Search results

The National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) recognizes that there is a tendency for the term “PDS” (Professional Development School) to be used as a catch-all for various relationships that constitute school–university partnership work. The intent of this NAPDS statement is to assert the essentials, or fundamental qualities, of a PDS. NAPDS encourages all those working in school–university relationships to embrace the Nine Essentials of PDSs communicated in this statement. The Essentials are written in tangible, rather than abstract, language and represent practical goals toward which work in a PDS should be directed.

Policy statement.

NAPDS maintains that these Nine Essentials need to be present for a school-university relationship to be called a PDS. Without having all nine, the relationship that exists between a school/district and college/university, albeit however strong, would not be a PDS. How individual PDSs meet these essentials will vary from location to location, but they all need to be in place to justify the use of the term “PDS.”

For those in established PDSs, some aspects of this document will be confirmed, while other aspects may be identified as needing attention. For those aspiring to establish PDSs, the authors offer this statement as a useful guide for their work. NAPDS invites individuals involved in school–university partnerships to share this statement with colleagues in the spirit of continuous improvement. By coming to terms with the challenges and opportunities inherent in this statement, the study can collectively fulfill the vision of this remarkable and distinct partnership called PDS.

This policy statement articulates how the Nine Essentials are the foundation of PDS work.

The aim of this paper is to provide an account of the period prior to the creation of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): a body that was critical to the institutionalization of sustainability reporting (SR). By examining this “pre-history,” we bring to light the actors, activities and ways of thinking that made SR more likely to be institutionalized once the GRI entrepreneurship came to the fore.

The paper revisits a time period (the 1990s) that has yet to be formally written about in any depth and traces the early development of what became SR. This material is examined using a constructivist understanding of regulation.

The authors contend that a convergence of actors and structural conditions were pivotal to the development of SR. Specifically, this paper demonstrates that a combination of actors (such as epistemic communities, carriers, regulators and reporters) as well as the presence of certain conditions (such as the societal context, analogies with financial reporting, environmental reporting and reporting design issues) contributed to the development of SR which was consolidated (as well as extended) in 1999 with the advent of the GRI.

This paper theorizes (through a historical analysis) how SR is sustained by a network of institutional actors and conditions which can assist reflection on future SR development.

This paper brings together empirical material from a time that (sadly) is passing from living memory. The paper also extends the use of a conceptual frame that is starting to influence scholarship in accounting that seeks to understand how norms develop.