The purpose of this section is to define and apply the construct partnership to NDTYI. Research and best practices relating to partnerships in education and other inter-organizational contexts are reviewed. The meaning of being partners, the process of partnerships, and the links between TYIs and various categories of partners are explored. Design specifications for learning partnerships follow from this review and exploration. Finally, examples of new designs for learning partnerships are presented.
One of the major assumptions underlying NDTYI with direct implications for learning partnerships is the notion stated by Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1996) that, "everything participates in the creation and evolution of its neighbors. There are no unaffected outsiders. No one system dictates conditions to another. All participate together in creating the conditions of their interdependence" (p. 14). The point is that NDTYI has little opportunity of being realized without serious and constant attention to the inevitable relationships among the major players inside of TYIs (e.g., students, faculty, administrators, support staff, and governing boards) and the TYIs themselves, as well as relationships with other organizations. In reality, partnerships may not be a sufficiently powerful enough concept to describe the complex and dynamic patterns or web of relationships that must be considered, the symbiotic nature of relationships that must be sought after, and the responsive and supportive infrastructures that must be nurtured to reach the learning outcomes that have been set forth earlier in this report.
The purpose of defining an element in the design process labeled "learning partnerships" is to bring as much attention to the importance of partnerships as to other more typical elements of educational design such as learning outcomes, learning process, and learning organization. As with all of NDTYI, the role of learning partnerships proceeds from the era of which we are a part. In the current knowledge era, creating, processing, and distributing information have become the work of millions (Matthews & Norgaard, 1984). In the agrarian age, production was rooted in the family unit; in the industrial age, production was organized around anonymous fabrication. Our current age is transformed by the conveyance and alteration of information. People and organizations and their interrelationships have become the focus of production.
For example, looking at internal partnerships in British Columbia, Canada, Capilano College developed a partnership, termed a covenantal relationship , among faculty, staff, administration, students, and its governing board (Jardine, 1995). A covenantal relationship was to move the college from hierarchical interactions among stakeholders to one that "tolerates risk and forgives errors," making the organizational culture "hospitable to the unusual person with unusual ideas" (p. 13). At the same time, the provincial government passed legislation assertively encouraging faculty, staff, students, administration, and governing boards to consult and advise each other as partners in the participative management of colleges. This legislation responded to a call for community ownership and public interest in postsecondary education as well as collegiate fiscal responsibility and responsiveness.
A partnership-centered approach to TYI management should extend to student learning. Attending to the student as customer or co-producer means that programs are developed quickly; planning cycles match the economy's and culture's changing needs; competency-based learning replaces seat-time-based learning; the learner is very active in the design of the learning experience, and information technology becomes a regularly used tool (Jardine, 1995, pp. 30-31). The role of learning partnerships in the design process for NDTYI originates in this notion of inclusive internal and external participation of important stakeholders in an information-abundant setting.
Developing the design specification for learning partnerships involved reviewing the research and best practice on educational partnerships, particularly in higher education; a focus group interview with TYI faculty and administrators and community representatives; and a TYI site visit and discussions by the National Design Group.
During February 1996, a focus group with attention to learning partnerships was conducted at Miami-Dade Community College with participants from the Entrepreneurial Education Center, Kendall Campus; Microcomputer Education for Employment of the Disabled (MEED) Program; Business Advisory Council of the MEED Program; Metro-Dade Recreation; Metro-Dade County Courts; and Medical Center Campus. The focus group participants made the following points in discussing the characteristics of successful learning partnerships:
The National Design Group began its attention to learning partnerships with a visit to two of the campuses of Miami-Dade Community College. Its assignment was to look for implications for desired characteristics of learning partnerships (among other aspects). Following the visit and the sharing of the focus group's results reported above, which had been conducted by project staff the previous day, the National Design Group discussed the basis and forms of design specifications for learning partnerships. The following points emerged from the discussions:
Both the results of the focus groups and the discussion by the National Design Group, along with the review of research and best practice, were used by project staff to develop an initial draft of design specifications and to seek ideas for exemplary new designs. The National Design Group had an opportunity to review the design specifications at a subsequent meeting before they were put in final form as presented later in this section.
Walk into the classroom of the first-grade teacher of today who is preparing students for TYIs of tomorrow. The teacher sits by the window rocking a student and listening as a favorite book is read. In one corner, a group of students builds towers with assorted construction materials. In another, students are sharing their writing assignments, rich with metaphors describing science. In another room in the building, other classmates are using interactive instructional technology to manipulate fractions of objects. In another classroom, students from the Nutrition Club are demonstrating the food pyramid and outlining their leadership roles in setting school lunch alternatives. Parents, community members, educators from the neighboring university, other school staff, third-grade mentors, and the students themselves assist the teacher in preparing TYI students for the year 2008 and beyond.
One teacher and 25 or more students require a linearly structured teaching environment: all desks in a straight row and facing forward; all students on the same page; one person speaking with the others in silence so all can hear; and uniform learning expectations determined by content, calendar, and page number. However, add some partners, a parent, a secondary-school volunteer, a scuba-diving grandparent, and a local computer operator, and learning possibilities increase exponentially.
More than any other human endeavor, education is relational and founded on trust. The context of learning is information-laden, global, and diverse. The NDTYI's signature represents people connected to learn over a lifetime. This view of learning is not solitary. The fictitious hermit needs only to learn what enables continued survival. In a society composed of families, communities, cultures, and intertwined futures, learning outcomes are owned by all. Many should be partners.
In keeping with the design-down process, and focusing more specifically on the link between learning organization (the previous design element) and learning partnerships, the following implications can be drawn:
As can be seen, the design specifications for learning organization have direct implications for learning partnerships, and vice versa. In order to make the expectations for learning outcomes, process, and organization at all feasible, partners and effective partnerships must be considered of primary importance. The next section introduces some of the key concepts and best thinking and practices of developing and sustaining learning partnerships.
Pertinent literature about partnerships is bountiful and multidisciplined. In addition to education writings, the private sector, community-based organizations, and health fields were used as sources of information. Finally, recent publications about the role of technology in groupwork were instructive regarding the tools needed to perform and document partnership work.
One of the most useful sources of literature concerning partnerships was found outside education literature in the interorganizational relations writings of organizational theorists. Beginning with Emery and Trist's (1965) discussion of the effect of environmental turbulence on organizations and organizational coping mechanisms, theorists have examined the emerging relations formed among organizations. According to Whetten's (1981) seminal review of the field of interorganizational relations, research began with case studies of practitioners and expanded in the 1960s. Organizations form relationships with other organizations to increase coordination, to manage external resources, and to control environmental uncertainty. Almost two decades ago, Whetten found that the demand for education and training in a community influences the density of relations in a network of agencies.
Other prominent writers in the area of interorganizational relations include Van de Ven (1976), later joined by Walker (Van de Ven & Walker, 1984) and by Ring (Ring & Van de Ven, 1989; Van de Ven & Ring, 1991); Gray (1985, 1989), later joined by Hay (Gray & Hay, 1986); and by Wood (Gray & Wood, 1991; Wood & Gray, 1991); and Mattessich and Monsey (1992). Because legislation and client service needs led health, social service, and community-based organizations to form interagency partnerships earlier than education, these interagency activities provide models for educational counterparts (Magrab, Flynn, & Pelosi, 1985).
In education literature, much of the writing about relations between educational and non-educational institutions has been anecdotal, many containing lists of requirements for successful partnerships. Gullickson (1997) found in her study of partnerships among K-12 and TYIs that "many of the `gotta-haves' for collaboration successes listed in education literature are not necessary conditions. Rather, they may reflect the writers' perceptions of what made the reported collaboratives work" (p. 136).
One education writer who has developed a model for partnerships is Goodlad (1991). His model consists of a concept, a purpose, an agenda, and a structure for partnerships involving educational institutions. The concept is a formal, mutually beneficial interinstitutional relationship. The purpose is the process and structure of equal parties drawing on each other's strengths to advance self-interest. The agenda is to solve problems affecting the exemplary performance of each party. The structure is the organization of the relationship. Many education writers focus on the structure of partnerships with less attention to their concepts, purposes, or agendas (Gullickson, 1997).
Pease and Copa (1994) depart from the emphasis on structure in their description of the characteristics of partnerships. The characteristics involve a level of cooperation (purpose); shared goals, vision, or enterprise (agenda); mutual respect and trust (purpose); contributions of resources (agenda); shared power (purpose); and shared accountability (purpose). By suggesting a less significant role for structure in partnerships, these authors move closer to the design specifications, which will be recommended for learning partnerships in NDTYI.
There are many different ways to view the multifaceted gem called partnerships. Held one way, the light of the gem produces insight about partners. Held another, the process of partnership is reflected. Turned yet another way, the benefactors and beneficiaries of partnership glisten. The following portions of this section offer perspectives from these three views.
One way to talk about learning partnerships is to examine partners. In NDTYI, partners include the learner partner, the intra-institution partner, and the inter-institution partner. Among the design specifications for learning outcomes presented in Chapter Four are outcomes that are directed toward the context and challenges of the 21st century and that represent goals for all learners in TYIs. The new designs for learning outcomes developed by NDTYI include working independently and collaboratively. Learning partnerships begin with the learner.
Learners are asked to use new skills as they build partnerships. Rather than acting as receptacles for facts, they must process information. They must use information about an issue and its culture and other expertise to create knowledge. Learners with wide ranges of experiences and talents are placed together in TYIs. The opportunities for partnerships among learners abound. Partnership-making is learned, assessed, and valued.
The next type of partnership is intra-institutional. Underlying this type of partnership is the collaboration of teachers, schedulers, media specialists, facility planners, administrators, lab technicians, management information specialists, and other educators. Teachers of different subject areas must integrate curricula. Students will be unaware (and not concerned) that they are not in a sociology class, business class, human services class, or an automotives class. Teachers, facilitators, and resources will be available as needed and ordinarily via technology and over distances. Draft solutions will be crafted electronically for the groupwork. Facilities and equipment allow for simulation, anytime meetings, or virtual meetings. Learning materials will be obtainable over distances. Learners will employ multimedia presentation skills and equipment. This kind of intra-institutional partnership is not very common in TYIs today. Badway and Grubb (as cited in Dykman, 1997) found only 27% of surveyed community colleges had curricular examples of integrated academic and occupational subjects. Only 12% of the colleges said that they purposefully integrate these areas.
This kind of a learning experience also brings another set of partners to the "virtual" table: inter-institutional. An example would be a sociology student may be in Toronto, a business student may be in Milwaukee, an automotive student may be in rural Nevada, and a human services student in Pittsburgh. An expert on preparing automotive technicians may live in Germany. A person on the jury assessing or evaluating the solutions may live in Minneapolis. Some of the resources for the solution may reside with the National Automobile Dealers Association. A companion problem-solving team may exist at a high school in Alaska. Business owners, interested in preserving their family automotive businesses, may have resources to contribute. And, finally, the competencies gained through this learning experience assignment may be recognized by other educational institutions and by business and industry.
Through the design process, room is made for all three learning partners--learners, intra-institutional, and inter-institutional. Few partnerships should be constructed without representatives from each partner group.
The partnership process represents a second perspective of partnerships. Process and purpose may conflict or become lost in one another when designing learning partnerships for TYIs. Almost without exception, however, the purpose of learning partnerships in NDTYI should be to improve student learning. The value of a partnership should be demonstrated in the answer to the question: What is the effect on student learning as a result of the formation or activities of this partnership? If the focus of a partnership is on the institution and the community's desire to build a wellness center, rather than that the institution and the community want to improve the health and wellness competence of learners and other community members, something is lost. If the focus is on increasing the amount of equipment donations, rather than securing equipment to improve learning, vital considerations are overlooked. A learning focus is vital to successful learning partnerships.
The process of educational partnerships has both a political and a practical side. Ignorance or neglect of either side may be fatal to a partnership. Practically or politically, educational partnerships are often formed in response to a need for resources (Bodinger-deUriarte, Fleming-McCormick, Schwager, Clark, & Danzberger, 1996, p. 2). Each organization may be required to change policies and procedures to accomplish the work of partnerships. The partnership will need to fit the culture of the community and may represent the blended cultures of the organizations. Often, organizational boundary spanners may be the source of innovative partnerships. A shared vision and commitment may overcome design flaws. Partnerships may be institutionalized even with changing membership or without clarity. Leadership is critical in a complex partnership and is most successful when it is evidenced as commitment rather than facilitation. Having committed and skilled staff to do the work of the partnership is also critical to its success. Other important activities are identifying and solving problems, establishing flexible planning, breaking complex partnerships into components, and giving and receiving feedback to strengthen partnerships.
After reviewing best practices, Bodinger-deUriarte et al. (1996) suggested a three-step process to partnership formation and functioning. First, participants should conduct a needs assessment and reach consensus on expectations and project goals. When partners do not have a common view of the problem, implementation issues are more likely to arise. By conducting a needs assessment, discussion about the project needs and goals, participant sorting of ideal and real expectations, and information sharing may occur.
Next, strategic staffing should be arranged around partnership needs (Bodinger-deUriarte et al., 1996). Identification and recruitment of participants are often neglected but unavoidable tasks. Management and technical staff charged with the work of the partnership should know what to do, how to do it, and be given resources to continue their understanding throughout the process. Both commitment and contribution levels from staff should be clear.
Finally, necessary activities should be determined and implemented (Bodinger-deUriarte et al., 1996). To implement activities, staff must be matched to tasks and trained. Matching technical staff or content assistance with project goals is particularly important. Pertinent to NDTYI, "for projects concerned with systemic reform, including curriculum and instructional improvement . . . , staff development is especially important because without training and support it is difficult for teachers to initiate and maintain any meaningful change in practice" (p. 31). The strength of the partnership is not necessarily related to the number of its activities. Rather, first relationships must be built or old relationships rekindled around new goals. An existing network may be expanded to accommodate a new project. Effective partnerships are relational and trust-bound.
The process of partnership occurs each time a partner associates with another. Relationships are constantly checked and balanced. Gains and losses are evaluated. Resources are counted and recounted. At times, attention to process may overshadow attention to results. This is especially true in learning partnerships.
The third perspective in learning partnerships is that of benefactors and beneficiaries. In the best partnerships, these roles are not always clear. This section addresses the benefactors and beneficiaries of partnerships.
Copa (1995) describes "parents and other family members as important sources of information and opportunities" (p. 10) for learners. As volunteers in the learning process, families may provide opportunities for contextual learning, expertise in learning outcome rubrics, and support for learning outside and inside the TYI. NDTYI emphasizes family-centered as well as learner-centered services and advising the TYI can be a place of multigenerational gathering and learning. NDTYI is concerned about building families that care about learning and institutions that care about families.
Connecting families as partners in the NDTYI process is not episodic. Like most other design elements, fundamental change and integration will occur as a result of forming partnerships between the TYI and families. Effort and other resources are required. For example, imagine the following learning opportunity:
As part of a learning outcome, learners are required to demonstrate effective decisionmaking. Learners investigate teacher and other instructional sources for effective decisionmaking facts, knowledge, and evaluation criteria. They examine decisionmaking presentations. Family members also are introduced to decisionmaking information as part of a family-centered curriculum. Together with their families, learners select an authentic decision to demonstrate their newly bolstered skills. All participants, including family members, evaluate the effectiveness of the process and of the learning. Opportunities for continued learning are available electronically. A next level of outcome is suggested for those wanting to continue after satisfying the first outcome threshold.
The roles of NDTYI and business and industry partnerships settle around economic and educational development. Business and industry do not donate to learning partnerships but, rather, invest resources and tie them to future gains. Partnerships result in long-term pay-offs and operate with varying levels and kinds of activities over time. Education already receives more than a third of corporate giving as part of enlightened self-interest (Brumbach & McGee, 1995).
TYIs can serve economic development functions by (1) performing basic and applied research, (2) offering technological and management assistance, or (3) providing education and training programs (Powers, Powers, Betz, & Aslanian, 1988, p. 15). All three functions are among existing capabilities at Iowa's Kirkwood Community College: contracted training to meet specific business and industry needs, training for new employees, retraining for existing employees, business and industry pretraining analysis, technical assistance and consultation, pre-employment and pretraining employee assessment, research and development, and a joint center on quality (Ovel & Olejniczak, 1992, pp. 29-30).
In Canada, the Canadian Network for Total Quality (CNTQ) was formed in 1991, in response to an economic downturn, to assist Canadian businesses in global competition (Bourgeois & Gauvreau, 1993). Operating at the sector, community, provincial, functional, and national levels, the CNTQ meets the needs of private businesses, government agencies, public entities, and community and labor groups. Because of its inclusive and comprehensive nature, this network is able to cut across, over, and through the economy to raise quality standards. One of its many joint products is a catalog of all total quality courses available through CNTQ members across Canada.
Powers et al. (1988) present three reasons for education to seek partnerships with business and industry: (1) to improve financially; (2) to improve instruction, research, and the advancement of knowledge; and (3) to increase the numbers of learners in high demand career fields. Business and industry may support TYI or TYI learners financially, through volunteer services, joint programming, shared staffing, conference sponsorship, recruitment, and shared facilities. Specifically, employers are interested in the work ethic, basic literacy skills, and technical competencies of learners.
Business and industry partnerships may experience conflict in these areas: project management, institutional policies and practices, contractual agreements, administrative oversight, personal integrity, and professional responsibility (Powers et al., 1988, p. 170). During the formation of partnerships, these areas should be raised as potential "hot spots" to be managed as they arise.
For learners, partnerships between business and industry and TYI mean more tangible resources, greater flexibility through workplace learning and other possibilities, better prepared teachers, and a cumulative effect of learning from one place to another (Brumbach & McGee, 1995). Again, learning improvements are the primary consideration.
Work-based learning is a mode of partnership with business and industry that is gaining in visibility and impact (Bragg & Hamm, 1996; Bragg et al., 1995). Recommendations for policy changes to assist in facilitating work-based learning included attention to fiscal resources, incentives, clear standards and guidelines, and support for government and professional associations (Bragg et al., 1995, p. x). Based on case study research in eight TYIs, the following factors were found to contribute to effective work-based programs:
Next to business and industry, perhaps the greatest expression of interest in partnerships has occurred among TYI and other educational institutions. Ironically, TYIs appear to face their industry neighbors with less reticence than their educational siblings. However, the strongest learning partnership gains and ultimate learner benefits, may flow from the middle school next door rather than from the Fortune 500 company down the street.
Edgar and Parnell (1996) hold up Ohio as a benchmark to establishing a statewide approach to Tech Prep. The Ohio model contains six components accepted by all stakeholders that are significant to the NDTYI process. First, the emphasis is on systemic change at both the K-12 and postsecondary levels. Second, all students are part of the initiative. Third, the partnership is among secondary education, higher education, employers, and labor. Fourth, beginning in grade nine, curricula are progressively coordinated around student career plans. Fifth, academic, occupational, and employability competencies are evidenced at the end of K-12 education and upon graduation from the TYI. Sixth, unduplicated and technically responsive curricula are developed systematically to prepare students through school-to-work, apprenticeship, or associate degree completion. Tech Prep is co-administered by K-12 and higher education administrators at the state level. Local staff training, not only for programmatic needs but also for leadership development, is coordinated statewide. Labor, business and industry, and university leaders are active partnership members. Formative and summative evaluation has been built into the partnership process. As an example of the creativity desired in NDTYI, one Ohio city is granting tax abatements to companies sponsoring student summer internships. Among the reasons this network of partnerships seems to be working are strong state higher and secondary education leadership; clear and supported vision and mission statements; ties to broader education reform; employer and labor support; seamless and contextual curricula validated by industry; and the integration of this movement with others (Edgar & Parnell, 1996).
Interorganizational theorists suggest that even competitive organizations will form a partnership if participants perceive resource dependence, awareness and commitment to an implementation issue, and consensus on issue resolution (Gullickson, 1997). Participants will come together because a partnership is a vehicle to gain access to resources. Partnership members will forfeit some autonomy for access to these resources. One of the best examples of partnership among two-year and other institutions is the East Valley Think Tank (EVTT) in Arizona. It also serves to support interorganizational theory.
EVTT was formed as a result of the sudden announcement in the fall of 1991 of an air force base closure, making available a 4,000-acre site in Phoenix (Ronan, 1994). A clear vision guided the process as follows:
The goal would be a one-stop-shopping approach to educational services, with benefits to all segments of education--elementary, high school, community college, university, and adult training. The partnership among the diverse providers of education in this futuristic "mall" would offer education opportunities and enhance the technological skills of students of all ages and abilities. (p. 46)
By July 1, 1993, one university and five community colleges submitted complementary documents requesting transfer of the base from the Department of Defense to the consortium. This partnership was built on a former cooperative relationship among the institutions and included K-12 members as well. An out-of-state member, the University of North Dakota aerospace program, was added as a partner in the consortium.
According to Bodinger-deUriarte et al. (1996), EVTT members have said in hindsight that more time should have been spent on brainstorming and personal networking (Ronan, 1994). They credit the success of the educational consortium to finding a CEO champion, starting and not waiting for ideal conditions, personal contact, informal steering processes, both a hands-on and relational mission statement, mutually beneficial projects, determining funding and staffing needs, embracing an innovative and futuristic community perspective, and meeting to review projects and strategize about the future.
The number and quality of relationships among educational institutions give pause when surveyed. Perhaps insight may be gained during this moment of reflection from a remark made by the chancellor of a Phoenix community college. The original cooperation from which the EVTT was engendered came from a meeting between this chancellor and a local school district superintendent. Teenage pregnancies, drug problems, and climbing dropout rates were threatening the city: "We decided that what we needed most was an atmosphere to think together" (Elsner, 1994, p. 49). There may be no better definition for partnership.
The Beacon College Project was supported between 1989 and 1995 by the American Association of Community Colleges and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation as an effort to build communities both within and outside TYIs (Barnett, 1995). Twenty-six TYIs nationally were selected to collaborate with others across the country and internationally to design and implement change to enhance communities.
Among the recommendations resulting from the efforts of more than 600 institutions in 36 states are that community building should be part of the mission of TYI and that training for TYI leaders should include community-building techniques (Barnett, 1995). Service learning and issues affecting workplace and interpersonal relationships should become parts of instructional methodology and content. The TYI should be a part of the heart of the community, and partnerships can be a form of connective tissue.
Roueche, Taber, and Roueche (1995) surveyed 14 colleges known for community partnerships to describe their activities. They found that the size and nature of the collaborations varied from two to 30 members among business and industry, health care, government, the military, the religious community, and other countries. The partnerships were formal or informal and very new or as old as 20 years. Resource use, college leadership role, and formality also varied. They also found that the term community was not a traditional service district or area, but could refer to almost any group of constituents. Differing terms were used to refer to the partnerships: collaboration, alliance, consortium, and convention. The partnerships may have been formed for economic, community, individual, organizational, or resource development. Variety appeared the constant. The authors concluded that "community colleges that do not master community collaboration and partnering simply cannot survive in times of escalating costs and diminishing sources of funding" (p. 39).
This section examined the benefactors and beneficiaries of learning partnerships. Many examples of best practices exist in TYI today, and some are included later in this chapter. However, the mainstreaming and thoughtful use of partnerships require constant and serious attention in NDTYI. The next section of this chapter provides direction for learning partnerships.
Exhibit 9 provides the recommended design specifications for learning partnerships. The design specifications synthesize and prioritize what was learned from experts, stakeholders, literature, and best practice.
As with the other elements of NDTYI, we looked to our National Design Group for examples of learning partnerships in TYIs that exemplify the design specifications for partnerships that were being recommended. Three that were suggested are briefly described below.
The Technology Incubation Center at the downtown campus of the San Diego Community College District takes up the space formerly occupied by the Auto Mechanics Program. The space was remodeled to serve as a temporary home to ten small businesses. The Technology Incubation Center is part of a state and city sponsored, regional, economic-development strategy. The college provides space with secretarial, small business management, and computer support. The businesses are selected by competitive proposal; they can use the sheltered environment of the college for three years. Then, they move into the city and new business ventures are selected for nurturing at the college. During their stay at the college, the businesses have access to faculty and students to help with their work. Here we have a learning partnership with many players, both learners and supporters; a wide variety of real work experiences to draw upon in designing learning; and win-win relationships for the learners, wider community, and college.
One of the programs of the Rocky Mountain Education Center, located at Red Rocks Community College in Lakewood, Colorado, is the OSHA (Occupational, Safety, and Health Administration) Training Institute serving the western United States. The OSHA Training Institute is a partnership of Red Rocks Community College, Trinidad State Junior College located in Denver, and the federal government. The Training Institute is located in what was formerly the maintenance space at Red Rocks Community College. Through a competitive grants program, the consortium of two colleges has gained considerable resources and regional visibility for very high-quality training in a major industrial sector. And the federal government has a source of dependable training in a closely regulated area of their authority. The colleges and the federal government are all closely involved in designing the curriculum and delivering the OSHA training.
Kirkwood Community College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has taken a novel approach to learning partnerships by using its campus and central location in the United States as an asset. It has entered into a long-term, formal agreement with the AEGON Corporation, an international insurance organization, to build a $10 million corporate data center on the campus. The Center houses the mainframe computing center for AEGON USA, with some of its employees working on the Kirkwood Campus. The lower level of the building houses the Kirkwood Information Technology Center, which serves as a training facility for both the corporation and the college. The partnership results in maintaining an up-to-date information technology training center on the campus at a low cost to the college and access to internship settings for those in the insurance-related educational programs. The partnership is also a source of adjunct faculty as well as a faculty development setting for regular college faculty.
This section has defined and broadened the application of the construct partnership in relationship to NDTYI. The role of learning partnerships is central to the effectiveness of TYIs in the knowledge age. Although there are no standard patterns for learning partnerships, the design specifications presented in this chapter should guide their formation and evaluation. Clearly, the implementation of learning partnerships makes possible what may appear, at first glance, as impossible in NDTYI.
[*] The initial draft of this section was prepared by Jan Gullickson with advice from George Copa. Subsequent revisions were made by George Copa.