Strengthening school–university partnerships using shared governance

There is no universally accepted definition of shared governance, and the term is frequently used interchangeably with related frameworks such as collaborative governance, new public management, participatory governance, and institutional partnerships (Blase & Blase, 1999; Kater, 2017; Wang & Ran, 2023). In the context of educational administration, shared governance is particularly associated with concepts like school-university partnerships, university-school cooperation, and joint decision-making structures. One of the earlier definitions was offered by Lau (1996), who described shared governance as a social system of self-governance grounded in communication and collaboration, wherein accountability is embedded within the organization and decisions arise through processes of self-evaluation. Similarly, Johnston (2003) defined shared governance as a mechanism that connects governance structures to ensure equitable participation in decision-making. Its successful implementation depends on several foundational conditions.

Quarless and Barret (2017) emphasized the centrality of transparency, mutual trust, and open communication as prerequisites for effective shared governance among institutional stakeholders. Globally, school-university partnerships manifest in varied models that emphasize collaborative pedagogical relationships and span a continuum of engagement intensity (Darling-Hammond, 2017). In high-performing education systems such as those of the United States, Australia, Finland, and Singapore, teacher preparation programs frequently embed extended, classroom-based teaching experiences as integral components of professional learning.

The precise number of institutions in the U.S. with formal shared governance structures for school-university partnerships focused on pre-service teacher preparation remains unclear. However, existing literature affirms that, despite implementation challenges, shared governance is widely regarded as essential to effective teacher education partnerships (e.g. Zhou & Wong, 2025). The level of trust and transparency in school-university partnerships for pre-service teacher education in the U.S. remains a complex and evolving area, with both positive advancements and ongoing challenges. Partnership mechanisms to educate and train pre-service teachers between universities and schools has been routine since the 1980s intended to address longstanding disconnections and challenges (Zhou & Wong, 2025). Under the shift toward more practice-based teacher education, partnerships take different names across contexts for example school placement, practicum, field teaching (Burton & Greher, 2007; Walsh & Backe, 2013; Zeichner, 2012), but they all redistribute the responsibility of teacher preparation, drawing on the expertise of both university faculty and school-based staff (academic and administrative) at partner schools. Partnerships provide authentic contexts and firsthand experiences that are essential for preparing classroom-ready teachers (Burns et al., 2015). Research further demonstrates that partnership models significantly enhance the quality of pre-service teacher education (Darling-Hammond et al., 2000).

A systematic review by Green et al. (2020) identified four essential features of effective school-university partnerships: conceptual clarity, clearly defined roles, jointly agreed operational strategies, and effective mechanisms for evaluation and accountability. These features underscore the importance of a shared vision, coordinated partnership, and reciprocal responsibility in advancing teacher education reform. Shared governance, as operationalized through school-university partnerships, is increasingly recognized as a strategic vehicle for improving and transforming teacher education (Green et al., 2020). It functions not only as a structural arrangement but also as a cultural framework for building trust, fostering co-leadership, and enabling sustained collaboration in teacher preparation.

The literature presents a multifaceted discourse, documenting both the opportunities and challenges inherent in these partnerships. While some scholars highlight benefits such as stakeholder engagement and distributed leadership, others identify persistent barriers including ambiguity about role, power asymmetries, and conflicting institutional priorities (Betlem et al., 2019). Nevertheless, shared governance is broadly regarded as a promising approach for enhancing the legitimacy, transparency, and inclusiveness of decision-making processes within teacher education systems (Hildreth, 2017).

Shared governance is context-specific, shaped by the unique institutional histories, demographic characteristics, strategic goals, and governance structures of the organizations involved (Lau, 1996). Differences in governance priorities between faculty and administrative leaders within the same institution often reflect underlying divergences in professional orientation. Faculty typically emphasize curricular innovation and disciplinary knowledge development, whereas administrators focus on organizational performance, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance (Baráth et al., 2020; Burns et al., 2015). These differences are magnified in inter-institutional collaborations through school-university partnerships. Faculty often concentrate on developing innovative pedagogical models and producing new knowledge (Swick et al., 2021), whereas school district administrators focus more heavily on workforce management and institutional accountability. These contrasting priorities reinforce the need for governance models that are context-sensitive, inclusive, and designed to balance diverse institutional interests (Bartlett et al., 2017; Powers & Swick, 2017).

Recent studies have underscored the strategic potential of shared governance in fostering more inclusive, equitable, and responsive school-university partnerships. Laforge (2020) emphasized that when decision-making authority is equitably distributed among stakeholders, governance processes become more transparent, responsive, and institutionally representative. Ma and Green (2023) similarly found that successful partnerships often evolve through sustained, iterative engagement characterized by cycles of joint problem identification, collaborative solution-building, and ongoing role negotiation. Grinshtain et al. (2024) compared traditional, academic-classroom, and clinical field-based models, ultimately advocating for governance structures that center school-based expertise to better align with local needs. Manton et al. (2020) further highlighted the importance of integrating feedback from school-based educators into decisions around teacher preparation and placement, thereby strengthening program coherence and responsiveness.

Despite these promising findings, numerous studies have documented the complexities involved in implementing shared governance. Democratic decision-making often requires extensive deliberation and long-term institutional commitment and can be disrupted by competing agendas (Gravett et al., 2019; Smith & Petosa, 2016). Similarly, while consensus-building processes promote inclusivity, they may also delay urgent policy actions or result in diluted compromises (Krichevsky, 2023). In some cases, difficulties in achieving stakeholder consensus have led to ineffective or unpopular outcomes (Kaddourah et al., 2020). Transparency, frequently described as a foundational principle of shared governance (Faubert, 2019) remains challenging to operationalize, particularly within the bureaucratic constraints of both school districts and universities. Without intentional efforts to disrupt entrenched hierarchies and refocus efforts on shared objectives, collaboration may be superficial or unevenly distributed (Fitzgerald et al., 2022; Moye, 2024).

A notable gap in the literature concerns the empirical documentation of how shared governance is implemented in teacher residency and preparation programs. Limited research exists on the prevalence of formal governance mechanisms, the degree of trust between institutional partners, and the diversity of governance models currently in use. Buchanan et al. (2020) argued that advancing shared governance requires not only structural alignment but also sustained attention to the professional development of teacher educators and responsiveness to evolving stakeholder needs. In a similar vein, Bishop and Noguera (2019) stressed that equity-driven reform is essential to the success of governance efforts, particularly in terms of diversifying educator pipelines, selecting residency sites strategically, and building robust systems of mentorship and support. Yet, these reforms are often inconsistently implemented, hindered by limited data-sharing and institutional inertia. Addressing these limitations demands both cultural and structural transformation toward evidence-informed and equity-centered governance frameworks in teacher education.

School-university partnerships, as highlighted by Fischer et al. (2022), offer critical platforms for jointly designing strategies that not only enhance teacher candidate preparation but also build the instructional and leadership capacities of mentor teachers, school administrators, and university faculty. Within these partnerships, clinical practice is increasingly regarded as a cornerstone of high-quality teacher preparation. Bormann and Nikel (2017) suggested teacher residencies need to promote residency models that integrate academic coursework with intensive, school-based field experiences, grounded in pedagogical and content-area expertise. However, they also noted that implementing such models requires significant institutional change, particularly regarding faculty workload and compensation. Moreover, Bürgener and Barth (2018) contended that sustainable reform in teacher education hinges on placing clinical practice at the center of preparation. Evans et al. (2017) called for greater institutional recognition of practitioner research within faculty evaluation and research agendas, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy of practice-based knowledge production in educational reform and governance. Thus, both academic research and practitioner inquiry can be considered essential, complementary components of shared governance.

This case study centered on a partnership between Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi's (TAMU-CC) Educator Preparation Program (EPP) and Corpus Christi Independent School District (CCISD) in Texas, United States with a population just over 400,000. CCISD serves over 30,000 students across 52 preK-12 campuses, with over 80% of its student population identifying as Hispanic. The partnership supported a shared goal of improving teacher preparation through a transition from a traditional model to a year-long teacher residency model.

The EPP is responsible for preparing teacher candidates within the College of Education at TAMU-CC, including secondary content-area candidates. This program partnered with the US PREP , a third-party organization that provided technical assistance and leadership support. US PREP works with institutions across the country to implement high-quality residency programs based on its Developmental Framework, which outlines four Quality Objectives. This case study was situated within the objective to “Build Strong Partnerships” which focused on establishing meaningful and sustainable collaborations with the school district and the communities it served. This objective included three indicators: Shared Recruitment, Shared Expectations and Decision-Making, and Mutually Beneficial Partnerships.

The “Shared Recruitment” indicator emphasized co-development of recruitment strategies for both teacher candidates and mentor teachers. In this case, the university focused on identifying teacher candidates eligible to enter clinical practice, while the school district recruited experienced teachers to serve as mentors. Both partners participated in candidate screening, interviews, and final placements. Upon acceptance, residents were introduced to their school sites and mentor teachers. The “Shared Expectations and Decision-Making” indicators were reflected in the partners’ joint development of goals and procedures related to teacher candidate preparation. This included aligning expectations for co-teaching, mentoring, and resident performance. Regularly scheduled governance meetings provided a forum for both institutions to share data related to candidate performance and program implementation. The third indicator, “Building Strong Partnerships,” emphasized the reciprocal benefits for the partnership. In this case, the school district hired the residents in the year 2024 into full-time teaching positions at the schools where they completed their residency. The partnership also initiated collaborative planning for joint research and evaluation focused on local challenges in teacher preparation and retention.

The primary institutional partners in this case are the TAMU-CC, CCISD, and the US PREP. The transformation of the Educator Preparation Program (EPP) was supported by the US PREP. From the TAMU-CC, core participants included the Associate Dean, Department Chair, Site Coordinators for Elementary and Secondary Education, and faculty members with expertise in bilingual education and reading. Additional contributors included the Dean and the Coordinator of Clinical Experiences. From the CCISD, core participants included principals from campuses hosting residents, particularly schools serving communities with staffing shortages. These campuses were intentionally selected to build internal teacher pipelines and strengthen instructional support. Technical staff from the US PREP also participated in each governance meeting and ensured alignment with the Developmental Framework’s objectives and indicators.

The teacher residency was a year-long, clinically rich preparation model that embedded teacher candidates in classrooms alongside experienced mentors while completing coursework. According to the National Center for Teacher Residencies (2024), teacher residencies emphasized intensive mentoring, culturally responsive pedagogy, and long-term partnerships between universities and school districts to prepare “day-one-ready” teachers for underserved communities. In this partnership, teacher residents completed two semesters of clinical experience while engaged in coursework and structured mentorship. During the first semester, residents spent three days a week in their assigned classrooms and one day in seminar with a site coordinator. They continued with the same mentor teacher throughout the second semester which supported sustained professional growth and continuity in instructional practice. The residency experience was framed by three core instructional strategies: interactive coaching, which supported real-time feedback and reflective practice (Kraft et al., 2018); co-planning, in which residents and mentor teachers collaboratively designed lessons and assessments (Channing, 2022; Grillo et al., 2011); and co-teaching, which promoted shared instructional delivery while facilitating role clarity, student engagement, and professional development (Bacharach et al., 2010; Chang & Goodwin, 2023; Ricci et al., 2021). Each mentor teacher began with an orientation focused on program compliance and expectations. They also participated in two training sessions per semester, designed collaboratively by the university and School District. These sessions incorporated data from the residency experience which informed program improvements and addressed mentor support needs. The co-teaching model incorporated flexibility and shared responsibility in instruction. Co-teaching was found to benefit both for the professional development of resident teachers and higher achievement among their students in these co-taught classes (Chang & Goodwin, 2023). These approaches enhanced resident learning, fostered student achievement, and supported professional collaboration when roles and expectations were clearly defined (Reinhardt et al., 2023).

This qualitative case study (Yin, 2014) explored shared governance within a newly implemented school-university teacher residency partnership. The case study drew on structured documentation and observations from four governance meetings held during the 2023–2024 academic year. Consistent with the principles of qualitative research, this study sought to foreground participant perspectives, elevate individual voices, and acknowledge the power dynamics inherent in school-university collaboration (Creswell & Poth, 2023). The overarching research questions guiding this analysis were: how was shared governance enacted in the development of a school-university residency partnership and in what ways did university, district, and third-party stakeholders collaborate in decision-making across governance meetings.

The research employed a multi-modal data collection framework to ensure methodological rigor and triangulation of data sources (Creswell & Poth, 2023; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Primary documentation included co-constructed meeting agendas, which served as a structured protocol for guiding discussions, systematic data review, and iterative program planning. Verbatim meeting minutes were transcribed during the governance meeting by the US PREP, (technical assistance partner) along with participants in attendance. These meeting minutes were stored in a shared folder that the participants could access and after each meeting, they were asked to review and edit the documents for accuracy and completeness through member-checking procedures (Birt et al., 2016).

To capture emergent perspectives, supplementary participant feedback was solicited post-meeting via structured email correspondence, enabling stakeholders to provide confirmations, contextual clarifications, and substantive elaborations on documented proceedings. Site coordinators augmented these qualitative data streams through systematic field observations during weekly classroom walkthroughs, using a structured observation protocol to document co-teaching implementations, pedagogical interactions, and formative feedback exchanges. This observational dataset provided critical contextual grounding that complemented and expanded upon the formal meeting records, offering deeper insights into the lived experiences of participants. The convergence of these complementary data sources spanning deliberative, reflective, and observational modalities established an evidentiary foundation for analysis and addressed potential single-method biases through methodological triangulation (Thurmond, 2001).

Each governance meeting followed a standard structure: introductions, celebrations, co-teaching updates, district feedback, and program planning. A short excerpt from the Partnership Companion and Communication Guide was discussed during each meeting to reinforce shared understandings of governance principles and program delivery. All data were collected across four quarterly governance meetings held in October 2023, December 2023, February 2024, and May 2024. These meetings took place in a conference space at TAMU-CC and typically lasted 90–120 minutes. Attendance ranged from 15 to 20 participants, including school principals, university faculty, site coordinators, district leaders, and a technical assistance partner from the US PREP.

Each meeting followed a structured agenda co-developed by university and district partners. The agenda included segments for introductions, program updates, data sharing, discussion of implementation issues, and collaborative planning. On average, each set of meeting notes and agenda comprised 4–6 pages, totaling approximately 20–24 pages of textual data for the full data set. In addition, site coordinators maintained informal observational memos documenting interactions, discussion dynamics, and key takeaways, which contributed context to the official notes. Additional participant feedback was solicited via follow-up emails after each meeting, asking participants to verify and supplement the minutes, if needed. These responses, typically brief, clarifying, or affirming remarks, were incorporated into the dataset to support accuracy and triangulation.

During data collection and analysis, emerging issues were systematically documented. The first round of constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was completed (see Table 1). Emerging themes were established through triangulation (Carter et al., 2014), enhancing credibility by cross-checking meeting notes, participant feedback on interpretive accuracy, and direct observations from site coordinators. This process further ensured confirmability through maintained audit trails of methodological and analytical decisions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Conflicting themes were resolved through collective discussion among the governance team members (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Maxwell, 1992).

The analysis employed Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis as the primary framework, augmented by Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method to systematically develop and validate themes. This dual approach ensured both systematic theme development and rigorous validation through continuous comparison. As patterns emerged, they were systematically documented through analytic memos (Saldana, 2021) and tracked across data sources. The constant comparison process involved cyclical engagement with the data, where new excerpts were continuously compared with existing codes to test thematic boundaries and identify disconfirming evidence. This process not only strengthened thematic validity but also revealed comprehensive alignments and discrepancies within the shared governance framework. Tables 1 and 2 provide detailed documentation of this process: Table 1 illustrates the constant comparison progression, while Table 2 maps final themes to theoretical constructs (Miles et al., 2014).

Through constant comparison and iterative coding, several themes emerged that reflect key aspects of shared governance and co-teaching within the residency model. These themes were organized into four overarching categories: Relationships Through Shared Governance, Co-Teaching Model, District Needs, and Celebrations. Each theme was supported by multiple data sources, including meeting minutes, participant observation notes, and feedback documents. After each meeting, participants submitted feedback notes reflecting their overall impressions and offering concerns or suggestions. The themes were also interpreted through a theoretical lens, aligning with scholarship on school-university partnerships and teacher preparation programs. The coding process adhered to Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) guidelines for constant comparison and proceeded through three distinct phases: initial coding, focused coding, and axial coding. In the initial coding phase, data were examined line-by-line to identify key ideas and generate preliminary codes without imposing preconceived theoretical structures. This open coding phase facilitated the recognition of underlying patterns and emergent themes (Glaser & Holton, 2007). In the focused coding phase, codes were refined, grouped, and categorized based on conceptual similarity. Codes were continuously compared across data sources to assess consistency and relevance, reinforcing analytical rigor. In the axial coding phase, relationships between categories were analyzed to construct higher-level themes and patterns, allowing for the development of a cohesive thematic framework.

The data analysis produced four major themes, as presented in Table 2: Relationships Through Shared Governance, Co-Teaching Model, District Needs, and Celebrations. Each theme includes inductively generated sub-themes that represent key dimensions of the school-university partnership. The first three themes primarily relate to the administration and establishment of the residency model and reveal interrelated elements that reinforce one another. The fourth theme centers on recognizing and reflecting upon the outcomes of the residency experience for teacher residents, mentor teachers, and district staff. To contextualize the themes and sub-themes, direct quotes from governance meeting minutes are used, though not all are directly attributable to specific individuals. Participant agreement on action items, agenda points, and areas of consensus was typically noted through collective affirmations during meetings. At the conclusion of each meeting, participants were invited to share reflections via a feedback form submitted through a shared Google Form. Selected responses from these forms were documented as “Notes” and incorporated into the analysis. Additionally, the findings are informed by field notes from site coordinators based on classroom observations and walk-throughs conducted throughout the residency. Within quoted material, abbreviations are used as follows: “CT” refers to Cooperating Teacher or mentor, “RT” refers to Resident Teacher, and “IR” represents Islander Resident, TAMU-CC is also known as Island University locally therefore, its students also use affiliation as Islanders.

The governance meetings functioned as a platform to develop and sustain working relationships between university faculty and the independent school district. These relationships facilitated various operational aspects of the residency program, such as aligning expectations, coordinating resident teacher placements, and refining instructional responsibilities. While the partnership continued to evolve, participants consistently engaged in collaborative discussions to address emerging needs and shared goals. A key area of focus was joint decision-making. For example, school leaders noted that principals seek university input prior to making hiring decisions, illustrating a degree of coordination between institutions: “Principal[s] take input from university before direct hire” (Governance Meeting, March 4, 2024). This type of engagement reflected efforts toward institutional alignment. Likewise, agendas for governance meetings were co-developed by site coordinators and district partners. These agendas helped structure meetings and created opportunities for meaningful input and reflection. One participant noted, “I really like how we talk about what’s relevant to us now. Makes the meeting run so beneficial!” (Governance Meeting Feedback Form, December 12, 2023).

Regular walkthroughs and mentor observations revealed variation in how fully residents were immersed in classroom teaching. While many residents assumed teaching responsibilities as part of the co-teaching model, they were still “Rarely left alone in the classroom” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). This concern was identified as an area requiring further inquiry, and additional data collection was planned for the following residency cycle. Nevertheless, participants acknowledged incremental progress in supporting independent teaching time. One participant commented: “The residency program is building capacity in giving release time to the IRs.”

The collaborative structure of the meetings also shaped recruitment strategies. When concerns arose about mismatches between residents and placements, university and district partners adjusted, such as including content specialization details, “List secondary content area in candidate info” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). Although a small administrative detail, this decision required coordination to ensure that information was current and accessible. It also highlighted the need for ongoing dialogue around placement logistics and program responsiveness. As one participant summarized, “Discussions and collaboration on how to help our resident teachers” were central to the process.

The expectations for mentor and resident teacher roles were clarified further during governance discussions. As residents transitioned into the second semester, they were expected to gradually take on more instructional planning and delivery responsibilities. This expectation was echoed in feedback: “Internalization planning, activities, and differentiation” were focal points for supporting resident teachers. Another partner emphasized the importance of “Calendaring gradual release and important dates of program” as part of the planning process. Even as resident teachers assumed a more active instructional role, mentor teachers were expected to remain in the classroom to provide support and model of effective teaching practices.

Throughout these meetings, feedback mechanisms enabled participants to reflect on program structures and make data-informed changes. Observations and formative data, such as mentor teacher assessments and walkthrough findings, were discussed openly. One participant noted, “Good information, we will concentrate on planning,” underscoring how these conversations informed future steps. Others referenced the use of mentor classroom data from curriculum-based assessments to guide next steps, suggesting a focus on collective refinement rather than evaluation. Participants described the overall tone of governance meetings as open and constructive. Feedback consistently emphasized appreciation for the transparent and inclusive format of these sessions. Comments such as “Good dialogue shared over these items” and “I have had a great experience with all these areas and have zero issues” illustrate how stakeholders viewed the meetings as a space to engage productively and contribute meaningfully. While some implementation challenges remained, the consistent involvement of multiple partners fostered a sense of shared ownership over the program implementation.

The co-teaching model served as a central instructional structure in the residency program and was a recurring topic of discussion in governance meetings. It was intended to promote collaboration between mentor teachers and resident teachers through shared planning, co-delivery of instruction, and the gradual transfer of teaching responsibilities. Weekly walkthroughs and feedback loops were used to observe and support implementation, though findings indicated that classroom practices varied. For example, walkthrough data showed that “One Teach, One Assist” (resident as support teacher) occurred in only 21% of observed secondary classrooms, while “One Teach (CT), One Observe (IR)” was still present in 17% of classrooms (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). These figures revealed some inconsistencies in how co-teaching strategies were being used and suggested that in certain cases, mentor teachers continued to lead instruction longer than anticipated.

Evidence of collaboration emerged in the residents’ efforts to co-plan lessons with their mentors. One principal quoted a resident teacher about the need for advance planning: “When I do try to co-teach with him, I have to plan a few days beforehand to be fully prepared” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). This comment highlighted the importance of preparation time and coordination in making co-teaching effective. The extent of co-planning often depended on the time available to both mentors and residents as well as the nature of their working relationship.

Rapport between mentors and residents also played a significant role in shaping co-teaching experiences. Some residents described feeling supported by mentors who encouraged their development. One example shared by a mentor teacher regarding a resident teacher during a governance meeting stated, “He pushes me out of my comfort zone, which I am very grateful for” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). In such cases, residents appeared to gain confidence through mentorship. At the same time, not all experiences were the same. Some residents expressed hesitation in taking on instructional responsibilities as shared by one school staff during governance meetings, quoting a resident teacher, with one saying, “I am afraid to step over [my mentor’s] toes” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). This uncertainty suggested a need for clearer guidance on how roles were expected to evolve during the residency. Governance meetings and feedback discussions provided opportunities to address these concerns and introduce practical adjustments. One such response was the “reintroduction of structured forms to document co-teaching roles, which aimed to promote consistency across different school sites” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). Participants emphasized the need for continued dialogue, such as one participant’s note on the importance of “Discussions and collaboration on how to help our resident teachers”. These efforts were part of a broader strategy to respond to site-level variability and strengthen support for both residents and mentors.

The gradual transfer of responsibility from mentor to resident remained an important but uneven element of the co-teaching model. Some residents reported gradually taking the lead in teaching, but walkthrough data revealed that more passive roles persisted in a number of classrooms. Mentor hesitancy to hand over instructional control appeared to be a contributing factor. A governance decision to provide “Release time support one period per day” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023) was intended to increase resident teaching opportunities while also accommodating district-level scheduling needs. This operational adjustment was designed to provide structure for the transfer of responsibility without disrupting school routines.

Differences in instructional styles between mentors and residents occasionally created friction. One resident shared the following view with a faculty member during a school visit: “We have to present the material the way they want us to” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023), which pointed to some limitations in how residents could apply their own instructional approaches. These issues were also discussed during governance meetings, with several participants affirming the value of open dialogue: “Good dialogue shared over these items”. Such conversations helped stakeholders reflect on implementation challenges and consider ways to align expectations more clearly. The co-teaching model offered a structured approach to shared instruction, supported by planning, mentorship, and feedback. Continued attention to role clarity, mentor training, and co-teaching consistency may help improve implementation in future residency cycles.

District-level concerns played a central role in shaping the teacher residency model, guiding both the program’s implementation and its ongoing refinement. Governance meetings typically began with open-ended prompts such as “How is it going?” and “What supports are needed for CTs and IRs?” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023), which encouraged openness and laid the foundation for collaborative problem-solving. Over time, a more comprehensive understanding developed regarding how the residency program could be aligned more effectively with local priorities, particularly in relation to staff placement, coverage needs, and compliance with state regulations.

One early concern involved teacher shortages across campuses. To address this, district leaders proposed that residents occasionally serve as substitute teachers. After discussions with university faculty and a review of state certification requirements, a compromise was established allowing secondary residents to teach “One period per day in a content area they would be able to teach” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). This approach balanced state-mandated clinical requirements with district staffing needs, offering practical instructional support while maintaining the focus on licensure preparation.

Flexibility in scheduling also became a defining aspect of the residency structure. As the program evolved, rotations were introduced to expand residents’ instructional experiences and to fill specific school-level needs. One strategy involved structured rotations during “weeks 19–24: Release time for CT or teachers one grade-level above/below” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023), giving residents exposure to a broader range of classroom settings. District partners noted that this approach also helped address mid-year staffing gaps in targeted areas.

The planning process for placements was refined in response to district feedback about the importance of matching residents with mentors whose teaching styles and expectations supported growth. Mismatches in earlier cohorts had occasionally hindered resident development. As a result, interview procedures were modified to better assess fit, and ongoing governance conversations reinforced the need for more intentional collaboration during placement decisions. A shared focus on alignment, consistency, and clarity in expectations was repeatedly emphasized in meetings with one school partner stating the importance of “collaboration on how to help our resident teachers”.

District leaders also reported high levels of satisfaction with resident preparedness. One principal observed, “The resident teachers were far more prepared than a typical new teacher,” pointing to residents’ familiarity with school routines and instructional expectations (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). Another principal noted that “100% of campus admin believe residents fulfill an instructional need,” suggesting that the residency structure was seen as contributing meaningfully to school operations. These comments reflected how sustained, embedded clinical practice helped residents meet real instructional demands while continuing to learn under guided mentorship.

In some cases, residents were also supported in pursuing certification in a second focus area to meet future staffing needs. Governance partners described this effort as helping “build capacity,” indicating its potential to support longer-term district goals. The program’s responsiveness to district needs through feedback, adaptability, and shared decision-making played an important role in ensuring mutual benefit for both educator preparation and local school systems.

Celebrations highlighted the documented progress and positive developments within the residency program, as noted in governance meetings, walkthroughs, and seminar reflections. Celebrations were tied to observable outcomes and reflective practices that demonstrated resident growth and ongoing collaboration between the school district and the university. Outcomes and reflections provided a structure for understanding how progress was acknowledged throughout the academic year.

In the early part of the year, celebrations focused on residents’ instructional involvement and academic milestones. Discussions during governance meetings and walkthrough data recorded several indicators of progress. For instance, indicators during meetings shared that “most IRs are leading instruction” and “eight elementary IRs have passed their EC-6 Core Content Exam” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). These points were referenced as examples of residents meeting program expectations in areas such as content knowledge and instructional delivery. Walkthrough observations also noted that “Station Teaching [was] being used in 17% of elementary classrooms,” which demonstrated early application of co-teaching methods (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). These outcomes reflected growing familiarity with instructional practices and alignment between residents’ coursework and their clinical responsibilities.

As residents became more involved in co-teaching and planning, their roles evolved. Initially, residents supported mentor teachers by providing instructional release, but by the spring semester, they were expected to plan and lead instruction independently. These changes were informed by walkthrough and lesson observation data, which were reviewed in governance meetings. Due to increased instructional demands at certain points in the semester, mentors and residents collaboratively adjusted responsibilities, resulting in a more flexible application of the gradual release model. One governance note described how “release time varied by placement week and classroom needs” (Governance Meeting, October 9, 2023). Responsibility shifted incrementally based on classroom needs and resident readiness. This process supported professional development while maintaining alignment with certification requirements and district expectations.

Celebrations were also observed in relation to hiring practices. By March 2024, discussions in governance meetings included planning for the next academic year. One notable development was the district’s intention to issue Letters of Intent to Hire to all residents. This step indicated that the residents had met foundational expectations and were being considered as potential candidates for employment. During governance discussions, comments such as “The resident teachers were far more prepared than a typical new teacher” were shared (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). While such remarks reflected positive local impressions, they should be understood as context-specific rather than broadly generalizable. These expressions illustrated the district’s involvement in the residency process and its openness to considering residents for future staffing needs.

Reflections emerged through seminar activities and peer feedback, as teacher residents were encouraged to consider how discussions on alignment, planning, and walkthroughs supported their teaching development. Teacher residents shared semester reflections in seminar sessions, which contributed to ongoing evaluation of the program. These reflections were used by coordinators to adjust seminar content and identify common areas of growth or need. The iterative process helped maintain a connection between clinical experiences and university-led instruction.

Mentor teacher support was another area where growth was acknowledged. Site coordinators led campus-based professional development sessions using data from walkthroughs and observations. This same data was shared in governance meetings, contributing to transparency across teams. Feedback indicated that “100% of residents believed their cooperating teacher contributed to their growth” (Governance Meeting, December 12, 2023). While this reflects a positive response, it is interpreted within the context of ongoing communication and targeted mentoring efforts. Mentor feedback also informed seminar planning, creating opportunities for aligning school-based experiences with university goals.

Celebrations within the program were used as checkpoints rather than endpoints. They allowed stakeholders to reflect on teacher resident progress, instructional practices, and mentoring dynamics. These recognitions contributed to planning discussions and adjustments to professional development activities. It was observed that the use of celebrations in the residency model functioned as a tool to document progress, maintain program coherence, and support continuous improvement across the school district and university partners.

Shared governance, characterized by decentralized collaboration, negotiation, and shared responsibility, fosters a participatory environment where stakeholders from universities and schools collaboratively deliberate, plan, and resolve challenges (Blase & Blase, 1999; Kater, 2017). This approach dismantles hierarchical barriers and promotes inclusivity. Quarterly shared governance meetings provide a structured platform to enhance communication, build trust, and ensure transparency among diverse stakeholders. This contextualized and interactive approach to learning addresses critical deficiencies in traditional teacher training models, which often overlook the significance of mutual reflection in uncovering tacit knowledge derived from lived experiences (Burns et al., 2015; Ma & Green, 2023; Walsh & Backe, 2013).

Data from governance meeting records revealed that inclusive participation from both university and school-based stakeholders supported shared responsibility and reduced hierarchical barriers. Stakeholders co-developed agendas, identified pressing challenges (e.g. mentor-resident mismatches, staffing shortages), and co-constructed solutions. This structure fostered a participatory environment consistent with the literature on shared governance and equitable partnerships (Jacobs et al., 2015; Green et al., 2020). This study contributes original empirical evidence by showing how these principles were enacted in a residency model through concrete practices such as collaborative agenda-setting and role clarification.

The residency model addresses district-level demands for staff through a collaborative recruitment process. It enables schools to implement flexible release time arrangements, wherein mentor teachers may temporarily step away from instructional duties while resident teachers assume greater classroom responsibilities. Concurrently, the university maintains oversight to ensure that teacher residents fulfill the mandated instructional hours required for state certification an alignment often lacking in traditional teacher preparation programs. As demonstrated in governance meeting records, this dual oversight school district-driven flexibility and university-aligned certification compliance offers a model of integrative accountability.

The reform of teacher education through school-university partnerships often requires a reallocation of resources across both institutional contexts, along with sustained financial investment (Darling-Hammond et al., 2000; Green et al., 2020; Ma & Green, 2023). This case study identified restructured staffing and cross-institutional coordination as critical aspects of resource allocation that supported the implementation of a clinically rich teacher residency model. Establishing mechanisms that facilitate shared governance, distributed leadership, and role flexibility across boundaries is essential for success (Ma & Green, 2023).

Several practice-informed considerations emerged from the findings. First, partnerships may be strengthened when residency placements are intentionally selected with long-term hiring opportunities in mind. Second, dedicated resources are necessary to support the continuity of teacher residency programs beyond the pilot or start-up phase. Third, engaging external stakeholders such as community leaders and policy advocates may contribute to shaping seminar content and ensuring local relevance. Fourth, encouraging research-practice integration can support innovation in curriculum design and mentorship strategies. Finally, deliberate collaboration on data sharing and analysis may help establish a foundation for ongoing joint inquiry and program refinement.

Transforming teacher preparation is unlikely to occur through structural redesign alone. The findings underscore the value of relational and cultural shifts that support role flexibility, shared responsibility, and inclusive decision-making across institutions (Moye, 2024). Encouraging environments that challenge conventional hierarchies and promote co-construction of curriculum, mentorship models, and evaluation practices may enhance coherence between university coursework and school-based clinical experiences (Burns et al., 2015; Fitzgerald et al., 2022). Additionally, cultivating a shared professional language between university and school district partners may improve communication and alignment. Such efforts are most effective when grounded in reciprocal trust, practitioner voice, and iterative feedback mechanisms. This case study demonstrates how teacher residency partnerships when supported by shared governance can function as dynamic sites for continuous improvement and context-responsive innovation in teacher education.

This study has three major limitations. First, as a single-case study, its findings are context-specific and their transferability to other settings or residency models requires careful consideration. Following Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) framework, transferability depends on readers evaluating how well the study’s context aligns with their own. Second, the dataset was limited to meeting documentation and observations; it did not include interviews or direct perspectives from resident teachers or mentors, which could provide richer insight into how shared governance impacted day-to-day teaching and learning. Third, studying long-term effects such as retention or student achievement outcomes would require an extended timeframe. Future research could enhance understanding of these findings by: (1) conducting participant interviews to deepen contextual insights, (2) employing longitudinal approaches to trace how shared governance structures transform over time, and (3) undertaking multi-case studies to investigate how these governance structures might apply to different institutional contexts.

Professional consensus indicates that school-university partnerships are essential for the successful implementation of clinical practice, as evidenced by calls for more school-university cooperation at the national level across multiple policy and academic platforms (Johnston, 2003; Quarless & Barret, 2017). Shared governance is likely to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of teacher education. If partnerships are not well-developed, they may fall short of meeting the demands of comprehensive clinical preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2017) therefore, strong school-university relationships will be necessary to transform teacher education (Zhou & Wong, 2025). The field of teacher education would benefit from the expertise, findings, and firsthand knowledge presented in this study. This case study demonstrates that working in and with schools is demanding and requires commitment from individuals who possess the abilities, skills, and dispositions necessary to engage in the daily work of building community and fostering collaboration.

Developing the next generation of teacher educators capable of cultivating strong relationships and designing integrated curricula rooted in clinical practice requires an intentional commitment by schools and universities to foster communication, trust, and transparency grounded in shared governance (Jacobs et al., 2015). The desire to transform teacher education means that cooperation between schools and universities can no longer be based solely on preference or convenience. Instead, a strong clinical practice-focused partnership, committed to educational renewal and equity, must become a foundational component of every teacher preparation program.

This study did not require formal ethical clearance from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. Since it was classified as exempt from IRB review. The research was based solely on governance meeting minutes, feedback forms, and field observations conducted as part of regular program monitoring and documentation, with no direct intervention or identifiable personal data collected from any participants. These materials were produced in the routine course of collaborative work between our university and the local school district partners.