"We are encouraging the development of meaningful career ladders and stronger efforts to retain the great teachers we have ... From newly hired teachers to tenured teachers to master teachers, mentors, department heads and principals — we need to rebuild education as a profession with real opportunities for growth that sustain a teacher's craft over a career, not just a couple of years" (Duncan, 2010b).

In testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee in 2010, U.S Secretary of Education Arne Duncan identified an urgent need to increase the effectiveness of teachers and leaders (2010b). He cited persistent achievement gaps, low college persistence rates, and growing disparities in global achievement as central drivers in the need to increase the quality and quantity of effective teachers and leaders. A growing body of research concurs that classroom instruction by the teacher and leadership at the school are the two school factors that have the greatest effect on student achievement (Colorado Legacy Foundation, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Levin & Quinn, 2003; Marzano, 2005).

Because of the intense focus on effective teachers and principals in the education policy sphere, teacher and principal preparation faculty in universities find themselves in the midst of what can be described as a game of chutes and ladders. University teacher and principal preparation faculty are often caught in the chute of tradition and convention that promulgates perceptions of universities as relics of the past that prepare teachers in theory but fail to impact student achievement. In contrast, popular conceptions of alternative preparation promote perceptions of alternative routes as ladders to the ultimate prize, innovative practice-based solutions in teacher and principal preparation that contribute to significant outcomes in student achievement. However, conclusive empirical research demonstrates that either pipeline can claim effectiveness depending on the standards against which they are measured (Braun, Gable, & Kite, 2008; Corcoran, Schwartz, & Weinstein, 2009; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, & Gatlin, Vasquez Heileg, 2005; Martorell, Heaton, Gates, & Hamilton, 2010; Orr & Orphanos, 2011; Rice, 2003).

Universities face growing criticism about reforms that, in essence, fail to demonstrate significant improvement in student outcomes. In his remarks at the 2010 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Conference, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated, “Our teacher and principal preparation programs need transformational change, not tinkering with the status quo” (Duncan, 2010a). Duncan stressed that teacher and principal preparation cannot be business as usual, and should not promote the practice of minor and insignificant change. Universities have promulgated a system (reinforced by accreditation requirements) of inputs in teacher and principal preparation that focus on teacher and leader dispositions, knowledge and skills. This focus often has little regard to the development of an evidentiary base on the subsequent impact of teachers and principals on student growth defined as the academic, cognitive, socioemotional, physical, cultural, and linguistic development in preparation for postsecondary and workforce readiness. In essence, the development of the teacher and principal has become the central focus in preparation without regard to their impact on student development and achievement.

Shulman (2005) offered a reciprocally dynamic view of professional education. Rather than a focus on the preparation of teachers and principals through a system of technical inputs, Shulman stated the aim of professional education is “to engage in practice” with “a sense of personal and social responsibility” (p. 18). Learning for the sake of learning is insufficient within professional practice; “one learns in order to engagein practice” (Shulman, p. 18). Shulman’s caution implies that the relationship between the context of the profession and the preparation of professionals should be interconnected and generative. According to Franke, Carpenter, Levi, and Fennema (2001), knowledge becomes generative when the learner sees the need to integrate newly gained knowledge with existing knowledge to continue learning and to solve new and unfamiliar problems. It is essential for educators to become generative in their thinking and their practices in order to meet the educational needs of their students. Hence, professional learning must be embedded in the context of practice so teachers and principals can continually connect their theoretical knowledge with the practical knowledge that they gain from their families, students and communities to meet the educational needs of their students. A vertical integration of the school, district and university systems has the capability to promote generative learning and provide coherence to a system beset with teacher and principal overload and a cacophony of fragmented innovations. Furthermore, integrated systems can potentially connect the work of improving schools to the depth and breadth of knowledge and skills that prospective teachers and principals obtain and use (Martin, Ford, Murphy, & Muth, 1998).

Teacher and principal preparation has historically existed in silos where prospective teachers and principals learn theories and methods within university settings that they are then expected to apply (at some point) within classrooms and schools. In this model, the university is responsible for the construction and dissemination of knowledge and methodology, and the school is seen as a place for student teachers or principal interns to practice what was learned. This structural condition defines universities as sites for knowledge and theory development and schools as sites for application and practice. University tenure-track faculty often do not interact with the practitioners at the school site as the coordination of field experiences, internships, and student teaching is completed by doctoral students, adjunct faculty or staff (Zeichner, 2010). This creates a condition in which university faculty do not know the context for the application of skills, knowledge and theory, and the supervising practitioners do not know the theoretical frameworks and methods used in preparation coursework.

Alternative preparation models like Teach for America and New Leaders for New Schools seem to diminish theoretical and methodological preparation and maximize on-the-job learning experiences. These models emphasize learning skills within the context of a school with practicing teachers and principals. The structures of university-based and alternative preparation tend to represent oppositional values regarding the divide between theory and practice. One possible bridge to span this divide is the creation of school and university partnerships; however, the mere existence of a partnership does not make the division between university theory and school practice obsolete. Zeichner (2010) pointed out that even in partnerships “universities continue to maintain hegemony over the construction and dissemination of knowledge, and schools remain in the position of ‘practice fields’ (Barab & Duffy, 2000) where student teachers are to try out the practices provided by the university” (p. 91).

The term partnershipis often used to describe any type of cooperative relationship. Hora and Millar (2010) categorized partnerships into one of three distinct organizational types containing very different relationships, goals and structures. They described three categories of partnerships: (a) limited partnerships as those in which one organization clearly directs the actions of others, (b) coordinated partnerships that consist of horizontal relationships with distinct structures, and (c) collaborative partnerships that include partners with blended structures. Most school-university partnerships are either limited or coordinated with both entities participating through their respective structures and roles. The structures and identities of the entities provide barriers to the development of a collaborative partnership.

Collaborative partnerships require an integration of the preparation entities. Zeichner (2010) used the concept of third space to describe the creation of an “equal and more dialectical relationship between academic and practitioner knowledge” (p. 92). Third space theory rejects the presence of discrete realms such as academic knowledge versus practitioner skill, or theory versus practice and promotes integration and synthesis. The presence of a third space represents an equitable place that diminishes the territorial claims of the academics and the practitioners. The creation of an intentional neutral ground that intersects the work of university faculty with that of practitioners allows the development of a “transformative space where the potential for an expanded form of learning and the development of new knowledge are heightened” (Gutierrez, 2008, p. 152).

While some continue to debate the efficacy of traditional or alternative teacher and principal preparation or the impact of theory and practice on preparation, a College of Education (COE) at a private university in a Western state has moved past implementation to the refinement phase of an innovative approach to teacher and principal preparation. This approach places university faculty and school-based practitioners as equal partners in preparing professionals through a third space collaborative partnership. This third space enables higher education faculty and local school and district leaders to collectively develop and implement innovative practices to prepare teachers and principals capable of creating learning environments where all students achieve, particularly those who are economically disadvantaged, racially and ethnically diverse, limited English proficient, and/or learners with special needs. The following case presents the evolution of the conceptual model for collaborative partnerships and the development of signature pedagogy within the COE.

Collaborative partnerships through a third space. In 2002 the College of Education (COE) began to explore ways to get more effective preparation results while connecting more authentically with district, school, and community partners. The teacher and principal preparation programs began exploratory efforts with several key districts in the area to find ways to integrate fieldwork with university coursework in more dynamic ways. In the principal preparation arena, this partnership culminated in the development of a COE-district specific principal program that wrapped coursework into inquiry projects. Central to the principal preparation curriculum, the projects were aligned to district and school improvement needs, and core values, standards, and best practice research on teaching and leading in the context of urban schooling. In teacher preparation, the result was the development of a teacher residency program in the same district as the principal preparation program. These programs intentionally and strategically linked principal and teacher knowledge and skill with instructional pedagogy to support urban district and school needs.

The collaborative efforts to reform and strengthen teacher and principal preparation and development resulted in residency-based models of teacher and project-based models of principal preparation that were designed in partnership with two high-need urban school districts. The development and success of these programs has resulted in the creation of signature pedagogy for professional education that has become a foundational element of our teacher and principal preparation programs and has permeated program barriers in the COE.

Shulman’s (2005) model of professional education provides a useful representation of teacher and principal preparation through the synthesis of three apprenticeships:

A cognitive apprenticeship wherein one learns to think like a professional, a practical apprenticeship where one learns to perform like a professional, and a moral apprenticeship where one learns to think and act in a responsible and ethical manner that integrates across all three domains (p. 3).

While the COE and the work in the schools address the three apprenticeships described by Shulman (2005), each partner is positioned to have an emphasis on one apprenticeship. For example, the COE takes primary responsibility for the cognitive apprenticeship and maintains focus on the knowledge base of the prospective teacher and principal and the context of their practice, the school focuses on the practical apprenticeship and provides guidance and feedback regarding the prospective teacher’s and principal’s actions, and the place of learning becomes the third space where COE faculty, teacher and principal preparation students and school and district personnel integrate the learning regarding theoretical and practical aspects of teaching and leading. The typical boundaries between the work of the university and the work in schools make it difficult for prospective teachers and principals to engage in conversations that authentically examine practice and actions through theoretical lenses and values. This type of reflective practice (Schön, 1987) within the third space connected to the authentic context of the work promotes conversations about the ethics of practice that hopefully promote the development of professional artistry (Schön, 1987), “the kinds of competence practitioners sometime display in unique, uncertain, and conflicted situations” (p. 22). This integration of cognitive, practical and moral practices is intended to allow prospective teachers and principals to think critically about their values and their work; act with skill, confidence, and responsibility; and develop a strong moral and ethical foundation.

The following conceptual model depicts both a coordinated partnership with traditional university and school applications of Shulman’s (2005) apprenticeships and the featured collaborative partnership with the COE and school integrated apprenticeship model within a third space.

Figure 1. Conceptual Model of Coordinated and Collaborative Apprenticeships

This conceptual model portrays the work of coordinated partnership preparation as university and district/school silos with students bearing the responsibility of bridging their learning between the settings. It identifies the significant differences with the collaborative partnership model through the integration of the three apprenticeships with shared responsibility among students, district and school personal, and COE faculty. This third space collaborative model enables COE faculty and local school and district leaders to collectively develop and implement innovative practices that promote the achievement of all students. Importantly, the third space relationship puts both COE and school and district partners on the “same side” of the table, problem-solving together toward mutual goals like improving learning for all students, better engaging families and communities, and finding ways to bring the latest best research into practice.

It can be difficult for a partnership, without intentionally defining a third space, to have the capacity to integrate the cognitive, practical and moral learning. Without the relationships, collaboration, and dialogue in the neutral third space, the work of each partner could be negatively influenced by assumptions and judgment of the disparate entities. Without a bridge, or third space, the interpretation of the connections between theory and practice is left to the prospective teacher and principal rather than being included as an intentional part of the preparation.

One of the greatest challenges with working within a third space is that the intersections between the work of the cognitive, practical, and moral apprenticeships are often emotional and political. Since context becomes a part of the work, the programs use real incidents with real people, rather than hypothetical cases, as the problems of practice. Great care has to be taken to ensure confidentiality, frame problems as they inform teaching and leading, and maintain relationships with school leaders. The authenticity and “just in time” nature of this work promotes generative learning, but it is important to understand the cost associated with that benefit. Those who embark on creating this third space need to understand its complexities and sensitivities and provide time and incentives to faculty to immerse themselves in the contexts of the practice field. “Often the university and the district are not ready to work with each other; in some cases, their leaders just don’t know how or have the policy and governance systems to do so effectively and efficiently” (Berry, Montgomery, & Snyder, 2008, p. 10). The greatest strengths of the third space collaborative partnership model are the adaptability to meet particular district needs, the creation of sustainable zones for collaborative learning that can potentially build a permeable infrastructure (structures, policies, procedures) in institutions of higher education and districts, and the facilitation of recruitment, preparation, and retention of quality teachers and principals. As Berry et al (2008) stated “one-size-fits-all preparation programs can no longer be the modus operandi of the IHEs” (p. 14).

This third space collaborative partnership model defines the innovative integration of principal and teacher knowledge and skill with instructional pedagogy to support urban district and school needs. It became a robust spine for all of the COE’s educator preparation efforts. Collaboration with faculty identified values about teaching and learning and themes emerged from this engaged approach to preparing professionals. The five core themes, in no particular order, are:

Transformational Leadership (Leadership / Policy / Change): Ability to leverage change within their own communities and organizations.

Inclusive Excellence: Commitment to, and skills and dispositions to act towards, equity and access that promotes lifelong learning and teaching for all individuals and communities.

Evidence-based, Reflective Practice: Focus on a variety of research, evaluation, assessment and data-driven decision making knowledge, skills, and dispositions.

21st century teaching: Modeling and teaching educational practices that are research-based and research validated; connecting with informal and community learning opportunities; fostering creative/critical thinking and innovation, including latest technologies to empower the learning community.

21st century learner-centered: Focus on being truly learner centered, asset-based; increase inclusion, access, and adaptation; understand and use latest research from our field and others (e.g., neuroscience).

Figure 2. Signature Pedagogy

This conceptual model was created to depict the relationship among the themes and how they are embedded in the preparation efforts. The impact of the third space collaborative model is represented by the theme of evidence-based, reflective practice serving as the connective tissue for all of the work by linking authentic practice with research. These themes are woven into coursework, projects, student outcomes and field-based experiences.

Currently the faculty and adjuncts are encouraged to embrace the signature pedagogy in ways that are more learner and practice-centered. Current higher education structures and traditions of practice can mitigate a truly learner centered environment. Some of these barriers appear through the challenges that preparation program faculty have experienced including:

(a) making decisions about how best to model a standards-based, competency-based approach; (b) supporting students who need help in some areas but who have talents in other areas; (c) enabling students to help drive inquiry and learning activities without overwhelming faculty time; (d) using team-teaching and field-based experts within typical budget structures; and (e) setting appropriate expectations for teaching and classroom structures that are flexible enough to shift when new needs emerge. The teacher and principal preparation programs have provided a platform for transforming new approaches to teaching. The practice of collecting and sharing performance data on these programs has opened dialogue between higher education faculty and district and school practitioners.

COE faculty were committed to these community-contextualized preparation models even though increasing challenges arose internally from the mismatch of the traditional expectations of the work of university faculty with the demands of integrating the teaching and learning with district and school-based practitioners. Increasingly, COE faculty were engaging with community partners in deeply committed, i.e. time-consuming, ways. Further, work to connect research with practice and to evaluate the impacts of programs and graduates in the field meant that lines between program and curriculum development and research were increasingly blurred. Fortunately, the university was also publically moving toward being more community engaged and regionally relevant. This engaged scholar focus resonated with COE faculty and it began to attract greater numbers of faculty who saw their primary mission as making a positive contribution to the community.

As more faculty became involved, it became necessary to examine the reward structures within the COE. Zeichner (2010) identified that the impact of work in the field will be minimal unless the faculty and staff who do exemplary work within hybrid spaces are recognized and rewarded. The Appointment Promotions and Tenure committee worked closely with the Dean and university administration to update tenure expectations; a task that began in 2007 and which is even now impacting current university-wide updates. A focus on the scholarship of engagement (Boyer, 1996) began with a recognition that college faculty and administration had to expand traditional views of scholarly activities. A full year of discussions grew into a working document that expanded our review areas from: 1) teaching, 2) research and creative activity, and 3) service; to categories identified as 1) teaching and student advising and mentoring, 2) scholarship and creative activities, 3) professional outreach and service, and 4) university-based service. While this work is ongoing, it is an important step in enabling the sustainability of deeply engaged partnership programs within teacher and principal preparation.

It is important to note that faculty must be more proactive and diligent than ever to ensure that they make the most of research, professional service, and program development opportunities. While the system recognizes and values the more interconnected, dynamic work, it is imperative that faculty highlight scholarly accomplishments. This can be challenging because the lines separating programs, teaching, service, and research are often not traditional and obvious.

Despite the challenges, the goal in this work is to intentionally link partnership models of teacher and principal preparation to leverage systemic reform for high needs schools. This is a social activist agenda to train quality high-needs teachers and principals. The third space collaborative partnership model integrates Shulman’s (2005) three apprenticeships of professional preparation and supports students as they work to improve learning conditions for all students. Embedding this model within value-based signature pedagogy for the COE and supporting efforts to reward engaged scholarship across the university promotes the sustainability of this work. This model of third space collaborative partnership embedded within a College of Education’s signature pedagogy has the potential to defy the chute of tradition and convention and promote a ladder to innovative practice-based solutions in teacher and principal preparation.