Developing and sustaining an equity-driven teacher residency model in an anti-DEI policy climate

Teacher residencies, defined as district-serving educator preparation programs pairing novice teachers with mentors for a year-long classroom experience (National Center for Teacher Residencies, 2018; Wasburn-Moses, 2017), have been proposed as solutions to longstanding problems in education (Guha et al., 2016). One such problem is the persistent marginalization of K–12 students of color (Azar et al., 2020; Hill-Jackson, 2023; Wright et al., 2017). Identifying pathways to reduce inequity is especially urgent within today's anti-DEI policy landscape. To explore this possibility, we draw on findings from a joint narrative inquiry (Creswell, 2013; Czarniawska, 2004) examining how teacher residencies promote equity, access and achievement for K–12 students from racially, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. We rely on boundary spanning theories (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) as we recall the conceptualization, design and sustainability of a teacher residency program that met its goal of producing teachers who close equity gaps for their students (Gottlieb & Kirksey, 2022).

Residency programs can advance educational equity by better preparing teachers to leverage community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) through culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012). Structural features of residencies also support recruitment and preparation of teachers of color, who increase student success (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Wright et al., 2017). Yet DEI initiatives, particularly around race, are increasingly contentious. In Texas, a recent executive order claims DEI programs “are just new forms of racism” (Exec. Order No. GA55, 2025, p. 1). Regardless of political views, most K–12 and higher education stakeholders aim to close race-based achievement gaps since these metrics define accountability (Au, 2022). Thus, the challenge is not feasibility but practicality. Because residents spend most of their time in K–12 classrooms, residencies shift teacher preparation from universities to communities. Faculty may endorse equity goals, yet enacting them can clash with institutional norms (Pasquesi et al., 2019).

As district-serving programs (Solomon, 2009), residencies face similar sustainability challenges as other community-engaged practices, especially at research universities (Kim et al., 2020). Implementation often conflicts with traditional conceptions of scholarship and tenure (Terosky, 2018). While policy organizations define residency elements (National Center for Teacher Residencies, 2018), little research explores institutional narratives of “why” and “how” programs take shape. Narrative inquiry (Webster & Mertova, 2007) offers a means to capture the lived experiences of faculty and leaders designing and sustaining these partnerships. By examining these stories, this study deepens understanding of the practices and politics of transforming traditional teacher preparation into a residency model. The research question driving this inquiry was: What are the narratives of institutional change that characterize one educator preparation program's adoption of an equity-driven teacher residency model?

This study is rooted in sociocultural theories that argue that human learning is a socially situated phenomenon (Vygotsky, 1978). More specifically, we drew on views of residency programs as dependent on K-12 leadership and university faculty to serve as boundary spanners (Bartel, 2001; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). Boundary spanning theories focus on the roles and activities individuals or organizations perform when they bridge different systems, which entails facilitating communication, collaboration and knowledge exchange across organizational boundaries (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Lammert et al., 2025; Williams, 2002). As boundary spanners, actors in educator preparation program systems leverage their collective capacity for the shared goal of preparing teachers who can positively impact student achievement. To this end, university faculty and K-12 teachers and leaders can act as boundary spanners by engaging in collaborative efforts that combine their theoretical knowledge and practical experience. This collaborative boundary spanning can enhance the relevance and impact of teacher education, fostering more effective teaching practices and improved student outcomes.

We conceptualize boundary spanning as both a responsive orientation that leaders can possess and a specific set of actions that leaders can undertake to facilitate strong university/school district partnerships (Boyer, 1990; Weerts & Sandmann, 2010; Sandmann et al., 2014). For example, university faculty can take the action step of working alongside K-12 teachers to develop teacher education program curricula that are both research-based and responsive to real-world needs. In undertaking this action, these boundary spanners reflect an orientation toward seeing value in practitioner knowledge and an orientation toward responding to the challenges of K-12 settings. Through such partnerships, both groups can leverage their expertise to bridge the gap between the academic preparation of future teachers and the realities of classroom teaching (Penuel & Gallagher, 2017; Cochran-Smith et al., 2018).

The collective leveraging of expertise is essential to accomplish when building a residency program since K-12 schools and universities are inextricably bound together in a feedback loop. K-12 systems produce students who may go on to become university students, and in some cases, K-12 teachers. These K-12 teachers support the next generation of K-12 students, so teachers in each phase are inextricably connected to one another. Importantly, this interconnectedness suggests the necessity of university faculty talking a boundary-spanning approach (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) to teacher education. In the current narrative inquiry study, theories of boundary spanning served to help explain how the educator preparation program coalesced around a vision to transition to a residency model. Even in organizations where leadership has a strong orientation toward community engagement, ensuring that other actors within the organization utilize their capacity toward a shared goal requires boundary-spanning actions. With theories of boundary spanning in mind, we now turn to what is known about how residency programs can be designed with an orientation toward equity.

First, we describe what is known about how residency programs can support the goal of improving educational outcomes for K-12 students from marginalized communities.

Prior research has examined how teacher residencies afford teacher education programs a unique ability to recruit and prepare teachers of color (Azar et al., 2020; Hill-Jackson, 2023). It is established that teachers of color increase academic success rates for students of color (Wright et al., 2017). Specifically, a role model effect exists in K-12 education where students can come to see themselves as academically capable when served by a teacher who views them as capable (Carver-Thomas, 2018). Further, research by Lindsay and Hart (2017) has demonstrated that teachers of color are less likely to inconsistently and inequitably apply discipline practices in schools, which has benefits for all students, but especially for students of color and boys. Clearly, there is a benefit to using residencies to foster a more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse teacher workforce. Several residency programs designed toward this aim have been successful (Azar et al., 2020; Hill-Jackson, 2023).

Beyond preparing greater numbers of teachers of color, the literature suggests additional ways that residency programs might contribute to equitable outcomes in K-12 education. One notable feature of teacher residency programs is that they often emphasize long-term commitments to teaching in high-need schools, which helps increase teacher retention (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Research shows that residency graduates are more likely to stay in these schools compared to traditionally prepared teachers (Coggshall, 2012) or to teachers who enter high-needs schools through programs such as Teach for America (DeAngelis, 2019a). In addition, residency programs help fill teacher shortages, particularly in high-need subject areas and schools with large populations of marginalized students. By preparing teachers who are committed to serving schools with racially, ethnically and culturally diverse students, residency programs help ensure that underserved students have access to high-quality educators (DeAngelis, 2019b).

Despite the many ways in which residencies might contribute to more equitable outcomes, a question rarely answered by the existing literature is whether the K-12 students of teachers prepared through residencies – including white teachers and teachers of color – actually display improved academic performance. This question is difficult for researchers to engage with for a variety of reasons, including the challenge of comparing the academic performance of students taught by teachers prepared through different pathways, given the major differences that exist between school contexts. However, for residencies to deliver on their promise of promoting equity in education, a key indicator is that they must demonstrably reduce the persistent racial achievement gaps amongst students of teachers prepared through this pathway.

While residency programs hold promise, there are many difficulties in building and sustaining teacher residency programs. In this review of literature, we divide these challenges into those that are externally driven by teacher hiring markets and those internally driven by institutions of higher education. Externally, for many programs, the greatest challenge is funding. Teacher residency programs, which typically pair novice teachers with experienced mentors for intensive training, often require significant financial support for stipends, professional development and administrative costs (Azar et al., 2020). Funding for these programs usually comes from a combination of federal grants, state education budgets and private foundations, which can provide funds on a temporary or recurring basis (Kinney et al., 2021). However, many programs face difficulty securing sustained funding due to fluctuating state budgets, changes in political priorities or the lack of dedicated long-term funding streams (Olivier, 2020). Additionally, some residency programs struggle to support fully funded residencies – where participants receive stipends to cover living expenses – because the cost of providing financial support for residents, in addition to covering the cost of mentoring and instructional support, can be prohibitive (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). The crux of the issue is that many school districts are hesitant to commit to long-term funding to residencies without clear and local evidence of program effectiveness (i.e., residencies leading to quantifiable achievement growth specific to their school district), yet obtaining this evidence in a particular setting is impossible without beginning and funding a residency program. This creates a barrier for programs that need to demonstrate measurable impact before receiving consistent backing (Kinney et al., 2021).

In addition, residency programs face competition from other methods of obtaining teacher certification, and increasingly, from the prospect of teaching without earning a certification at all (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2017). Driven by dramatic teacher shortages, many districts are turning to emergency credentialed teachers and/or those enrolled in alternative certification programs (DeAngelis, 2019a). In these cases, teachers will be instructors of record prior to completing certification. In contrast, residents are expected to spend a full year student teaching prior to becoming an instructor of record. Furthermore, the format of teacher residency programs typically prevents them from working another job to support their own schooling. While their preparation may enable them to be more effective educators, it may be difficult for potential residents to justify spending a year in a training program, given that they can now earn employment without it.

These challenges, which are largely the product of state policy contexts and district hiring markets, clearly impact residencies. However, there are challenges to designing residency programs that come internally, from within the norms and traditions of higher education, particularly at large research institutions. First, when enacted in alignment with standards such as the National Center for Teacher Residencies (2018) guidelines, building and maintaining teacher residencies partnerships can constitute community-engaged work. In academia, community-engaged scholarship can be viewed positively, as a “collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities... for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (Driscoll, 2008, p. 39). However, research indicates that universities often prioritize the needs and outcomes of higher education institutions rather than maintaining a 50/50 focus on both university and community impact in their community engagement effort (Yamamura & Koth, 2019). Additionally, two significant challenges hinder the realization of community engagement work within universities, particularly research universities: a faculty reward system that inconsistently values service while prioritizing research and teaching, and insufficient training and development for faculty to learn effective community engagement practices. Despite the promise residencies hold, promotion and tenure remain the primary mechanism for recognizing university faculty performance. Within the three key components of scholarship, teaching and service, community-engaged work continues to be undervalued within these systems. Although we could not identify the specific origin of the saying “no one ever gets tenure for doing service,” the phrase is referenced in the research literature (i.e., Pfeifer, 2016, p. 238) and often recited in academic settings. Even faculty who consider community engagement as essential to their professional fulfilment often encounter structural barriers that discourage this work, such as return-to-office mandates and teaching schedules that prohibit field-based engagement. As such, when faculty face insufficient institutional support and fear jeopardizing their promotion and tenure prospects, it can create substantial anxiety for community-engaged scholars (Terosky, 2018), including those who might desire to work in teacher residency programs.

Second, community engagement professionals and leaders within higher education institutions often find themselves navigating conflicting priorities and expectations from students, faculty, community partners and administration. In doing so, they must learn to lead from the middle as they must navigate complex relationships. However, learning to critically reflect on questions of equity, and learning to manage community/university relationships are not something that is universally discussed in doctoral training programs (Lammert et al., 2024), so faculty may have had no formal preparation on this topic. As a result, it has become essential for these professionals to develop strategies for building and sustaining community engagement efforts with adequate resources (Weers, 2019). Yamamura and Koth (2019) emphasize the need for enhanced training and development for leaders involved in community-engaged work, especially in areas like multicultural competency and inclusion.

In sum, even if solutions could be found to the persistent funding issues and market-based challenges to teacher education systems, institutions of higher education are not well designed to support residency model teacher education programs. We argue that adopting a residency model requires university leadership to shift many structural features of higher education systems, changes that require vision and commitment, which we have explored through narrative inquiry. By examining the critical incidents (Tripp, 2011) that exist around one residency program, the current study aims to address what institutional tensions, challenges, and resources might exist to support the development of school-university partnerships.

In this study, which focused on the stories of institutional change that characterized one residency program, we utilized narrative inquiry (Creswell, 2013; Czarniawska, 2004; Webster & Mertova, 2007) as our overarching methodology. Czarniawska (2004) explains that “narrative is understood as a spoken or written text giving an account of an event/action or series of events/actions chronologically connected” (p. 17). Narrative inquiry is an ideal methodology to address our research question, which focuses on the stories that higher education faculty recall as being those that shaped the design and construction of the residency program as it was proposed, adopted and built. In this way, the current study adds valuable qualitative texture to the literature on teacher residencies, which often focuses on structural elements and case reports of programs with little attention to the personal and professional chronicles and accounts of the experiences of those working in residencies.

For this narrative inquiry study, we agreed to participate in our roles in a residency program in which we both work, which was determined using a combination of critical case and opportunistic sampling procedures (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This educator preparation program was an early adopter of a residency model over a decade ago, which makes it an ideal site to explore the lasting impact of this programmatic decision. Moreover, evidence indicates that the K-12 students taught by graduates of our residency program have significantly higher achievement than those of teachers prepared through other pathways, and the difference is particularly profound for students of color (Gottlieb & Kirksey, 2022). Given that our residency program has narrowed race-based achievement gaps in both math and reading, and given that this program exists in a US state with a highly charged anti-DEI policy context (Exec. Order No. GA55, 2025), we aim to use this study as a space to explore the key decisions that led to the design of the equity-driven residency program and ultimately this outcome. Furthermore, our positionalities created a situation in which, as researchers, we “followed new leads” given “unexpected” circumstances (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 28). Specifically, Author Two is the current chair of the Department of Teacher Education. At the time of the initial design of the residency program, she was a faculty member in the College of Education. She has nearly twenty years of experience in higher education and has worked within the program as a Site Coordinator as well as a course instructor. In contrast, Author One is a junior untenured faculty member in this department who has worked within this program as a course instructor and anchor faculty for four years. When taking this role, she enthusiastically sought out a university with a focus on community engagement and equity-driven teacher education. However, since the residency program was already well-established by the time she became a faculty member, she knew relatively few of the overarching narratives and stories about the program's creation and its founders' intentions. In this way, we were uniquely positioned to work together as co-researchers and co-reflective partners into narratives of the program's history, with one of us as a relative newcomer/outsider and the other as a longstanding community member/insider (Kennedy-Lewis, 2012).

Third, stories of the creation and construction of the teacher residency program are especially important in this particular educator preparation program since its two key architects passed away prior to the emergence of research findings showing the long-term success of the program. Dean Scott Ridley and Department Chair Doug Hamman were the leaders primarily responsible for the construction of the residency program, and many key program structures are a direct result of their innovative visions for teacher preparation. As such, the narratives that continue to be shared amongst faculty are essential texts that circulate around the residency program, making this an ideal site for narrative inquiry research (Czarniawska, 2004; Webster & Mertova, 2007). By exploring these stories together, narrative inquiry research serves as a space for their continued transmission.

Clandinin and Connelly (2000) refer to the artifacts used in narrative inquiry, including those written, drawn, orally, or multimodally constructed, as field texts. In this study, our field texts consisted of: (A) materials used to advertise the educator preparation program, (B) videos of “townhall meetings” consisting of teacher candidates, faculty, and university leadership conducted within the educator preparation program, (C) emails, drawings, and personal memos shared between the former and current department chair, dean and K-12 district leaders (D) photos from programmatic events such as conferences and shared governance meetings with K-12 district leaders, (E) research publications from faculty in the College of Education and (F) notes recording the conversations between the co-researchers around these artifacts. In sum, the perspectives of 15 faculty and leaders within the educator preparation program contributed data to this study in some form (i.e., by authoring publications, sharing emails and memos, etc.). In this case, our field texts took the form of both first-order and second-order narratives (Elliott, 2005) since some of the field texts (e.g., Author Two's verbal statements) recounted things she directly recalled and experienced, whereas other field texts (e.g., the former department chair's personal memos reflecting on his work with the dean) took the form of a collective story representing the experiences of a small circle of other individuals. Our analysis of these field texts occurred in two phases, as described below.

First, we began by reviewing the field texts as a team through reading, rereading, dialogue, and notation with the goal of identifying and analyzing critical incidents. The identification of critical incidents is a technique dating back to the 1950s that involves the precise examination of events or experiences that hold significance for individuals and/or communities, which provides opportunities for a deeper understanding of the complexities of educational settings (Tripp, 2011; Viergever, 2019). As such, these incidents were our analytic focus. First, we prioritized the depth of the narratives shared by meeting in two face-to-face sessions for three hours per session. Each session was loosely structured around the project goals and focused on residencies. According to Webster and Mertova (2007), narrative inquiry takes time and situations of trust as participants reflect on their experiences. At each meeting, Author One wrote brief margin notes (i.e., “faculty had different opinions about this decision-follow up next time”) that she expanded into detailed analytic memos following each meeting.

In the second stage of analysis, we moved from reviewing field texts to shared reading of analytic memos through the conceptual lens of boundary spanning (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). Following Creswell (2013), we explored stories while looking for “a causal link among ideas” (p. 74) but without imposing causality where it was not supported by our field texts. Through this process, Author One constructed an analytic memo that reflected her emergent understanding of the narrative of the educator preparation program in chronological organization. Author Two read, discussed and suggested revisions to the memo to clarify key points of the narrative. Then, to improve trustworthiness of the findings, both authors returned to the field texts to examine them in relation to the emerging narrative (Webster & Mertova, 2007). Working from this memo, we identified three critical incidents (Tripp, 2011; Viergever, 2019) related to the design of the residency program as a mechanism for improving educational equity. To conclude our analytic process, we engaged in narrative smoothing and co-wrote reflections on the lessons learned from the critical incident, and we discussed how a boundary-spanning lens might inform our views.

Consistent with narrative inquiry methods, our results are organized around three critical incidents related to the design of the residency program and how it might support equitable outcomes in K-12 education. One critical incident occurred prior to the residency program's beginning, one occurred during its growth, and a third occurred after a decade of its existence.

This critical incident focuses on the program's foundational design decisions, emphasizing how early leadership actions positioned equity as both the moral and structural cornerstone of the residency model. Author Two was a faculty member at the time of the residency program's initial design. As we reviewed documents and discussed the program's underpinnings, a key question we examined together was what conceptual models or frameworks leadership used to guide their decision-making process. Together, we were particularly drawn to a three-part vision for the College of Education expressed by the Dean and saved in a program document. This document was communicated often and used in college meetings and on the website at the time. The vision is presented in Figure 1.

Key to the model is that faculty embrace an “outward-facing, client-centered orientation” (USPREP, 2017, p. 2) in which the term “clients” (p. 2) refers to the K-12 school districts and their students and communities. In this view, the purpose of the College's research efforts is to support the goals of these clients by partnering with them to develop innovative solutions. Ultimately, looking at the top triangle, this would enable us to produce the best educators, defined as those who measurably outperform their peers. Author Two reflected on the moment when this vision was first shared with her. She wrote,

As we discussed this critical incident, Author Two expanded on the challenges the college was facing at the time the residency program was proposed and developed. As Author One recounts the conversation,

In looking back at this model and the moments in which the model was used, it became clear to us that from the start, Dean had a deep fundamental understanding of how actors across K-12 and university settings must come together as boundary spanners (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) in residency programs. Within the residency program, leaders realized the interconnectedness of elements; high schools feed their students to the university, and universities feed teachers back into high schools, so a lack of equity at any level of the system was sure to negatively impact others. Given that there is a continual process of working with the products of some other aspect of the system, it is essential for all actors to serve as boundary spanners (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) as they make decisions with the health of the entire system in mind rather than solely focusing on their own immediate context. Advancing education systems for the possibility of greater equity, writ large, requires looking across K-12 and higher education as an organizational organism.

We also note that the challenges felt outside of the organization (i.e., pressure from alternative certification programs) and the pressures felt from within the organization (i.e., pressure on faculty to excel in areas besides service) are consistent with those we still experience today. As a junior faculty member, Author One is acutely aware of these demands and feels a sense of relief at learning she was not alone in seeing the tenure and promotion process as having ever-changing hidden rules. In contrast, Author Two, who is tenured, recalled her own experiences of buying into the vision held by the dean with the broader goal of using the residency program to create more equitable opportunities for K-12 students.

This critical incident examines how leadership operationalized its vision by translating equity commitments into concrete program structures and policies, often navigating internal resistance to community-engaged priorities. Rather than leaving the success of the residency program to chance, the dean and department chair worked closely to enact their vision at scale. As we reviewed various documents and discussed the ways this leadership vision was enacted, a few key words and images recurred. It became clear that when faced with situations in which agreeing with the concerns and expressed needs of faculty would require deviating from what would best serve K-12 districts, leadership chose to serve the K-12 districts, which they referred to as “clients,” consistent with a boundary spanning mentality (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010). As Author Two recalled, not all university-based actors within the system appreciated this stance at first, while others never came around to this vision, even choosing to leave the university. We found an extended description of this leadership style in the reflective writings and drawings of the former department chair. In one set of notes, the department chair had jotted what would become the key features of the residency program. It read as follows:

1. Clinically intensive, competency-based

2. Full-year student teach

3. Co-teaching

4. Performance-based in blocks (department chair's written reflections, 2019)

In the earliest stages of the program's development, leadership focused on these key priorities to ensure the program effectively prepared future teachers. The broader goal was to improve K-12 achievement through producing better teachers, which the department chair believed would turn public sentiment and stakeholder engagement toward the university and away from the persistent critiques faced by university-based teacher education. He represented this turn in a drawing (Figure 2).

As he described, he was pushed by the dean to meet targets and grow and improve the program. He wrote, “Some might consider it micro-managing (and I believe it was until I earned his trust)… and maybe it was, but what it also revealed is his intense interest in teacher education” (department chair's written reflections, 2019). In this reflection, the former department chair revealed the dean's leadership of the residency program to be viewed by faculty as heavy-handed in his implementation of new ideas, using terms such as “micro-managing” but also “intense[ly] interested” in teacher education.

Across our review of artifacts, it also became apparent that there were many changes that were enacted to support the residency program, but leadership sustained focus on the key elements described above. These included restructuring the certification office and the elimination of traditional teacher candidate field placement procedures. Instead, the program was designed around “site coordinators” who serve as instructional coaches and mentors to residents as well as beacons of the program as boundary spanners who bridge university and field-based settings. Securing institutional support for individuals to hold these roles was challenging since they did not fit neatly into the definitions of faculty work.

As we reflected on the institutional narratives of change that shaped the timeframe when the residency program moved from being envisioned to enacted, we were struck by the dedication that the dean and department chair held to the original vision despite not yet having empirical evidence that teachers prepared through this program would outperform their peers. Kinney et al. (2021) have described this problem as a situation in which stakeholders require proof of the effectiveness of the design before permitting the design to be utilized, thereby hindering progress. In the case of this educator preparation program, leadership sought this evidence eventually but held fast to their original vision.

In addition, as we reflected on this critical incident, both Authors became more sympathetic to the challenges faced by these leaders as they enacted a client-driven vision for a College of Education. Although many faculty claim that supporting marginalized and underserved communities is part of their goals, this critical incident highlighted the likelihood of individuals' actions departing from their principles without leadership's oversight. As Author One reacted to this critical incident, she explained, “Seeing those four list items, this design looks intentionally simple. In fact, simple is the wrong word. Focused? Parsimonious? I found myself in awe of how intentional the program elements were in their design.” These elements reflected the dean and the department chair holding course to the original vision despite obstacles due to the promise this model held for supporting K-12 district partnerships.

This critical incident explores how program outcomes and empirical evidence became validation for earlier leadership decisions, especially amid evolving political and institutional pressures. In November 2022, Gottlieb and Kirksey released a policy brief in which they reported on a study comparing graduates of our program to graduates of other teacher education program pathways. This report showed that the K-12 students of graduates of our residency program (n = 827, 967) outperformed the students of other graduates on the state assessments of math and reading achievement. These impacts were most prominent for students of color, students with disabilities, Emergent Bilinguals and students from low socioeconomic status (Gottlieb & Kirksey, 2022). As faculty in the department whose residency program was under investigation in this study, each of us encountered these results at different times. As such, we each present our reflective narratives recalling what the study's results initially meant to us. Then, we explore the similarities and differences in our reactions through the boundary-spanning (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) lens. Author Two shares her narrative as follows.

For Author Two, these results matched the description of the aim to “produce measurably the best educators in the US” as defined by the Dean's founding documents (USPREP, 2017, p. 2). In this moment, the program's aim had been fully realized for her. As a faculty member who personally invested in this vision, the moment was triumphant. However, this was not the only response to this research report. Author One relates her narrative as follows, in which she reflects on receiving the results without having this narrative background of the program,

Reading these accounts, it is apparent that Gottlieb and Kirksey's (2022) study's results, which suggested the success of the equity-driven residency program, held different meanings to us based on our relationships to the program and our knowledge of the overarching narratives of institutional change that underpin our residency program. Author Two had been involved since the beginning. For Author Two, these results were a sort of vindication that the bold decisions made by leadership led to improved teacher preparation and reduced achievement gaps for K-12 students. As a longtime boundary spanner (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010), Author Two related strongly to the districts who would react positively to the news of the study. Since the residency program was contributing to higher student achievement, the results might validate and support existing district partnerships and could even bring new districts onboard. Ultimately, these results suggested to her that the underlying models that drove the residency program's design accurately reflected that the university could improve K-12 student learning by improving teacher preparation.

Author One took the stance of an untenured faculty member and university-based teacher educator in her reaction to these results. Rather than focusing on what the study could mean for improving university/district partnerships, as a boundary spanner typically would, she felt herself focusing on concerns such as the positioning of her undergraduate students. Moreover, she assumed that it was widely understood, and not in question, that high-quality teacher preparation contributes to making K-12 school settings more equitable. As a faculty member and teacher educator who had chosen to work within this residency program, she was already confident of its value, so the necessity of the study confirming its value was unclear. These differences in interpretation highlight the ways the same research results can hold different value for faculty members depending on their knowledge of leadership histories and narratives of change that circulate in their institutions.

This narrative inquiry study was driven by the question of what stories of change characterize one educator preparation program's adoption of an equity-driven teacher residency model. This work was rooted in the realization that people are not the only ones who have stories; in fact, institutions themselves have stories of “how” and “why” they are designed. One value that this study has is in showing the internal challenges institutions of higher education may have when considering the adoption of residency programs, such as inconsistencies between the research-focused nature of tenure and promotion and the goal of community engagement. Narratives of how a program was developed, even including those unknown to junior faculty, play a powerful role in shaping the everyday actions of faculty within teacher education programs (Czarniawska, 2004). The stories we tell and retell about our roles are narratives that individuals consider as they take on boundary spanning (Weerts & Sandmann, 2010) orientations and actions within residency systems. These institutional and tenure-related constraints unfold within a broader policy climate of political polarization and anti-DEI pressures that shape what kinds of preparation, partnerships, and scholarship are seen as legitimate. In this context, hesitancy to reward community-engaged, equity-oriented work reflects the external pressures facing educator preparation (Au, 2022; Exec. Order No. GA55, 2025; Hill-Jackson, 2023; Wilder et al., 2024). Furthermore, when conducting narrative research with others, there is a “turn toward the relationship between the researcher and the researched” in which, “both parties will learn and change in the encounter” (Creswell, 2013, p. 75). As co-researchers, we found our own understanding of our residency program was deepened through this exploration. In this way, looking back permitted us to look forward.

This study holds important implications for residency programs. What became abundantly clear when examining the first critical incident (Tripp, 2011) was that the challenges we are facing in our residency program today may be slightly different in magnitude than those that were present when it was designed (i.e., alternative certification pathways have increased and expanded) but these challenges are not fundamentally different in nature than those that existed when the residency program began. They stem from competition. In a profession where limited financial resources are provided to meet the needs of many diverse students, there is no such thing as an easy time in teaching or in teacher education (Ingersoll & Merrill, 2017; Kinney et al., 2021). Thus, if faculty and leadership want to act on their espoused commitments to improving equity in education, the ideal time to adopt a residency model is now. We suggest that the approach taken by the former department chair – distilling the most fundamental aspects of the residency program into four key points and holding fast to these aspects – is a replicable approach even as other educator preparation programs will likely vary in what they see as fundamental.

In the case of our educator preparation program, leadership decided to build a residency program despite the many potential drawbacks to doing so. At the early stages, the dean expressed that academics are “hypocrites” if they claim that they value diverse and marginalized communities but do nothing besides publish about this commitment. As scholars, we agree, and yet we also envision alternative ways to (re)engage those faculty who sincerely hold commitments to racial justice in education but are still learning to be community-engaged (Lammert et al., 2024). One possibility is that the institutional pressures around tenure and promotion, and the lack of access to sufficient training on community engagement practices, inhibit faculty from becoming boundary spanners with community-engaged agendas (Yamamura & Koth, 2019). If institutions of higher education can create pathways to tenure and promotion that consistently and substantially value the community engagement required for residencies, and if they provide ongoing support and training for faculty on community-engaged practices, it will facilitate the possibility that more residency programs could emerge. While this possibility does not eliminate personal responsibility, it does place the greater share of the burden for solving the problem on the institution itself, rather than individual faculty.

Second, we noticed in our reflections on these narratives that leadership was unafraid to “micro-manage” to ensure that the residency program was a success. While the term micro-manage undeniably has negative connotations in the world of school leadership, the department chair used the term to describe a sense of relentless energy focused on ensuring success through dedication to programmatic goals. On one hand, the idea of leadership stepping into faculty spaces unnecessarily or without cause is problematic. However, persistent presence and reminders of the broader goals of the initiative likely contributed to the success of the equity-driven residency program (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). Here, we suggest that equity-driven residency programs may be best supported by active, present leadership at the level of the Dean's office and beyond. For these programs to thrive, leadership must be aware of the challenges faculty face within them and work alongside all stakeholders to identify innovative solutions.

Finally, in our third critical incident, we came to the term “realization”. As the program secured results that showed the teacher residency produced graduates who outperformed their peers in their efficacy as teachers, we had secured the evidence we needed to continue to sustain the program. This undertaking required cross-disciplinary research efforts from scholars in policy and leadership to support us in this endeavor. In doing so, they provided the Department of Teacher Education with the evidence needed to continue to advocate for robust teacher preparation. Thus, we encourage other teacher residency programs to continue to use research and scholarship as a way to improve their programs and argue for their value.

This narrative inquiry study (Czarniawska, 2004) focused on the stories of institutional change that circulate around higher education leadership in one educator preparation program. As Webster and Mertova (2007) explain, “a critical event is almost always a change experience,” (p. 75)” not a static retelling of an existing story. As such, this research shows the value of narratives for understanding the historical and contextual factors that shape program designs and decisions. For Author One, conducting this study made her aware of narratives of the institution. Her experience shows that for new faculty members, learning about the historical stories behind changes to a program's design can offer a deeper understanding of why certain decisions were made, what challenges were faced, and how those decisions were intended to address past issues or meet particular needs. This historical context can help new faculty as they navigate existing structures with more awareness and appreciation for the program's evolution. Author One views the process of narrative inquiry alongside a leader in the program as fostering a sense of connection to its mission and goals. We would also be remiss if we did not note that Author Two, who was already aware of these narratives, grew from the process of recalling them and reconsidering them alongside a new colleague.

Wilder et al. (2024) have also cautioned teacher educators against being stifled in their creativity by maintaining past practices in teacher education without consideration of how those practices may need to be transformed. When a new faculty member becomes overly focused on the initial leadership's intent or the reasons behind past decisions, they may inadvertently adopt a narrower view of what the program can become and how it needs to evolve. However, to assume that a faculty member will take this narrower view dismisses the agency we hold over the way we choose to be informed by narratives of institutional change. For all faculty operating within a residency program, knowledge of how the program came to be can empower us to decide when and how to consider these narratives as we work to innovate and move the residency program forward. In this sense, while historical narratives provide valuable context, they should also be approached with a critical lens to prevent them from becoming constraints on future development.

Qualitative narrative inquiry as a methodology has its detractors, as any methodology does (Creswell, 2013). In this study, the tools of narrative inquiry and critical incident analysis were especially useful given that the dean and the department chair who formed the residency program had passed away prior to the study. While our study may be methodologically weaker without the ongoing presence of their perspectives (i.e., we were unable to conduct member checking in a traditional sense), their passing highlighted the importance of capturing the narratives that circle around the school-university partnership and educator preparation program. To this end, we have included written artifacts composed by each of them that signify their goals for the program and their experience of leading the program. In addition, future research could explore the value of conducting such a study alongside K-12 district leaders, which would certainly yield new insights. In this case, doing so was outside the scope of our research question and focus.

As Wilder et al. (2024) have recently argued, “the future of teacher education stands at a pivotal crossroads, where the tension between honoring valuable traditions and embracing change is increasingly evident” (p. 473). This is especially true as DEI-based programs and initiatives are challenged by policymakers, yet achievement gaps based on race persist (Au, 2022; Lindsay & Hart, 2017). Looking ahead, the sustainability of equity-driven residency models depends on navigating this polarized policy environment. As anti-DEI legislation and rhetoric proliferate, programs anchored in culturally sustaining and community-engaged practice will require university leaders who can publicly affirm their educational value while managing political risks (Au, 2022; Hill-Jackson, 2023; Exec. Order No. GA55, 2025; Wilder et al., 2024). This narrative inquiry study into one equity-driven teacher residency program provides examples of the types of stories of institutional change that circulate around the decision to adopt a residency model. Our findings suggest the importance of leadership having a clear vision for the goals they hope to accomplish through this action, and the need for them to share that vision with faculty so that they can understand and contribute to change. Further, our findings indicate the importance of leadership persisting in the design of residency programs long enough to secure the kind of evidence needed to demonstrate their value. Last, we argue that faculty may appreciate and understand these results differently based on their relationship to the institutional stories in play; for those who have been involved with the program for many years, they may be a necessary validation, whereas for those who have elected to work at an established residency program, they may be less necessary. Through the dynamic interplay required of narrative inquiry scholarship, systematically exploring these stories can lead to a deeper understanding for all stakeholders, including leadership and faculty.

This study involved a narrative inquiry conducted by the author-researchers using pre-existing program artifacts. Because no recruitment of participants occurred, and no newly collected identifiable data about individuals was collected or analyzed, the study was classified as non–human-subjects research and did not require Institutional Review Board review at Texas Tech University. All materials were handled in accordance with federal institutional guidelines and local legislation. Consistent with ethical practice in narrative research, we maintained ethical rigor through reflexive, risk-aware practices.

Our gratitude to Dr Josh Cruz for his formative feedback on an earlier version of this work.