Editorial: Introduction to the issue

The field of school-university partnerships (SUPs) has long been concerned with forging sustainable collaborations between P–12 schools and institutions of teacher preparation or higher education. In recent years, questions of equity, culturally responsive practice, organizational governance and the role of partnerships in addressing structural inequities have surfaced more centrally (Adams, 2021; Burns, 2024; Savic, 2020; Zhou & Wong, 2025). In this issue, we are pleased to present a diverse range of contexts and partnership models that both push the boundaries of SUP work and reinforce what we already know about the aspirations and challenges associated with such work. Upfront, we extend our gratitude to the authors for their rigorous and thoughtful contributions, and to the P–12 and university scholar-practitioners whose partnership work underpins each of these studies. It is only through sustained collaboration, mutual respect and shared vision that the promise of SUPs can be realized.In all, the manuscripts represented include innovative scholarship and together, they paint a picture of how partnerships are conceived, enacted, sustained and evaluated across a wide range of educational and community settings. Below, we briefly summarize each of the seven contributions, then offer cross-cutting themes, emergent tensions and implications for research, policy and practice within the SUP field.In their manuscript, Jett and King (2025) focus their lens on an urban partnership endeavor aimed at developing STEM teacher leadership, specifically oriented to accelerating STEM learning opportunities for Black and Brown youth. The authors situate the partnership in an urban P–12/university context and examine how teacher-leaders within the P–12 environment, in concert with their university partner, can influence STEM access and equity for historically underserved student populations. The manuscript underscores how teacher leaders can act as bridge figures between university resources and P–12 practice, and how such roles may help to reconfigure opportunity structures. In doing so, the authors draw attention to both the promise and the complexity of supporting teacher leadership as part of the SUP research agenda.Next, Allan and Johnson (2025) examine community-based mentoring frameworks for teacher candidates. Their study shows how mentoring arrangements, embedded in community contexts rather than only school/university settings, can enhance teacher candidate development, particularly in how these teachers engage with local contexts, cultural assets and community-school-university linkages. The potential value of community-based mentoring lies in its capacity to extend the reach of the school-university partnership beyond formal school walls and to situate teacher preparation in rich cultural and community practice. Through a reflection of their “Family and Community Mentor” (FCM) program model, the authors show how such mentoring enriches teacher candidate experiences, supports social justice aims and fosters relational connections among teacher candidates, mentor teachers and community partners.Patillo-Dunn (2025) investigates the literacy needs in P–12 settings and how university-based support through a partnership structure is perceived by educators. The manuscript is particularly anchored in the voices of P–12 educator partners and examines how they perceive the value, barriers and opportunities of the university's involvement in literacy-oriented partnership efforts. By centering the study on the perceptions of P–12 educators, the work reinforces the notion that effective partnerships must attend to the local needs, voices and professional identities of school partners. The study surfaces themes such as alignment of goals, communication and trust, resourcing and the value of co-constructed professional learning opportunities.Further, Compton-Lilly et al. (2025) present a study of how a school-university partnership that embeds methods instruction within actual P–12 settings, while also eliciting teacher voice, can shape the preparation of teacher candidates and enhance the relevance and responsiveness of the methods courses. The partnership dimension discussed involves aligning university course design, P–12 classroom placement experiences and ongoing reflection among teacher candidates and field partners. The authors make the case that such embedded methods models strengthen the “practice-theory” bridge and promote more responsive preparation of teacher candidates.In their article, Reinhardt and Shaikh (2025) focus on shared governance SUP structures as a mechanism to strengthen and sustain collaboration. Governance is an under-examined dimension of SUPs, yet it is crucial to ensuring joint decision-making, reciprocal accountability and shared ownership. Reinhardt and Shaikh draw on empirical data from a partnership that has implemented shared governance (i.e., committees, joint steering bodies, co-leadership, etc.) and show how these structures impact trust, alignment, sustainability and strategic responsiveness of the partnership. Their findings highlight the significance of institutional infrastructure, role clarity, distributed leadership and equity in governance relationships.Minett, Sau, and Gray (2025) offer a contribution from an internationally framed partnership context (a newly accredited pre-service teacher–education provider) that uses a theory of change model as a collaborative tool to build the partnership. As the authors note, many studies of school-university partnerships omit or under-represent school-stakeholder perspectives; this project intentionally foregrounds these P-12 voices via stakeholder workshops and co-constructed theory-of-change pathway diagrams. The manuscript highlights how a theory of change, with attention to logic models, serves both as a planning and sense-making device, enabling partners to articulate intended outcomes, intermediate mechanisms and roles/responsibilities.Curcio and Harbour (2025) describe features of their professional learning space for school-based and university-based clinical educators. Through the co-construction and use of a shared, boundary-spanning object (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011), a noticing and wondering protocol, clinical educators engaged in meaningful professional learning specifically aimed at collectively developing their coaching and mentoring capacity when leading coaching conversations and coaching cycles. More than just the individual professional learning gained from the experience, the coaching community “fostered shared language, enhanced coaching capacity, and positioned all participants as co-learners committed to supporting teacher residents” (p. 8). Curcio and Harbour's practice and research highlight the need for intentionally and collaboratively designed professional learning in SUPs and for elevating the voices of school-based partners engaged in clinical preparation in SUPs.Shenoy, Ortega, Merrill, Nannemann, and Rivera (2025) examine the context of a professional learning community (PLC) in a Native American school setting. This research showcases teacher perspectives on the efficacy, challenges, and affordances of PLCs as a partnership activity. While this manuscript engages PLCs rather than the full breadth of a P–12/university partnership per se, it nonetheless speaks to how partnerships and professional learning frameworks operate in culturally specific settings, and how teacher voice, culture, identity and community context matter in shaping professional learning interventions. Their research offers important insights about how partnership-oriented professional learning must be culturally responsive, locally grounded, and cognizant of indigenous/tribal school contexts.Taken together, these manuscripts generate multiple salient themes and offer not only reinforcement of existing knowledge but also provide new insights and directions for the SUP field. First, several of the issue's manuscripts (Allan & Johnson, 2025; Compton-Lilly et al., 2025; Curcio & Harbour, 2025; Patillo-Dunn, 2025; Shenoy et al., 2025) emphasize the importance of including the voices of P–12 educators and positioning them as active partners rather than simply recipients of university-driven initiatives. Moreover, when teacher leadership is intentionally cultivated, it can become a mechanism for sustaining partnership-generated change.Second, a number of the studies in this issue explicitly engage with equity: Jett and King (2025) focus on Black and Brown youth in urban STEM contexts; Shenoy et al. (2025) focus on a Native American school; Allan and Johnson (2025) highlight cultural/community assets through community-based mentoring. These works reflect a growing recognition in the SUP field that partnerships must attend not only to professional development and institutional alignment, but also to issues of access, identity, culturally relevant pedagogy and structural inequities.Third, Reinhardt and Shaikh's (2025) focus on shared governance draws attention to the institutional and structural mechanisms by which partnerships operate and persist. Although much of the SUP literature emphasizes practice and professional learning, fewer studies examine the governance structure of partnerships. Minett et al.'s (2025) article further complements this by describing how a theory of change approach can scaffold the architecture of a partnership in early phases. These contributions deepen the field's understanding of how partnerships are not simply informal collaborations but require intentional design, shared decision-making and mutual accountability. Additionally, this manuscript illustrates one of the less frequently discussed phases of the partnership lifecycle: initiation and design. Often, the literature focuses on mature partnerships and outcomes. This article emphasizes early-stage co-construction, planning and visioning using the theory of change – adding a valuable lens to the SUP research agenda.Lastly, manuscripts by Compton-Lilly et al. (2025) (embedded methods courses), Allan and Johnson (2025) (community mentoring) and Curcio and Harbour (2025) (coaching community) highlight that teacher preparation and professional learning are enhanced when they are situated within authentic school/community contexts, rather than only university-based, school-based or decontextualized. These findings align with literature pointing to the advantages of SUPs for bridging theory and practice (Allsopp et al., 2006; Badiali, 2022; Cosenza et al., 2023; Lynch et al., 2024; Zeichner, 2010). Embedded approaches also strengthen relevance for teacher candidates and increase alignment with P–12 partner needs.While the contributions advance knowledge in meaningful ways, they also highlight persistent tensions and present cautionary notes for practice. First, these articles highlight how SUPs need to balance responsiveness and research goals. In many partnerships, the tension between meeting immediate P–12 needs (e.g. literacy support, STEM access) and university research/teacher preparation agendas remains alive. The articles suggest that when P–12 partner voices are centered, the alignment improves, yet this requires both structural mechanisms and cultural mindset shifts.Directly related to this tension is the ongoing challenge of sustainability and institutional commitment. Governance and leadership structures matter, but they depend on resources, institutional support and continuity of personnel. Partnerships often spawn as pilot projects but struggle to be sustained beyond grant-funded phases. Further, even when partnerships intend to engage equitably, power imbalances (e.g. university-led agendas, funding control, differential access to resources) remain. School-based teacher educators, teacher leaders and P–12 practitioners must be genuinely engaged as partnership equals rather than participants. Thus, we encourage scholars to prioritize co-constructed models: positioning P–12 practitioners as leaders, collaborators and decision-makers in partnership design and implementation.Additionally, the divide between context specificity versus scalability warrants discussion. Embedded methods courses, community mentoring and culturally specific PLCs show promise in particular settings, but questions remain about how to scale and transfer such models across contexts without losing fidelity or responsiveness. Lastly, much partnership research has historically depended on qualitative indicators of success (e.g. voice, trust, alignment), and fewer studies have developed robust longitudinal, quantitative outcome metrics. The field needs enhanced measurement of how partnerships influence P–12 student outcomes, teacher retention, equity indicators and systemic change. Expanding longitudinal and mixed-methods designs is needed to capture both the process and outcome dimensions of partnerships, especially with respect to P–12 student outcomes, teacher retention, and leadership development.As the field of school-university partnerships continues to evolve, the contributions in this collection serve as both a mirror and a map. They mirror what we know: that partnerships hold promise for bridging teacher preparation, professional learning, school practice and systemic improvement, but they also remind us of the enduring complexities of this work: issues of power, context, sustainability and equity. We welcome the SUP community to engage with these manuscripts, reflect on their implications and consider how the partnership models described might inform or challenge existing work in your own contexts. The call to deepen partnership research, truly share governance and authority, locate professional learning within authentic contexts and center issues of equity in partnership design has never been more urgent.What is clear from our perspective is that SUPs need to attend to sustainability from the outset as well as at regular intervals. SUPs need to recognize and support the infrastructure of partnerships, including programmatic outcomes, but also the governance, co-leadership, and relational work of partnerships (which we know is often under-resourced). Further, it is essential to incentivize SUP structures that lead to authentic collaboration, shared decision-making, and P–12 practitioner leadership. Lastly, SUPs should use evaluation frameworks that include both short-term process indicators (alignment, trust, leadership development) and long-term outcome indicators (student achievement, teacher retention).This is why we as editors are focusing two special issues in 2026 on the issues of sustainability.Together, these two issues signal our commitment to advancing sustainability not only as a theoretical construct but as a guiding frame for partnership design, implementation, governance and longevity. We look forward to the ongoing conversation and to future issues of the journal that will build on and extend the insights surfaced here.