Forging Partnerships: Preparing School Leaders in Complex Environments

Abstract

This study examines how two autonomous organizations collaborate toward preparing school principals. Studies exploring the early phases of partnership creation are missing from the current literature. As universities continue to partner with school districts to prepare principals, understanding the early development process is important. This study focuses on the beginnings of a university school district partnership using Gajda’s five principles of collaboration and Kezar’s Stage Model for Collaboration. Findings suggest that while the collaboration successfully enrolled students, challenges in the collaboration’s initial phase impede a smooth transition from partnership planning to implementation.

Historically, the preparation of school principals occurred through programs at universities that often worked in isolation. In the past three decades, we have seen a shift in collaborative efforts between universities and school districts to prepare future school leaders. There has also been a reframing of the type of leaders needed to meet the multitude of challenges in our schools. The focus has shifted to that of instructional leaders.

In 2016, the Texas State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) adopted new principal standards (Texas Education Agency, n.d.) with a strong focus on the principal as instructional leadership. This placed the principal at the core of ensuring high-quality instruction delivery to students. As part of the shift, the principal preparation framework went from 9 competencies to 11 and the certification testing requirements were expanded. The traditional multiple-choice examination now includes a series of constructed response questions. A second performance assessment was added, requiring principal candidates to submit narratives with accompanying artifacts to show proficiency in all the competencies (Texas Education Agency, 2017).

The landscape of principal preparation programs has become more challenging against the backdrop of revised state certification standards and a more stringent school accountability system that directly impacts school leadership. In the context of the recently redesigned principal preparation framework, anticipating the challenge of implementing this new framework, the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), and El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) were prompted to pursue a principal preparation partnership. This study examines how these two autonomous organizations collaborated toward the similar goal of preparing future principals as instructional leaders. Specifically, we were interested in how two partnering organizations navigated the creation and alignment of initial divergent but mutually beneficial interests to forge a meaningful and sustainable collaboration. We examined this question by analyzing the beginnings of the partnership, the implementation of activities, and the state of the program as it trained its first cohort of future leaders.

Significance of the Study

The literature outlines several reasons why collaboration is a prevalent strategy for educational reform, as well as characteristics of successful partnerships (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2018). However, Griffiths (2000) suggests a lack of evidence of the details of the life cycle of collaborations. More recent work suggests “an in-depth look at what characterizes ‘true collaboration’ is lacking in the current literature, and guidance for developing such collaborative relationships is scarce” (Griffiths et al., 2021, p. 61). Kezar (2005) asserts that there is virtually no research to enable higher education institutions to conduct collaborative work. In her work, she identifies critical elements in partnership development: the organization’s mission, administrative support, and reward structures for participants (Kezar, 2005).

Missing from the literature is an examination of the inner workings at the initial phase of establishing these types of partnerships. More recently, Kezar, et al. (2020) have suggested further inquiry in leadership teams through non-functionalist/positivist approaches to better gauge group characteristics and challenges. Thus, this study aims to contribute to the knowledge base of university-district collaboration by providing a nuanced account revealing the negotiations that transpired in the early phase of partnership development. Understanding the common challenges of partnerships, including high turnover among key leaders of the collaborative efforts and lack of sustainable funding (Orr, 2012), we offer insight into creating safeguards to minimize the impact of these unavoidable challenges.

Literature Review

School districts have utilized partnerships to address diverse educational issues, including creating principal pipelines. These collaborations exist among different entities but are becoming more prevalent between universities and school districts. To contextualize our study, we reviewed the literature related to university-district partnerships. This section of the paper begins with offering conceptual information on partnerships and collaborations; then, we include a review of relevant literature on collaborative efforts to prepare principals. Finally, we provide information on the theoretical framework guiding this study.

Conceptual Information on Partnerships and Collaborations

To better conceptualize a partnership, one must have a basic understanding of its definition, the type of partnership, the roles of the negotiating entities, what constitutes adequate preparation of school leaders, and the purpose for collaborating. The conceptualization of a partnership depends largely on understanding what each entity believes constitutes the term partnership. Thus, a definition of a partnership is crucial. However, “partnership” is a contested term. Several authors define the term differently, affecting the clarity of partnership expectations (Clifford et al., 2008). Gajda (2004) identifies an extensive list of terms used to describe collaborations. The terms are: “joint ventures, consolidations, networks, partnerships, coalitions, collaboratives, alliances, consortiums, associations, conglomerates, councils, task forces, and groups” (p.68).

For this study, we consider several definitions of partnerships. Gajda (2004), for example, considers “. . . collaborative effort as the primary method for achieving ideal short and/or long-term goals that would not otherwise be attainable as entities working independently” (p. 65). Honer and Jordan (2020) define university-school district partnerships for principal preparation “. . . as the joint effort by EPPs [Education Preparation Programs] and K-12 districts to selectively recruit candidates, plan and inform curriculum and experiences, and design internships and field-based experiences that bridge leadership theory and practice” (p. 5). These definitions emphasize the goals to be achieved or the activities and strategies that need to occur.

Most of the literature on partnerships details the characteristics of successful partnerships. According to King (2014), three key elements must be present: trust, mutuality, and reciprocity. Based on these characteristics, King (2014) proposes the Partnership Effectiveness Continuum (PEC), which has six dimensions of effective partnerships: (1) partnership vision, (2) institutional leadership, (3) joint ownerships and accountability for results, (4) communication and collaboration, (5) system alignment, integration, and sustainability, and (6) response to the local context. The Quality Measures Partnership Effectiveness Continuum (QMPEC) offers a guide for self-assessment of existing partnerships and is used to establish effective partnerships between school districts and universities. Along with the same idea as the QMPEC, The Council of Chief State School Officers Network for Transforming Educator Preparation (CCSSO, 2018) developed a 13-indicator rubric to help partners in educator preparation understand the level of effectiveness of partnerships; the 13 indicators are organized into four categories: (1) Foundations, (2) Systems and Structures, (3) Planning and Implementation, and (4) Communications.

Considering the varied meanings of the term “partnership,” we wanted a definition that included language about shared goals and strategies, and that described the interaction and relationship between the decisions and actions that advanced the collaborative effort. Hence, for this study, we use the following definition of collaboration: “a process in which a group of autonomous stakeholders of an issue domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures to act or decide on issues related to the domain” (Wood and Gray, 1991 in Kezar, 2005, p. 833).

Collaboration on Principal Preparation

The focus of principal leadership has evolved from building managers to instructional leaders, resulting in a growing interest in elevating the quality of principal preparation programs to address relevant issues of practice. Historically, principal preparation was conducted by universities. Honer and Jordan (2020) contend the preparation of principals cannot continue being carried out in isolation. They support creating partnerships structured on a shared responsibility with school districts in providing principal candidates quality preparation and meaningful experiences. However, in the last decade or so, an increasing number of reports assert university-based preparation programs are not successful in preparing principals and lack features of successful programs (Honer & Jordan, 2020; Mendels, 2016; Wang et al., 2018).

Recent research on redesigning principal preparation programs suggests including characteristics such as: active, rigorous recruiting; standards-based curriculum; cohort structure; effective program leadership; university-district partnership; and financial support for participants (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2018). These characteristics exist within dynamic and complex contexts and are influenced by such environments. Missing from the research on partnerships is a deeper analysis of how these complex contexts influence university-district partnerships (Crow & Whiteman, 2016).

Fry et al., (2006), with support from the Wallace Foundation, produced a report from a study of 22 principal preparation programs indicating that most of these universities did not have quality programs. One of the weaknesses was lack of collaboration between universities and school districts. These authors joined others in recommending cooperation between universities and school districts to ensure relevant and meaningful preparation of aspiring principals.

Mendels (2016) synthesized four reports dealing with principal preparation. Findings indicated school superintendents, principals, and faculty in charge of programs perceived these programs failed to prepare future school leaders. In addition, Wang et al. (2018) reported that research on university-based preparation programs implies a lack of vital features to develop successful principals. One of these critical features is partnerships between universities and school districts.

Despite apparent challenges faced in preparing principals through collaborative efforts between universities and school districts, this approach has overwhelming support. Partnerships are becoming an essential strategy in preparing school leaders and addressing school challenges. Orr (2012) documented several partnership experiences and reported successful strategies and challenges in establishing, supporting, and sustaining partnerships. These factors are a shared commitment and complementary goals, appropriate roles and responsibilities for their shared purpose, processes to support decision-making and problem-solving, and shared resources. Orr also stated that relevant in establishing partnerships are the challenges presented, including leadership turnover and sustainable funding.

Conceptual Framework

Redesigning a principal preparation program is a complex endeavor (Wang et al., 2018), especially when done in collaboration with another entity. The literature has documented several reasons why collaboration is a prevalent strategy for educational reform (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2018). Typically, a partnership has a well-defined purpose, structures, practices and procedures, and parity among all partners. Successful partnerships require mutual openness, individual and collective commitment, and a shared vision of goal accomplishment. However, the literature seldom offers insight into what transpires in the initial phases of partnership development. For Osguthorpe et al. (1995), a partnership “implies an active, direct form of cooperation . . . [that emerges] only after people connect with ideas, form relationships based upon equity and trust, and develop commitment to shared goals” (p. 7).

We also consider the characteristics of effective new and mature partnerships: (1) joint vision and a shared set of goals; (2) each entity benefits; (3) clearly understood obligations; (4) engagement in decision-making; and (5) shared accountability and ownership (Winkler & Frechtling, 2005, as cited in Domina & Ruzek, 2012, p. 248). Recognizing that there are several frameworks to study collaborations, we use Gajda’s (2004) five principles of program evaluation and Kezar’s (2005) Stage Model for Collaboration in Higher Education to organize the findings.

Gajda’s (2004) five principles are: (1) Collaboration is an Imperative; (2) Collaboration is Known by Many Names; (3) Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination; (4) With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the Procedural; (5) Collaboration Develops in Stages. Detailed descriptions of these principles are in the Findings sections. Embedded in these five principles are Kezar’s (2005) three stages as described in her model: (1) building commitment, (2) commitment, and (3) sustaining. The Stage Model for Collaboration in Higher Education considers eight elements: (1) mission, (2) integrating structures, (3) campus networks, (4) rewards, (5) a sense of priority from people in senior positions, (6) external pressure, (7) values, and (8) learning.

Stage 1, Building Commitment, incorporates the elements of external pressure, values, learning, and networks (Kezar, 2005). In this stage, internal and external influences compel actors to come together for cooperative purposes. In Stage 2, Commitment, senior leaders demonstrate explicit support for initiatives and leaders to emerge from within the network. The third and final stage, Sustaining, requires organizations to implement structures for the partnership to continue and flourish. This final phase includes the development of new structures, networks, and reward systems to encourage buy-in from others outside of the original group. Together, these frameworks help us better understand the partnership process for successful change. Using Gajda’s and Kezar’s frameworks, we mapped out the development, implementation, and current status of the UTEP-EPISD partnership using in-depth interviews with its key players, including students (principal candidates).

Methods and Data Sources

Setting out to understand the collaboration and creation of the UTEP-EPISD partnership, we conducted a single descriptive case study that explored participants’ perspectives on the establishment and evolution of the partnership (Creswell, 2013; Yin, 2018). Using a single descriptive case study approach, we provide a rich description of the phenomenon—the partnership creation process—but are limited in terms of the generalizations we can offer. The data collection for this study included semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol included nine questions, with five containing clarification questions. The design of the questions focused on the Gajda’s (2004) five principles of collaboration and Kezar’s (2005) stage model for collaboration in higher education as presented in the previous section. The questions asked about the following elements: the impetus for the partnership; meeting frequency and purpose; emergence of a leader among the group; collaboration development and process; the extent to which individual voices were honored; the development of consensus building, shared accountability and ownership of the partnership; challenges faced throughout the process; problem-solving techniques utilized; and an opportunity for reflexivity on the participants’ processes and experiences.

Interviews were conducted with three representatives from the university (hereinafter referred to as “Faculty 1, 2, or 3”), which included the department chair and two faculty members who teach in the principal preparation program and have direct knowledge of the programmatic elements. Included were three representatives from the school district (hereinafter referred to as “Administrator 1, 2, or 3”), which included two upper-level administrators who served on the superintendent’s cabinet and a mid-level administrator. All three had knowledge of the district’s school leadership needs, goals, and potential resources needed for successful partnership implementation. These six participants were instrumental in the initial negotiations toward establishing and managing the partnership.

Interviewing participants who held different positions allowed us to collect narratives on the partnership creation process from varying viewpoints. Each participant had varied levels of decision-making authority, which influenced their perspective of the inner-workings of the efforts required to create the partnership such as collaborating meetings, communication with all individuals, and the ability to make final decisions. Administrator 1 had formal and final decision-making authority. Administrator 2 had formal decision-making authority. Administrator 3 had no formal decision-making authority. Faculty 1, 2, and 3 each had shared decision-making authority. While one of these individuals served as department chair with the ability to authorize decisions, the approach from the faculty representatives was to share final decision-making authority, making decisions by consensus, relevant to the programmatic elements that impacted the university. The faculty also deferred to the district, when possible, to ensure their needs were being met. Two of the participants interviewed are co-authors of this paper.

In addition, we interviewed the 11 students that formed the first EPISD cohort to ascertain their views on critical components of the partnership. Interviews were conducted as the students were nearing the end of the program. The student interview protocol included questions meant to allow participants to elaborate on their experiences (Creswell, 2013). The questions focused on their motivation to become school leaders, their experience in the program, and their leadership development. The interview protocol also asked specific questions on elements of the partnership, including perceived advantages and disadvantages of participating in the partnership’s first cohort.

Since some participants are authors of this paper, thick description is used to establish trustworthiness with the reader and provide a detailed picture of the phenomenon (the partnership creation process) (Creswell, 2013; Merrian & Tisdell, 2016). We also offer a description of the context in which this collaboration came to be, allowing the reader to determine whether the findings in this study are transferable to their context/setting. To address the dependability of this study, we provide details so that this study can be repeated. Still, we realize there may be limitations in repeating this study.

Because two participants also served as researchers and authors, we utilized triangulation to ensure that the analysis was based on the data rather than our predispositions or biases of the collaborative efforts (Creswell, 2013; Merrian & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation occurred by collecting data from various participants, including the partners and the students who made up the first cohort. We also utilized our third author, who was not part of the partnership efforts but is an affiliated faculty with the department. They were able to look at the data from a non-biased lens in the data analysis phase. As we conversed over patterns in the data, having an individual who was not part of the process proved helpful.

Directed content analysis (DCA) was used as part of the data analysis. DCA allows us to use existing theory and related key concepts for initial coding (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Transcribed interviews were deductively coded using the theoretically defined categories in Gajda’s (2004) five principles: (1) Collaboration is an Imperative; (2) Collaboration is Known by Many Names; (3) Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination; (4) With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the Procedural; (5) Collaboration Develops in Stages. In addition, we recognize that embedded in these five principles are Kezar’s (2005) three stages as described in her model: (1) building commitment; (2) commitment; and (3) sustaining. As such, we used these stages to conduct further analysis and organization of the data.

The Partners

UTEP is located along the U.S.-Mexico border, in El Paso, a city in the far west corner of Texas, hundreds of miles from other major metropolitan areas in the state. This geographic isolation, in large part, has created a closed-loop system for the preparation of K-12 educators and school leaders in the region. The principal preparation program at UTEP has been, throughout the years, a traditional program where self-selected students attend classes at the university. At the end of the program, students complete an internship at school sites where they are mentored by a practicing school principal.

EPISD has historically been and is still the largest school district in El Paso, Texas. The district consists of 76 campuses: 10 high schools, 14 middle schools, 46 elementary schools, 2 PreK-8 schools, 4 specialty campuses that include an occupational center, several magnet schools, a recovery program for at-risk students, and an adult education school (EPISD, n.d.a.). EPISD is the largest employer in the city, with an annual operating budget of $483 million, approximately 8,025 employees, and almost 50,000 students (EPISD, n.d.a).

Description of the Partnership

The partnership began with discussions and meetings between UTEP faculty and EPISD central office leaders in the spring of 2018. Key elements of the partnership included: (1) joint decision-making on the selection of the principal candidates; (2) embedding EPISD philosophy and curriculum initiatives into the coursework; (3) opportunities for principal candidates to attend district professional development sessions targeted for assistant principals; (4) mentoring opportunities provided by the district; and (5) district tuition-assistance.

At the onset of the partnership, conversations were largely based on pre-existing relationships among individuals and implicit trust. Two of the participating district administrators were graduates of UTEP’s Ed.D. program. However, as negotiations progressed, the need for an approved and signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) became evident. The MOU delineated specific agreements made by each partner such as tuition reimbursement commitments, the admissions selection process for the cohort, prescribed a three-year partnership term with an annual admission of 10 to 15 students per cohort, and a clause to extend the term of the partnership beyond the 3 years as mutually determined by both partnering organizations. From the school district perspective, an MOU was necessary to make the partnership official which then allowed for allocation of funds needed to pay for commitments made to potential students during recruitment sessions. From the university’s perspective, the MOU provided assurances for the enrollment of students and district input on curriculum development. Through this process, legal counsel from both entities were involved in lengthy back-and-forth revisions that delayed the official enactment of the MOU. Meanwhile, the recruitment and selection of students was completed, with the first official partnership cohort enrolling in mid-fall of 2018.

Findings

We organize our findings utilizing Gajda’s (2004) method to evaluate strategic alliances. While this framework is used to conduct program evaluations, we find that the principles are relevant and helpful in using participant responses to interrogate the process of partnership creation. Data is organized using Gajda’s five stages, with the visible overlap of the partnership work interwoven throughout the stages. As such, our presentation of the data is not sequential in terms of describing the development and implementation stages, revealing the collaborations’ dynamic nature.

Collaboration is an Imperative (Building Commitment)

The initial stage of the collaboration process asks us to examine the conditions that incorporate external pressure, values, learning, and networks (Kezar, 2005). During this stage, internal and external influences force actors to come together for cooperative purposes. Collaboration provides an opportunity for the partners to “pool scarce resources” in efforts to address complex issues in their communities (Gajda, 2004, p. 67), such as in principal preparation. The overarching imperative of the UTEP-EPISD collaboration was to prepare future principals.

This impetus stemmed from the state’s changes to the principal preparation standards and certification requirements and from the practical need for a pool of principal candidates who were keenly aware of the district’s needs. As both UTEP and EPISD representatives reflected on how this partnership began, it became clear that it was the convergence of the district’s desire to create a principal pipeline, the funding opportunity from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), and the university’s need to align the program’s curriculum to the new standards. These three elements also reflect a distinct set of interests for each partner.

In their interviews, Faculty 1 and 2 cited declining enrollments as a call to identify avenues that would attract more students to their program. Faculty were also aware of the need to modify their course curriculum to align with the new competencies for all aspiring administrators, regardless of district affiliation. Such an opportunity allowed the faculty to fine-tune and revamp the curriculum. Speaking beyond enrollment concerns and updating the curriculum, Faculty 3 expressed that “the practical part of any training, especially for a principal, is closely linked to what really happens in the school themselves . . . without a partnership, I don’t think that a graduate program preparing new teachers or new principals will be feasible in the future.” We see this view supported by the research on principal preparation articulating the university-district collaboration model as an effective method to prepare future school leaders (Browne-Ferrigno, 2011; Crow & Whiteman, 2016; Darling-Hammond, et al., 2007; Gooden, et al., 2011; Gordon, 2020; Mendels, 2016; Sanzo, et al., 2011).

Similarly, from a school district perspective, the impetus for the partnership was an opportunity to prepare future principals as prescribed by the changes in the state standards, while at the same time, infusing the district’s expectations of school leaders on their campuses. EPISD representatives wanted to find ways to preemptively address the new requirements and expectations resulting from the changing principal standards while instilling in future principal candidates the district’s values and beliefs by embedding these in the coursework. Administrator 1 reflected:

We were looking for a partner who would be willing to not only embrace what we were already doing on the campuses, but also help us understand what they were doing. So, it was going to be like a mutual partnership, where we would be able to understand on both sides what is UTEP doing to prepare [principal candidates] with this new certification process. But also, really what [UTEP] could do as far as the coursework and embrace what we were trying to do to change [the] culture on campuses and really help create those instructional leaders that we needed to drive the work on to the campuses.

The district’s desire to understand what the university was doing and, at the same time, inform the university about what the district needed underscores the learning component of establishing collaborations. As described by Administrator 1, the nature of this collaboration was defined as a “partnership where [district] experts in our different departments were going to collaborate with UTEP professors and be able to co-teach or come in as guest speakers or even as evaluators of some of the products that [the principal candidates] were coming up with.”

The expectation was a two-way transfer of knowledge and active participation of both partners in developing these future principals. The district’s willingness to engage in such a manner helped to solidify the imperative to partner. It is important to note that after receiving the news that they were not awarded the TEA grant, the district decided to find and allocate funding to continue the partnership, which underscored how important they viewed the collaboration.

Based on responses from UTEP and EPISD participants, the commitment to collaborate was built by way of external pressures. Both organizations saw a moment of mutual opportunity: EPISD to cultivate and grow administrators versed in the district’s philosophy around leadership and programmatic curriculum initiatives and UTEP to enroll new students into its program and ensure its curriculum aligned with new standards and competencies. Where these conversations took these two partners is explored in the next section.

Collaboration is Known by Many Names

The outcomes of collaborative efforts are to yield shared benefits for the partners involved (Gajda, 2004). At the same time, we recognize the definition of the term collaboration is elusive (Gajda, 2004; Kezar, 2005), making it so that partners come to the table with differing definitions and assumptions about the overarching goal of the partnership and how to execute the work. The presence of a collective meaning gets taken for granted. Yet, research tells us that we “[m]ust come to a collective and shared understanding of the nature of collaboration and be able to recognize its variations and complexities” (Gajda, 2004, p. 68). Building the narrative to support the partnership begins with partners engaging in developing a shared definition of collaboration. The experience of the UTEP and EPISD representatives reflected an omission of this step in their collaboration process. An omission due in part to lack of time and structure in meetings. From both the district and university perspective, the partnership development process and structure of the meetings centered on the work, and less about creating a shared understanding of collaboration. When asked about how the partnership was started, Administrator 3 shared:

[I]nitially, there were meetings held around the grant deadline . . . there were meetings [with] a few weeks in between where it would give either the university or the district a chance to collect information that we needed for the grant application . . . questions about what the course sequence looks like, or questions on [the district’s] end about who all would be involved. Who would be the lead? Those kinds of things.

Describing the structure of the Meetings, Faculty 3 said:

I think there was an intent [to provide structure], but I don’t think it happened. And I think it’s because [EPISD was] incredibly busy. The meetings . . . And then other people would show up or not show up . . . we had to go back and revisit again. There was a lot . . . The very beginning it was always roundabout . . . It took us a number of meetings. Like, more than three to finally get on track.

Successful partnerships are “achieved through and characterized by trust, mutuality and reciprocity” (Kruger et al., 2009, p. 16). We discovered in this collaboration instances when trust and respect were tested. One incident related to an agreement on the number of students accepted in the first cohort illustrated how trust was tested among collaborators. At an information session for interested candidates, an attendee asked how many participants would make up the first cohort. At a previous planning meeting, the partners agreed to accept 12 candidates. Yet, at this public meeting, Faculty 2 stated that it was a district decision rather than a partnership decision. Reflecting on this experience, Administrator 2 shared:

[If] we’re going to make decisions . . . we need to own them, and it needs to be a united front. And if you’re not in agreement, those discussions go back behind closed doors. But [Faculty 2] right away said, ‘Oh no, she’s the boss. She gets to decide.’ And I was . . . sitting in the back like, ‘Wait a minute, we decided on 12. What meeting were you at?!’ But anyway, I was not happy [that] night.

On the surface, this experience may appear like a simple exchange, but the reality is that it begins to jeopardize trust and eventually can challenge the existence of the partnership. The unraveling of collaboration can happen quickly. We see this likelihood expressed by Administrator 2: “. . .if we’re not going to own our decisions, it’s going to make it very challenging for us to keep moving forward.”

Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination (Commitment)

The literature on partnerships describes collaborative efforts as developing in stages and operating on a continuum that gauges the partners’ level of integration and effectiveness in the processes or systems related to the partnership (CCSSO, 2018; Gajda, 2004; Kezar, 2005; King, 2014). Models are called by different names but contain similar elements. What is shared across these models is support for this idea that collaboration is a journey not a destination, where all partners regularly revisit their linkages and seek improvements. It is here where partnerships can be strengthened through reflection.

With the focus of this case study centering on the early stages of collaboration development, we explore the data as it reflects the idea that this is a journey not a destination, concentrating on the MOU. The MOU between UTEP and EPISD represented formalized details of the partners’ agreements, including listing the roles and responsibilities of each partner, earmarking funds for tuition reimbursement and certification exams, release time and paid substitutes so principal candidates could attend district professional development. These financial incentives were promised to students when they began the certification program. With the exit of two key partnership district representatives, the MOU was not finalized until a few months before the first cohort’s graduation. While the partners knew the agreements, the absence of the MOU contributed to challenges in fulfilling all these promises.

In this regard, reflecting on what would be done differently, Faculty 1 shared, “If we wanted to start a brand-new partnership, I would try to get that commitment more reinforced. Not just the [MOU] but maybe all the smaller [verbal] agreements.” Alluding to this idea that collaboration occurs in stages, Faculty 1 mentioned the need for a “delineated timeline of events [and] roles and responsibilities for everybody so that everybody . . . will recognize that they didn’t follow through.” They also stressed that this would help “monitor that relationship.”

Speaking to the issue of the MOU and of the progress of the collaboration, Faculty 2 stated:

[W]e proposed to establish a memorandum of understanding . . . to solidify the agreements, . . . and [the MOU] went to the legal offices in each respective organization. It just got out of our hands and it was never done. It was actually never signed, but we continued . . . as [though it was]. . . [W]hat could be delivered, the structure of the program, how the program was going to look like, admission procedures, who was going to participate in the interviews, about how many students [the district] w[as] willing to support and we were willing to take.

School district opinions mirrored faculty sentiments. Perhaps the most telling statement that speaks to this idea is Administrator 1 who shared, “we were kind of building the plane as we were flying it.” In reflecting on what may have been done differently, Administrator 1 shared, “if anything, I would have probably extended the timeframe for us to really get into talks and prepare for the rollout.” Administrator 3 shared, “we were going to initially pay for some of the tuition for the students, and internally at the district, conversations had not been had with other departments whose input we needed to include in those decisions.”

The establishment of the MOU, however, should not suggest that the process is complete. A level reflection is necessary to allow for constant improvements of processes and systems related to the partnership (CCSSO, 2018; Gajda, 2004; Kezar, 2005; King, 2014). The reflection was prompted by the interviews conducted for this study, and not necessarily as part of a formalized structure required by the MOU. In looking back at the start-up experience, Faculty 1 said:

I think they went through that [reflection], too. Once you pose the question to them or the issue, okay, well what do you want your Principals to look like? What do you appreciate in your Principals, or future Principals? I think that’s a question where they need to reflect, not only for them to say, “Well I want Principals to do that.” That is a more job-oriented response but also in terms of values, in terms of how they want their Principals to deal with the schools and the school communities and teachers and students. I think to them it also okay [to ask], have we [as a university] ever thought about that? What do we want (emphasis added)?

Administrator 3 suggested more clearer outputs from the partnership, “One of the things that I think we should have mapped out more . . . some very specific end goals in mind, both from the university and the district.”

With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the Procedural (Commitment)

The core of this principle—with collaboration, the personal is as important as the procedural—“depends upon positive personal relations and effective emotional connections between partners” (Gajda, 2004, p. 69). Trust, contingent on a well-developed and effective communication system is critical to this principle. The partners’ high-level personal and emotional investment was present in the UTEP-EPISD collaboration, but it did not prevent challenges.

During initial partnership conversations, participants described the difficulty each experienced navigating organizational concerns prior to making assurances that allowed the partnership to move forward. Doubts and mistrust were prevalent on both sides, which colored their perspectives on working together. The district, plagued with past scandals related to questionable governance and management decisions, initially left the university apprehensive about whether the school district leaders had the resolve to follow through with the partnership. In speaking to the apprehension, Faculty 1 shared that they “didn’t really understand who was playing what role at the very beginning.” Faculty 1 expressed frustration over the lack of consistency in meeting attendance from district personnel saying, “people would show up or not show up.” Administrator 3 reflected the same sentiment, sharing, “there wasn’t steady attendance on the side of the district . . . at the beginning . . . we were very lax in our approach in not implementing the structure in place to be able to facilitate those conversations.” Administrator 3 referred to the absence of a well-defined leadership hierarchy for who would serve as a leader and not identifying critical people with decision-making authority to move activities along. The presence of such a structure was assumed.

Eventually, through open discussions, informal leaders emerged from both organizations facilitating moving forward with the partnership, implementation process, and finally admitting the first cohort. As part of the Commitment stage, senior leaders demonstrate explicit support for initiatives and allow leaders to emerge from within the network to work together (Kezar, 2005). Along with the emergence of leaders in the group, the personal relationships between the individuals helped further the partnership work.

In the absence of a formal agreement, the fact that most everyone knew each other facilitated discussions forward. One of the EPISD representatives had completed their doctoral degree at UTEP, and another was taking doctoral classes at UTEP. The relationships fostered between these two individuals and the university representatives helped move the collaboration forward as the partners waited for the MOU. As Faculty 3 expressed,

One of the things that really strikes me as very important is. . . the individuals involved . . . knew each other very well. They had some background working together, and that’s very important . . . because we were not dealing with strangers or building a brand-new relationship from zero.

In this respect, the personal was as important as the procedural for this collaboration. However, the literature on partnerships also warns of depending on individuals to ensure the sustainability of collaborations (Kruger et al., 2009). What is needed are formalized structures within the institutions external to the individuals in them that can continue to support the collaboration’s efforts when there is turnover in staff. As critical players exited the district, it was challenging to sustain efforts, and there were some breaks in the continuity of the work.

Administrator 3 shared that the district experiences a “high turnover of staff,” and through this loss in staff, things relevant to the partnership fall through the cracks. “For example, two of the key people who attended all those meetings are no longer with the district . . .Where is the documentation [MOU] . . . [that shows] that even though these people are no longer here, the district is still committed.” For the UTEP partners, the impact of the staff turnover highlighted the need to have established a more formal procedure to document the collaborative’s process and work. Faculty 3 also expressed the following:

[If] the district does not assign a liaison that is in constant communication with [us], it’s not going to work because administrators have full-time jobs . . . then the planning in terms of periodic meetings, it cannot just be sporadic . . . [t]o get a successful partnership, there’s got to be a two-way street where . . . an administrator or liaison from both ends are constantly talking as to how to move things forward.

The UTEP and EPISD collaboration experience reflects what we see in the research. Having a system in place to allow the partnership to develop and grow is as critical as having the right personnel with decision-making power to move the work. This procedural component is equally important to the personal relationships between individuals in the partnership; these personal relationships are fueled by trust, effective communication systems, and emotional connections.

Collaboration Develops in Stages (Sustaining)

Gajda’s (2004) fifth principle is Collaboration Develops in Stages. This is presented as a four-step collaboration development process: (1) assemble and form; (2) storm and order; (3) norm and perform; and (4) transform and adjourn (Bailey & Koney, 2000, as cited in Gajda, 2004, p. 70). From a program evaluation perspective, these four stages allow for examining the entire collaborative process from beginning to end.

Assemble and Form

In stage one—assemble and form—the initial reasons for partnering and the value of the collaboration are explored (Gajda, 2004). In the sections above, we analyzed the data against this backdrop and found that in terms of identifying the purpose for coming together and the value of partnering, both the university and district partners shared a common understanding of why the partnership was necessary. The changes in the certification standards, the restructuring of the principal preparation program, and the need for a district principal pipeline collided and illuminated the value of this partnership. The data also reflected that although there was this initial shared understanding, the partners also held the belief that each had a distinct set of goals to accomplish via the partnership.

Storm and Order

In stage two, how individuals in the partnership assume or take on specific roles, and the “norm[ing] and strategies for the collaborative effort are determined” (Gajda, 2004, p. 70). Here, the work is centered around building systems for collaboration, including “a mission and corresponding strategic plan, their systems for communication, forms of leadership and their decision-making structures” (Gajda, 2004, p. 70). As presented above, there was no formal creation of a strategic plan, communication system, or decision-making structure. Initially, the looming deadline of the TEA grant permitted the partnership to start the work without formalizing the elements above. An MOU was drafted to formalize the partnership, but its execution was severely delayed, leaving the work to be carried out informally. What the data revealed around storming and ordering is that throughout the collaboration process, individuals from each partnering institution took turns assuming the leader role. Communication wavered and was dependent on the focus of the partnership at that moment, which resulted in creating challenges for both institutions.

Norm and perform

The third stage focuses on the partnership’s efforts to implement the work and engage in a continuous feedback cycle incorporating data collection (Gajda, 2004). As the partnership moved into the implementation phase, challenges around decision-making, communication, and professor/teaching autonomy surfaced. These findings are interrelated to the storming and ordering. Around the element of decision-making, district representatives indicated sometimes feeling excluded in this process, which made them feel as though they were not part of a true partnership. Reflecting on how things were going once the first cohort was underway, specifically around changes made by the university to the course sequence, Administrator 3 shared, “from my standpoint, I felt that the district no longer had a decision-sharing part in all of that . . .UTEP just implemented [the changes in the course sequence] . . . [the district] did not give feedback on that [change].” It may be that the university partner may have been in the best position to make decisions about the program’s course sequence. Still, because the partnership stressed joint decision-making during the initial planning meetings, it is not hard to see why the district representative expressed feeling left out of this process. On a personal level and in contrast to the experience of Administrator 3, Faculty 2 provided, “I never felt that we couldn’t propose or say anything that they will shut down or rejected.”

From the university perspective, describing the communication structure throughout the entire process, Faculty 2 expressed that the partnership had “. . . a good communication strategy with [the district] . . . I think from our perspective perhaps as well, we’re always in contact with them but I think it should be an official way of communicating with them.” This piece of data reflects the critical need to be intentional and clear about the roles and communication structure of the partnership from the beginning. Partners feeling left out at any stage of the partnership continuum can chip away at the trust cultivated resulting in a detrimental impact. While formalizing communication and decision-making structures may slow the work of the partnership, in the long run, it allows for a stronger working relationship, with a greater likelihood of sustainability.

Another comment made by Administrator 3 referred to challenges within the district that impacted the partnership work: “I think the whole partnership came about in somewhat of a rushed manner. . . given the size of the district, the way . . . other initiatives were being put into place . . . I don’t think people had the time to devote to the partnership in a real thoughtful way.” As the academic year continued, the partnership eventually became part of several other district-wide initiatives that would regularly move up and down the queue of central office priorities.

Faculty felt this shift in attention from the district as well. Faculty 1 and 3 described the challenges faced by the university once the first cohort was underway, such as ensuring students were receiving tuition reimbursements, invited to district leadership trainings, and offered authentic leadership experiences in the internship. Faculty 1 summarized the sentiment, “I think we’re struggling more with that [MOU-expressed expectations] now than we were back then. Keeping the partnership going.”

Other challenges identified included communication between the district, the university, and the students who were the external partners. Faculty 1 articulated this communication challenge existing at three junctures: “[t]he district with us. Us with the district. Us with the students.” Concurrently, internal challenges to implementing the work surfaced for the university representatives. Interviews with university representatives illuminated concerns regarding what they perceived as forced changes in curriculum as a threat to their academic freedom, unclear guidelines on how faculty would be evaluated, and the potential impact of these changes to their tenure and promotion.

There was also an absence of a method to collect feedback during the implementation phase. The university focused its efforts on onboarding the first cohort and teaching the necessary content and neglected to nurture the partnership formally. While university representatives reached out to district representatives for specific needs, once the first cohort enrolled, the regularity of meetings with the large group ceased. A lack of meetings, coupled with the changes in staffing at the district, created a backdrop that made it difficult to sustain the momentum of the partnership work.

Transform and Adjourn (Sustaining)

In the final stage of this continuum, the focus is on “evaluation and assessment findings and data to formally reassess and determine what modifications might need to be made to the strategies, tasks, leadership, and communication structures of the alliance” (Gajda, 2004, p. 70). We connect this stage of Gajda’s work to Kezar’s (2005) final stage of the collaboration process that allows both organizations to implement various initiatives and systems to promote rewards for participants to gain buy-in from external parties. Sustaining requires others outside the initial collaboration group to feel invested and part of the new structures. Here we are mindful that most collaborations fail (Kezar, 2005). However, despite challenges, students enrolled in the program and the UTEP-EPISD partnership continues to endure. Considering the adjustments needed for the partnership to be sustainable (Gajda, 2004), the data points us to three primary areas: communication, identifying key personnel, and formal agreements. The data revealed that communication is critical. Both district and university representatives shared that communication was a challenge at different moments throughout the process. As Faculty 1 shared that the challenges included “communication in different levels.”

EPISD representatives showed a willingness to look inward and identify the district’s challenges. In addition to high-employee turnover, Administrator 3 expressed concerns over the lack of “research” and time to think through making decisions, highlighting the need to “make sure everybody’s at the table to make those decisions.” For example, some of the decisions made around the partnership, such as financial incentives, impacted departments that did not have district representatives/personnel sitting at the table during the initial planning meetings. While it was not an intentional oversight, this omission of key personnel did raise issues later. This data revealed the need for internal communication systems and those external processes used between the partners. It also illuminated the need to have key personnel identified and participate throughout the process.

Both partners also raised concerns about the lack of a formal agreement and how it impacted the partnership. In addition, EPISD representatives also discussed having trouble ensuring that the partnership remained a top priority for the district. District representatives shared that the turnover in staff left them uncertain as to who would continue to take charge. Echoing this sentiment, Faculty 1 shared:

[W]e could have insisted more on some of the initial agreements. For example. . . students were going to get certain things. We didn’t have a structure for following up with some of those things. The other thing is . . .as we found out from the first cohort, school administrators come and go . . .it happened in this case, [Administrator 1] left, and then it took the district a while to figure out who was going to be in charge. . . . [the MOU] will help us, regardless of who is in charge or who comes and goes, help us always identify somebody who is the contact person officially.

The formal agreements were essential to ensure the partnership’s sustainability and that the work would continue even with inevitable personnel changes. The MOU also communicated each partner’s expectations, roles, and responsibilities. Communication, identification of key personnel, and formal agreements are means to usher in the transformation of the partnership work.

Student Perspectives of the Partnership

In addition to the information shared by the university and district participants, we also gathered the perspectives of students who were members of the partnership’s first cohort. We view these principal candidates as external partners. At the time of the interviews, participants had completed about three-fourths of the program. The student data aligned with the findings above, particularly around communication between the two partnering organizations and the students.

Students interviewed indicated a disconnect between them and both organizations, with many students unsure of who to turn to as concerns arose. When asking logistical questions to university professors, some students reported getting a response such as: “I’ll have to get back to you on that because I need to talk to EPISD about it.” Students also reported not knowing who was the district contact that could answer these same questions. Empathizing that this was the partnership’s first cohort, a student shared: “I guess the one thing that I was not expecting, and I hope this doesn’t get taken too negatively, was that I was surprised by a lot of the last-second types of communications.”

The students also expressed miscommunication between the two partners, with the majority centered on issues of funding, as exemplified in the following: “There was a talk about how there was going to be a certain amount of money available for the classes, and all of a sudden, there was no money available.” Another student shared that the district “paid a little bit, not as much as they said they would, but they did pay some.” Some of the students reported having to turn to student loans to continue in the program since they did not set aside tuition money as a contingency plan if the district could not provide tuition reimbursement. They relied on what the district had communicated regarding tuition support.

Regarding communication between the partners and the cohort, the students felt “more cohesion and more communication” was needed between the district and the university partners to avoid “miscommunication or the lack of communication.” Frustration centered on the impact students felt because of the shift in key personnel and the partnership’s lack of formal decision-making processes. One student shared,

[W]e never knew who to talk to at EPISD . . .they had promised all of these things, and it sounded amazing. And then, in the end, it just fell through, I guess. Or they put it on somebody else, and then that person disappeared . . . I wasn’t expecting there to not be any communication.

Several students raised communication issues and a disconnect in administrative processes such as advising and tuition payments. Ultimately, the lack of a formal communication structure negatively impacted students’ perceptions of the partnership at different moments in the program. These accounts also signal sustainable funding, specifically, the need for partners to identify and secure those funding sources early in the process as a critical element to successful alliances.

Discussion and Implications

In this study, we set out to examine the UTEP-EPISD partnership utilizing Gajda’s (2004) five principles of collaboration which include: (1) Collaboration is an Imperative; (2) Collaboration is Known by Many Names; (3) Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination; (4) With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the Procedural; (5) Collaboration Develops in Stages. Incorporated into the analysis was also Kezar’s (2005) three stages of collaboration in higher education as described in her model: (1) building commitment; (2) commitment; and (3) sustaining. It allowed us to evaluate the partnership from the initial phases to its potential for long-term sustainability.

The findings of this case study bring to the forefront seminal aspects of partnership development that may be taken for granted in building a strong foundation for partnerships. As the responsibilities of school leaders continue to grow and get more complex, university and school district partnerships are an ideal avenue to bridge the theory and practice that is principal preparation. In the section that follows, we frame our discussion around Kezar’s three stages which are incorporated in Gajda’s five principles as reflected in the organization of the findings above.

Building Commitment

In presenting the findings, every effort was made to provide details to portray the nuances and intimacies of the partnership actions transparently and truthfully. What was revealed was that the university-district partnership efforts between UTEP and EPISD reflect what is known from existing research regarding what is and is not effective practice. This section focuses our analysis on how this experience illustrates some of the most common challenges partnerships face, particularly in the early phases of coming together, and how these can be mitigated.

It is undeniable that the context for preparing principals has faced significant changes in the last decade or so. Primarily driven by the changes in the educational landscape, several groups have pushed for this transformation, including district leadership and policy actors. In Texas, preparation of principals has transformed by way of changes to the standards and certification requirements. Simultaneously, nationally, there have been increasing demands in the development of principals supported by increased evidence on the impact of high-quality principals on students and schools (Grissom et al., 2021). This environment creates the context for partners to build a commitment to collaborate to prepare principals.

As these external factors collided, university preparation programs faced challenges in meeting this call, most notably with the need to collaborate with external educational partners. Establishing partnerships to prepare principals has been touted by multiple organizations and scholars as a best practice (Darling-Hammond et al., 2007; Honer & Jordan, 2020; King, 2014; Wang et al., 2018). Yet, creating these collaborations presents challenges and the potential for tensions to emerge between partnering institutions, including early in the process.

Some of the challenges and tensions uncovered are related to the external environment where each partner operates and intra and inter-organizational issues. As for the external environment, there will be continuing pressures from organizations to regulate and control educator preparation. In this case, the Texas and the Texas State Board of Educator Certification have increasing control over principal preparation programs through the establishment of new standards and certification exams. Establishing and sustaining partnerships will face increasing resistance from university faculty as they may feel interference with academic freedom in direct opposition to program and class modifications made because of negotiations with the partnering school districts. As preparation programs embark in partnerships with districts, negotiating potential resistance must include constant communication with faculty.

Commitment

At the organizational level, some of the challenges documented in this study are associated with actors who came to the table. It was important that individuals from both organizations knew each other and were able to establish initial conversations and schedule subsequent meetings. However, as the data reflected, having well-intentioned individuals come to the table is not sufficient to sustain a long-term collaboration. This case study revealed that it is necessary to anticipate personnel changes that will directly impact the vitality of the partnership. Changes in team members will result in delays and uncertainties. Trust needs to be re-established and communication channels renegotiated when new members join. Incorporating new members into the partnership also has the potential to change already-established in-group dynamics.

Sustaining

This case revealed that identifying all relevant and necessary individuals—by name and title—who would be critical at different phases of the work and should occur at the outset. The effectiveness and sustainability of the partnership depend on the student cohorts’ success. Identifying the potential school leaders who would serve as principal candidate mentors and perhaps teach some of the program coursework in the early phase of the partnership will lead to cohesiveness and promote ownership and commitment to the partnership. Once identified, these individuals should be included in the partnership efforts at the relevant times.

In addition to personnel issues, this study pointed to communication and sustainable funding as additional key factors that impact the creation and viability of partnerships. Given the complexity of the environments in which both districts and universities operate, establishing a communication structure that ensures getting information on time allows partners to either circumvent or resolve issues in a timely fashion. Doing so at the beginning stage of the partnership sets the tone for the tenure of the partnership. Norming the communication system will also help the partnership navigate inevitable changes in personnel and unanticipated changes. These efforts may include identifying the contact person for each partnering organization, utilizing agenda items with relevant action items, maintaining a list of membership, and consistent and timely communication.

In the context of this partnership, funding sources stemmed from the TEA grant opportunity and funds allocated directly by the district to offset the tuition costs and other related training and professional development opportunities for the principal candidates. We acknowledge, however, that there are other resources, such as the cost of higher education faculty and mentor principals’ time and effort, that are part of the funding structure necessary to run the partnership efforts. A shared commitment to developing future leaders provides a foundation for both monetary and time resource allocation from both organizations. There is also a measurable return on investment in collaborating to develop these principals beyond this study’s scope, which includes the district having leaders who can ‘hit the ground running’ without needing additional training. This represents a potential cost-savings for the district and ultimately, by having well-prepared school leaders, better learning experiences and outcomes for the students.

Limitations and Future Work

When this article was written, this partnership was still in the beginning stages of implementation, as such more time is needed to determine whether this collaboration will foster long-term change. It is also important to note that relationships are also heavily contextual; some aspects of partnership implementation may be easier to come by than other based on actors, location, and organizational needs. The conceptual framework also guided us to examine very explicit aspects of the partnership. Power relations were not explored in depth as part of this paper, but many questions remain as to how two autonomous partners come together for a shared purpose. Despite these limitations, we believe this study offers others who are about to engage in this work an opportunity to reflect on those key elements that need to be established early on to be successful. Features that we may take for granted are present in the partnership.

Relationships are dynamic and multidimensional and require regular renegotiations of goals and expectations (Kezar, 2005). These initial findings shed light on the difficult realities organizations face in forming these relationships, with the university incredibly hesitant to change. In light of these limitations, there is an opportunity for further research to interrogate what role power and politics play in these negotiations and see if they can create changes in faculty and organizational identities to actualize successful initiatives. Long-term studies examining the components necessary for partnerships to increase their viability, leading to long-term sustainability, are also needed.

We also envision future work, both ours and that of other researchers, examining the long-term commitment to preparing principals from university and district perspectives. For example, does the district have a committed set of staff focused on principal development, growth, and learning? The multitude of issues continuously addressed by districts often leaves the principalship on the margin, assuming that these individuals are prepared because they completed a principal preparation program and passed the certification exams. Long-term and sustained support for these individuals’ growth as leaders within the context of each district is too often missing from school systems.

Conclusion

With the changing landscape of principal preparation, we anticipate many other universities and districts engaging in creating similar collaborations. While mitigating the external influences that impact principal preparation requires time and ongoing efforts, such as pushing for policy change, challenges around personnel changes and communication structures can be minimized by taking certain actions in the early stages of partnership development. Based on what we learned from this case study, spending time at the onset to co-create a shared vision and mission, develop and assign critical roles and responsibilities, timelines, and procedures is necessary.

The good news is that there are plenty of guiding frameworks partnerships can adopt to engage in this work. In a recent report published by The Council of Chief State School Officers Network for Transforming Educator Preparation, The Strengthening Partnerships Tool is presented (CCSSO, 2018). This tool builds on prior work of the Wallace Foundation (King, 2014) and was developed to help partnerships examine their effectiveness around the following: foundation, systems and structures, planning and implementation, and communications (CCSSO, 2018). Specifically, there are 13 indicators the tool examines and is structured around a continuum that measures levels of effectiveness across four levels: emerging, developing, established, and transformational. It also includes probing questions related to each of the 13 indicators, providing partnerships a means to engage in constructive dialogue around the intricacies of the work and its effectiveness. A partnership can engage in a continuous improvement cycle by revisiting these conversations, tweaking, and improving their structures. We hope that the lessons learned from the UTEP-EPISD partnership will inform the efforts of others.