This article explores how partnership development in a newly accredited pre-service teacher education provider in England was successfully underpinned by a theory of change methodology. Previous literature has indicated that the perspectives of school stakeholders are often missing from scholarly work into school–university partnerships; therefore, it was pertinent to collaborate with school-based stakeholders in this project.
Theory of change methodology was used as a tool to develop a co-constructed vision and operational model for developing an effective school–university partnership. A collaborative approach was adopted, which involved two phases: a scoping literature review and stakeholder workshops. Theory of change pathway diagrams were created, informed by the evidence gathered in the two phases of the project.
The resulting theory of change provided a working model for developing an effective partnership. Four long-term goals were identified including: sustainable, reciprocal, collaborative, innovative and dynamic. The importance of leveraging the unique value of the university within a mutually beneficial partnership was highlighted by stakeholders, as well as the importance of the partnership being able to respond and adapt to the changing landscape of pre-service teacher education.
The benefits and limitations of a collaborative theory of change methodology in this context are discussed, including the value that collaboration with stakeholders adds to understanding effective school–university partnerships within the post-accreditation teacher education landscape in England. The article suggests that the theory of change methodology can act as a mediating tool for advancing strategic thinking in a mixed team of practitioners, academics and professional services.
Introduction
This article examines how a university in England approached developing a new school–university partnership informed by research and practice-based knowledge. As a new pre-service teacher education provider accredited as part of the English government’s re-accreditation process in 2022 (DfE, 2022a), the university was in the unusual position of establishing a partnership from scratch with local schools. The project took place within a period of relative uncertainty and instability within pre-service teacher education in England. Some existing providers had lost their accreditation and continuing providers were adapting their programmes to meet newly prescribed criteria set out by the English government (DfE, 2022b).
After identifying a gap in the region for undergraduate pre-service teacher preparation, the university decided to develop a new primary undergraduate programme tailored to the modern needs of pre-service teachers (Fogarty & Gray, 2024). The course is delivered on three university campuses spread across the eastern region of England. The multi-campus context meant that general principles for developing new partnerships with schools needed to be appropriate for the context of all campuses.
Previous research into school–university partnerships has tended to focus on the university’s perspective rather than school stakeholders (Robinson & Feldman, 2023). As collaboration, trust and a shared vision are seen as aspirational elements of pre-service teacher preparation partnerships (Dhillon, 2013; DiCicco et al., 2023; Littlefair et al., 2019), it was important that the views, experiences and knowledge of all potential stakeholders were incorporated into the plans for building a new partnership.
Theory of change methodology was applied in this context to facilitate collaborative discussions with relevant stakeholders, and to enable the articulation of a vision for effective partnership, with the necessary conditions for its achievement mapped out. Theory of change methodology has been employed as a tool to support the planning and evaluation of change projects within a range of areas, including public health interventions (Breuer et al., 2016), policy evaluation (Geddes et al., 2007) and interventions in the developing world (UNDAF, 2016). There are some examples of theory of change methodology applied to educational reform and evaluation projects (Connell & Klem, 2000; Dyson & Todd, 2010); however, its use in education has been limited (Gates, 2023).
Terminology
Throughout this article, the term pre-service teacher education will be used to represent the period of training a pre-service teacher completes prior to becoming a fully certified teacher. The term pre-service teacher education provider will be used to represent the organisation that delivers pre-service training programmes. A school–university partnership relates to all the stakeholders, including schools, involved in delivering pre-service teacher education programmes.
School–university partnerships
Partnership as a concept within pre-service teacher education
Partnership within pre-service teacher education can be simply framed as the productive working relationship between the pre-service teacher education provider and schools, to support the delivery of pre-service teacher education programmes. Partnership working recognises that all parties contribute to the development of pre-service teachers and that the success of a programme relies on the specialist expertise of a range of stakeholders. In this framing of partnership, it can be viewed as an epistemological concept (Furlong et al., 2006), with each party offering access to different types of professional knowledge.
It has been argued that policy makers (in England and internationally) have pushed formal partnership with schools as a way to address perceived problems with teacher education over the last 40 years, with universities perceived to over-emphasise theory over practical experience in the classroom (Mutton, 2015; Mutton & Burn, 2024; Cochran-Smith, 2023). In England, successive governments have attempted to influence how teacher education partnerships are organised, with requirements from 1992 onwards directing that formal partnership arrangements should be in place between schools and teacher education providers (DfE, 1992). Such arrangements include transfer of funds to schools, which have joint responsibility for curriculum design and delivery, trainee assessment and selection. Similar government directives for formal partnerships between universities and schools have emerged internationally, notably in Australia, New Zealand and the United States (AITSL, 2020; CAEP, 2022; Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, 2022), with the underlying notion that mandating partnership models with schools will improve the “theory-practice divide”.
The structural organisation of a partnership has pedagogical impacts upon teacher education programmes; the nature of the partnership influences how trainees are supported as well as the design of school experience and assessment (Furlong et al., 2006). Furlong et al. (2006) argue that this creative tension between the structural makeup of partnerships and the way that a particular teacher education programme is delivered is fundamental for understanding why a focus on partnership working has been viewed as so important for reforming the teaching profession. As a new teacher education provider, we had the opportunity to frame a fresh notion of partnership with schools and to consider carefully how we wanted our programmes to be influenced pedagogically by our partnership.
Models of partnership
Furlong et al. (2000) identified three typical partnership models emerging in the English teacher education context in the 1990s: collaborative (where professional knowledge from universities and schools is viewed as equally valuable and courses are co-created with all stakeholders), HEI-led (where responsibility for course design and delivery is held by the university; schools are viewed as a resource to ensure learning in university is complemented in school) and complementary (where delineated roles for university staff and school staff exist and there is limited integration of learning between practice and university). Similar partnership models have also been identified in international contexts with the collaborative model often viewed as the aspiration (Smith et al., 2006; Smith, 2016).
More recently, Burroughs et al. (2020) provide a theoretical framework to analyse models of school–university partnerships (see Table 1 below). This framework was developed in the United States, based on evidence collated from existing school–university partnerships. In this six-stage framework, school–university partnerships can be viewed on a continuum starting from level 1, with no cohesion between what trainees learn at university and in school, up to level 6, where course content and delivery is collaboratively agreed between all parties who are considered members of the same team. The framework has similarities to Smith’s (2016) suggested continuum of partnerships in which schools can sit anywhere on the continuum from “separated” to “cooperative” according to the presented level of collaboration and integration between the school and the university.
Levels of partnership
| Level of partnership | Features present |
|---|---|
| Level 1 Taking from schools | Disconnect between school and university learning, no oversight of placements from the university, little cohesion in goals, no evaluation process |
| Level 2 Borrowing from schools | University educators as “guests” in school, university borrowing good practice from school |
| Level 3 Emerging partnership | University building relationships with schools, starting to align coursework and placement experience, developing trust, power to decide on curriculum still at university level |
| Level 4 Developing partnership | Deconstruction of lessons with teachers then invited into university as teacher educators, deliberate placement of trainees in classrooms with mentors who exemplify shared values/good practice with the university |
| Level 5 Co-constructed partnership | Consulting schools on what should be in the course, valuing school expertise, openness to learn, release of control by the university, flexibility, shared understanding of principles and practices |
| Level 6 Learning community | Partnership benefits all stakeholders, planning teams contain school practitioners and university academics, collaborative action research, hybrid teacher educators, shared language, transparency |
According to Burroughs et al. (2020), a level 5 co-constructed partnership involves specific identifiers such as shared goals and language, shared decision-making, collaborative agreement and negotiation on course content and pedagogy. A level 6 learning community develops a deeper, more collaborative partnership with tangible benefits for both the schools, trainees and the university. In this highest level of partnership, schools and the university are seen as equal members of the same team, mutual benefits are clear, with shared control of the delivery and design of the courses. Partnerships at this level take many years to develop and require high levels of trust, transparency and flexibility to meet changing demands upon all parties (Burroughs et al., 2020).
A collaborative model of partnership is not necessarily something that can be fully achieved. Indeed, it has been argued that limited funding and time (Dhillon, 2013; Edwards & Mutton, 2007; Smith et al., 2006), competing priorities between stakeholders (Manton et al., 2021; Menter & Hulme, 2012), the voluntary nature of school participation in ITT partnerships (Furlong et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2006) and a lack of shared language between schools and universities (Andreasen, 2023) can often make the achievement of fully collaborative partnerships difficult.
Alternatively, conditions such as trust and mutual respect, clear communication, strong leadership, flexibility, shared understanding of values and vision, and a sense of mutual benefit (Billett et al., 2007; Dhillon, 2013; DiCicco et al., 2023; Green et al., 2020; Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Littlefair et al., 2019) are seen as positive factors for creating collaborative school–university partnerships.
Although different partnership models and the conditions that influence their effectiveness are suggested in the literature, the mechanisms for creating new partnerships are not as clearly outlined. The Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP, 2015), in a project exploring school–university partnerships in the United States, suggests that new partnerships move through four development stages, which include: networking/exploring, establishing, refining and extending. Some characteristics of each stage are outlined, and they appear to have face validity; however, details on how the stages are operationalised are limited. Therefore, further evidence gathering was needed beyond the literature to make decisions about the finer details of operationalising partnership development for our new pre-service teacher education provision.
The changing landscape of pre-service teacher education
Since Furlong et al. (2000) completed their analysis of partnership models, the context of pre-service teacher education in England has moved on considerably. The movement that started in the 1990s in countries such as England, the United States and Australia to involve schools more cohesively within pre-service teacher education culminated in the establishment of school-centred initial teacher training (SCITT) in England. SCITTs are school consortiums that can deliver pre-service teacher education programmes without involving a university. The number of SCITT providers in England has steadily increased and 65% of accredited pre-service teacher education providers in England are now SCITTs (DfE, 2025). Some SCITTs work in partnership with universities to provide credit-bearing elements to their courses (most commonly a Post Graduate Certificate in Education). Another development in England is the introduction of national pre-service teacher education providers that are neither run by a school consortium nor a university, although they tend to rely on local SCITTs for the delivery of their programmes, thereby adding further complexity to the landscape. So, in this new pre-service teacher education landscape, universities are not necessarily involved at all.
The delineation of teacher certification from university study and the explosion of a new “market” of pre-service teacher education providers is a peculiarity of the English teacher education landscape that warrants some attention. It leads us to question what unique value (and professional knowledge) schools and universities bring to pre-service teacher education. In comparison, Wales has recently reformed pre-service teacher education accreditation to stipulate joint responsibility between universities and schools, intentionally moving away from school-led programmes (Furlong et al., 2021). Partnership models and frameworks in the international teacher education literature imply that partnerships involve both schools and universities, but in England, this is not the case. Increasingly, schools in England are working with multiple pre-service teacher education providers within varying partnership models. School involvement with teacher education is voluntary and schools are in demand by providers who have raised concerns that there is a dwindling supply of schools willing to support pre-service teachers due to a lack of mentor capacity (Walker, 2023). In a landscape where schools have limited time and capacity, and the opportunity to work with multiple pre-service teacher education providers, how should a new university provider approach forging partnerships with schools? The university involved in this project operates across three campuses covering a large geographical area, with several SCITTs and university providers already present. Therefore, the need to listen to what school practitioners want and need from an effective school–university partnership was important and this has influenced the methodology chosen for this project.
Theory of change as a methodology
Theory of change has been popularised by the programme evaluation and social change community in the 1990s. The methodology enables teams to agree on a project’s long-term outcomes and make the proposed mechanisms to reach them explicit, in order to guide planning, delivery and evaluation (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020). The process of creating a theory of change for a given project illuminates an understanding of why particular actions work and in what conditions. The theory of change is usually represented in a graphical pathway diagram indicating the long-term outcomes to be achieved as well as the medium and short-term outcomes (preconditions) required on the way to achieving them (Anderson, 2005). The main elements involved in a theory of change process are outlined in Table 2.
Main elements in a theory of change
| Key elements | Explanation |
|---|---|
| End goal | The main long-term outcome to be achieved |
| Preconditions | Desired outcomes at various stages of the process, which could be short, medium or long-term goals. Achievement of the preconditions will create the conditions necessary to achieve the end goal |
| Interventions | Activities or actions that will influence the achievement of outcomes on the pathway diagram |
| Assumptions | Making explicit the theoretical, ideological and political stances that could influence the theory of change. These could be drawn from the research base or from discussions with the stakeholders involved |
| Indicators | Measures of success for the various preconditions. These should be measurable so that progress with the theory of change and the effectiveness of interventions can be monitored |
| Rationales | Explain the reasoning behind the causal pathways in the theory of change. The rationale may be supported by research or stakeholder evidence |
A pathway diagram (represented below in Figure 1) allows elements of the theory of change to be visualised and for multiple causal relationships to be represented. The theory of change is not static; it can be revised and adapted throughout the project’s lifetime as evaluation and monitoring of actions and outcomes achieved are collected. A benefit of a theory of change approach is that the multiple evidence and causal chains in a complex project can be articulated in relation to a specific context, so that it is clear how it is expected that outcomes, which perhaps may not be evident for several years, will be achieved (Laing & Todd, 2015).
The flowchart is structured hierarchically, with text boxes arranged from bottom to top, showing the relationships between preconditions, long-term goals, and the end goal. At the bottom level, there are six pink boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Directly above the pink boxes, there are nine orange boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Above the orange boxes, there are seven yellow boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Above the yellow boxes, there are three green boxes (representing long-term goals), arranged horizontally. At the very top of the chart, there is one blue box (representing the end goal). Connections between levels: Two upward arrows from the first pink box lead to the first and second orange boxes. An upward arrow from the second and third pink boxes leads to the third and fourth orange boxes. Two upward arrows from the fourth pink box lead to the fifth and sixth orange boxes. An upward arrow from the fifth pink box leads to the seventh orange box. Two upward arrows from the sixth pink box lead to the eighth and ninth orange boxes. An upward arrow from the first and second orange boxes leads to the first and second yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the third orange box lead to the second and third yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the fourth and fifth orange boxes leads to the third and fourth yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the sixth orange box lead to the fourth and fifth yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the seventh orange box lead to the fifth and sixth yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the eighth and ninth text boxes leads to the sixth and seventh yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the first and second yellow boxes leads to the first green box. An upward arrow from the second, third, fourth, and fifth yellow boxes leads to the second green box. An upward arrow from the fifth, sixth, and seventh yellow boxes leads to the third green box. An upward arrow from each of the three green boxes leads to the blue box at the top.Key elements in a theory of change pathway diagram. Source(s): Created by authors
The flowchart is structured hierarchically, with text boxes arranged from bottom to top, showing the relationships between preconditions, long-term goals, and the end goal. At the bottom level, there are six pink boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Directly above the pink boxes, there are nine orange boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Above the orange boxes, there are seven yellow boxes (representing preconditions), arranged horizontally. Above the yellow boxes, there are three green boxes (representing long-term goals), arranged horizontally. At the very top of the chart, there is one blue box (representing the end goal). Connections between levels: Two upward arrows from the first pink box lead to the first and second orange boxes. An upward arrow from the second and third pink boxes leads to the third and fourth orange boxes. Two upward arrows from the fourth pink box lead to the fifth and sixth orange boxes. An upward arrow from the fifth pink box leads to the seventh orange box. Two upward arrows from the sixth pink box lead to the eighth and ninth orange boxes. An upward arrow from the first and second orange boxes leads to the first and second yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the third orange box lead to the second and third yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the fourth and fifth orange boxes leads to the third and fourth yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the sixth orange box lead to the fourth and fifth yellow boxes. Two upward arrows from the seventh orange box lead to the fifth and sixth yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the eighth and ninth text boxes leads to the sixth and seventh yellow boxes. An upward arrow from the first and second yellow boxes leads to the first green box. An upward arrow from the second, third, fourth, and fifth yellow boxes leads to the second green box. An upward arrow from the fifth, sixth, and seventh yellow boxes leads to the third green box. An upward arrow from each of the three green boxes leads to the blue box at the top.Key elements in a theory of change pathway diagram. Source(s): Created by authors
There are various ways to approach a theory of change project, including deductive (where evidence from research is primarily utilised), inductive (where the theory of change is developed from observing work in practice), mental model (which focuses on the knowledge and experience of stakeholders only) and collaborative (where knowledge and experience from practitioners and research are combined) (Laing & Todd, 2015).
An important part of any theory of change process is the contribution of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the project. Their close knowledge and experience of the area of work allows for a rich theory of change to be created that accurately represents the real-life context that the project is centred within. As Laing and Todd (2015, p. 3) state, “context is not just another variable but a critical part of the success or otherwise of achieving change”. This attention to context was particularly influential in determining the theory of change as the chosen methodology within this project. As a new provider establishing itself within a rapidly changing teacher education landscape, it was important that we paid attention to both the national and local context within which we operated.
Rationale
As a new university provider, we had a novel opportunity to build a school–university partnership to align with a vision and respond to current context, rather than change a well-established partnership to fit retrospectively. Although previous literature explores the conditions needed for effective partnership working within pre-service teacher education, there is limited literature focusing on the mechanisms employed to create these conditions and develop a new partnership with schools. Theory of change was chosen as a tool to develop a co-constructed vision of an effective school–university partnership with our stakeholders, to help articulate the mechanisms by which an effective partnership can be created, and to inform the actions needed to implement the vision in practice.
The key research questions for this project were:
What are the conditions that create an effective school–university partnership?
How can a new school–university partnership be successfully operationalised via a theory of change methodology?
Method
Participants
Eight participants were recruited from the following stakeholder groups via purposive sampling.
Teacher educators working in the university’s pre-service teacher education team
Teacher educators from other pre-service teacher education providers in England
Headteachers
School-based mentors
School-based teacher development leads
University professional services staff involved with pre-service teacher education provision
Suitable participants were approached directly by the principal investigator from existing professional networks and invited to take part in the research project. In one case, a participant recruited the interest of another participant through word of mouth to enable a range of school phases to be represented. Secondary and primary school experience was represented in the school-based participants.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was granted by the School of Education Research Ethics Panel at the university. Considerations were made regarding the relative anonymity of the participants involved and their right to withdraw at any point during the research.
Participants were formally invited via an email that outlined the purpose of the research and why they had been invited to take part, emphasising the importance of varying stakeholder perspectives in the project. A participant information sheet and consent form were attached to the email. It was made clear in the email that participants were under no obligation to take part, in line with consent considerations within the British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines (BERA, 2024). This was important as most participants were already known to the principal researcher and may have felt pressure to be involved, particularly for participants from the same university where the researcher was in a leadership position.
Design
Laing and Todd (2015) suggest that the methods chosen to collate evidence for the theory of change are dependent on the worldviews and methodological stance of the people involved. In this case, a collaborative model was chosen, with a mixture of data collected through literature scoping and through dialogue with key stakeholders. This aligned with the research team’s ontological position that knowledge and meaning are constructed with the participants through shared experiences and dialogue. The collaborative model also addressed the need to involve stakeholders with knowledge of the specific context of the project. The purpose of this research project was to understand the conditions that create an effective school–university partnership and therefore, seeking to describe and interpret the prior experiences and knowledge of stakeholders was integral to building a rich theory of change.
A phased approach was taken including:
Phase one: scoping literature review
Phase two: stakeholder workshops and discussions
Procedure phase one: scoping literature review
In this initial phase of the project, the research team completed a scoping review of literature focused on school–university partnerships using the inclusion and exclusion criteria detailed in Table 3 below. The findings from the literature review were used to develop a literature-informed theory of change pathway diagram.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
|
|
The literature search was directed by the questions “What makes an effective school–university partnership?” and “What are the benefits and challenges of developing an effective school–university partnership?”
The following search terms (partnership/s AND initial teacher training/education AND schools AND effectiveness AND structure AND benefits AND challenges) directed searches on electronic databases including: ERIC, Scopus, Wiley and JSTOR. Forty-two journal articles and fourteen policy documents were identified from the initial search and inclusion criteria. After phase 1, further literature continued to be searched for and analysed to inform the development of the theory of change.
The literature was reviewed and a thematic list of key conditions that influence effective school–university partnerships was created to inform the development of a theory of change pathway diagram. Miro, a freely available online tool, supported the creation of the pathway diagram due to its flexibility and ease of use. Asterisks were used on the pathway diagram to indicate whether a concept had been identified in the literature. This came in helpful during phase two when articulating the rationale for the theory of change with stakeholders.
The initial pathway of change diagram created in phase one represented the main long-term goal (end goal) at the top and the underlying factors that are required to achieve that (the preconditions) were represented underneath with arrows indicating the direction of change. The diagram should be read from the bottom to the top, with the earliest preconditions being pre-requisites for later preconditions and subsequent long-term goals. In line with the theory of change methodology (Anderson, 2005), the pathway diagram was created by backwards mapping of the preconditions from the end goal downwards.
The literature analysis, in addition to the principal investigator’s own experience and knowledge of the topic, was used to inform the identification of possible assumptions, challenges and risks that may affect the theory of change. These were listed in separate boxes at the bottom of the pathway diagram. As the strategic lead for pre-service teacher education partnerships at the university, the principal researcher had relevant prior experience in developing effective partnerships with schools in other contexts, as well as leading the development of the new partnership itself. This deep understanding of the context could be seen to enhance the theory of change process; however, it was important that assumptions, challenges and risks identified by the principal researcher during phase one were further scrutinised by other stakeholders in phase two of the project to ensure that contextual reflexivity was attended to (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023).
Procedure phase two: stakeholder workshops
As the literature surrounding school–university partnerships has lacked the perspective of school partners (Robinson & Feldman, 2023), it was important that school stakeholders’ views, experiences and knowledge informed the development of the theory of change. To operationalise this aspect, online and face-to-face workshops with stakeholders (including school-based participants) took place where the initial literature-informed theory of change pathway diagram was presented, discussed and adapted with the participants. The purpose of these workshops was to discuss whether stakeholders agreed on the long-term goals, preconditions, indicators and assumptions and to ensure that any new elements and adaptations to the pathway diagram were implemented accordingly.
A variety of stakeholders were present at each workshop. Care was taken to ensure that the makeup of each workshop allowed participants to feel able to openly share their experiences and perspectives on what makes an effective partnership. It is possible that potential power differentials between schools and universities (Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Zeichner et al., 2015) may have prevented school-based mentors from talking freely about their previous experiences if they were in a workshop with senior staff from the university.
The first stakeholder workshop included two participants who held senior academic leadership positions within the university’s teacher education team. These participants had a range of previous experience leading pre-service teacher education courses at universities in England.
The second stakeholder workshop included four participants with a range of current and previous school-based experience working within SCITTs and school–university partnerships in England. All participants had experience as school-based mentors, two participants had experience leading teacher development across a school, one participant was a headteacher of a primary school and three participants had experience as pre-service teacher education tutors (teaching and visiting trainees on placement). Two of the participants were teacher educators within the university and one of these two participants held a hybrid role, working part-time for the university and part-time in a primary school.
The first two stakeholder workshops were held virtually using online meeting software and took place over one and a half hours. The principal researcher led the workshop, starting with a welcome and opportunity for participants to introduce themselves, a brief overview of the project’s purpose and theory of change as a process. As per the BERA (2024) ethical guidelines regarding consent, participants were reminded that they can withdraw at any point during the workshop if they wish to and the researcher was alert to any signs that participants may wish to withdraw throughout the workshop.
After the initial introduction as described above, the theory of change pathway diagram created during phase one was presented on screen. The researcher facilitated a discussion to encourage participants to share their perspectives on the pathway diagram based on their experiences and knowledge. The following questions, adapted from typical theory of change methodology as outlined in Anderson (2005) and Laing and Todd (2015), acted as prompts for the discussions, with additional clarifying questions asked where needed:
What should the long-term goals be for an effective school–university partnership?
What will be different in the long term as a result of successfully creating an effective school–university partnership?
What do we expect to change?
What actions do we need to take to reach our goals?
What indicators could we use to measure success? How will we know that change is happening?
How long will it take to reach change?
What might prevent change from happening?
During the workshop discussion, the researcher edited and adapted the theory of change pathway diagram live on the screen so that all participants could see the changes as they were made. The online workshop was recorded so that another member of the research team could subsequently transcribe the workshop, summarise the key discussion points and check that the pathway diagram created during the workshop accurately reflected the dialogue.
Due to some participants not being available for the group workshops, individual sessions were held with two participants. These sessions were carried out with a similar process and procedures to the group workshops. As recommended by Taplin and Clark (2012), one of these participants was invited to take part due to their specific knowledge of the context of the project (teacher educator in another school–university partnership), with the premise that they would be able to provide knowledgeable feedback on the plausibility and feasibility of the theory of change created.
Results
In this section, an analysis of how the theory of change pathway diagrams evolved from the two phases of the research project will be discussed.
Phase one
The school–university partnership framework set out by Burroughs et al. (2020) acted as a useful tool for considering what an effective partnership should be aiming to achieve. Aligned with the most aspirational levels of Burroughs et al.’s framework, a partnership that reflected level 5 (co-constructed) and level 6 (learning community) was initially drafted as the end goal at the top of the pathway diagram.
Further analysis of the factors that create an effective school–university partnership (identified in the scoping literature review) and their interrelationships then led to backward mapping of the preconditions necessary to achieve the end goal. The long-term goals and their preconditions were represented in different colours to reflect their relative level on the pathway diagram, with each level on the pathway diagram represented as a new colour.
The themes that emerged from the scoping literature review included: trust, shared vision and goals, communication, collaboration, resources, leadership, flexibility, adaptability and responsiveness, mutual benefit, evaluation and reflection and the influence of the political landscape (Bernay et al., 2020; Billett et al., 2007; Clifford-Swan et al., 2022; Dhillon, 2013; DiCicco et al., 2023; Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Littlefair et al., 2019; Walsh & Backe, 2013; Zeichner, 2010). These conditions were represented on the pathway diagram as well as their interaction with other conditions that had either emerged from the literature or were viewed as important determinants of an effective partnership by the research team, based on their experience and knowledge as teacher educators.
The result of this literature scoping phase was a complex pathway diagram with multiple relationships between the preconditions and long-term goals. The pathway diagram also included a separate box with a list of assumptions, risks and challenges that could affect the theory of change, informed by the literature review and the principal researcher’s own knowledge and experience (Figure 2). At this point, other aspects of the theory of change, such as indicators for the preconditions and goals, and actions to be taken, had been considered but not fully mapped out.
The first text box at the top, titled “Challenges and risks,” lists the following points: “Limited time asterisk.” “Competing demands or priorities asterisk.” “Differing goals or norms or language or values between universities and schools asterisk.” “Misaligned expectations asterisk.” “Power imbalances asterisk.” The second text box at the bottom, titled “Assumptions (conditions assumed to be in place),” lists the following points: “Government policies asterisk support school-university partnerships.” “Funding is in place to support universities and schools to deliver pre-service teacher education.” “Adequate staffing is in place (university and schools) and is stable.” “Institutional support asterisk (resources, time, systems and processes, recognition).”The assumptions, risks and challenges identified during phase one. Source(s): Created by authors
The first text box at the top, titled “Challenges and risks,” lists the following points: “Limited time asterisk.” “Competing demands or priorities asterisk.” “Differing goals or norms or language or values between universities and schools asterisk.” “Misaligned expectations asterisk.” “Power imbalances asterisk.” The second text box at the bottom, titled “Assumptions (conditions assumed to be in place),” lists the following points: “Government policies asterisk support school-university partnerships.” “Funding is in place to support universities and schools to deliver pre-service teacher education.” “Adequate staffing is in place (university and schools) and is stable.” “Institutional support asterisk (resources, time, systems and processes, recognition).”The assumptions, risks and challenges identified during phase one. Source(s): Created by authors
Phase two
Nuanced understandings of what influences effective school–university partnerships evolved from the stakeholder workshops and from further reading of the literature, which had continued alongside. Creating a theory of change is an iterative process (Taplin & Clark, 2012), and therefore it was expected that the theory of change would be refined and adapted throughout the creation process. Indeed, Anderson (2005, p. 20) argues that “creating a pathway of change is more of an art than a science” and it was at phase two that the art of creating the pathway diagrams became apparent, as decisions were made about adding, removing and merging preconditions to reflect the stakeholder discussions.
Figure 3 below provides an overview of the four long-term goals created during the theory of change process: sustainable, reciprocal, collaborative, innovative and dynamic. The key indicators of success identified for the end goal of an effective school–university partnership and the most dominant preconditions (often presented in more than one long-term goal pathway) are also represented.
The illustration is titled “Effective school-university partnership” at the top. It consists of “Long-term goals” and “Common preconditions.” Below the title, four “Long-term goals” are depicted within text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Sustainable,” “Reciprocal,” “Innovative and dynamic,” and “Collaborative.” Below the “Long-term goals,” eight “Common preconditions” are depicted within text boxes arranged horizontally in two rows and labeled as follows: “Trust,” “Positive working relationships,” “Shared values or goals or purpose,” “‘Third space,’” “Valuing expertise,” “Clear responsive communication,” “Time,” and “Funding.” A rightward arrow from the title points to a rectangle that lists “Key indicators,” which are as follows: “High-quality, well-prepared trainee teachers (feedback from schools).” “80 percent of graduates employed locally by 2028.” “Retention of trainees (still teachers 5 years after graduating).” “Trainees become future mentors.” “Schools continue to want to work with pre-service teacher education provider (small dropout rate).” “Trainees as advocates for the partnership (feedback from schools and future trainees).”Overview of the theory of change for establishing an effective school–university partnership. Source(s): Created by authors
The illustration is titled “Effective school-university partnership” at the top. It consists of “Long-term goals” and “Common preconditions.” Below the title, four “Long-term goals” are depicted within text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Sustainable,” “Reciprocal,” “Innovative and dynamic,” and “Collaborative.” Below the “Long-term goals,” eight “Common preconditions” are depicted within text boxes arranged horizontally in two rows and labeled as follows: “Trust,” “Positive working relationships,” “Shared values or goals or purpose,” “‘Third space,’” “Valuing expertise,” “Clear responsive communication,” “Time,” and “Funding.” A rightward arrow from the title points to a rectangle that lists “Key indicators,” which are as follows: “High-quality, well-prepared trainee teachers (feedback from schools).” “80 percent of graduates employed locally by 2028.” “Retention of trainees (still teachers 5 years after graduating).” “Trainees become future mentors.” “Schools continue to want to work with pre-service teacher education provider (small dropout rate).” “Trainees as advocates for the partnership (feedback from schools and future trainees).”Overview of the theory of change for establishing an effective school–university partnership. Source(s): Created by authors
After the phase two stakeholder workshops and discussions had taken place and the insights analysed, a decision was made to split the original theory of change pathway diagram into four smaller pathway diagrams. This was due to the complexity present in the original pathway diagram and concerns that the theory of change needed further refinement to be of practical use for the university’s pre-service teacher education team. Representing the pathway for each long-term goal separately helped to simplify the theory of change (each pathway was refined further during the process of separation) and provided a more accessible visual tool to support discussions about potential indicators for success and actions to be taken. An example of one of these pathway diagrams is provided below (Figure 4). Each pathway diagram illustrated one of the four long-term goals (sustainable, reciprocal, collaborative, dynamic and innovative) that had emerged and their relative preconditions, as well as some potential indicators of success.
The pathway consists of six levels arranged vertically from bottom to top. The first level at the bottom consists of three green text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Trust as a value,” “shared vision, values and goals,” and “ commitment from all parties.” An upward arrow from the first level leads to the second level, which consists of four purple text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Partnership Advisory Group in operation,” “shared governance,” “supportive and consistent leadership (schools and university),” and “funding.” The second and third purple text boxes are connected. Two upward arrows from the second purple text box and an upward arrow from the third and fourth purple text boxes lead to three pink text boxes arranged horizontally in the third level and labeled from left to right as follows: “agreed common definitions and language,” “expertise valued equally,” and “time.” Two upward arrows from each of the first, second, and third pink boxes lead to six orange boxes arranged horizontally in the fourth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “effective and relevant C P D and guidance,” “‘Third space (Zeichner 2010),’” “Teacher Educators in hybrid roles,” “working on joint projects,” “knowledge exchange,” and “research active.” An upward arrow from the first orange box, four upward arrows from the second orange box, and one upward arrow from the sixth orange box lead to nine yellow boxes arranged horizontally in the fifth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “school mentors feel recognised,” “accredited C P D,” “Professional growth,” “continuous evaluation and improvement,” “Evidence driven,” “Practice informed,” “Research informed,” “co-construction,” and “school partner contributions evident in course curriculum.” An upward arrow from the third, fourth, fifth, and eighth yellow boxes leads to eight green boxes arranged horizontally in the sixth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “research feeding back into practice,” “continuous improvement of courses,” “research opportunities with schools,” “Partnership magazine - contributions from schools,” “Reciprocal,” “feedback surveys,” “schools can identify benefits of being part of the Partnership,” and “for example school improvement or professional development.” An upward arrow from “Reciprocal” leads to a rectangle at the top labeled “An effective school-university partnership ‘co-constructed partnership’ and ‘learning community’ (Burroughs et al., 2020).”Pathway diagram for the long-term goal of “reciprocal”. Source(s): Created by authors
The pathway consists of six levels arranged vertically from bottom to top. The first level at the bottom consists of three green text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Trust as a value,” “shared vision, values and goals,” and “ commitment from all parties.” An upward arrow from the first level leads to the second level, which consists of four purple text boxes arranged horizontally and labeled from left to right as follows: “Partnership Advisory Group in operation,” “shared governance,” “supportive and consistent leadership (schools and university),” and “funding.” The second and third purple text boxes are connected. Two upward arrows from the second purple text box and an upward arrow from the third and fourth purple text boxes lead to three pink text boxes arranged horizontally in the third level and labeled from left to right as follows: “agreed common definitions and language,” “expertise valued equally,” and “time.” Two upward arrows from each of the first, second, and third pink boxes lead to six orange boxes arranged horizontally in the fourth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “effective and relevant C P D and guidance,” “‘Third space (Zeichner 2010),’” “Teacher Educators in hybrid roles,” “working on joint projects,” “knowledge exchange,” and “research active.” An upward arrow from the first orange box, four upward arrows from the second orange box, and one upward arrow from the sixth orange box lead to nine yellow boxes arranged horizontally in the fifth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “school mentors feel recognised,” “accredited C P D,” “Professional growth,” “continuous evaluation and improvement,” “Evidence driven,” “Practice informed,” “Research informed,” “co-construction,” and “school partner contributions evident in course curriculum.” An upward arrow from the third, fourth, fifth, and eighth yellow boxes leads to eight green boxes arranged horizontally in the sixth level and labeled from left to right as follows: “research feeding back into practice,” “continuous improvement of courses,” “research opportunities with schools,” “Partnership magazine - contributions from schools,” “Reciprocal,” “feedback surveys,” “schools can identify benefits of being part of the Partnership,” and “for example school improvement or professional development.” An upward arrow from “Reciprocal” leads to a rectangle at the top labeled “An effective school-university partnership ‘co-constructed partnership’ and ‘learning community’ (Burroughs et al., 2020).”Pathway diagram for the long-term goal of “reciprocal”. Source(s): Created by authors
Workshops with different types of stakeholders illuminated concepts and influenced the theory of change pathway diagram in varying ways. For example, the workshop that took place with senior leaders from the university’s pre-service teacher education team, helped to refine the long-term goal of “collaboration” which had originally been defined as “co-construction”. There was discussion in the workshop about the difference between collaboration and co-construction and the extent to which each was feasible within a partnership at scale. The discussion led to co-construction being placed as one of the preconditions of collaboration under the premise that working on defined joint projects where the university and school partners co-construct elements of the course together enables the partnership to be collaborative, rather than solely co-construction framed as a long-term goal for a partnership.
The long-term goal of “dynamic and innovative” was a new long-term goal that originated from the discussions in this workshop, focused on the importance of the partnership being responsive; having the flexibility to take on board feedback, evaluate programmes and innovate accordingly. Continuous evaluation could be informed from practice (i.e. school partners or teacher educators in the pre-service teacher education team) or from research, and these were added as preconditions to the pathway diagram for this new long-term goal. What distinguished this long-term goal from themes such as adaptability and responsiveness identified in the literature review was the notion of sensitivity to the changing landscape of the education sector nationally and locally, and the potential of a new school–university partnership, without a legacy and the mechanics of large numbers of programmes, staff and students, to respond innovatively to a shifting context. One participant within the pre-service teacher education team commented “…we can be more responsive, we’re dynamic, we can take feedback, make changes in the way that others (teacher education providers) can’t…”.
The second workshop and participant discussions helped to further refine the pathway diagram, with particular emphasis on positive and sustained relationships, clear communication and the importance of creating opportunities for collaboration between the university and schools. A school–university partnership in which everyone understands their role, responsibilities and how to seek guidance was especially valued by school stakeholders and professional services within the pre-service teacher education team. The voice and expertise of professional services as participants in this project provided insights into practical actions needed to ensure that communication (and consequently the development of positive relationships) with schools was effective (such as timely email communication, an accessible and concise website, and building knowledge of the gatekeepers for communication within each school).
The concept of “third space” (Zeichner et al., 2015) had already been identified as a precondition during phase one of the project and was a topic that sparked a lot of discussion, with school-based participants drawing on examples from their experience with other pre-service teacher education providers where joint projects had been beneficial for the university and the schools involved. Importantly, the discussion also drew on negative examples where such efforts at joint work had not been as successful, which helped to illuminate the importance of framing a joint co-constructed project as one where all parties contributed equally.
The added value of the university within a school–university partnership was prominent, with school-based participants advocating for the beneficial professional development they experienced (beyond mentor training) when working in partnership with universities. One participant stated, “I got the best subject specific training I’ve ever had in my career”…… The enhanced professional development a university can offer (such as taking part in university research projects, pursuing further study, being involved with subject/phase educator networks) was viewed as a key benefit for schools working in these partnerships with comments such as “if you’ve got a school that’s on the fence about working with you….you can say, well it’s not just mentor training, you’re getting teacher training as well”. The suggestion that working with a university can support staff development aligned with the long-term goal of “reciprocal” which had already been identified from phase one. However, it also added an additional dimension to the theory of change. Could we, as a university, provide some added value to the reciprocal element of the partnership that we could leverage to encourage schools to join our partnership? What professional development programmes might we consider providing for schools and how might our pre-service teacher education provision facilitate other types of staff development through involvement in research projects and collaborative delivery of the course?
When discussing the potential indicators of an effective school–university partnership, stakeholders emphasised that pre-service teachers should be of high-quality (measured by feedback from schools who employed them once qualified), would remain in teaching more than five years, would become mentors of future pre-service teachers in the system and would be advocates for the quality of the programme (sharing positive feedback about the programme with schools and potential pre-service teachers). Thus, the potential for the school–university partnership to contribute positively to teacher quality, recruitment and retention in the local area was a particular focus of the vision. Stakeholders clearly felt that universities have a part to play in the successful ecosystem of teacher development.
Discussion
One of the key benefits of using a theory of change methodology in this project was the opportunity to make visible the complex influencing variables on the long-term goals. The pathway diagrams made explicit our long-term goals and how particular preconditions and actions were causally linked to the long-term goals in a way that was accessible for all stakeholders, both in the phase two workshops and afterwards as the theory of change began to be implemented. The principal researcher was able to use the pathway diagrams to articulate the theory of change clearly with all stakeholders. This was particularly evident in the implementation stages when more members of the university teacher education team began to be involved with partnership development through a partnership working group.
The partnership working group (consisting of academic and professional services staff across the three university campuses) was set up to explore actionable ideas for developing the partnership. Sharing the four pathway diagrams with the group was a powerful way to support discussions and strategic decisions. We were able to align potential strategies for partnership development with the theory of change to ensure that planned actions were more likely to achieve the long-term goals we were aiming for, enabling more focused discussions. The benefits of a visual approach to working with stakeholders have been highlighted in other theory of change projects (Laing & Todd, 2015), with the suggestion that a visual helps to bridge the connection between the research and the participants. In this project, the visual benefits went beyond making the research more accessible; visuals acted as a mediating tool for developing strategic thinking within a mixed team of academics, practitioners and professional services.
The collaborative model enabled a range of relevant stakeholders, with knowledge of the context in which the school–university partnership is situated, to co-create a vision for the partnership. This enhanced the richness of the theory of change; examples and suggestions stemming from stakeholder contributions enabled deeper contextual development of the theory of change, which would not have been possible from the literature review alone.
School-based participants were conscious of being included in the theory of change project. One participant stated, “it’s really appreciated…..involving us in this part of the process”. Despite collaboration and co-construction being posited as important elements of effective school–university partnerships in the research literature (Billett et al., 2007; DiCicco et al., 2023; Littlefair et al., 2019), the evidence from this project suggests it is unusual for school-based practitioners to feel fully involved in strategic aspects of partnership working. As a new pre-service teacher education provider, we were able to include school-based stakeholders and professional services within the university in strategic aspects of early partnership development work that they may not normally be involved with. The theory of change process helped to make visible and invite contributions to the strategic aspects of this early partnership development work. Therefore, the theory of change methodology acted as a tool for enabling co-construction and collaboration between school and university stakeholders on strategic planning.
The preconditions for a successful school–university partnership in the pathway diagrams build on the concepts in the partnership framework outlined by Burroughs et al. (2020). Preconditions suggested as essential for aspirational levels of partnership, such as trust, positive relationships, co-construction, collaboration and mutually beneficial outcomes, were affirmed and developed during the stakeholder discussions. The ability for a partnership to be dynamic, innovative and responsive to policy changes, feedback and context was a long-term goal that was newly established during the stakeholder workshops and adds an additional layer to our understanding of the necessary characteristics of a resilient and sustainable school–university partnership in the current policy landscape. Ellis and Childs (2024) argue that pre-service teacher education in England is now more centrally controlled than anywhere else in the world, so it is intriguing that the need for partnerships to be dynamic, responsive and innovative was prominent in stakeholder discussions. Perhaps, with an awareness of this tightly mandated teacher education landscape, stakeholders seek school–university partnerships to move beyond the status quo in their mission to develop high-quality teachers fit for a long career in teaching.
The stakeholder discussions also highlighted the importance of leveraging the unique value of the university within a mutually beneficial partnership, adding to our understanding of the relationship schools hold with pre-service teacher education providers. In a context where schools are increasingly interacting with a varied “diet” of pre-service teacher education providers and providers are finding it more difficult to find partner schools, understanding what influences schools to choose to be involved with pre-service teacher education is important for new partnerships as well as existing ones. The findings of this project suggest that schools value tangible staff development benefits such as opportunities for accredited professional development courses and involvement with research projects, which a university is well placed to offer. This aligns with previous research, which found that school-based colleagues value university tutors’ expertise and knowledge of up-to-date research, as well as the professional development afforded to them when working within a school–university partnership (Williams & Soares, 2000). Despite a university being absent within some pre-service teacher education provision in England, the findings of this project highlight that schools value and respect their specialised contribution.
An appreciation of the wider educational ecosystem of teacher recruitment and retention was salient during the stakeholder discussions, particularly with school-based participants. A school–university partnership that can produce high-quality teachers who will remain in and positively contribute to the teaching profession was viewed as the ultimate measure of an effective partnership by stakeholders. This was not a surprise to us; our mission as a new provider has always been to develop well-rounded, effective teachers who are prepared for a long career in teaching. The theory of change process enabled these goals to be formally articulated, measures of success clarified and for us to think strategically about how we can achieve our mission through an effective partnership with schools. Recent research suggests that university pre-service teacher education is often viewed as a “regional hub of education advancement” (Hoult et al., 2025, p. 499) by teacher educators, helping to improve education quality in their local area. Our research suggests that this view is also shared by school partners.
The process of completing a collaborative theory of change is lengthy due to the need to include a range of stakeholders as well as insights from research literature. It is an iterative process requiring multiple stages of development. There was some lead time (one year) for the university before active partnerships with schools were required, however, some partnership-building activities were already being implemented throughout the theory of change development process. In some ways, this was useful because these actions could be evaluated against the newly created pathway diagrams. Indeed, Laing and Todd (2015) suggest that theory of change methodology can be used throughout the lifecycle of a project, even if it is already underway, as it can ensure the project is going in the right direction. On the other hand, in a situation where there is accountability for a project to be implemented and achieve some outcomes early on, the time commitment of a theory of change process might be a hindrance. On balance, the overall benefits of having a clear and focused strategy for achieving a project’s long-term goals outweigh the time spent on developing a theory of change.
Conclusion
Understanding how an effective school–university partnership is formed and maintained is complex. Using a collaborative theory of change methodology allowed strategic partnership development plans to be both research-informed and practice-informed. The potential mechanisms for building an effective partnership could be presented in an accessible visual format to support co-construction and collaboration with a range of stakeholders. The visual format of the theory of change acted as a mediating tool for advancing strategic thinking within a mixed team of academics, practitioners and professional services, aiding more focused and precise decisions regarding partnership development. The two-phase collaborative methodology outlined in this article has the potential to be applied by educational researchers and practitioners within education projects involving multiple stakeholders, where a clear strategy for achieving long-term goals is required.
The involvement of stakeholders from schools and the university led to new understandings of the conditions required for building and sustaining an effective school–university partnership in the emerging post-accreditation environment in England. Within a policy landscape where university involvement in pre-service teacher education is not a given, the evidence from this project suggests that schools value universities contribution to the teacher development ecosystem, and there is an appetite for school–university partnerships to innovate beyond the constraints of a highly regulated teacher education system. In the evolving international landscape of increasingly tight government control of teacher education, it is important to continue to champion the unique contribution of universities to local education systems.
The authors would like to thank all participants for contributing their time and insights to the stakeholder workshops.
