The Case for Boundary Spanning Activities in School–University Partnerships: Examples From Mathematics Education

Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much. Where would we be without school–university partnerships (SUPs) in education? It is a question that is worth considering. As university-based teacher educators we gain so much from SUPs with partner schools. This includes: placing teacher candidates in clinical practice internships, trying new ideas and researching their impact, learning about the most current and pressing educational ideas and problems of practice. Juxtaposed, school-based individuals receive a lot of opportunities as well from SUPs: mentoring the next generation of teacher candidates, engaging in professional learning offered by university-based partners, accessing some of the latest applications of research-based ideas in their classroom. Partnerships matter, and no matter what our role is in education, it is our duty to be stewards of partnerships to ensure that these professional relationships are beneficial to all participants. Within the context of SUPs one construct that has emerged is boundary-spanning (see Aldrich and Herker 1977; Rudder, Zenkov, Colonnese, et al. 2025; Rudder, Zenkov, and Polly 2025). Boundary-spanning activities are professional activities where an individual completes them in a context that is not typically their own (Rudder, Zenkov, and Polly 2025). In this article, we describe three examples of how boundary-spanning in the contexts of SUPs can support teaching and learning in mathematics education. Our three boundary-spanning examples focus on (1) university-based educator supporting professional learning community (PLC) meetings in schools; (2) a university-based teacher educator facilitating mediated field experiences (MFEs) for her teacher candidates' clinical practice activities; and (3) both university-based teacher educators and school-based teacher educators (mentor teachers) collaborating to co-design and co-teach teacher education courses (Wegemer and Renick 2021). This section includes three examples of boundary spanning in the contexts of mutually beneficial educational partnerships. These examples include boundary spanning related to: facilitating teacher PLC meetings, supporting teacher candidates' clinical practice, and collaborating to co-design and co-teach university-based education courses. An elementary school principal and the school's instructional coach invited a university-based teacher educator to attend PLC meetings four times during the school year. The elementary school has had the same elementary school principal and instructional coach for 5 years and has had no teacher turnover in the past 3 years. Through 45 min with each grade level (Kindergarten to Grade 5) every visit, the university-based teacher educator worked with the building-level mathematics coach to facilitate a conversation about the mathematics concepts that were coming or look at recent data from either state or school-district assessments. The goal of the partnership was for the teachers and the instructional coach to learn from the conversations, and then the instructional coach would facilitate similar types of conversations and meetings after the visits. The partnership lasted 3 years, with four visits occurring each year. The teachers benefited from having conversations with a university-based teacher educator who provided hands-on activities, examples of mathematical tasks, and support in diving into data to determine what the data indicated and what future learning opportunities could include. The benefits to teachers varied by grade levels. In some cases there was a need to break down Standards, provide access to high-quality activities and resources, and walk through what it would look like to implement these concepts in a student-centered, engaged manner. In the grades that had State assessments (Grades 3, 4, and 5) there was more of an emphasis on looking at quarterly assessment data, the types of questions that were included, and then planning how teachers could respond to the data to effectively support students in the near future. In terms of benefits to teaching and learning, the Principal indicated that while there was not much instructional change seen during the first half of the school year, during the second half of the school year she observed many teachers enacting a lot of the teaching practices emphasized during PLC meetings, such as the Three Reads Protocol for word problems, asking purposeful questions to support students' work, and including activities focused on basic fact fluency. Additionally, the teacher noted that in Grades 3–5 there was an increase compared to previous years on data from both curriculum-based assessments and the end of the year state test. Additionally, the school benefited as the instructional coach and the administrator participated in the PLC meetings. This allowed for two things: immediate follow-up as well as capacity building. In my role I am only able to visit schools quarterly, which means that in between school visits there is a need for someone such as an instructional coach or an administrator to provide consistent support and follow up. Additionally, it is vital that instructional leadership capacity is built in schools if there is desired adoption of research-based practices. In this example, phone, Zoom, or e-mail exchanges before and after the PLC meetings and having the instructional coach engage in my time there lead to the likelihood of capacity building. In fact, anecdotally, in some schools, after a few visits, the instructional coach and administrator have decided that they can continue this work on their own without me spending time at the school. As a university-based faculty member who spends time in multiple schools and school districts doing work in PLC meetings, there were multiple benefits to these types of boundary spanning activities. First, time working with teachers discussing concepts that they asked about and data that they wanted to look at helped me learn about what concepts that teachers were prioritizing. Additionally, these activities provide me with opportunities to make connections to local schools where my teacher candidates completed their clinical practice activities. Finally, this type of work allowed me to conduct research about ways to support teachers' planning and use of data related to their mathematics teaching. MFE described in this section takes place in a university-created lab school through state legislation. To develop the MFE, a university-based mathematics teacher educator (MTE) met with the principal and the instructional coach to collaboratively develop the structure of the experience for the teacher candidates. This included identifying the elementary students the teacher candidates would serve, the mathematical focus, and the schedule for the experience. The teacher candidates met with two to three students 2 days a week for 30 min a day for about 12 weeks across the semester. During the 30 min of instruction the teacher candidates used an intervention curriculum with the MTE providing coached feedback. The MTE met with the classroom teachers prior to, during, and at the end of the MTE to ensure that the instruction aligned with the elementary students' needs (see Colonnese and Polly 2022). The structure of the MFE provided benefits for all those involved—the teacher candidates, the MTE, the elementary students, the classroom teachers, and the school at-large. The teacher candidates benefitted from consistent opportunities to work with elementary students around meaningful mathematics content using high-quality curriculum materials. The MTE was able to provide teacher candidates with feedback allowing the teacher candidates to teach, receive feedback, and implement the feedback within their practice. For example, in reflecting on the connection between the college course and practice one teacher candidate shared, “And I really liked how we would talk about it (the clinical experience) before we went and then reflect on it after.” Since the MTE was on-site during the clinical experience and worked with the classroom teachers, the MTE was able to better coordinate the college-level coursework to match the content the teacher candidates were teaching and to provide opportunities for teacher candidates to rehearse instructional practice—helping to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The elementary students, classroom teachers, and the school benefitted from additional mathematics support. The classroom teachers shared that the students enjoyed the small group instruction with the teacher candidates because they were able to receive individualized instruction and develop a relationship with someone different from their classroom teacher. The elementary students often asked when their teacher candidate was coming to work with them. The classroom teachers appreciated the ongoing communication with the MTE so that they could provide input about what the teacher candidates would focus on with their students. This ensured that the small group instruction aligned with their classroom instruction. To alleviate the burden of developing or identifying the curriculum materials, the MTE provided the instructional materials for the teacher candidates to use. The instructional materials used by the teacher candidates were also the same ones used in the school, which allowed for alignment and familiarity with the kinds of instructional activities. As part of an intentionally-designed SUP (see Putman et al. 2022, 2025), 21 elementary education teacher candidates were placed in the same school district for their final two semesters of an undergraduate teacher licensure program. Teacher candidates spent the fall semester on campus taking five courses 2 days a week and then spent between 1 and a half to 2 days each week in their clinical practice classroom. During the spring semester, teacher candidates completed their 16-week full-time student teaching internship. Prior to the SUP starting, faculty met with district leaders and mentor teachers to co-design specific course and clinical practice activities. Mentor teachers engaged as boundary spanners and provided input on the types of concepts that should be included in the course, which aligned to emphases in the district. These included integrating active learning strategies, differentiating both literacy and mathematics instruction based on formative assessment data, and increasing the amount of student-to-student talk during discussions. As part of the SUP, both the district-level mathematics specialist and a district-level professional learning director co-taught one class session each during the semester. The mathematics specialist taught teacher candidates about the mathematics resources used by the district and made connections to concepts of problem solving, place value, and small group teaching that teacher candidates had learned about earlier in the semester. Meanwhile, the district's professional learning director taught about academic discourse in all subjects using activities that the candidates' mentor teachers had completed earlier in the year. Additionally, the five university faculty who were teaching courses during the first semester of the SUP participated in boundary-spanning activities by going into classrooms and providing feedback on two lessons that teacher candidates taught. Immediately after the lesson, teacher candidates received feedback and conferenced with the faculty member to prepare them for the full-time student teaching experience. In some cases, university faculty provided in-the-moment coaching to teacher candidates during the lesson to support candidates' use of research-based pedagogies. There were multiple benefits to this SUP. First, the school district benefited from having a large number of teacher candidates complete the last year of their teacher education program in their district, including the student teaching internship. The district, since it is smaller and pays less than larger districts near it, has historically had a hard time filling vacancies, but six of the teacher candidates took jobs there immediately after student teaching. Additionally, during the student teaching internship, principals strategically used mentor teachers and teacher assistants to maximize the teacher-to-student ratio. Specifically, in testing grades, some student teachers, mentor teachers, and teacher assistants did a lot of small group teaching that was differentiated, which led to gains on end-of-year state tests and curriculum-based assessments. The district's mathematics specialist and professional development coordinator both were able to get a sense of teaching a university course with co-teaching, and mentor teachers had the opportunity to co-design course and clinical practice activities. There were benefits also to teacher candidates. Built on the idea of place-based teacher education, teacher candidates engaged in course and clinical practice activities that were co-designed by both faculty and mentor teachers in order to prepare them to successfully complete student teaching in that specific school district. Additionally, teacher candidates were placed in settings with mentor teachers who had spent time with faculty about their specific roles and responsibilities serving as a mentor teacher. This helped to smooth out communication between the university and mentor teachers, which historically can be complicated. While student learning was not formally evaluated during this SUP, there were multiple classrooms in state testing grades where classrooms with both mentor teachers and student teachers saw large gains in student learning. One of the school principals where this occurred attributed the growth to having extra people to teach small groups and differentiate instruction for their students in the upper elementary grades. The examples above provide examples of how boundary spanning within the context of SUPs can impact teaching and learning through the facilitation of PLC meetings, clinical practice experiences, and co-design and co-teaching experiences. Below we provide recommendations for future boundary-spanning activities in SUPs. The extent to which SUPs are mutually beneficial should be first and foremost a priority for both university-based and school-based individuals. Scholars have long reported the one-sided nature of teacher education where teacher education programs benefit but mentor teachers who host candidates often do not get or see the benefits of teacher education (Zeichner 2021). The same has been said for university-based faculty who facilitate professional learning where the benefit to faculty may not be explicit (Perry and Booth 2024). In order for SUPs to be mutually beneficial, there needs to be intentional time for both school-based and university-based individuals to learn about each other's contexts, their assets, and desired outcomes in the partnership. In the example with PLC meetings, the Principal and the first author had an initial meeting and the Principal and instructional coach regularly touched base with the author prior to PLC meetings about the goals and focus of the meetings. This ongoing communication ensured that there was mutual benefit to everyone involved. In the example with co-design and co-teaching, the mutual benefit was inherent when faculty and mentor teachers co-designed courses and district employees co-taught education courses to the teacher candidates. The faculty's activities conducting observations and providing feedback to teacher candidates also served as part of the mutually beneficial nature of the SUP as faculty learned more about districts' schools and teacher candidates received immediate feedback from faculty. SUPs like all collaborations should include opportunities to reflect on their progress and success with room to modify partnership activities to the extent that they are needed. In the case of the co-design and co-teaching, the school district asked the university faculty to make sure that the instructional practices that the district was focusing on were front and center in the course. This meant that the course activities and clinical practice activities would include emphases on active learning strategies and teaching differentiated lessons in mathematics and literacy. Individuals' focus on examining their own needs and the assets of the SUP led to these revisions. In the example of the MFEs to support teacher candidates' clinical activities, the MTE met with the principal and instructional coach at the beginning of the experience to ensure that the MFE was aligned with the school's vision and would meet the needs of their students. Further, the multiple meetings with the classroom teacher helped to connect the teacher candidates' instruction with classroom instruction. The recognition and participation of the multiple stakeholders involved in the MFE allowed for intentional instruction that was mutually beneficial for all. Importantly, because the university-based teacher educator is onsite, there was direct communication between the university and the school, minimizing miscommunication which can occur when the clinical placement and university coursework are separated. One last recommendation for boundary-spanning in the context of SUPs is to consider the amount of time and complex work involved with these activities. Specifically, as illustrated above in all three examples, boundary-spanning activities can be time consuming since the creation of relationships and mutually beneficial SUPs require an investment in building relationships to better understand other individuals and roles in the SUP. Additionally, when these boundary-spanning activities overlap teaching and service opportunities, it is critical that both university-based and school-based individuals feel valued and appreciated for their work and contribution. This may include modifying the responsibilities and teaching loads of faculty. In the case of mentor teachers engaging in this work, boundary-spanning and working with teacher candidates adds extra responsibilities in addition to their work as a full-time teacher. This burden is often undercompensated. Therefore, it is important that this work is a shared responsibility and not concentrated with one teacher but instead rotates between classrooms or schools. The practicality of mentor teachers continuously mentoring teacher candidates without breaks will clearly lead to burnout and exhaustion. In order to justify boundary-spanning activities there is a need for individuals and organizations to consider ways to leverage the use of qualitative and quantitative data to examine their impact. The documentation of the impact of these types of activities has been largely descriptive in peer-reviewed journals (Rudder, Zenkov, and Polly, in preparation) and there continues to be a lack of clarity of what scholars consider a core set of characteristics of boundary-spanning activities (Rudder, Zenkov, and Polly 2025). Due to the intense work of boundary-spanning activities, outcomes on students in schools and teacher candidates are needed to provide an empirical rationale and justification for this type of work. Additionally, while it is easier for scholars to document single case studies that focus on isolated boundary-spanning activities since these types of activities are nuanced and context-specific, the knowledge base and support for these activities would benefit from syntheses of existing studies, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative analyses that look across studies for characteristics of boundary-spanning activities that increase the likelihood of positively impacting learning outcomes.