P-12 literacy needs and university support: exploring educator perceptions of partnership

The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparedness (CAEP) requires teacher preparation programs (TPP) to provide teacher candidates with a variety of experiences with diverse students and communities (CAEP, 2025). Urban schools and districts tend to be on the receiving end of requests from TPP’s to partner and collaborate (Officer et al., 2013). This environment is ripe for teacher education students to observe and implement instructional practices. Urban schools encompass students with diverse backgrounds and assets they bring to the school community that support the goals of teacher preparation (Yosso, 2020). Additionally, the location is typically near local universities and can conveniently offer the convergence of the university’s needs (i.e. teaching, research and service) with the typical needs of the school (i.e. curriculum and instruction, educational leadership and student support) (Walsh & Backe, 2013).

The typical school needs also include literacy support, which has long been a priority for educators and families. The nation faces concerns over reading achievement in K-12 students, but it became especially pronounced after 2020 when scores on the NAEP Long-Term Trend Assessment declined (Carrillo, 2023). The academic needs have been exacerbated by additional challenges such as teacher shortages and curriculum development needs. While these challenges exist in schools across the country, they are even more dire in urban schools, where the teacher attrition rate is around 20% (Lee, 2018). Additionally, cultural mismatch between students and potential teachers as well as strains on school resources, provide further barriers to teacher recruitment (Hilaski, 2020; Milner, 2012; Ronan et al., 2018). Effective instruction is predicated on teacher quality; yet in schools where teacher retention and recruitment are lower than in other schools, teaching and learning are impacted (Darling-Hammond, 2000).

School–university partnerships may contribute to developing more teachers in the field with the hope of increased teacher applicants in partner districts (Zeichner & Bier, 2015). Furthermore, preservice teachers in partner schools may support some of the school efforts as they pertain to literacy achievement and instructional support for teachers. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore how educators in urban schools perceived the benefits and usefulness of their school–university partnership.

To formally define “urban,” we can consider Ronan et al.’s (2018) discussion on urban schools as “situated in communities in proximity to large metropolises” (p. 457) and having great cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic diversity. However, Milner (2012) defines urban schools not just by the geographic location or the racial/ethnic makeup exclusively, but in terms of resource strains. These areas are affected by contemporary and historic issues of injustice that have impacted the quality of education afforded to students. To address academic and other related needs, schools have relied on both community and university partnerships (Casto, 2016).

To further discuss these partnerships, I begin with a review of their historical use in providing clinical experiences to preservice teachers. Literature is then highlighted that examines partnerships focused on site-based courses and field experiences as a means for preservice teachers’ literacy development. The review reveals both benefits and challenges to preservice teachers. Consequently, the review also shows limited research on immediate benefits to the school. This highlights the need for more exploration into the value of clinical partnerships from the perspective of the school.

For more than 60 years, “universities have typically partnered with schools either to provide training sites for university students or to meet the needs of university faculty for research participants” (Walsh & Backe, 2013, p. 595). This one-sided arrangement was pioneered by Dewey in the laboratory school model and continued to evolve through various iterations of schools and universities collaborating (Winitzky et al., 1992). A new wave of focusing on schools as sites of teacher preparation and development grew out of the Holmes Group. They recognized that improving teacher education depended on collaboration with partner schools (Goodlad, 1993). Education reform movements urged teacher preparation programs to examine their programs and ensure the preparedness of their graduating teachers (Cochran-Smith, 2020). Providing clinical experiences for preservice teachers varied in quantity and quality but gained even more traction following the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Walsh & Backe, 2013). It was then “reenergized in the era of accountability” following the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2015 (ESSA) (Petti, 2013). As teachers were being held more accountable to academic outcomes of their students, pressure was put on universities to produce high quality teachers who could meet the demands of the new education policies (Walsh & Backe, 2013) and could turn around the declining trend in reading and math achievement (Legal Information Institute, 2020).

As this shift continued, increasing emphasis was placed on teacher candidates not only having conceptual and theoretical knowledge about teaching but also gaining hands-on experience in classrooms before student teaching or interning (Laman et al., 2012). Notably, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Blue Ribbon Panel touted partnerships where teacher candidates received clinical experience in school as integral to a quality teacher education program (Overstreet & Norton-Meier, 2020). The panel also concluded that effective preparation of future teachers for the evolving classroom required a shift from preparation heavy on coursework to more school-based experiences (Ginsberg et al., 2021). According to the CAEP (2025), intentional learning experiences in the field help future teachers “develop the knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions appropriate for their professional specialty field” (CAEP, 2025). Although each state varies on the kinds of field or clinical experiences expected of preservice teachers, all states have some kind of requirement for hours spent observing, teaching and learning from a mentor teacher in the field (CAEP, 2025). Without supportive school partnerships, future teachers would not have access to the experiences necessary for professional development (Laman et al., 2012).

Understandably, the COVID-19 pandemic affected how preservice teachers and schools interacted (VanLone et al., 2022). The pandemic caused disruption in P-12 schools and universities and impacted preservice teachers’ ability to complete field experiences (Sparks, 2020; The College Crisis Initiative, 2020). Many state departments of education had to waive the field experience requirement as a response to the crisis (The American Association for Teachers of Education [AACTE], 2020). The implications meant less time in the field and less opportunity for structured guidance, which impacts teacher preparedness, teacher development and even early teacher retention (VanLone et al., 2022). Today, the conclusion of the Holmes group still rings true, the “professionalization of teaching depends on the contributions that teachers and professors make to the creation of knowledge about their profession and to teachers’ ability to form collegial relationships beyond their immediate working environment and to grow intellectually throughout their careers” (Murray, 1986, p. 31).

Reading achievement is a concern in urban districts across the country (Kena et al., 2016). Literacy scores in the state of Michigan, as documented on the Nation’s Report Card (NAEP), showed only 28% of fourth graders performing at or above proficiency in 2022 (Nations Report Card, 2022). Nationwide, this trend is similar and shows achievement gaps when black and Hispanic students are compared to their white classmates (Barber & Klauda, 2020). In addition to scores on standardized reading assessments, literacy instruction is another area of challenge. Goldstein (2023) notes the need for more literacy-based instruction in teacher preparation programs to meet the needs of students and teachers.

Comprehensive literacy instruction focuses on phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension (Minor, 2023). As a result of reform movements and student needs, teacher preparation programs (TPP’s) adjusted their curriculum to include more literacy courses to positively impact elementary achievement (Cervetti et al., 2020; Lacina & Block, 2011; Sailors et al., 2018; Shanahan & Lonigan, 2010). To do this, some TPPs embed literacy courses in local schools, also referred to as site-based courses or integrated methods courses (Degraff et al., 2015). Previous studies have cited the value of TPPs establishing partnerships between schools and site-based courses (AACTE, 2018; Masuda & Ebersole, 2013). They allow for blending of “practitioner knowledge with academic knowledge as they work in the classroom context (Nelson, 2020, p. 19).” Site-based learning is a critical component to the development of teachers and provides a place for implementing or observing literacy strategies in real time with real students (Francisco & Henning Loeb, 2020). Parker et al. (2019) describes site-based courses as a continuum. The definition applies to both physically having a course at a P-12 location as well as engaging the school educators with faculty to design and instruct a course that benefits preservice teachers and current students in the school (Parker et al., 2019). Both scenarios fit the definition of site-based but provide varying degrees of development and benefit.

Gupta and Lee (2020) researched how site-based courses helped preservice teachers (PSTs) learn about reading instruction and then implement their learning in the form of intervention for students. PSTs increased knowledge in teaching literacy and had students to learn from in real time. In a similar study, PSTs engaged in literacy coursework almost exclusively at a local school (Nelson et al., 2020). Teacher candidates learned about literacy assessments, analyzed assessments, audited the literacy environment of the school and developed literacy mini-units. The study found that candidates “showed evidence of developing a deep understanding of the multifaceted nature of literacy instruction” (Nelson et al., 2020). Additionally, the study (2020) demonstrated development of candidates’ ability to make quick instructional decisions in the moment based on student needs. Bass (2023) researched the effect of embedding a writing methods course with a local high school classroom. These future teachers learned how to give effective feedback on students’ writing while also getting more experience in a classroom setting.

Other ways TPPs support the development of literacy instruction knowledge in preservice teachers are through the field experiences that accompany courses. Michigan State University’s College of Education requires literacy courses that include a class component and a field component. The field component serves as the opportunity to apply what is being learned in the class and directly instruct elementary students in reading (MSU College of Education, 2024). Similarly, the University of Michigan offers courses that allow their students to integrate theory and practice by working with teachers in classrooms (Course Catalog, 2025). University students receive experience in literacy instruction and the opportunity to apply new knowledge gained to elementary students. Literacy-embedded methods courses encourage literacy activities such as interactive read-alouds, guided reading, reading assessments, implementing diagnostic tools and engaging in recursive practices (Degraff et al., 2015). Pairing course and fieldwork provides an opportunity to enhance literacy skills and develop efficacy around their use (Lipp & Helfrich, 2016).

Benefits of site-based partnerships are evident throughout the research. Darling-Hammond (2014) notes a more supportive observation experience because of educators and college faculty collaborating. Zeichner and Bier (2015) acknowledge that site-based experiences encourage preservice teachers to develop connections with the school community. Preservice teachers can also gain more mentoring and navigational support for applying theoretical concepts and reflecting on “moments of dissonance” in their practice (Parker et al., 2019, p. 126).

However, while various benefits to preservice teachers are reported, benefits and challenges to the school with this approach are limited in research. In studies on site-based courses or field experiences, partner schools express desire for sustained and regular work between preservice teachers and elementary students (Degraff et al., 2015). An appreciation for the impact on the professional atmosphere was also an expressed benefit of partnership (Jeffery & Polleck, 2010). At times, P-12 students are directly on the receiving end of those benefits. They may be presented with opportunities for 1:1 or small group reading intervention, feedback on writing assignments or more effective literacy instruction (Bass, 2023; Reischl et al., 2017; Ronan et al., 2018; Walsh & Backe, 2013). Unfortunately, logistical concerns serve as a barrier to providing more sustained engagement between students and PSTs (Degraff et al., 2015). Managing schedules is necessary for ensuring teacher candidates can engage in more classrooms and work with students. However, shouldering that burden could further strain the school administration team. At the university level, student class schedules and other requirements serve as impediments for additional time spent in schools. Furthermore, in scenarios where teacher candidates are learning from the practices of one teacher, spreading out the candidates to work in more classrooms would limit opportunities for group reflection on practices, which affects their development (Degraff et al., 2015).

Another important challenge that develops from TPPs wanting to work with schools to support teacher development is the problem of placements. Districts can have requests from multiple programs looking for placements, which can strain the resources of already stretched school staff (Petti, 2013). Teachers feel obligated to accept placements, when given a choice, due to university loyalty or personal relationships (Petti, 2013). At times, the quality of mentor teacher and student–teacher matches is not properly vetted (Ruhl, 2009).

Desiring more opportunities for direct benefit to elementary students is part of honoring the concept of mutually beneficial partnership. The term mutually beneficial was derived from Goodlad’s (1988) characterization of how schools and universities should engage. They both should share ownership of issues and needs and are guided by “mutual satisfaction of self interests; and sufficient selflessness on the part of each member to assure the satisfaction of self-interests on the part of all members” (Goodlad, 1988, p. 14). Thus, measuring the success of a partnership should focus on the collective achievement gained through partnership (Walsh & Backe, 2013). Goodlad (1990) asserted that continuous improvement of the teaching profession lay in the way schools and universities collaborated and interacted with one another.

Mutually beneficial is an outcome of partnership that must be intentionally developed through collaboration (Selland, 2021). It exists when both university and school representatives come together to design a partnership that supports the needs of both institutions. This is especially true in teacher education, where clinical experiences are rooted in local schools. Sellend (2021) found that although collaboration is necessary, it can be messy and requires intentional focus. She offers tools to support the work, including urging collaborators to “prepare for constraints to be part of the process” and to create systems to deal with those constraints (p. 46). Sullivan et al. (2025) elaborates on collaboration to include co-visioning and co-planning, which further emphasizes the importance of both parties coming together to ensure the relationship meets everyone’s needs and expectations.

Cox’s (2000) work on community partnerships cautions that while mutually beneficial partnerships are an aspiration, each stakeholder enters the partnership with different interests and needs. An understanding of mutual goals and outcomes is necessary for a successful partnership and for a sustained relationship. Cox (2000) offers a set of questions that can serve as the basis for a framework to guide stakeholders in this work. While his questions stem from the community partnership needs, they can be applied to schools and universities. Starting with naming the activities to be implemented, followed by identifying who will be affected by those activities, and finally, determining the individual interests of both school and university can support a partnership that is mutually beneficial.

Multiple frameworks can guide how schools and universities interact with one another to ensure the achievement of a mutually beneficial relationship (Cox, 2000; Jones et al., 2016; Selland, 2021; Sullivan et al., 2025). Understanding this concept is important for schools to recognize their own power in the relationship and for universities to use their capital to mentor schools through the process.

The purpose of this article is to discuss how educators perceive the benefits in their school-university partnership. The partnership is defined as between P-12 urban schools and faculty/students in a teacher preparation program (TPP). Three educators in three urban districts were studied. The educators expressed the need for school support in areas such as teacher professional development and student literacy achievement. Since TPPs are already collaborating with these schools and have an established partnership, the research questions are

In this study, I employed a multiple case study design (Patton, 2015; Stake, 1995, 1998) to examine urban educators’ perception of the partnership. Stake (1998) defines case study as a methodology that involves a detailed study of a specific subject or individual cases. For this study, the case in question is school–university partnerships. Case studies combine research strategies such as interviews, surveys and observations to illuminate and allow for generalization through analysis and reasoning (Johansson, 2007).

This study is situated within social capital theory, acknowledging that capital exists as a kind of power (Bourdieu, 1993). Social capital features intangible characteristics within an organization that promote action and cooperation for mutual benefit, such as networks, relationships, agreed-upon norms and trust (Claridge, 2018). The principles of social capital theory were used as a lens to explore how urban educators perceived their school–university partnership, focusing on how they viewed the benefits to them versus the university, their experience with centering their needs and how well they collaborated with partners.

In addition to social capital theory, the conceptual framework of mutually beneficial partnership guided the work. Mutually beneficial partnership is discussed by many scholars in the field. They assert that successful partnerships can only be sustained and effective if both parties receive benefit from the relationship (Kruger, 2009; Jeffery & Polleck, 2010; Walsh & Backe, 2013). However, who determines the benefit may impact whether a mutually beneficial partnership was achieved.

I am a former K-2 teacher and K-8 principal of an urban school. I received PSTs often for their field experiences and supported placements. This study reflects my experience as an educator working to balance the development of future teachers with the immediate needs of my school community. Hosting preservice teachers provided unique challenges to our already resource-strained environment. The school had many new teachers and alternatively certified teachers due to the teacher shortage. Thus, finding placements was challenging without having a large pool of teachers with the experience and professional capacity to provide mentorship. We also had curriculum shifts throughout my tenure as principal, which required deep focus for implementing and evaluating. However, even with these needs, preservice teachers were welcomed with the hope of benefiting my current students and the future hope of more teacher applicants to my school.

This positionality gives me insight into the school–university partnership realm. However, I acknowledge the potential biases that stem from my role as a host for PSTs and an advocate for my school’s needs. I have a broader view of the systemic issues present in partnership, including feeling compelled to oblige requests and prioritizing university and preservice teacher needs over my own. This sense of obligation and acquiescing to the university was directly related to my view of the university as more important. I recognize these views may offer limitations to the study. I further concede that my experience could position me to look for cases of educators expressing similar concerns. I seek to remain as impartial as possible and allow educators to tell their story from their perspective.

Three different urban schools in a Midwest state were identified due to their proximity to universities and ongoing partnerships. Large urban districts in this midwestern state are geographically close to major universities and, thus, likely partners for placements of PSTs. The schools are considered urban based on the following metrics from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES.ed.gov):

1. Geographic description as small, mid or large city.

2. Student demographic is at least 50% students of color.

3. 50% or more of the students receive free or reduced lunch.

In addition to the aforementioned statistics, the schools also have a multilingual population ranging from 5–20%.

When deciding who to ask to participate in the study, Baumann and Bason (2011) state, “it is most efficient to simply ask those who can inform the question” (p. 405). Thus, individuals in the schools who engage in field experiences of preservice teachers were invited to participate. The initial participants were selected via purposive sampling, a strategy employed to identify those who are most likely to provide useful information to the study (Campbell et al., 2020). Recommendations were also made by participants regarding additional people to interview.

Ultimately, three educators across the state were selected to participate. The participants had an average of 16 years of experience working in schools and held several positions across their careers. Including their current positions, they represent the gamut of educational vocations from school substitute to district administrator. Their varying roles offered diverse holistic perspectives to the school–university partner relationship. See Table 1 for the profiles of the participants.

Data sources included (1) interviews with participants and (2) reviewing school district documents related to school needs and partnership work. The interview gathered demographic information about the participants and built context. The questions were semi-structured to focus on the details of participants’ experiences, beliefs and opinions. Questions such as “How do you perceive the overall importance of the partnership to your students’ success?” and “How have partnerships with universities been used to support literacy needs of students” were asked to help uncover how partnerships are viewed. Appendix A provides the list of all interview questions. The semi-structured format supported the function of using interviews to better understand the topic while also allowing opportunities for participants to expand and clarify as needed (Nardi, 2018). Although only a few questions were initially developed for the interview, participants’ responses elicited follow-up questions that provided a more detailed understanding of their beliefs and experiences.

Archival research complemented the interviews and observations. I studied the school districts’ annual reports, school improvement plans and website information, as it related to their literacy and partnership goals. I also reviewed the teacher preparation program documents of partnered universities to analyze their language around partnership and clinical experiences. Using multiple data collection methods assists with triangulation of data and supports validity of outcomes (Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Denzin, 1978; Jick, 1979).

To address the research questions, I followed the process of deductive and emergent coding (Stuckey, 2015). Coding is the process of analyzing qualitative text data by taking them apart to see what they yield before putting the data back together in a meaningful way (Creswell, 2013, p. 156). Deductive codes are predetermined, deriving from the research questions and emergent coding evolves from the data (Stuckey, 2015). Coding can also be described as a decision-making process in an attempt to identify patterns and themes in data (Elliott, 2018). Each data collection method underwent a process of coding and included notes to clarify code meanings and how they were derived. The interviews were transcribed, and video recordings were reviewed for accuracy against the transcripts. Statements were identified that were deemed significant in relation to the research question and conceptual framework. Predetermined codes were applied, and new codes emerged.

Next, a process of collapsing and refinement occurred (Charmaz, 2006; Saldana, 2009). Codes were combined, redistributed to other categories and new codes emerged. As text was applied with codes, subcategories were developed. Level 1 codes expanded to have multiple levels to appropriately apply to the data. The level 1 codes included (1) literacy needs, (2) partnership importance, (3) expectations and (4) opportunities. Within the code “Partnership Importance,” level 2, level 3 and level 4 codes were applied to include positive perception of partnership, negative perception and subsequent expansion of each of those levels. See Appendix B for the codebook. After the coding approach was used, themes were created to best interpret the data (Aleman et al., 2017; Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Blair, 2015).

The documents were reviewed through the lens of the research question. Table 2 shows how the districts documented their priority of literacy achievement as well as their focus on university partnership, within their school improvement plan. All three districts noted some kind of literacy and partnership priority. One of the districts explicitly mentioned strengthening teacher professional development in literacy instruction to better support students as well as retain teachers. Another district discussed improved implementation of the multi-tiered system of support to address whole child needs, whether academic, behavioral or health related. Two out of three District Improvement Plans stated a goal of expanding partnerships with universities to support the teacher pipeline.

In the findings section, I focus on the three primary themes that were underlying across all three participants and serve as questions to consider. The findings are organized in the following sections: (1) What role does power and position play in the relationship? (2) Who decides what is mutually beneficial? and (3) What opportunities exist to strengthen the partnership?

Participants were eager to answer questions about partner relationships. However, as questions probed about initiating additional activities or having expectations from the partnership, they became more thoughtful. It was as if they had never been asked what they wanted, needed or expected from the relationship. PSTs are in their schools, learning how to teach from practicing educators, yet there were no documented expectations as it pertained to supporting the current needs of the school. Additionally, all participants noted their limited power in decision-making. The district determines who comes into the school and for what activities. It is also noted that there is a sense of reverence teachers and administrators have for university faculty. They believed the work at the university level was more intense, and thus, they were apologetic on behalf of university faculty not following through on promises. One participant noted the logistical challenges for the university in providing support and follow-through for the school.

It is clear on teacher preparation program websites the expectation they have for their students as they enter field placements. Concurrently, the Association of Teacher Educators Clinical Experience Standards (2023) outlines the importance of clinical experience for teacher preparation, as well as the expectations for the experience. The standards center on the partnership needs of developing future teachers. Do expectations exist for schools in partnership?

The participants believed that partnering with universities is important. They noted the benefits of having university students and faculty in the building. Students see PSTs and are more interested in college, interested in the teaching profession and at times have an opportunity to work with them. However, when they considered their own efforts in the partnership, they all wondered about the “pay off.” The work that goes into allowing PSTs in the building is a strain on teachers and administrators. In addition to logistic challenges, there is hopeful expectation of future benefits of additional teacher applicants and hired teachers in the district. When administrators pondered what they hoped to receive from the relationship, they reflected on this unrealized hope and wondered why the relationship has not increased teacher applicants.

Similarly to the theme around power dynamics, participants expressed a “matter of fact” view on the perceived priority of the relationship. They recognized the goal was to develop future teachers, and even when other activities took place that may have supported some literacy needs, the main goal remained the same. Some of the participants expressed muted frustration in the relationship because they acknowledged the growing needs of their students and teachers, and yet, these needs were not being addressed in the partnership. All of the participants confessed to initiating some sort of partnership agreement with community organizations to meet the literacy needs of their students. Zaria worked with local churches and a community reading organization to service her students’ additional reading needs. Rachel worked with community centers to provide after-school and summer literacy activities. Kelly worked with her school community, which included other teachers and parents, to provide after-school tutoring. Additionally, these agencies and resources supported other whole child needs such as food, clothing and healthcare. When questioned about initiating those kinds of relationships, the sentiment was that it was easier, and that’s just what they do…they are part of the community and want to help out.

As participants shared their thoughts and experiences around partnership with their local university, they also expressed ideas on how the partnership could improve. All three participants focused on improvement around two main areas: (1) student achievement and (2) sustaining the teaching profession.

As teacher preparation programs continue to develop future teachers through collaboration with local schools, it is important to understand the context of the local school. If students in particular grades or across the entire school are facing academic challenges, the TPP can support the effort to raise achievement. This requires more intentional partnership and collaboration but is one that teachers want. Concurrently, focusing just on the development of new teachers, in an era of teacher shortages and retention crises, can be seen as short-sighted. Universities, and TPP specifically, have an opportunity to find ways to celebrate and recognize teachers in the field. While money is scarce everywhere, there are ways that teachers can feel recognized and supported by their local university. Kelley discussed a local university that sends a faculty representative during teacher appreciation month to formally thank the teachers for their service. Another university invites research participation and collaboration from the teachers. The teachers in the school then feel part of the full spectrum of the education community and not as isolated.

The three schools in this study have preservice teachers frequent the building for their program experience in teacher preparation. These formal agreements link the school and university in partnership. Much of the recent research on school–university partnership emphasizes the importance of reciprocity, ensuring both parties benefit (Jeffery & Polleck, 2010; Walsh & Backe, 2013). However, as PSTs are in schools, it is assumed that they learn about the needs of the school. Although TPPs are often benefiting from these formal partnerships, schools have needs that are not always heard or considered, such as perceptions about the value of the relationship and their ability to navigate various academic needs of their students and teachers.

The key findings revealed themes that were present throughout the responses of all three participants. The themes yielded questions around the influence of power in partnerships; mutually beneficial relationships in partnerships and opportunities to strengthen partnerships by focusing on the school. The research questions sought to understand how educators perceived the relationship’s impact on their literacy and instructional needs. Through interviews their positive view on the importance of partnership for both preservice teachers and the school was uncovered. However, it was also uncovered that the participants placed little value in the relationship supporting literacy needs of the school. The subsequent research question was directly focused on how the urban educators in the study center their own needs in the partnership. What was revealed was that their needs were not considered as they engaged in partnership work. Instead, they sought more community partnerships to meet their needs. The issue of mutually beneficial partnership and the influence of power in the partnership were evident throughout the interviews. All three participants noted the TPPs receiving more benefit in the partnership and, additionally, not considering their own needs in the partnership prior to the study.

These results challenge the idea of mutually beneficial partnerships. A successful partnership must be rooted in both parties receiving agreed-upon benefits (Kruger, 2009). However, if one party is not considering their own needs, how can the outcomes be mutually beneficial? Furthermore, if the requests for partnership and the placement of TPPs happen at levels above the classroom teacher, how can the teachers be part of establishing goals and expectations of the partnership? The current structure perpetuates issues of power. Social capital theory illuminates issues of power that may be present in organizations (Claridge, 2018). Since capital influences how power is reproduced and viewed, social capital may influence how individuals behave within the school and university systems (Bourdieu, 1993).

This study has potential limitations. The data collection method could have been strengthened if all participants were in the same building or had the same job title (i.e. teacher). The participants worked in different districts and had different roles, which may affect the validity of the findings. Similarly, the findings could have been more significant if observations of educators were part of the data collection method. Furthermore, more diverse documents could have been reviewed in the process. Adding the aforementioned items could have supported triangulation of data. Finally, urban educators were the subjects of the study, but university faculty and preservice teachers could have participated to compare perceptions of benefit in the partnership.

This study has implications for universities seeking partnerships with schools. Especially teacher preparation programs who work with local urban schools to provide opportunities of observation and practice for preservice students. Before placing students or approaching schools for partnership initiatives, it is important for all parties to express needs and goals. As well as how measurement will be determined (Jeffery & Polleck, 2010). This could influence how teacher preparation programs envision partnership work within the clinical experience portion of teacher development. This could also encourage schools to consider their own needs within clinical placements and develop agreed-upon requirements, so mutually beneficial partnerships can exist.

I believe there are two competing priorities within the field of education. (1) Increase the number of quality teachers and (2) increase academic achievement in P-12 schools. These two priorities have the potential to work together, and the clinical experience of preservice teachers can support both. However, as universities are developing structures for clinical experiences, the partner schools’ needs may not seem like a priority. To better understand the perception of benefit, this study sought to hear directly from urban teachers and administrators in the field. What was uncovered was a competing view of both positive acknowledgment of the work and possibility of partnership as well as frustration with the lack of tangible benefit to their own school.

While it may seem the benefit of the partnership is skewed to the university, the small sample size of the study limits generalization. However, if the sentiment grows and expands across more schools and districts, there could be repercussions that impact TPPs. Resentment toward the university could develop that limits opportunities for preservice teacher placement. Schools may look to other organizations for teacher development support or student instructional support, such as what the participants in this study have done. The relationship between university and school is symbiotic. Universities rely on schools to develop new teachers. Schools rely on universities to add teachers to the field that are trained, qualified, and will one day work in their school or district. Nevertheless, both institutions need to work together to ensure the relationship yields agreed-upon benefits to both parties, for the sustainment of the field and for the benefit of the students and teachers in the school.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Oakland University (Study #: IRB-FY2023-76) IRB Decision: Exempt.

Verbal informed consent was obtained for anonymized participants.

The research did not involve the use of animals.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.