Abstract
An essential component of teacher preparation is clinical practice that allows teacher candidates (TCs) to observe, reflect upon, test their ideas, and adjust and improve their methods in classrooms. Weaknesses in the structure and organization between coursework and clinical practice in teacher preparation programs often present barriers from fully achieving these goals. University–school partnerships have the potential to overcome these challenges and create spaces for mutually beneficial learning opportunities for all stakeholders. In this article, we identify six levels to illustrate the continua of work with schools in the preparation of TCs that describe how a program might move from current partnership practice to the kinds of partnership practice described by McDonald and colleagues and the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP). While developing partnerships with schools is work that has inherent challenges, the potential of this work to meaningfully transform the preparation of teachers is crucial.
Introduction
One of the essential components of teacher preparation is the clinical practice opportunities that allow teacher candidates (TCs) to observe, reflect upon, test their ideas and others, and to adjust and improve their methods in practice (Schmidt, 2010). Clinical experiences are supposed to bridge the knowledge TCs acquire in their teacher preparation programs with authentic practices implemented in schools. Inconsistencies in the outcomes of these experiences, however, have led organizations such as the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP; 2015) to call for the education of teachers in the United States to be “turned upside down” by moving toward a clinically based, partnership-supported approach to teacher preparation to “address the gap between how teachers are prepared and what schools need” (p. ii). The gap between preparation and practice that CAEP notes is not new. The disconnect between academic knowledge gained in university coursework and practical knowledge acquired in field experiences is a perennial problem in teacher education (Zeichner, 2010).
To respond to this disconnect, some teacher educators have described ways in which they work to restructure clinical experiences to more effectively align teacher preparation coursework and practical training (McDonald et al., 2014; Zeichner, 2010). McDonald and colleagues (2014) describe collaborations with schools that have led to identifying and defining core practices in each content area and the creation of mediated field experiences that better connect university faculty, P-12 teachers, and P-12 students to support the learning of specific practices for TCs. In mediated fieldwork, TCs have opportunities to observe, practice, and receive feedback on teaching practices with the guidance and support of both university and school faculty.
Like McDonald and colleagues, a small team of faculty, in the Early Elementary, Elementary, and Language Education programs from the Graduate School of Education (GSE) at Rutgers University, has been working to improve teacher education. In reviewing the existing preparation structures and practices, and eliciting feedback from students within the programs, we discovered inconsistencies in students’ experiences. For example, students who provided feedback as part of this review process offered the following comments about their experiences in schools: For my first practicum, I really liked the classroom that I was in, but last semester I was just sitting in the back observing students and sometimes I’d grade homework. This semester my cooperating teacher actually read the entire thing [instructions for cooperating teachers from the university] and gave me a book to read to students every day. I actually taught a lesson on science. That gave me a lot of experience. (TC Feedback) I think I taught once in the past two years of my practicum and I think a big reason is because the last three times I’ve been placed it’s been like—principals, they knock on the door and they say, “Here, she’s with you once a week now.” (TC Feedback)
These quotes speak to a gap between teacher preparation at the university and training in the field. The review of the program found that the disparate experiences TCs had in the field were related to disjointed relationships with local school districts. Acknowledging this, the team sought to improve the existing university–school partnership models by working collaboratively on a number of areas in program development.
The overarching goal of this work was to foster partnership models that merged the diverse perspectives on teacher preparation and instructional practices expressed by cooperating teachers, school administrators, supervisors, and university educators. When university and school faculty have shared goals and visions, TCs benefit from experiencing and engaging in discourse on explicit connections between teacher preparation and practice (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009; McDonald et al., 2014; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004; Zeichner, 2010). Consistent emphasis on commonly agreed upon knowledge, skills, practices, and key concepts across coursework and clinical practice provides opportunities to revisit, reinforce, and more deeply understand the complex art of teaching and learning (Allen, Howells, & Radford, 2013; Grossman et al., 2009). Thus, we aimed to create partnerships where academic coursework at the university and field experiences in schools were linked and where stakeholders shared accountability for TCs’ outcomes (CAEP, 2015).
As part of this work, we have developed a framework that builds on McDonald et al.’s (2014) concept of mediated fieldwork and represents characteristics of teacher preparation partnerships at various stages in their development. This framework reflects our professional experiences, the research literature, and our vision for the future of university–school partnerships. The highest levels in this framework expand on the work of McDonald et al. (2014) and reflect Clinical Practice and Partnership Standards identified by the CAEP (2015). These levels articulate the goals we have been working toward, that of shared power, negotiation, and decision-making in the content and practices that TCs need to learn. Here we push the field to think of principles and practices central to teacher preparation and training as jointly defined, negotiated, and co-constructed through partnerships.
We begin by providing background on the teacher education program at Rutgers University. We then describe the overall framework before illustrating each level of the framework in more detail. Feedback from TCs and vignettes drawn from faculty experiences are used in conjunction with the scholarly literature to illustrate each level of the framework. The purpose of this article is to describe the various levels of university–school partnership development we experienced in restructuring the university’s teacher education program. We present those levels in a continuum, the University–School Partnership Development Framework, that was used to reflect on and guide our work in teacher preparation. We offer it as a lens through which schools of education could review and reflect on their university–school partnerships and guide the practices they use to bridge the gap between university coursework and clinical practice.
Background
In 2013, a team of faculty undertook an evaluation of the teacher certification programs for the Early Elementary, Elementary, and Language education programs at Rutgers University. The team received a small internal grant with the goal of transforming teacher education at the GSE. The work started with an evaluation of the program, which included a critical review of course syllabi, course evaluations, and feedback from TCs. The evaluation revealed that there was a significant disconnect between field experiences and teacher education coursework, as noted in the previous TC quotes, similar to those discussed in much of the teacher education literature (McDonald et al., 2014; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004; Zeichner, 2010). From this evaluation, the team was tasked with piloting reforms to improve the quality of teacher preparation. Brief descriptions of the programs follow to give context for change efforts.
The students in these programs were pursuing initial teacher certification as part of the 5-year sequence (students graduate with a BA and continue to complete an MEd in education) or were part of a postbaccalaureate certification program. The students are required to complete 2 years of coursework in foundational and methods courses in education, during which time they complete multiple clinical experiences. Their clinical experiences take two forms.
The first of these is the practicum where TCs complete fieldwork in local schools to observe teachers and practice the methods they are learning in their classes. This experience generally includes weekly visits to schools with placements over two semesters. The second kind of clinical experience is the student teaching placement where TCs spend 15 to 16 weeks, full-time in a classroom. For some TCs, time spent student teaching is split between placements based on the certification sought.
The results of the review initially called for revisions to some course content and improved methods for placing TCs in the field, overseeing work conducted in clinical experiences, and increasing communication and collaboration with partnership school administration and faculty about the purpose of TCs work in the field. The primary means of this restructuring occurred through the development of partnerships with local school districts and a new faculty position of a partnership coordinator. The team held weekly meetings to plan and reflect on progress, in addition to exploring the literature on school partnerships. Facilitating partnerships with local districts has been an experience of negotiation, progress, and learning, and therefore reflects developing relationships between our teacher education program and local schools. The framework presented below has come to serve as a tool to guide and reflect on our progress, as will be explained in the following section.
Partnership Framework
In evaluating our teacher education program and reviewing the literature, we found multiple examples of university–school partnerships. Through the review of these examples, along with the feedback from our TCs and our experiences in building partnerships with schools, we identified the following criteria to examine our partnership work: links between university coursework and clinical practice, the roles of university and school faculty, and control with regard to decision-making and placements of TCs in the field. We then considered each of these criteria based on the level of university–school involvement in the construction of teacher preparation programming. This work resulted in a framework consisting of six levels to describe the continua of work with schools in the preparation of TCs: Taking From Schools, Borrowing From Schools, Emerging Partnership, Developing Partnership, Co-Constructed Partnership, and Learning Community. Table 1 provides an overview of each level and alignment of characteristics with the criteria defined above.
Framework for Partnerships.
Note. TCs = teacher candidates; PD = professional development.
It is possible, and quite probable, that, like the GSE at Rutgers University, university–school partnerships may find themselves in multiple levels at once, based on changing leadership in schools, developing trust, and changes in faculty and staff. Partnerships could, therefore, simultaneously exhibit components of different levels (e.g., Level 2: Borrowing from Schools in Links to Courses and Level 3: Emerging Partnership in Role of University). Descriptions of each level of the framework follow with vignettes and examples drawn from our partnership experiences and connections to the literature. The levels of the framework are not static. On the contrary, building and maintaining partnerships between teacher education and P-12 schools is a fluid and ever-changing processes. Despite this dynamic nature, we found it useful to delineate the different levels as a means to discuss our work and set goals for future practice.
Level 1: Taking From Schools
I think [the university] should really try hard to find placements for students with teachers that actually match the type of teaching we’re being taught to do. So like integrating the content, social justice stuff because we are taught all of this. We can read about it as much as we want, but we are not actually seeing it in practice. (TC feedback)
Teacher education faculty may attempt to make connections between coursework and practice more explicit and link assignments to the field as they are hopeful TCs are using course content to assess what they see in the field (Links to Courses). However, these assignments can have limited connections when practices focused on in coursework bear little to no resemblance to TCs’ practicum experiences. Our faculty, as many do (Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004), struggled with this disconnect and sought ways to bridge the gap. When students made course connections to their work in the field or shared concerns about how what they observed differed from what was discussed in class, instructors would capitalize on the teachable moments by challenging students to deconstruct the scenarios presented. Although such discussions have value, they are subject to chance connections and even then, the cooperating teacher controls what is considered “practice” and this usually supersedes the teacher education coursework, framing the coursework as disconnected “theory” (Breault, 2014). In fact, the disconnect between practice in the field and theory taught in coursework can limit the quality of course assignments.
The first author’s experiences teaching a required social studies methods course speak to this issue. For years she required students to observe a social studies lesson in the field to apply knowledge from coursework in an analysis of the lesson. Although some students were able to complete this assignment with success, many more had problems. One obstacle was the lack of frequency in which TCs were able to observe a social studies lesson, as many school districts placed an emphasis on literacy and math in elementary grades. Another issue was that observed lessons often seemed contrary to the active learning strategies modeled in the methods class. In some instances, cooperating teachers even expressed a lack of interest or knowledge in the area of social studies and these views were reflected in instructional practices. In many ways, this assignment served to highlight the divide between course content and what TCs were observing in the field and often led to frustration among the students and the methods professor.
Learning in silos
At this level of the framework, the local schools’ classrooms act as opportunities for TCs to observe, analyze, and reflect upon practical experiences using university course curriculum. While university coursework and clinical practice experiences are conducted simultaneously to enable explicit connections (Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2014; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004; Zeichner, 2010), with no systematic relationship to connect the teacher education coursework with the classroom-based field experiences, assignments may or may not align well with TCs’ experiences. Links between coursework and clinical practice therefore can be quite serendipitous, if they occur at all.
Level 1 is also indicative of little to no oversight of field experiences. This can be evidenced through decisions made by schools about where to place TCs, a lack of supervision by university faculty of early practicum experiences, no university faculty present in partner schools (Role of University), and the use of anecdotal examples of practice in coursework. This speaks to the disconnect between the quality of field experiences and teacher education programs in Level 1. In addition, because faculty do not have opportunities to discuss practicum placements, coursework, and/or instructional practices with cooperating teachers, there are no common understandings of teaching methods or content, let alone common practices. Consequently, there are most likely missed opportunities to discuss connections between coursework and fieldwork with TCs, further reproducing the oft-noted disconnect (Burton & Greher, 2007; Goodlad, 1993; Korthagen, 2007; Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004). Due to these factors, this relationship is primarily characterized as the university taking from the schools. The university–school partnership mostly serves the needs of the university in providing spaces for required field hours (Burton & Greher, 2007; Goodlad, 1993; Walsh & Backe, 2013). However, this does not ensure that any of the parties are benefiting in meaningful ways.
The lack of systematic coordination with schools in Level 1 partnerships cannot ensure cohesion between course goals, assignments, field experiences, or a process to evaluate the quality of the practicum placement. In addition, the relationship is not reciprocal, as the university teacher education program is only taking from, and not giving back to, the partner schools.
Level 2: Borrowing From Schools
I know that the disconnect between my students’ clinical practice and coursework does not serve them well. I would like to be able to accompany them into the field in order to make stronger connections between discourse, assignments, and assessment in the coursework and practices they observe and experience, but my job does not afford me those opportunities. (Methods professor experience)
The faculty member quoted above expressed a desire to move toward the types of interactions characterized by Level 2 in our framework, but who feels limited by structural obstacles. The presence of university faculty members in schools may facilitate understandings of current school practices, which can lead to richer discussions in teacher education coursework. As we sought to make these connections stronger, we recognized the need to send faculty to the field while the TCs were completing field experiences. In this early stage of our partnership work, we were limited by the fact that we were essentially guests in schools and cooperating teachers controlled the types of pedagogy welcomed into their classrooms. In this way, instructional time is borrowed from the schools providing practical experiences and opportunities for TCs to deliver instruction (Role of School). There was still no shared understanding between the cooperating teachers and our faculty of common practices for teaching. Therefore, Level 2 is characterized by faculty interactions in schools almost entirely limited to university faculty observing TCs, engaging in follow-up conversations with them and making more references to TCs’ field experiences in course discussions.
The experience of a mathematics methods faculty member, who accompanied the TCs into their practicum placements, exemplified this level of partnership. Based on his time in the field, he was able to highlight specific cooperating teachers’ practices that were aligned with his methods class and those that were not, as well as to provide feedback when TCs taught lessons. This allowed the math methods instructor to provide TCs with specific feedback on their teaching practice, help them interpret the classroom practices they were observing, and build an awareness of the central practices at partnership schools. We recognized many opportunities in this arrangement, as our faculty borrowed from the experiences to review specific curricula used in partner schools, relate classroom resources to course topics, make immediate connections to the classroom experiences of the TCs, and build more authenticity in the university course by connecting to the school context in exploring teaching and learning.
Learning with limits
In other ways, however, we recognized that the math methods course was very much the same as it had been before the connection to the school. Decisions about what practices to attend to in classrooms, how to interpret them, and the feedback provided came from the university instructor. The course content was virtually unchanged from prior semesters other than using cases from current field experiences rather than artifacts of practice collected in past work with teachers. In addition, despite selected course meetings taking place in schools, as the scheduled meeting time for the class was after school hours, there was no direct connection to student learning and classroom functioning. Given these circumstances, our faculty were still dominating the discourse in terms of the knowledge to be learned, the teaching methods to be explored, and the learning experiences of students within the teacher education context. In the school context, decisions about what, when, and how to teach in the partnership classrooms were being made independently by the classroom teacher. While this may have been useful in developing the formal knowledge related to the discipline, practical knowledge was still largely divorced from university coursework (Tigchelaar & Korthagen, 2004).
Moreover, at this level, because there is no articulated or focused connection between the goals, principles, or practices of either institution, university instructors and cooperating teachers may present differing views about teaching discussed in coursework and practices observed and experienced in the field. University faculty’s instruction determines whether TCs make connections between the instructional practices modeled in the field and pedagogy and practices discussed in coursework (Grossman et al., 2009). Thus, there is still the potential for course content to be disconnected from classroom contexts. Given these constraints we knew we wanted to move our partnerships in directions that would be more beneficial to all participants.
Level 3: Emerging Partnership
At a time when most teachers would be heading to the parking lot to drive home for the night, Ms. X entered her classroom and powered up the LCD projector. She proceeded to lead the students in the room through an adventure of exploration, risk, triumph and disaster as they participated in a simulation activity. In small groups the students were tasked with making decisions as they met with circumstances encountered by many of the European explorers and their crews. At points the students were instructed to reflect on the experience and some could be heard exclaiming, “I never realized the challenges these men faced!” Although Ms. X is a 5th grade teacher, the group she was teaching that night was college seniors who were studying to become teachers and completing fieldwork in Ms. X’s school district. (Methods professor experience)
As a partnership began to emerge, opportunities to strengthen connections between teacher preparation and practice began to unfold in our work. As the first author filled the role of methods professor and partnership coordinator, she regularly spent time in the partner schools, enabling her, to identify high performing teachers to serve as cooperating teachers for independent observations (Decision Making), and who were open to collaborative relationships. The fifth-grade teacher in the example above was one such teacher who agreed to model a lesson for TCs as part of their methods course.
The emerging relationship between teacher education faculty and classroom teachers can allow materials and methods of teaching to cross into university classes. In the debriefing that followed the model lesson, the TCs shared that the experience enabled them to witness and discuss the connections between coursework and clinical practice in the field.
While Level 2 partnerships entail select faculty observing practices in the field to borrow examples for coursework, emerging relationships at Level 3 offer opportunities for university faculty to work with classroom teachers in the preparation of TCs. The time in the field shifts from observing and providing feedback to TCs, to building relationships with classroom teachers that allow artifacts and expertise to enter TCs’ coursework and for purposeful placement of TCs in cooperating teachers’ classrooms. In Level 3, deliberate decisions are made by the university to align coursework and clinical practice experiences and placements to target classroom teachers whose instruction is exemplary and aligns with the university’s goals (Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2014; Zeichner, 2010). Therefore, field placements show initial signs of being coordinated in the way that Darling-Hammond (2014) envisions, “These classrooms, in turn, are selected because they model the kind of practice that is discussed in courses and advisement” (p. 550). This begins to transform the randomness of placements in Levels 1 and 2, though it still may be difficult to find sufficient numbers of exemplary cooperating teachers who share common beliefs with university faculty about teaching and learning.
Learning through connections
As our partnership relationships emerged, we developed trust with our partners that enabled mutually beneficial collaborations. We sought to alter the dynamic of the relationship to one where we gave back to our partners, rather than just “borrowing” from them. At this level, school faculty support school partners through professional development (PD), attendance at professional learning community (PLC) meetings, and collaboration with teachers.
The third author experienced this when he was asked by an administrator to attend grade-level PLCs to support teachers in addressing student learning issues arising within their mathematics instruction. District-wide, teachers were using a math program to provide students significant practice in drilling their addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division facts. While the program seemed to be meeting the needs of some students, the fourth-grade teachers noted that a significant portion of students were still struggling with certain multiplication facts, despite needing to move on to memorizing their division facts. Guided by the university faculty member, the teachers discussed other instructional methods that could meet the needs of students beyond the single instructional approach of drilling. As a result of an emerging relationship of trust, the discussions between the university faculty member and the teachers led to a decision to implement two practices to build relationships between facts to support students in understanding how grouping was the basic concept underlying multiplication. The faculty member then followed up with teachers, as he stopped in to meet with TCs in following weeks, to support the cooperating teachers in implementing, adjusting, and meeting student needs. These types of collaborations help to overcome the gap that pervades university and P-12 settings (Zeichner, 2010) and are evidence of a developing relationship between the partners.
Level 3 partnerships are where emerging relationships can lead to developing trust among the university faculty and P-12 teachers and administrators that facilitate opportunities for mutually beneficial collaboration and better means of serving TCs in their development. While more elements of practice are bridged at this level, the relationship is still emerging and it takes time to develop trust. A commitment by all parties may not yet exist, especially in terms of resources for university faculty to spend time in schools. In addition, the power to decide what makes its way into teacher education still resides with university faculty; therefore, the development of common principles of practice is still tentative.
Level 4: Developing Partnership
I got to see a true social studies implementation. . . seeing more open-ended and student centered instruction gives me more ideas. (TC feedback) I learned that group work that is structured by giving students specific jobs is beneficial for all students, it expands what they are learning and keeps them on task. (TC feedback)
Through regular visits to classrooms in the partner school district, the first author observed three teachers in Grades 3 and 4 who mirrored practices addressed in her methods course, so she asked if the teachers would be willing to collaborate in teaching a session for an on-site methods class. Prior to the scheduled class, the university faculty member met with the teachers to plan the visit. The conversation led to the identification of key aspects of teaching social studies as the following: student-centered lessons, inquiry-based learning, and collaborative learning with individual accountability. These were principles central to the TCs’ methods course and teaching practices of the three participating teachers.
During the on-site methods class, the TCs were divided into three groups and, using a common observation guide, they observed 20-min segments in each of the teachers’ classrooms. A debriefing followed where the TCs met with small groups of fourth-grade students to ask how they experienced the lesson. After the students were dismissed, the TCs participated in a discussion with the university professor and one of the classroom teachers. This discussion focused on teaching principles and practices addressed in the methods course and how they were enacted in the classroom, such as the need to give every student in a group a defined task to engage all students and ensure individual accountability.
Through this process, the TCs were directly supported in making connections between university coursework and teaching practices in the field. Feedback from the TCs, such as the comments shared above, illustrate this point. Although pedagogical approaches and practices observed had been repeatedly explored in the context of the university classroom, it was the collaborative facilitation of the deconstruction of the lessons observed that deepened the TCs’ learning (Role of School).
Learning through shared understandings
At this partnership level the alignment of coursework and practice becomes clearer for the TCs through a form of mediated fieldwork (Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2014). University faculty present in partner schools are able to identify teachers who model practices consistent with the philosophy of the teacher preparation program and invite them to collaborate in the TCs field experiences through focused observations and debriefings. McDonald et al. (2014) describe this practice as “placements in which university faculty and K-12 teachers work closely with teacher candidates and K-12 students to support candidates’ learning of specific practices” (p. 501) and where, “opportunities are created for teacher candidates to learn best practices through modeling by master teachers” (p. 507).
Level 4 relationships are characterized by a mutual valuing of both the contributions of P-12 schools and the teacher education program. These relationships are indicated by intentional placement of TCs in mentor teachers’ classrooms who share common beliefs and practices, coordinated observations of selected teachers, and inclusion of those teachers in the teacher preparation process. The process of helping TCs make sense of classroom teaching and teaching methods, through the application of theoretical concepts addressed in coursework, is no longer solely the province of the university faculty and thus, some control is surrendered. Therefore, at this level, specific decisions about teaching practices have been identified and discussed with classroom teachers and are used intentionally by mentor teachers as well as university faculty. In this way, a boundary between the preparation of teachers and classroom practices may be bridged. However, desired practices and principles of teaching are still decided by university faculty and the teachers who align with these are carefully selected to participate in the teacher education program.
This level is achievable when trust is established through the ongoing presence and demonstrated commitment of the university as well as the willingness of classroom teachers to collaborate. The creation of a partnership coordinator, who is also a faculty member, represents a “boundary spanner” (Sandholtz & Finan, 1998, as cited in Bullough, 2005), or an individual who has one foot in schools and one in the university. This role, along with the activities of other faculty who have been highly engaged in the partnership work, is an essential component in the successful development of the partnership. Blurring of faculty roles, for both university faculty and P-12 faculty, can be critical to bridging the divide between coursework and practice. The classroom teachers in the example above stepped out of their daily roles and became teacher educators. However, because they were selected for their practices that aligned with predetermined principles of the teacher education program, much of the decision-making is still held by the university faculty member. The next level of the framework depicts a more collaborative approach to these decisions.
Level 5: Co-Constructed Partnership
The conversation began with the university faculty member asking, “What do the TCs need to know about teaching in your school?” Mr. S immediately ticked off a list of topics; the demographics of the school & community; classroom management; teacher evaluation; and reading and implementing an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The conversation also included philosophical orientations of teaching, such as multiculturalism and attention to social emotional learning. Given that this was a discussion about a middle school methods course aimed at preparing TCs to teach Social Studies, Language Arts, and Science, the topics went beyond the traditional scope of the course. Over the next two hours, the syllabus was revised to integrate these topics and a plan was conceived to utilize school administrators and faculty as guest lecturers. (Methods professor experience)
In Level 5, decision-making is shared across the teacher education program and the partner schools. The vignette above provides an example of co-construction of a course syllabus and in the teaching of the course, where, school faculty collaborate with university faculty on learning experiences for the TCs (Role of School). Some of the topics discussed represented shared beliefs between both parties, such as the need to understand the local context to most effectively address the specific student population and attention to the socioemotional aspects of learning. Other topics required discussion and negotiation before mutually agreed upon decisions to include the topics as part of the course were made. While the university faculty member had a predetermined plan based on several years of teaching the course, she recognized that the TCs needed to understand more about many of the topics raised by Mr. S to better navigate school structures. She also valued the expertise of the school-based personnel and wanted to draw on their knowledge.
Through this negotiation process, a similar philosophy regarding student-centered learning that incorporated authentic tasks and meaningful topics emerged. In this way, common beliefs about teaching and learning that guide the course were determined in collaboration with partner schools, and thus co-constructed. In addition, the methods instructor shared the classroom space with the staff at the school, which called for a surrendering of teaching time. Through the collaborative process of modifying the syllabus, co-constructing instructional practices and sharing the teaching responsibility, progress was made toward achieving common goals and understandings that would align the TCs preparation and experiences in the field in ways not previously experienced. However, at this point of the partnership, the roles of partner school faculty within the teacher education program are not necessarily defined or structured.
Movement into a co-constructed partnership calls for flexibility, collaboration, openness to learn from partners, diplomacy, and even a willingness to let go of previously held beliefs and practices. The boundary between the teacher education program and the partner school is further blurred at this level such that both school faculty and teacher education faculty contribute to the development of the teacher education curriculum. In short, this stage of partnerships can be challenging. “To design and implement these innovations, faculty have needed to reconsider the structure and curriculum of teacher education as well as their pedagogy” (McDonald et al., 2014, pp. 501-502).
Another example of the exchange across the partner schools and teacher education was collaboration on the district’s new elementary social studies curriculum. Curriculum reflects interactions between many factors such as state standards, administrators, teachers, various educational philosophies, and community interests. The opportunity to collaborate with teachers and administrators was a reflection of trust that had developed and was the foundation for a co-constructed curriculum. The university faculty member provided PD and consultation with teachers to facilitate deeper understandings of the goals of the state social studies standards and research-based practices (Role of University). Although she shared her expertise with the teachers, the process was impacted by the teachers’ knowledge, as well as issues of time in the school day, competing demands due to testing, existing curricula, state mandates, resources, and practices in each school. Therefore, negotiation and compromise were required as the new K-5 curriculum was co-constructed.
Learning through trust
The potential of co-constructed curricula, both at the K-5 and university levels, based on common principles of practices, can have a significant impact on the preparation of TCs. For example, this co-construction aligned what TCs learned in the elementary social studies methods course and the social studies instruction observed and enacted in the partner schools. TCs who completed student teaching in the district since the adoption of the curriculum reported excitement at having opportunities to affirm the value of what they learned in their coursework.
Level 5 is characterized by a shared understanding of principles and practices between the university and schools that guide the preparation of TCs, in coursework and the field. This requires building common definitions, goals, and language. Beginning at Level 5, common goals are needed to realize Darling-Hammond (2014) vision: “strong relationships, common knowledge, and shared beliefs among school- and university based faculty jointly engaged in transforming teaching, schooling, and teacher education” (p. 548). This means a relinquishing of some decisions on principles and practices within teacher education, which is a major shift of control in preparing TCs.
Teacher education faculty can still be contributing to the school in all of the ways mentioned in Level 4, but with commonly held beliefs about teaching and learning, those contributions are usually seen as more substantive. Although, rather than the schools deciding placements as in the early levels, or teacher educators deciding which teachers align with their principles as in Level 4, the shared understanding of common principles allows for collaborative placement of TCs (Placement). The overriding characteristic of this level is one of negotiation that allows for co-construction of language, curriculum, and field experiences. However, the roles across the contexts are not typically blurred with a sharing of personnel across the contexts.
As the examples above show, the growing trust between school and university faculty allowed for boundary crossing of these two contexts. This level of co-construction allowed the university teacher education program to “identify new approaches based on theory and research and to evaluate innovations in practice. The overarching goal is to link inquiry with action” (Walsh & Backe, 2013, p. 595). These types of partnerships allow faculty who are involved to be up to date on current schooling practices and issues, which can inform them about the challenges that TCs face as they move into the field (Burton & Greher, 2007). Level 5 then reflects a growing openness on the part of the teacher education program to release control of the content of teacher education through negotiating the principles and practices within the teacher education curriculum. However, this work is only beginning to be reciprocal toward the practices in partner schools.
Level 6: Learning Community
When I arrived, the 4th grade class had just finished up their Rainforest Unit and were researching animals of their choice using research questions they had developed themselves. I was excited to see some of the strategies I teach in my own methods course being modeled in the students’ work. I inquired about one of the bulletin boards and the university professor asked the TC interning the classroom to explain the strategy and the work conducted by the students in relation to it. The TC expertly articulated the methods used to implement the inquiry-based learning experience. She then explained that she had learned about the method in her university coursework which is co-taught by the professor and cooperating teacher who I was observing. The professor then explained that the TCs, cooperating teachers, and university faculty have been working collaboratively to design experiences aligned with the new science standards. (Methods professor experience in a different university–school partnership)
The methods professor in the vignette above observed a feeling of collaboration and partnership at Pennsylvania State University that was palpable. She noted a setting in which TCs, cooperating teachers, and university faculty members were mutually engaged in reflective discourse about practice and in the preparation of the TCs and all, all are working to achieve in the preparation of TCs, as well as in each individual’s practice (Decision Making). While visiting the elementary school, she met individually with the university faculty member, a cooperating teacher, and a student teacher. Each was able to speak knowledgeably about the goals of the university–school partnership, citing multiple ways in which their collaborative work resulted in learning opportunities for all. They expressed that the work they were engaged in was beneficial to all stakeholders, including the students in the partnership schools. The vignette depicts the highest level of our University–School Partnership Development Framework, a Learning Community.
Although we are currently working toward this level of partnerships, they take years of trust and at this point, are more aspirational for us. For this reason, we draw on the research literature more heavily in this section. In an effort to describe this level in practice, as in the other levels, we draw on the strong Professional Development School (PDS) model at Pennsylvania State University (the site the methods professor visited). The planning teams within these partnerships consist of both university and school-based faculty. Together, they coteach, co-design assignments and experiences for TCs that closely align with the context and curricula within the partner schools, and mentor TCs in the field. In these learning communities, mentor teachers not only engage in PD attended and/or facilitated by university faculty but engage in collaborative action research of their own practice (Zembal-Saul, 2009). Tensions may arise, however, as mentor teachers often take on much of the time consuming work necessary to support TCs in the clinical practice without many external incentives which, over time, could lead to teacher fatigue and lack of willingness to participate.
In this case, university faculty, school administration and faculty, and TCs view themselves as members of a team working to collaboratively develop and deliver common beliefs and practices about teaching and learning. This interweaving of coursework and clinical practice requires university and school faculty to share control over the teaching and implementation of pedagogical approaches and practices (Links to Courses). The result of this type of partnership is “redefining teaching and learning for all members of the profession and the school community” (Darling-Hammond, 2014, p. 554). In this redefinition, the roles involved in educating TCs are shared by school and university faculty as in the example that began this section. Such arrangements can be thwarted by changes in personnel at either institution or due to reluctance to give-up some control by all parties.
Learning through the third space
The binaries of academic and practitioner knowledge meet in what Zeichner (2010) describes as a third space. Here, faculty who fill hybrid positions facilitate instruction at both the school and university level. These roles often begin with university faculty who are hired to build relationships with the partnership schools to both oversee teacher education of TCs and the PD of practicing teachers. Zeichner explains that when he filled the role of a hybrid instructor he co-taught methods courses to TCs with school-based university supervisors. Some teacher education programs, like that of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, afford methods instructors opportunities to work with school leaders to align coursework with school curriculum and instruction and vice versa. As such, educators in these hybrid roles serve as faculty members who teach and supervise in the teacher education program and in the schools. Educators in hybrid roles have the unique perspective of both communities, which allows them to foster boundary-spanning collaboration that consistently bridges the gap between university coursework and clinical practice. Likewise, organizational and strategic planning are viewed through the lens of both the university and school promoting the continual alignment of pedagogy and practice.
This alignment at Level 6 characterizes co-constructed program goals, co-construction of knowledge, and a sharing in the preparation of TCs. Strong school–university relationships have a shared vision concerning the purpose of their work (Allen et al., 2013; Grossman et al., 2009) and a clear understanding of the roles of the stakeholders in achieving that vision (Bullough, 2005; Bullough & Baugh, 2008). In Level 6 of the framework, university faculty and school-based administrators and teachers construct knowledge together. Their partnership work involves a simultaneous restructuring of school programs and teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond, 2014). To achieve this Learning Community, university and school faculty negotiate and agree upon best practices (Burton & Greher, 2007) and collaboratively develop a shared language for talking about practice (Bullough & Baugh, 2008). Developing this type of learning community requires schools and universities “to work closely with one another as equal partners to address long-standing, tough problems” (Goodlad, 1991, p. 58) that both institutions face. District policies, laws, and mandates from accrediting bodies can lead to competing, and even conflicting, demands on both parties that can negatively impact this process. Clear communication and respect of these differing demands necessitates transparency and flexibility and, as such, cannot be achieved without a high level of trust. Thus, these relationships take years to develop so both sides trust each other to negotiate through difficult issues to work toward mutually beneficial goals.
Implications
Many lessons can be extracted from our experiences and the literature that have broad implications for partnership work. In what follows, we identify how P-12 and higher education structures can be navigated using this framework, and how state-wide mandates and accreditation guidelines and requirements can be utilized as leverage for conducting this work.
Navigating Structures
Areas of disjuncture within the structures of the P-12 system, institutions of higher education, and state policy must be negotiated constantly, necessitating time for meaningful planning and collaboration. Each setting poses barriers and obstacles that make conducting and sustaining this work challenging. We offer the framework as a tool to negotiate partnership work by identifying, strategizing, and improving upon teacher preparation practices across these systems.
Negotiating P-12 structures
The cornerstone of partnership work is relationship building. This requires mutual respect of expertise, personnel, and a time commitment from each of the partners, usually with the onus largely bore on the university-side. Mediated field experiences are dependent on productive relationships between model teachers and faculty members. However, before a model teacher can be asked to collaborate, a university faculty member must become acquainted with the practices and pedagogies of teachers in the partner school to identify teachers who are willing and able to take on the additional role of serving as a model teacher. The presence of a faculty member in the schools is time away from teaching and other faculty responsibilities, which places resource demands on the university. As a program moves along the continuum in partnership development, the personnel commitment only deepens.
Due to the ever-changing landscape of both P-12 education and teacher education, partnership building is a fluid process. As the work relies so heavily on forged relationships, changes in personnel have an immense impact. A partnership that reflects work at Level 3 or 4 might become reoriented to look more like Level 2 when a change in administration takes place. The adoption of a new curriculum can also cause disruption to university courses by requiring modifications to reflect changes in partner classrooms. Partnership relationships that are more institutionalized and advanced may weather changes better, but are still not immune to potential setbacks. Thus, flexibility is requisite in sustaining high level of collaborative partnerships.
Traditional boundaries between universities and partner schools can produce a number of barriers to building reciprocal relationships as discussed in Level 1. A response to the challenges presented is to create opportunities for university and P-12 faculty to collaborate and build common understandings of instructional practice. When a common pedagogical vision exists, many of the disjunctures addressed can be lessened. The framework we have presented can be used as a roadmap to identify the current status of partnerships and to identify goals for continued progress. With criteria defined for each level, aspects of the work conducted in the field and at the university can be clearly articulated and provide for a common language and understanding among all parties to discuss specific components of the partnership (i.e., roles of stakeholders, placements, etc.). For example, when P-12 faculty recognize that an expressed goal is for university faculty to be “more intentional in aligning coursework and fieldwork” as articulated at a Level 3 partnership, a more productive discussion of sharing pedagogical goals and strategies may ensue. It has been our experience that when the roles, expectations, and goals are shared, P-12 faculty in our partner schools feel more valued and included in our work.
Because the framework need not be utilized linearly, it is possible for partners to develop goals that span more than one level. For example, partnership collaborators may feel it is appropriate to structure field experiences that are representative of Level 3 with university faculty organizing group observations of selected teachers and holding debriefing sessions to engage in discourse that aligns observations with theories taught in coursework; at the same time, an identified goal might be for school faculty to participate in university faculty facilitated workshops, which is representative of a Level 2 goal. This process offers opportunities for “insight into areas for improvement and promotes accountability,” making “the benefits of collaboration ‘visible and felt’” (Walsh & Backe, 2013, p. 602).
Plans to invite teachers with exemplary practice to be mentor teachers can allow for more systematic sharing of information and collaboration between university faculty and the school faculty and create more cohesion in the preparation of TCs. As we developed partnerships, opportunities to co-write curriculum, attend and facilitate PLCs, and run PD workshops have all allowed for a deeper understanding of school and teacher perspectives. In addition, this has been leveraged to begin transforming some of the teaching methods utilized by the teachers such as the use of stations for students to engage more directly with content, work with their peers in small groups, and push for understanding of basic math facts. Creating opportunities to share and value each other’s expertise begins to erode boundaries across contexts.
In sharing the framework with all of the school and district administrators in our partner schools, we have found it can be used as a tool for discussing partnership work both generally and with a narrow focus on one or more of the partnership components. Likewise, it has served to communicate the university’s goals, including our intent to address the school’s interests in the transformation of our university’s teacher education program. Namely, we have used the framework to communicate our efforts to foster a mutually beneficial partnership model.
Negotiating structures in higher education
University structures can also be impediments to building partnerships. Faculty who earn tenure and promotions based on writing and research have little institutional incentive to do the work of building partnerships with P-12 schools. Likewise, a change in university faculty who oversee the partnership work can lead to a period of adjustment and reestablishing trust that can disrupt the work in progress. A tendency to rely on adjunct faculty or graduate students to conduct partnership work can lead to high turnover, which in turn harms the partnership. Thus, teacher education programs may be called on to rethink the responsibilities of full-time faculty and how such restructuring impacts issues of tenure and promotion. However, there are ways for individual faculty and programs to think creatively around these policies. Methods courses can be pushed out into schools increasing connection and collaboration between university faculty and P-12 teachers. The elementary program that was a part of this effort began doing this without re-assigning workloads, using allotted work for teaching and service that were already a part of faculty job descriptions. Therefore, there is flexibility to start playing at the edges of the barriers without large structural change. Teaching then takes place in the field alongside placements, and faculty service can be shifted to work with partner schools instead of university committees. More systemically, roles can be created or workloads redefined at both the university and partnerships schools to cut across the boundaries of the two contexts—for example, hiring a P-12 teacher or administrator to teach alongside faculty or to have university faculty teach in P-12 classrooms as part of their teaching load. Therefore, there are ways to work around and with existing structures to begin some of this work, even if it is not at desired levels where co-construction is occurring.
Leveraging state-wide mandates
State-level requirements can also be leveraged to support partnership work. For example, Rutgers University has also had to deal with changing state requirements as many teacher education programs are currently managing. A full year of student teaching and requiring TCs to pass edTPA have changed the landscape of teacher education in the state. However, even here we have been able to leverage the increased allotment of credits for field experiences to go toward hiring faculty that oversee practicum and internship placements as well as manage partnerships. This has shifted some faculty roles to sit across the university and P-12 settings. These structures were not well utilized before in terms of faculty workload. In addition, we have built bridges between how districts are evaluating teaching (e.g., Danielson’s Framework for Teaching) and the ways TCs are evaluated through edTPA to highlight overlap. Both can also be critiqued in coursework, but the key elements for us in the partnership work around these issues are to listen to how teachers are currently being evaluated, to provide opportunities for our TCs to hear this, and to share how TCs are evaluated in teacher education with partner schools. There are more connections than we sometimes realize, and using those connections to propel this work in teacher education is critical.
Navigating the Landscape of Teacher Education Today
Teacher education programs are faced with meeting requirements for accreditation under the CAEP standards that call for significant changes in programs. Clinical experiences that mirror Levels 1 and 2 in our framework are no longer satisfactory for TCs. CAEP (2015) standards make clear that “taking” or “borrowing” from schools is not desirable as partnerships are defined as, “Mutually beneficial agreement among various partners in which all participating members engage in and contribute to goals for the preparation of education professionals” (p. 6). Partnerships need to take into account the needs of all parties and seek means by which all benefit. Our examples of an after-school tutoring program, collaborations to improve practice, and curricula to better serve students and enable all practitioners, K-16, to grow professionally, are examples of these mutually beneficial arrangements. It is also only at Level 3 that teacher education programs begin to move toward partnerships where the parties “establish mutually agreeable expectations for candidate entry, preparation, and exit; ensure that theory and practice are linked; maintain coherence across clinical and academic components of preparation; and share accountability for candidate outcomes” (p. 6). The full realization of the CAEP standard, Partnerships for Clinical Preparation 2.1, can be reached only after substantive partnerships exist that allow for shared decision-making, goal setting, and participation in the preparation of TCs. This level of partnership is most reflective of Levels 5 and 6 of the framework. As teacher education programs grapple with meeting the standards, the framework can serve as groundwork for re-imagining teacher education.
Beyond accreditation, we see the intellectual contribution of the framework expanding on mediated fieldwork as identified by McDonald and colleagues (2014). Mediated fieldwork holds great potential for TCs to learn from university and P-12 faculty as classroom-based experiences are analyzed collectively. Although the potential for improving teacher preparation is great with this practice, the benefits may not extend both ways. To move to a place of expanded and co-constructed knowledge of teaching and learning, a new paradigm is needed. Zeichner’s (2010) third space is a starting point with the opportunities to “bring practitioner and academic knowledge together in less hierarchical ways to create new learning opportunities for prospective teachers” (p. 92). We see the potential for this knowledge to be operationalized and shared on a larger scale. At the highest level of the framework, Level 6, we see university and school faculty constructing knowledge together to advance understandings of teacher preparation and student learning. At this level, it is not just schools that are improved, but in breaking the typical hierarchy between universities and P-12 settings, the potential for transforming teacher education is also on the table. This raises the need for researching models of partnership work that act back on university settings, transforming the work of teacher education.
The road to partnerships may be long and traverse many ups and downs, but it is a road worth traveling. The potential to transform the preparation of TCs, as well as P-12 education, is real. In building partnerships, we think making known that we want to transform P-12 schools is important. However, we also intend to have P-12 teachers and administrators change the work we do as well. It is the co-construction of teacher education that we think has the potential to move both schools and teacher education forward.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to former Dean, Dr. Richard De Lisi, who provided an internal grant at Rutgers Graduate School of Education to conduct this work.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.