University–school district collaborative continuum for teacher preparation Open Access

The structure of teacher preparation programs varies widely. Since the origin of the United States Department of Education in 1867, policies have been initiated to support the mission of promoting student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness. (United States Department of Education, 2021). Throughout the intervening years, the field of education in the United States faced continual mandates from federal and state entities hoping to assure the production of high-quality teachers. While the intent of these mandates was to increase teacher excellence and effectiveness, many of these directives created challenges and barriers for those entering the field of education (Garcia & Weiss, 2019). Additionally, the challenges of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exacerbated the issues of high stress, low pay and teacher retention struggles, as well as the overall teacher shortage.

Teacher preparation programs need to seriously assess their role in preparing future teachers equipped with the skills and stamina to meet current educational challenges in these complex times. As educator retention reaches an all-time low, moving toward university–school partnerships for continued professional development and shared resources benefits both parties (Darling-Hammond, 2022; Marshall et al., 2020; McCarthy et al., 2022). United States Education Secretary Miguel Cardona recently noted this teacher shortage crisis and issued a call to action for states to invest in teacher preparation programs, including using post-COVID-19 American Rescue Plan Funds for evidence-based teacher residency programs, for increased teacher compensation and for helping increase the number of partnerships between educator prep programs and school districts.

Concerns arise for the future of education as the shortage of educators due to retirements, low teacher wages, a polarized political climate, heavy educational and testing mandates for those seeking to enter the field, inadequate teacher preparation and educator retention are all established needs of great concern (Guhu et al., 2017; Hingorani, 2023). Cycles of teacher shortages have riddled the history of education in the United States; however, the current situation is quite alarming. In the wake of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) funds ending in September 2024, there are anticipated educator layoffs, especially for those in educational support roles such as nurses, social workers, counselors and behavior specialists (Lonas, 2024). Thus, hiring and retention issues may be exacerbated.

Linda Darling-Hammond (2022) states that attention to these recent shortages may provide the opportunity to transform teaching. She suggests support for reform should include universal high-quality teacher education, mentoring for all beginner teachers, ongoing professional learning with embedded planning and collaboration time at school, opportunities for decision-making on school improvement, leadership opportunities and lastly equitable, competitive salaries – comparable to other similarly educated professionals (Darling-Hammond, 2022, p. 18). Darling-Hammond also suggests this is the opportune time to rethink schools and teacher preparation programs, noting potential improvement through residencies in schools, much like the medical model of professional preparation. This suggestion of rethinking schools and teacher preparation echoes a prior call for more intentional partnership work in which teacher candidates complete more internships and teach full-time (Polly et al., 2019).

Post-pandemic improvement is needed in teachers’ professional learning and development. The pandemic challenged traditional teaching practices, which need to be critically evaluated. Reeves (2021, p. 44) states, “The constraints imposed on schools by the pandemic create a sense of urgency that should make us intolerant of such ineffective practices.” Reeves suggested that rather than a quick workshop, an effective model for improving the art of instruction should come from practice over an extended period, accompanied by feedback. Reflecting on interviews he conducted, he said senior school district officials noted it takes approximately three years for educators to learn to effectively use modern technology programs for lesson delivery, assessment, grading, attendance and behavior management. More importantly, the one-size-fits-all, traditional in-service day workshops for teacher professional development are not as effective as coaching over time (Reeves, 2021). Instead, Williams (2023) claims that by incorporating content focus, active learning, collaboration, models and modeling, coaching and expert support, feedback and reflection, and sustained duration, we can unlock the power of professional development. Such professional development helps retain educators by providing them with a greater sense of belonging and increased confidence in their performance as educators.

Teacher retention is connected to a sense of belonging. Retention increases when teachers feel they are valued members of the community and have a keen sense of self-efficacy related to their work. Korte and Simonsen (2018) found that when novice teachers developed quality relationships with students and community members, their teacher self-efficacy and career commitment increased. Similarly, with pre-service educators, the anchoring of preparation in a school district may serve to promote belongingness and retention both in their teacher preparation program and, ultimately, the field of education. The thrust to bring teacher preparation into the local schools via coursework and fieldwork integrated into the local school lends itself toward a place-based educational experience. Place-based education aims to make education holistic, integrated and meaningful, thereby facilitating the development of teacher candidates’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions toward the local culture and ecology (Ebersole & Worster, 2007, p. 20). Through internships that exemplify real-world problem-solving, the school community collaborates with a university to build upon the school’s culture, leading to induction into the community process, which represents pillars of place-based education as noted by Smith (2002).

The teacher preparation process considered from a social cognitive learning model rests upon the premise that learning occurs in a social context and involves the interactions between the person, environment and behaviors. Modeling and reinforcement are key in such social situations. In this study, the collaboration between the university and school district bridges one learning situation or environment to another, with modeling and reinforcement activities in both contexts (Figure 1). Students in teacher preparation programs are immersed in the university’s learning context, and when they enter fieldwork in the school, they become part of the school community. The effectiveness of the collaboration and partnership between the school and university is theorized to potentially impact learning through modeling and reinforcements and the building of community belongingness, self-efficacy, and instructional expertise.

Teacher preparation programs are tasked with preparing high-quality pre-service teachers who feel confident in handling the challenges of teaching in today’s schools and can successfully sustain continued employment in their field of instructing and motivating young learners. This calls for teacher preparation programs to provide authentic learning experiences connected to a learning community. Social learning theorists such as Vygotsky (1978) and Bruner (1960) encouraged such social relationships among learners and noted mutual benefit and development. There are many facets to the development of future teachers, many of which are rooted in Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, which heralds the construct of teacher self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977, 1997). Bandura purports that one’s belief in one’s ability related to a particular task is connected to persistence and accomplishment of that task. Specifically, “Teacher self-efficacy is the belief a teacher holds about his or her ability to influence learning” (Clark & Newberry, 2018, p. 32). Such belief produces perseverance to accomplish instructional goals. Teacher self-efficacy can be built with each successful experience, thus shaping teacher effectiveness, confidence, job satisfaction, and ability to influence and motivate student learning (Caprara et al., 2006; Miller et al., 2017; Pendergast et al., 2011; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001; Usher & Pajares, 2008).

Bandura (1997) identified four main sources contributing to self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal/emotional states. Drawing from Bandura’s constructs contributing to self-efficacy, Clark and Newberry (2018) examined teacher education experiences to explore which factors predicted pre-service teacher self-efficacy. Their findings indicated that teacher self-efficacy is varied and rooted in cultural contexts. Self-efficacy was positively correlated with verbal persuasion and vicarious experiences from both the teacher educators and cooperating teachers. Additionally, both vicarious experiences and mastery experiences were positively correlated to pre-service self-efficacy. Clark and Newberry (2018) concluded that teacher preparation programs indeed add to pre-service self-efficacy. Still, they recommended more examination into physiological arousal and other factors as a source of self-efficacy.

Physiological arousal is part of the emotional and physical response to cognitive and psychological thought processes emphasized within the Social Cognitive Theory. In the classroom, certain psychological conditions that affect teachers’ cognitive processes are necessary to perform successfully, such as emotional processes impacting effort, risk-taking attitudes, managing stress, motivation and building interpersonal relationships (Kasalak & Dağyar, 2020; Donker et al., 2020). According to Chen et al. (2022), emotions in teacher candidates are an indicator and catalyst for their professional identity and, subsequently, a sense of belonging. Thus, positive emotional pre-service experiences could be connected to strengthening their self-efficacy and retention as educators (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). This study also serves to follow up on Clark and Newberry’s work, extending analysis into other potential areas as sources of self-efficacy, specifically elements that lead to physiological arousal such as a sense of belonging.

Collaborations between collegiate teacher preparation programs and local schools can serve to foster meaningful experiences in the preparation for those seeking a career in education as well as benefit practicing teachers and school students (Williams, 2014). It has been long understood that field experiences and clinical practice hold critical importance in teacher preparation (Singh, 2017). Such experiences require collaboration between collegiate teacher preparation programs and schools. The progression of embedded mentoring experiences in the local schools, along with increasing time and connections in the school, builds a natural pipeline from the college into the actual teaching role (Moore & Sampson, 2008). Osguthorpe (2000) challenges, “Schools and universities must forge long-term relationships that will lead to improvement that can come only from a collaborative effort.” The development of shared goals, resources, rules, coordination and decision-making make these relationships successful (Coler et al., 2022; Moore & Sampson, 2008). Little research to date solely focuses on the actual embedding of collegiate coursework within the local school facilities. Instead, most studies focus on clinical fieldwork. Singh (2017) reviewed the typical options for clinical experiences, including brief stints of less than a year, while others extended a full year. Some have stand-alone fieldwork while others have coursework with attached fieldwork. Further, Singh (2017) suggested that the variance in design and duration leads to difficulty in generalizations regarding the benefits of fieldwork formats. Yet, study, after study has concluded that field experience has positive benefits. The current study springboards from a university and school collaboration with the goal of successfully preparing future teachers and benefitting the school community.

Zeichner (2010) applied the concept of third space to teacher preparation programs that rely on partnerships with schools where knowledge communities converge discourse and co-construct knowledge about teaching. Daza et al. (2021) conducted a scoping review of literature focused on third space in university–school partnerships, finding it has increasingly become a model for clinical practice. However, they note two major themes in such partnerships: negotiating identities, which includes crossing boundaries and partners performing hybrid roles, and secondly, the intersection of each partner’s epistemologies (Daza et al., 2021).

A contributing factor to the current educator recruitment and retention struggles throughout US schools is inadequate preparation for individuals seeking to enter the field (Guhu et al., 2017). Quality mentor-mentee relationships and worthwhile overall school experiences in teacher preparation programs are often lacking in pre-service teachers’ preparation, yet these elements are crucial to educator success (Marshall et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2020). Ellis et al. further suggest that not only is the relationship between the pre-service teacher and their mentor important, but the relationship also needs to be characterized by mutual collaboration, professionalism, constructive dialogue and a shared openness to new learning. Furthermore, the effective mentor demonstrates enthusiasm for teaching and learning, consistently models sound practices, and provides emotional support to the mentee.

When teachers new to the profession actively engage in high-quality mentor-mentee experiences, research indicates that they are more likely to remain in the field and experience successful careers (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, as cited in Guhu et al., 2017). Teacher preparation programs across the country and around the world are requiring their students to engage in practical classroom experiences early on in their undergraduate coursework, as well as increasing the duration of the final pre-service teaching experience (Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021). This movement toward a more balanced blend of theory and practice naturally increases the need for mentor teachers prepared to support pre-service teachers through a broader range of development than what is required for a traditional student teaching experience.

As universities and school districts unite in teacher preparation, many have aligned with a movement called professional development school (PDS) partnerships (Brindley et al., 2009; Coler et al., 2022). Within these partnerships, there is a focus on teacher preparation, shared resources, professional development and inquiry into educational practice.

In response to the significant need for improved teacher preparation, mentoring and retention, this study sought to examine a teacher preparation pathway utilizing a university and school collaborative teacher prep model emphasizing fieldwork, mentoring and embedded collegiate courses on the public school campus. The following research questions guided the study:

• (1)

  To what extent do early and continued field placement of pre-service teachers in local schools impact their self-efficacy, teacher prep program retention and future employment?

• (2)

  To what extent do mentoring and coaching of pre-service teachers impact the teacher’s self-efficacy, retention and future goals?

• (3)

  What are the benefits and challenges of a collaboration between a collegiate teacher preparation program and a local school district where courses are embedded as well as multiple-year field experiences?

This case study employed qualitative methodology utilizing a convergence model of triangulation framework (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Bamberger, 2012), which targeted an analysis of the development of self-efficacy and other related potential outcomes from a collaborative pre-service teacher preparation program pilot between a university and a school district. The goal of the convergent model of triangulation framework was to better understand a particular phenomenon with well-substantiated conclusions drawn from multiple data streams. These data sets were then merged into one overall interpretation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006). Primary sources of data for the study were qualitative, including survey results, observation, program reports and focus groups providing for parallel data-gathering opportunities with the purpose of enriching, examining and explaining.

The overall project includes three phases as depicted in Figure 2. This study reports on the first two phases. As noted earlier, Reeves (2021) suggests it takes approximately three years for pre-service teachers to get to know a school district and their programs. Phase 1 included the launch of the collaboration between the university and the school district, with participants from the university faculty and students, as well as school district employees who were recruited to be host teachers. The eventual goal is longitudinal, following cohorts into the second and third phases while also examining a new cohort entering the study.

Participants in this study were from two sources. The first group, university students and university faculty, were associated with a teacher preparation program in a small, rural, private university in the northeastern region of the United States. The university offers undergraduate traditional and graduate online teacher preparation coursework in which students can enroll. Targeted students in this study are in their sophomore through senior years of the preparation program for Elementary Education, Special Education or Secondary (Science, Social Studies and English) Education. However, program data were reviewed, which included all fieldwork students in the program during the window of 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 academic years. While these collegiate students are enrolled in a rural northeastern university, they hail from states across the nation and thus have varied personal, regional and cultural educational experiences. The faculty in the teacher preparation program were experienced K-12 educators who now teach on the collegiate level and have experience in multiple varied states’ educational systems. Thus, participant demographics are representative beyond the geographic and cultural boundaries of the northeastern region of the United States. In the two cohort years represented 25% of the university faculty involved 25% identify as male, 75% identify as female. Within the cohort of students involved in fieldwork in the 2022 academic year, 81% were female and 19% were male. In the second cohort during the 2023 academic year, male students dropped to 9% and females represented 91%.

The second group of participants was associated with a rural public school district in the same northeastern region of the United States and included both teachers and administrators across two elementary schools, one junior high school and one high school. Each teacher who worked with a university student held a state teacher’s license and had at least 3 years of experience as an educator. The gender demographic in the host and cooperating teacher ratio over those two academic years was 14% male and 86% female. Administrators held state licenses as both teachers and administrators and identified as 50% male and 50% female.

Multiple meetings between university and school district leaders were held to establish the scope of the partnership and subsequent collaborative activities. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed by both university and school officials. University students and faculty were welcomed into the school district classrooms for this collaboration. Conversely, school administrators, teachers and students have been welcomed to the university.

The research tools used included a survey provided to all participants (college faculty and students, host teachers, and school district administrators). The survey included demographic information delineating the role of the participant and questions modified from The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) short form by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990), which was a reduction of the Teacher Efficacy Scale by Gibson and Dembo (1984). Both scales stem from Bandura’s original works on self-efficacy and are standard tools for measuring the teacher self-efficacy construct.

In the first two survey questions the authors asked the role of the participant in the study and determined whether the participant was one of the following: a university student, university faculty, school district teacher (hosting a university student) or in a school district support role (administrator, instructional specialist or paraprofessional). The following two sets of questions (numbers three and four) determined the overall reactions to the collaborative experience from that individual’s role and perspective. The fifth question also provided insight into what the participants valued in the experience. Question six determined how various aspects of the collaboration impacted students in their teacher preparation experience. The eighth question sought information on the mentoring model used to train those working with university students, and lastly, the ninth question asked respondents to indicate the value of the university and schoolteacher preparation collaboration. The last question was left open-ended to allow respondents to provide suggestions for improving the university and school collaborative experience.

An end-of-the-year focus group of school administrators, teachers and university faculty and administrators was convened as a debriefing meeting. Teachers were able to share how the mentoring experiences went and ways in which the collaboration could improve.

University course and department data were additionally used to provide a statistical and demographic reference as well as an evaluation narrative. After each course, where students were placed in the school district for fieldwork and mentoring, the host teacher had an opportunity to provide written feedback. These assessments were especially significant since this is a new model of teacher preparation in which university courses were held on the public school campus, opening increased opportunities for collaboration between university and school partners. In this new model, each cohort of students begins their experience in the partnership by being enrolled in a collegiate course on instructional methods and management, which is held at a local public school for an entire semester. A university professor teaches the collegiate course; however, within this authentic setting, the college students are exposed to the school environment rather than a college classroom (place-based learning). Teachers and administrators were invited to provide mini-presentations throughout the semester, showcasing and modeling best practices for instruction, assessment, and management. After the allotted course time, students disperse throughout the schools to shadow a mentor teacher in a classroom as an active observer. The active observer role is to provide support for the teacher in any way appropriate, such as distributing materials, assisting with small groups and engaging in various activities as suggested by the host teacher.

Results from this case study included data gathered in multiple ways. (1) The survey was distributed to all participants related to the embedded university education course in the school district and to fieldwork host schoolteachers (N = 27) with a 30% return response rate completing the survey. Respondents included university students, schoolteachers, an administrator and university faculty. (2) Following the fall term and collaborative efforts, the university faculty and school participants held a debriefing focus group. Host teachers were asked what went well, what could be improved upon, and any comments or concerns they might have. Lastly, (3) programmatic data collection from students and host teachers regularly occurred at the end of each term, each field placement and each course for the academic year. These data points were also used for analysis. Themes emerged when all the data was triangulated. These results were used to address the research questions, which sought to examine the impact of the collaborative experience upon pre-service candidates, schoolteachers’ teaching self-efficacy, retention in either the student training program or the teachers’ school employment and future endeavors in the field of education.

The self-efficacy of pre-service teachers was examined within the survey from multiple perspectives. Students self-reported on a scale of 5, with 1 representing not valuable and 5 representing very valuable. Question three addressed students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy by assessing the student’s self-confidence (mean of 4 on a scale of 5, indicating strong) and willingness to take a risk (mean of 4.3 on a scale of 5, indicating strong). This finding was further supported in question six, by which the authors sought to determine the impact of the collaborative course on elements that attribute to self-efficacy. In response to the question seeking the impact of coursework in the school building, students responded that collaboration greatly impacted their knowledge (see Figure 3).

Self-efficacy was directly measured with questions from TES short form by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990). Each individual item reported by students can be seen in Figure 4. The total mean for pre-service self-efficacy after the collaborative class and field placements was 4.05, on a scale of 5, as responded to in question 7. These individuals were asked to rate their perceived teaching ability. After the fieldwork experience in the collaborative environment, students rated collaborating with other school professionals as their strongest area, followed by assisting families and helping students value learning. Each of these areas speaks of the collaborative nature of this partnership and evidences a culture of mutual benefit and development typical of social cognitive learning theory in action. The lowest-rated areas of confidence were utilizing a variety of assessments and getting children to follow the rules. These issues speak to being a novice in the classroom.

As noted by Bandura (1997), self-efficacy increases through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal/emotional states. The partnership experience provided an opportunity to increase in each of these areas, as evidenced in student narratives from the field placement data reports.

Mastery experiences. The following statements illustrate experiences in which students report they have gained increased mastery through the partnership.

Vicarious experiences. The following statements illustrate experiences that students report they have gained through the partnership.

Verbal persuasion. The following statements illustrate experiences that students report they have gained through the partnership, especially related to verbal encouragement.

Physiological arousal/emotional states. The following statements illustrate experiences that students report they have gained through the partnership, especially related to their emotional state.

Students enrolled in sophomore collegiate courses are exploring possibilities for their future. According to the National Center of Education Statistics (McFarland et al., 2017), 30% of undergraduates change their major. Further, NCES found that 37% of students who first declared education as a major changed within three years. The university records in which this study was conducted found that in the year prior to the collaboration and embedded coursework in the school district, 78% of education students retained the education major. Following the first year of the collaboration, 82% retained the education major. While changing majors is normal and sometimes necessary as students find a career fit, the collaborative experience is correlated with an increase in the retention of pre-service students.

Participants in the collaboration additionally reported that they perceived the university–school district partnership to foster program retention, 37.5% reporting that the collaboration had a moderate impact upon them and 50% reported a high impact.

Students engaged in early field experiences within the school district have a taste of what their future job will entail. Additionally, those working with these pre-service students can mentor and influence the next generation of teachers. The overall reported perception regarding the collaborative effort suggests that individuals were both optimistic about (75%) and committed to (87.5%) the field of education. The perceived feelings following the university–school collaboration experience are illustrated in Figure 5. These responses indicate the experience of having a collegiate course embedded in a local school at least strengthens both the host public school teacher’s commitment to education and indicates a note of promise for the future of education after mentoring a university student’s early field experience.

A direct result of this university–school district collaboration has been increased awareness of employment opportunities for students in the teacher preparation program. Students who have begun field experiences become aware of part-time substitute teaching opportunities, which gives them more experience and fills a need for the school district. Another collaboration result is the opportunity for pre-service teachers to have internship opportunities in areas in which they hope to work in the future. Again, this helps fill local schools’ needs and provides motivation and optimism for education students and their future employment goals.

Mentoring activities were an essential component in the university and school district collaboration. Each teacher involved in the collaboration was invited to partake in a mentor-training course (Canvas Module) with the opportunity to then receive a professional digital badge for completing the training. The aforementioned value of high-quality mentoring was reinforced in the data from this study (Marshall et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2020). All participants noted that the collaborative experience has caused them to consider the value of mentoring. Participants stated that mentor-training for the host teachers was valuable (somewhat 42.9%, and very valuable 57.1%). After the collaborative experience, when faculty and students were questioned about concepts for which the partnership facilitated further consideration, mentoring was the top-ranked area (88%). Additional areas of interest and consideration noted by participants following the partnership included the following: seeking professional development (50%), personal thoughts regarding their ability as an educator (50%), focusing more on instructional skills (38%), as well as taking on leadership roles and seeking advancements in education (25% each). “Creating a thriving teacher workforce requires a willingness to guide future teachers through the sticky work of reconciling their expectations with reality” (Delamarter, 2019).

Following the mentoring of teacher candidates in the collaborative experience, teachers working with teacher preparation students were asked to rate their perception of themselves related to their role as educators. These items were taken from the Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) scale short form by Hoy and Woolfolk (1990) (see Figure 6). These responses had a collective mean of 4.58. The two most substantial areas were collaboration with other school professionals and controlling behavior in the classroom. Again, the collaborative nature of the study lends toward raising confidence in collaboration, and the skills developed over time in classroom management are evidenced in controlling behavior in the classroom. The overall mean of teachers’ self-efficacy as compared to pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy is higher (current teachers’ mean of 4.58 versus pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy mean of 4.05), which is reflective of teaching experience.

School teacher retention has not yet been measured yet since this was the first phase of the study, which is ongoing. However, feedback from debriefing with the teachers in the focus group revealed excitement for the collaborative work and suggestions for ongoing work, such as more classroom teacher input on college student evaluation rubrics. All school teachers and leaders made positive verbal commitments for future collaboration and mentoring of students.

Teacher retention may be impacted by the satisfaction of knowing they are making a difference in future teachers’ preparation. Additionally, students currently participating in this program and study are experiencing early entrance into the field for clinical experiences, which potentially provides more support for current educators by having extra individuals in the room to assist with learning activities. Embedding a collegiate course coupled with this early experience seems to have created both enthusiasm and optimism for the field of education. Most of all study participants, including teachers, students and university faculty (88%) have reported the experience as having high value for the collaborative experience as well as optimism for (75%) and strong commitment to (87.5%) the field of education.

Although this paper encompasses the first two phases of the three-year study, indicators suggest a stronger support system for pre-service teachers has developed. Many notable facets in the first phase include the following: the school district becoming an extension of the university, cross-institutional professional development, enrichment of student learning experiences, and enthusiasm and optimism for the field of education as a career. In the second phase, these roots were expanded in ways such as shared resources, shared professional development and joint meetings for planning including faculty, university and school administrators, school teachers and college students. This space became the “third space” where all shared and created the next steps together (Williams, 2014). As partners in the collaboration, many took on hybrid roles. One notable challenge was that the partnership leadership needed to be keenly aware of the continued relational status of the partnership processes (i.e. ensuring smooth connections or mentors and mentees, prompting times of reflection and assessment, arranging professional development opportunities).

School district as an extension of a university. College students spent valuable time in the district increasing their comfort level in teaching roles and collaboration with mentors. In the fall of 2022–23, the university had 25 students placed with 16 teachers in the school district. When asked to rate their perception of the value for collegiate students in the teacher preparation program, all respondents replied that classes on the university campus were both somewhat valuable (37%) or very valuable (50%). However, those same individuals also indicated value in holding a collegiate class in the school district (12.5 no value, 25% some value and 62.5% very valuable). Overwhelmingly, 100% of participants agreed that visiting multiple classrooms and touring a school (87.5%) was very valuable. All survey participants (100%) agreed that time with a mentor in a school classroom working with learners was very valuable in the teacher preparation experience, which is consistent with the research regarding the importance of mentoring pre-service teachers and early professional educators (Marshall et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2020).

Along with the partnership between the university and school district, opportunities are available for school teachers to participate in university student instruction both in the university classes embedded within the school and serving as a host teacher for fieldwork or student teaching (N = 36). Some teachers also shared their expertise as guest lecturers at the university (N = 5); others became adjunct instructors (N = 2). One of the guest lecturers stated, “I just wanted to say thank you for inviting us to your class. I really enjoyed being a part of it this morning and interacting with you and your students. It was a new experience for me, and I would thoroughly enjoy repeating it in the future!” All participants responding in the survey indicated that guest presentations and lectures by schoolteachers were valuable (having guests provided some value 37.5% and were very valuable 62.5%). Another bonus reported by both school and university participants was that the partnership made school partners feel more valued (87.5%).

Focus group reflection. A focus group was convened at the end of the semester to reflect upon and discuss the partnership year. This focus group clearly identified the schools as extensions of the university while also noting challenges and areas of improvement. The group consisted of members representing school district administration, school district teachers and university faculty. The following were comments to consider in the evaluation of the project.

University departmental data. In the first year, the end-of-term teacher survey narrative reflections (N = 96) revealed specific themes regarding suggestions for improvement: field placements students need to work on classroom management, taking initiative, building confidence, finding their teacher voice and building questioning skills. This is exemplified in the following excerpts from teacher feedback:

Second-year end-of-term teacher survey narrative reflections indicated the previous year’s themes were being addressed. Host school teachers’ comments noted the partnerships’ strengths to include the following: clear communication from the university (N = 14), enthusiasm from students (N = 9), the program getting students into classrooms early in their college career (N = 9), students conducting themselves professionally and university students are receiving a variety of field placements (N = 7). However, there were calls to continue to focus on professionalism, communication and clear expectations.

Further, in the second year of reflections, students noted that the most beneficial aspects of the program were classroom observations, the field experience requirements, the weekly seminar classes paired with student teaching, and the university’s ongoing relationship with the school district. An example of the benefits of experiential longevity is noted as one student relayed to the college instructor that they were able to effectively help their host teacher during the first week of school deal with a behavioral issue because they had gotten to know the students’ special needs and triggers in a previous field experience the prior year. The summation of first- and second-year reflections can be described as continued collaborative efforts to partner, thus creating a feeling of synergy where a combined effect greater than the sum of each partner’s separate effects can be evidenced.

Cross-institutional professional development, resources sharing and leadership development

In the first two years, students participating in fieldwork and clinical placements were invited to attend many of the school district’s professional development events. In the second year, this expanded to the university hosting collaborative professional development events and providing physical resources for the school partner’s professional use. This trend continues as the university staff and collegiate students now offer sports clinics for youth, field trips to the university, after-school clubs for youth in the community, assistance with extracurricular events such as holiday parades and parties, family literacy nights, tutoring and other special events.

Another emerging theme in the study was the importance of leadership development. The self-efficacy ratings for the school teachers were rated as strong to very strong. Instructional leadership and teacher leadership have been associated in the literature with teacher self- and collective efficacy (Goddard et al., 2015; Angelle & Teague, 2014). Following the collaborative experience, the school teachers reported feeling confident in their ability and a willingness to take risks. This collaborative environment created a supportive climate in which leadership and coaching were able to thrive, as also documented in the literature (Coyle, 2018).

Additionally, Twyford and Le Fevre (2019) note that perceptions of risk are influenced by educational leaders’ actions. Figure 7 exemplifies their claim that embedding professional learning in a supportive environment where confidence grows encourages both teachers and learners to be willing to take risks. Another leadership outcome has been the addition of two school personnel stepping forward and being willing to share their knowledge and experience through adjunct teaching positions with the university.

The focus group reflections reinforced the importance of deep planning times and continued communication. School partners were able to share their perspectives on the collaboration and suggest improvements. For example, while expectations were provided in the handbook and in pre-experience dialogue, it became clear after the focus group that continued efforts were needed to reinforce and align teacher/mentor expectations. Interpretation of written material was not always the same. Thus, continued communication and clarification from lead mentors are needed. The benefit of listening within the partnership was evident as discussion ensued in the focus group, and members were clearly excited and confident about the projected continuation of the partnership possibilities. Because of this collaboration, the school district was in some ways perceived to be an extension of the university, which created an opportunity within the schools for leadership development. Lastly, the collaboration was clearly a capacity-building effort from which a pipeline of new, confident, and well-trained educators could emerge on the pathway to the field of education, addressing the current critical shortage of educators.

The focus group discussions revealed a consensus that student experiences other than typical school teaching were needed. The group members agreed that there are many more ways for pre-service teachers to be involved within the school community: field trips, recess duty, lunch duty, parent–teacher conferences, professional development conferences, team building, planning a class party, transitioning locations, concerts, back-to-school night, community involvement, seasonal celebrations, etc.

The university and school district partnership served to enrich the collegiate students’ teacher preparation experience in many notable areas, such as helping them gain comfort in a school learning environment, increased communication, more knowledge of the instruction process, classroom management tools and differentiation of instruction. One noted area of great benefit to both university students was physically embedding a college course in the school where the university professor and guest lecturers from the school were able to mentor and provide authentic experiences (Figure 8). Both the university and school district partners felt valuable through the collaborative experience, which strengthened the relationship between the school district and the university. Such value promotes a culture where teachers are motivated to mentor and coach, thus creating a better environment for collegiate students to learn their future professions.

Success in a workplace, such as a school or university, is correlated with the culture of that place, posits Coyle (2018). He claims a successful culture will involve the feeling of safety, sharing vulnerability and establishing purpose. These areas equate to the building of belongingness. Individuals, both host teachers and pre-service teachers, need to feel like they fit or belong in the setting for them to thrive. All individuals who participated in the university and school district collaboration where university courses were taught in a local school reported feeling more connected to both the university (37% strong, 50% very strong) and public school community (28.6% strong, 57.1% very strong) as illustrated in Figure 8. As reported by the study participants, this connection likely contributed to the resulting finding that most respondents expressed that the collaboration impacted their overall sense of belonging (moderate impact 37.5% and high impact 62.5%).

Figure 9 shows the expression of the level of connectedness after the university and school district collaboration.

The researchers in this study found that pre-service teachers’ sense of belongingness was established through ways such as providing them school district name badges and designing times for university students to partake in extracurricular school events (field trips, sporting events, clubs, family night and open house events, etc.). University and school district leaders also collaborated in planning times and post-experience meetings. Because of these and other factors, the triangulated data indicated a strong connection between the school district and the university.

This collaborative partnership served to leverage benefit to all involved – the university faculty and students, the school administrators, teachers, students, and finally, the community. Collectively, resources were utilized in both directions, expertise was shared, and all parties were able to grow from the experience. Triangulation of the data revealed that collaborative experiences seem to be correlated with a higher sense of self-efficacy. Survey results, focus group findings, and departmental data indicated a growth in both schoolteachers’ and university students’ sense of self-efficacy. As Bandura (1997) noted, building a teacher’s self-efficacy will likely rest upon mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal/emotional states. The early and continued field placements of pre-service teachers in local schools, as evidenced in these initial study results, are providing opportunities for experiences that are deliberately helping the pre-service students develop steps toward mastery. The very nature of being embedded in the local school environment provides opportunities to vicariously experience classroom management and instructional experience.

These students have remarked upon the sense of belonging and value they have experienced, as well as increased knowledge and creativity. While a contributing factor to the current educator recruitment and retention struggles throughout US schools is inadequate preparation for individuals seeking to enter the field (Guhu et al., 2017), in this case study, the schoolteacher’s role as a mentor additionally served to build school personal leadership skills as they shared their professional mastery and provided both the verbal and emotional support to the pre-service teachers. In this sense, the creation of these hybrid roles (school teacher and university student mentor) furthered the ability to input in the collaborative third space, allowing for responsibility in nurturing future educators.

Comments from host teachers overwhelmingly suggested that simply having more time in the classroom will help pre-service teachers gain confidence to take initiative, find their voice, learn more classroom management skills and improve instructional practice. Many teacher preparation programs have limited field placements designed to meet teacher preparation governing body requirements. The model of a university and school district partnership where teacher preparation becomes an active partnership expands the field experience exposure. The students’ comfort level and confidence can soar as they become embedded in the school district community and culture. Active mentoring and relationship building are key and are enhanced with such a collaborative model.

Many benefits can be noted from the collaborative experience that directly responds to the critical needs noted by Darling-Hammond (2022). Additionally, the creation of a third space framework enhances partnership models. Hammond notes the need for residency models through university and district partnerships that integrate coursework with high-quality clinical experiences. Her charge to transform teaching calls for increased “leadership opportunities that engage expert teachers in mentoring and coaching, professional development for colleagues, curriculum and assessment development…” (p. 18). University and school district collaborations provide Hammond’s recommended leadership opportunities. School teachers were not only modeling and mentoring within their classrooms but also utilizing a professional development model and shared their expertise as guest lecturers. Darling-Hammond (2022) also recommends participation in decision-making on school improvements, often based on research that educators themselves have been conducting. In the collaborative model, the school’s teachers and administrators met with the college faculty to discuss the plans for the collaborative teacher preparation experience. Then they had continued input on the roll-out of the model, and assessment of the student experience and potential improvements. Each party played a key role in the first phase of the collaboration decision-making, which is now ready to springboard into the next year of collaboration.

While navigating the third space created from this partnership, challenges did occur. As previous studies indicated (Martin et al., 2011; Williams, 2014), leadership and communication boundaries must be negotiated and clarified. Space for shared resources, both physical and digital, has needed to expand as predicted by Daza et al. (2021). Procedure and communication expectations were all noted as areas needing continued attention. Taylor et al. (2014) additionally remark that this type of collaboration requires more working together than working with each other.

The collaboration of two separate institutions has inspired and ignited a renewed optimism within the surrounding community toward education. This innovative move has been recognized through newspaper articles focused on university–school collaboration and lauded as a step toward resolving the educator shortage currently being experienced in the nation.

The study’s initial results were promising in terms of the development of teacher self-efficacy and program retention. However, since the study is in the first phase as a pilot of a new collaborative approach to teacher preparation, the results are preliminary, not having a longitudinal perspective yet. Retention will be a focus in further studies of this collaboration between a university and a school district.

This study supported the conclusion by Singh (2017), who claimed fieldwork contributes positively toward pre-service student teachers’ self-efficacy since it provides an opportunity to apply what they have been learning and build confidence. However, this study represents much more than fieldwork alone. This study emphasizes consistent and continued mentoring, not only by a single host teacher but through a process of becoming immersed in a school district with both formal and informal coaching and mentoring. When pre-service teachers are effectively mentored, their skills are enhanced, and they feel more confident in their potential as educators, which in turn impacts their commitment and retention in the educator preparation program.

Additionally, as college students engage in coursework and fieldwork within a particular school, it helps them develop a strong sense of belonging, giving rise to feelings of confidence, engagement, and commitment to their future profession as an educator. Being familiar and comfortable in that school’s environment enables students to focus on relationships and skill building. Many things contribute to this sense of belonging, including wearing a school district name badge and including collegiate students as valued members in the school community activities. The sense of belonging, as described in this study, was fostered over a multi-year period and coupled with intentional mentoring.

This study also supported the premise that quality mentor-mentee relationships are worthwhile experiences in teacher preparation programs and are crucial to educator success (Marshall et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2020). Ellis et al. further suggest that not only is the relationship between the pre-service teacher and their mentor important, but the relationship itself also needs to be characterized by mutual collaboration, professionalism, constructive dialogue, and a shared openness to new learning. In this study, students felt supported and were welcomed into classrooms for repeated fieldwork experiences. This was an effective display of mentorship, which demonstrated enthusiasm for teaching and learning, where pre-service students could consistently see sound practices modeled. When teachers who are new to the profession actively engage in high-quality mentor-mentee experiences, research indicates that they are more likely to remain in the field and experience successful careers (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, as cited in Guhu et al., 2017).

• (1)

  Early and continued field experiences. Creating these early and continued experiences for pre-service teachers is a strength for future educators, allowing them to become part of the school community. It builds comfort, skills and a sense of belonging, which leads to teacher self-efficacy and, in turn, also strengthens the local schools to have more experienced hands helping with educational tasks.

• (2)

  Place-based education through embedding a collegiate course into the local school. The experience of holding a collegiate course within the confines of a local school, coupled with early field experiences, creates both enthusiasm and optimism for the field of education. Very early, education students are learning about education while they hear the “sounds of school” all around them. They are experiencing place-based education.

• (3)

  Third space. The natural evolution of a university and school district collaborating was the development of third space, hybrid roles, joint ownership and the resulting impact on the partnership and community. This third space was essential in the nurturing of leadership development.

• (4)

  Synergy. Collaborative efforts in a partnership between an entire school district and a university result in a synergized impact from which the combined effectiveness and impact reach beyond the sum of each partner’s separate effect.

• (5)

  Leverage collective resources. The partnership and collaborative efforts served to leverage benefit to all involved including university faculty and students, school district administrators, teachers and students, and additionally the community. The community could now view each of the partners as a positive resource and influence.

• (6)

  Best practice research-based. Built into the collaborative effort were planned times for assessment, reflection and decision-making including opportunities for innovative responses to the data.

This study provided implications for the university, individual schools and the evolving partnership. While operating as separate entities, they increasingly had shared goals and resources that served to benefit beyond their individual institutions. Shared leadership, reciprocal professional development and reflective practice by all participants within the rural educational setting exemplified the development of reform typical of a professional development school (Coler et al., 2022). Additionally, as noted by Warren and Peel (2005), this rural school and university collaboration considered unique cultural components, thus supporting the importance of place-based considerations.

One aspect of this study that merits further study is the sense of belonging that develops in students who participate in fieldwork and in this type of collaboration in particular. While contributing to increased teacher self-efficacy, Pedler et al. (2022) also stress that a sense of belonging is important as it is associated with higher motivation, more academic self-confidence, higher academic engagement and student retention.

As mentioned, retention will be a key area of focus moving forward in this longitudinal project studying university and school district collaboration. The researchers also encourage further study on retention in both teacher preparation programs and in schools, as evidenced by the lack of qualified teachers nationwide. In pre-service preparation, observation, modeling and feedback for improved practice might be most successful when preparation models include early fieldwork lasting a span of years, accompanied by consistent and continued mentoring, not only by a single host teacher; but through a process of becoming immersed in a school district with both formal and informal coaching and mentoring. Additionally, in this study, host teachers identified the need for further work in training host teachers in how to best mentor pre-service teachers. While research exists on the concept of mentoring (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Orland-Barak & Wang, 2021), working with pre-service teachers who are embedded in a school district and viewed as active participants within that educational community has unique implications for pre-professional practice. This research took place in a rural setting; thus, the researchers recommend further research to include the development of multi-year collaborative models in urban locations with more diverse populations.

Collaborations between universities and school districts enhance the teacher preparation process and meet the needs of the community in which the field experience happens. Mutual benefit and enrichment occurred. The collaboration and partnership between the university and school district in this study have exemplified the means to build Bandura’s call for teachers’ self-efficacy through mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal/emotional states. In this case study, pre-service students’ skills were strengthened while working under an expert mentor, which in turn strengthened the self-efficacy of both the mentor and student. Lastly, the collaboration between the university and school district provided a collective benefit to the university program, faculty and students while also benefiting the school district’s teachers, students and the community.

The University–School District Collaborative Continuum for Teacher Preparation study was conducted with approval from the Franklin Pierce University Institutional Review Board (#JS11042022) followed by a later extension (#JS112923).