and a growing understanding that the challenges facing schools, such as gender, minorities and literacy and numeracy issues, require a community effort that involves the universities at a greater level than previously occurred.

In Australia, the Innovative Links Project between Universities and Schools for teacher development which began in 1994 was the first attempt to use formalised school/university approach to professional development. While the range of partnerships varied in terms of the way in which they were organised and implemented, each project shared common objectives. These include:

• Utilisation of the experience and expertise available in the school communities;
• Provision of sustained opportunities for critical reflection and discussion between practising teachers, university personnel and trainee teachers;
• Commitment on the part of all stakeholders to true collaboration among equals;
• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for each of the key personnel involved in the collaborative effort. (Williams, 1996)

Yeatman and Sachs (1995) in their evaluation of the Project, comment on the 'cutting edge' nature of such partnership:

In Canada, the University of Toronto has used collaboration between university and schools to set up Professional Development Schools. Stoddart, Winitzky and O'Keefe (1992) summarises the Holmes Group definition of such partnerships thus:

Fullan (1993:121) speaks of the synergy being achieved in such a collaboration of universities and schools and school systems in the initial and ongoing development of educators. He describes the model of Professional Development Schools (PDS) as one that is 'on the right track in promising to produce learning educators and learning organisations through school-university partnerships'. (1997:125). He cites various alliances in Canada and USA but cautions that there is little evaluative data to hand to indicate the success of these alliances. Further, he goes on to challenge both partners involved in PDS to look at these alliances as a natural way of life instead of 'just another project.' (p.126).

In reporting on a PDS project not unlike the one described in this paper, Sandholtz and Finan (1998) reported that the process of creating professional development schools is a complex enterprise, particularly because it involves combining institutions with distinctive and possibly conflicting missions, organisational structures and cultures.

One strategy for bridging these differences is the creation a 'viable liaison positions in which people, both knowledgeable about comfortable with the cultures of the collaborating institutions 'move freely between them, interpret the language, understand the reward systems and translate the ideas of those in one culture to those in another'. (Clark, 1988:6) Recruiting personnel who are able and willing to move across boundaries is challenging, given the established reward system for university faculty and the structured schedule of teachers. Lieberman (1992) points out that these boundary-spanning positions involve the traditional categories of teaching, research and service, though not in the traditional sense and thus generally not recognised in the university's promotion process. For teachers, release time or joint appointments can be difficult to arrange, and additional work becomes burdensome.

Australian Catholic University and Parramatta Diocese Catholic Education Office in New South Wales have a Liaison Committee that exists to develop ways working more closely together. This project came from the desire of the two institutions to enable and empower a school that was going through a re-founding process. One way that the school could professionally develop was to become part of a collaboration between itself and the university. After a planning committee established the key goals for the partnership, the project commenced in the first term of 1999. The University person became part of the school community for two days a week. The focus for the project for 1999 was to develop the partnership using a 'literacy across the curriculum' professional development package to be implemented by the university person who would be working with key school personnel to present in the way most appropriate for the particular circumstances of the school. While this was to be the key focus, other secondary goals were to build partnership links through the establishment of a school based teacher education program and to develop the profile of the school in the outside community. The senior students in the school were able to access university library facilities and take part in another project that had been developed between the university and the CEO.

Appendix 1 is the report of the two key people involved in the project in its first year. The report was presented to the management committee set up by the Liaison Committee at its meeting in October.

The professional development package was introduced to the staff in the first instance by way of a whole day presentation on literacy across the curriculum. Text types and their scaffolds were presented using materials developed by the NSW Department of Education and Training State Equity Centre. Staff spent some time identifying what text types would be most appropriate for their Key Learning Area. Through the use of small groups, teachers identified ways in which they could use text types in their everyday teaching. Outcomes from this day included a raised awareness and in some cases new knowledge about text types and the way they can be used in the classroom, staff room discussion about the pros and cons of such strategies, greater interest by teachers in what and how students were writing and sharing of ideas and achievements.

Stage 2 of the package was working in KLA groups of Year 7 teachers. Three or four periods were spent with each group of teachers. More input about teaching text types was given but at the same time, teachers shared their stories about what they had been doing and how successful the process had been in the classroom. Teachers were encouraged to write up their ideas for 'publishing' on the staff notice boards and examples of student work were displayed in the library. The major outcome from this stage was a developing collegiality between staff who worked together to design worksheets, assessment tasks and regular class activities using text types. In addition, interest from some staff meant that I purchased material that would support the work of the teachers when I wasn't able to be present.

The third phase of the project was to work individually in the classroom with teachers who either demonstrated their teaching of text types or were involved in a team teaching structure with the university person. Teachers were free to do this or not, but most were willing to take part, albeit with some trepidation about having someone watching them teach. In a few cases the university person gave a demonstration lesson and then in the following lesson, watched the teacher teach the same text type. This process was continued until all Year 7 teachers had had at least one classroom session with the university person. Teachers from other years who expressed interest in being part of the same process also took part in this stage of the project. By this stage, staff had certainly got used to my presence and gradually there was less concern about having me in the class, and more about how to refine the teaching process when text types were being taught.

Towards the end of third term yet another professional development day was held. This time staff spent time writing in text type activities into the units of work they were currently in use or that they were planning to use in the next term. By the end of the day, KLAs now had programs that incorporated text types as an integral part of the teaching/learning strategies used throughout the year groups.

At the same time, there were other promotional activities being carried out. The Year 7 Parent Information evening was the ideal opportunity to spend some time explaining to parents how they could help improve literacy at home. When the parent teacher evening was held, again there was time spent talking to parents about how the project was going, and how it linked in with the results of the ELLA tests done earlier in the year.

In third term the school celebrated National Literacy Week in two ways. Scaffolds of all text types were put into each boy's folder in the IT Centre, and the Year 7 boys were logged on to the new computing system. Secondly, a parent information evening open to all parents was offered. They too, had the opportunity to try out the new equipment, write one report using the scaffold process and see what we had been doing with the boys. Displays of work were placed round the ITC so parents were able to view the product of the text type instruction. The parent evening was so successful that there had to be a second one!

At this point in time, plans are being made by a small group of school people who want to move to the next stage of professional development. The agenda has been set by the teachers themselves, the way in which professional development will be carried out has been decided by the staff, and the university person will be working with Year 7, 8 and Year 12 students next year. The staff focus is to be on teaching/learning strategies that will enhance the text type agenda.

Before becoming part of the project I had been involved in lecturing in Professional Skills in the Graduate Diploma of Education (Secondary) course. I had also spent a number of years lecturing in a unit on Curriculum Development that focussed on current issues in the curriculum scene in New South Wales. For the past two years I had been coordinator of a field based learning project for the Dip Ed cohort and had established a comfortable niche for myself within the university.

Going to a new school with little idea of how the staff would receive me was a somewhat daunting experience. I had not been part of the planning of the project so had received my brief from minutes of meetings held in 1998. My first day at school was very confusing - everyone I spoke to seemed to think that I would know instinctively what was wanted - and all I wanted was to find out what the school was expecting. It took me about three weeks to work out that if there was to be a professional development program in the school, I was going to have to do it myself.

The first inservice day was full of anxiety and apprehension. What if the staff didn't respond? Why should they? Did I come across as the 'academic' when I was really wanting to be part of a collegial group? Despite these misgivings, and some angst on the part of some teachers, the day did go well overall, and from then on, I was able to start working more closely with Year 7 teachers in particular. Though there were others on staff who were more than willing to sit down with me and work out how to develop their own teaching strategies. People were very willing on the whole to work with me and I found myself listening to people's stories, bringing in more and more resources from the university to support the work of different teachers. I was overjoyed when I was finally accepted as 'one of teachers' by the boys in the different classes I worked in because when they began to say good morning as I walked through the playground, I knew I had become just another teacher!

It wasn't till half way through the year that Simon and I really started planning things together. Up till this point we had planned the parent nights, but had not sat down and discussed long term 'visioning'. From this time on I have found my work at school more and more absorbing. We meet every day that I am at school in order to plan where we want to go next. One of our best ventures was the launching of the "Literacy Stand" in the staff room. We used one of the staff meetings to set up the meeting area in café style with champagne, orange juice and nibbles on every table. We wrapped the stand up in a sheet and tied red ribbon round it. The Principal did the unveiling - a stand of resources on literacy for teachers to use! There were overheads of each of the scaffolds, library resource lists and up to date research reports on literacy across the curriculum provided for teachers to use as they needed.

Other 'spinoffs' for me have been the ways in which I have been able to act as liaison person for different school/university initiatives. There have been two different field based learning projects this year, as well as the visit to the university library by Year 12 so that they could sign on as borrowers. Staff too, have borrowing rights at the university library as part of the project. In acting as liaison person each initiative has worked extremely well because I am able to weave the needs (and sometimes the learning culture) of both places with little difficulty. And probably one of the key highlights from my own teaching perspective is that I teach side by side with my Grad Dip Ed students who have become casual teachers (and thus my colleagues as well) at the school on my recommendation. Back at university we can sit over a cup of coffee and plan other strategies to try out next time we are at school together! My teaching at university is better now because it is collaborative, not hierarchical. At least that's what my students tell me.

It isn't completely a positive experience however. I still find it very difficult working in two places - my car looks like a filing cabinet some days and if I don't write everything I have to do in my diary, I am sure to forget something between one week and the next. I also feel sometimes as if I belong in both places and at other times as if I belong in neither. I miss out on important events in both places because of the time factor. The hours of preparation and marking that university work requires has come at the expense of my own research because I am not able to do university work during the two days I am at school. It is a little sad when people at the university comment that they thought I didn't work there anymore!

Winning the trust of teachers hasn't been easy either. Becoming accepted as a staff member was part of a deliberate plan for me. This involved taking part in extra curricula activities with staff in order to build up a relationship with them, listening to stories of their classroom difficulties and learning to sympathise without offering to provide immediate band aid solutions. I am very much aware of the 'them' and 'us' syndrome that occurs in schools, and I was determined not to let that happen. When I am at school, I belong there - even if I have to hold back my comments and remember that I have another life of which the school teachers are not aware. Holidays have caused some difficulties too, since those of the academic year and the school year don't mesh. I end up missing school in order to complete university commitments such as this conference, and when the school is on holidays, I still have teaching duties at the university.

But I really believe that what is happening in the school is worth the time, the energy and the frequent bouts of frustration that I feel. When four of us were sitting down together planning for next year I was so happy to be there. I am working as part of a team. I am accepted as one of the teachers by the boys. I am able to put my own theories about teaching and learning into practice, I have good and bad days just like the others on staff and the stories I share back in my university classes are much more interesting than they were before. I believe I have more credibility as a lecturer because I am currently in the classroom - especially when I tell students about some of my more challenging lessons! I believe that I am making a contribution to both institutions and both cultures - and helping to bridge the two.

The experience of the school -university partnership undertaken this year by the Australian Catholic University and my school, St Pauls Catholic College, occurred at a significant junction of my professional development.

Having been teaching in a secondary boys school for some twelve years I had been, particularly in the last five years, primarily involved with senior students, both in teaching and as their guidance coordinator. In the later part of 1998, when the initial planning for this partnership was being done I had already made the decision to return to the junior school and requested to be the Year 7 Coordinator for the following year. This decision was really a culminating one, as for some time I had been concerned (more than usual) at our older boys approach to learning.

Somewhere in the recess of my tertiary education an awakening occurred. Having been trained in the Middle School Program (Years 5 - 10) at ACU, I made the move to where I believe the real action was to occur - the junior years where the formation of a students learning would be shaped.

Partnerships of any type are based on the general logical premise of equal partners working together in a mutually beneficial relationship. This common ground of a mutually beneficial relationship is a difficult platform to reach. Schools and universities have their own unique cultures and alike to irony of primary and secondary schools their agendas are not necessarily on the same tangent.

Our partnership really evolved from the initial desire for a partnership to occur without a preset direction, somewhat the cart before the horse. The opportunity that presented itself, in line with my focus on the junior school was to be involved in a Literacy Program for Year 7. This initiative was really only the starting point for our partnership and consequently as the year has unfolded I am genuinely excited (a term not often used enough in teaching these days) at the possibilities that have developed from our mutually beneficial relationship.

Our report on the Partnership Project outlines the many and varied aspects of such an enterprise. The writing of this report by Margie and myself has in itself been a healthy reflective step in consolidating the partnership as we review all the events of a hectic academic year.

Outlined in this report are the goals, strategies, outcomes, conclusions and recommendations for the project to date but probably noticeably missing is the somewhat intangible element of possibility that is currently sitting on the crest of an atmosphere of change - the expected challenges, the defining of roles and responsibilities, creating mutually acceptable goals and directions and fiscal responsibilities etc. Although these are real issues that must be worked through they are secondary to the priority of the partnership itself, Why? Because the partnership by its nature, has the primary purpose of exploring theory and practice in this unique educational setting. In this case I am not overly concerned that the cart was first as I believe that established the priority of what we were undertaking and now the horse is rightly the living direction that this partnership can take.

In recognising that the partnership involves the interaction of possibly two different institutional cultures, with the expected challenges of day to day operational considerations, the partnership requires some key personnel to keep it functional. We have been most fortunate to have had Margie in this role as the key person to establish the necessary links between the university and our school. In return I would hope that my initial involvement this year has also been beneficial. My undergraduate and postgraduate studies at ACU and Margie's ongoing involvement with secondary teachers has given us both a strong allegiance to the success of this partnership.

However we both recognise that the real success of the partnership lies in the establishment of other staff becoming in the relationship. A direct result of this can be seen with several key staff at the College becoming involved in a Middle School type initiatives that is being currently planned for 2000.

The success of any venture such as this one requires some measurable assessment - unfortunately still the hallmark of both institutions. The success of the Literacy Program is a difficult one but one that will be followed as this cohort progresses to Year 8. From the staff point of view there has been some noticeable changes, literacy strategies has been formulated into programs and generally most staff have been cooperative if not yet converted to a course of change. Of importance to my own interest is the realisation that some teachers never will accept change.

A literacy program that started as a focus for the development of a school -university partnership has laid the groundwork for a much wider spectrum of future directions in educational issues.

The partnership of St Pauls and the Australian Catholic University has been beneficial for all. Its continued success is assured with the genuine commitment of the key stake holders and the generation of a much lacking enthusiasm for change to how we traditionally run our places of learning.

Clark, R. (1988). School-university relationships: an interpretive review. In K. Sirontik & J. Goodlad (eds.), School -university partnerships in action: concepts, cases, and concern (pp. 32-65). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.

Greenberg, A. (1992). High School- College Partnerships: Conceptual Models, Programs and Issues. Washington: ERIC Digest.

Lieberman, A. (1992). School/university collaboration: a view from the inside. Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 74 (2), 147-155.

Miller, L. & Silvernail, D. (1994). Wells Junior High School: Evolution of a professional development school. In Darling-Hammond (ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. (pp. 28-49). New York: Teachers College Press.

Neufeld, B. (1992). Professional practice schools in context: New mixture of institutional authority. In M. Levine (ed.). Professional practice schools: Linking teacher education and school reform (pp 133-168). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sandholtz, J.H., & Finan, E.C. (1998). Blurring the Boundaries to Promote School-University Partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 49 (1),

13 - 25.

Sandholtz, J.H., & Merseth, K.K. (1992). Collaborating teachers in a professional development school: inducements and contributions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (4), 308-317.

Snyder, J. (1994). Perils and potentials: A tale of two professional development schools. In Darling-Hammond (ed.), Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession (pp98-125). New York: Teachers College Press.

Williams, D. et al (1996). Learning Together: University -School partnerships for professional development. Adelaide: University of South Australia Roundtable.

Winitzky, N., Stoddart, T. & O'Keefe, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1), 3-18.

Yeatman, A. and Sachs, J. (1995). Making the Links. Murdoch University: Innovative Links Project.

The overall goals of the 1999 partnership project were:

1. Continue developing the partnership between St Pauls & ACU

2. In the context of Boys Education, to focus on Literacy in Yr 7 as a beginning point for literacy across all years.

Current Literature on Change Process

Fullan (1982,1984. 1993), has given a number of reasons for the success and failure of innovative changes in school settings. The reason for any successful implementation of change are identified as being:

The key personnel involved in the project have identified the following:

Factors hindering the project

In summary the project has been a demanding but worthwhile initiative. It has been undertaken in this initial phase as a positive beginning with advantages to both St Pauls and ACU. The first year of this partnership project has certainly provided future directions for consideration by the liaison committee.

Where does Yr 7 Literacy go from here?

Other possible partnership involvement