The purpose of this paper is to describe in more detail the critical elements of the term "partnership" which has become another buzz-word in education and in other fields as well. Without definition and without an understanding of what it takes to build and sustain partnerships, the term becomes essentially meaningless for people and organizations. In the absence of an operational definition for the term "partnership" and without standards for assessing successful partnerships, essentially any transaction between persons or organizations could be called a partnership. More important, with neither definition nor standards, there can be no accountability. Throughout this paper the term "partnership" is used to mean a (1) thoughtfully created, (2) value-added and mutually beneficial relationship (3) between consenting organizations (4) that is nurtured over time, and (5) leads to measurable results.

John H. Henderson, in his article entitled "Plugging into Strategic Partnerships: The Critical IS Connection,"⁴ provides a conceptual framework for understanding the structure of what is meant by the term "partnership," what characterizes successful partnerships, and some of the general benefits derived from developing strategic partnerships. This paper draws on Henderson's framework by applying his concepts to university-school teacher education partnerships as they are evolving in North Carolina and in other states as well.

The Partnership Concept
 
The "partnership concept" developed by Henderson (see Figure 2 below) rests on the belief that organizational performance can be significantly improved through joint, mutually dependent action. Unlike more transactional "arms length" relationships, partnership-style relationships include risk sharing, exchanges without an endpoint, and mechanisms to monitor and execute the partnership. This model of partnership considers the need for building a long term foundation as well as a tactical means to achieve effective operational performance. 

Though Henderson's partnership concept appears to offer transferability to university-school partnerships, his model was built on data gathered from business executives and what they felt to be the critical elements in building and sustaining effective for-profit business partnerships. Thus, Henderson's partnership model is presented here as a set of postulates and a framework which researchers may wish to study and evaluate for their applicability to not-for-profit university-school partnerships, particularly those partnerships directed to improving the preparation of preservice and inservice teachers, administrators, and other school-based professionals.

There are two dimensions of partnership-style relationships described by Henderson. They are Partnership in Context and Partnership in Action.⁵

1. Partnership in Context⁶ is the degree to which the consenting organizations believe that the partnership will be sustained over time. The key indicators are longevity, stability, and interdependence between the partners. There are three domains that help define the context of a successful strategic partnership. Applied to university-school partnerships, they are:
   1. Mutual Benefits.  If a partnership succeeds, it will be because all parties have something to gain. The possible benefits are in four areas:
      1. achieving productivity gains, which for universities might be increased program enrollment and demand for graduates, increased support and demand for services, and more grants applied for and awarded. The public school partner may accomplish higher student achievement scores, improved teacher retention, or increased parental support. Both partners might experience improved quality, less redundancy, and reduced or redirected cost resulting from increased efficiency;
      2. developing process, product, or service innovations and new ways to deliver programs and services for university and public school students and staff may be achieved even while maintaining or improving quality;
      3. sharing risk and the willingness to take risks increases as partnerships mature. This may result in new or revised programs, new services, and new opportunities being created that heretofore would not have been possible;
      4. creating more positive work environments results from reducing the conflict that sometimes develops between universities and schools over roles and responsibilities and the general adequacy of teacher preparation. More positive university-school relationships achieved through effective partnerships reduces the isolation between and within the organizations and the associated finger-pointing while increasing the potential for more systemic thinking and supportive joint action. This can lead to increased learning, job satisfaction, and enhance career opportunities.
   2. Commitment.  Partnerships require a long range view as well as a willingness, over time, to relinquish some organizational controls in favor of operationalized shared governance. There are three main indicators of this level of commitment:
      1. developing shared organizational values, mission, and goals to guide the partnership through a process that administrators, faculty, and staff in the schools and the universities are fully enfranchised into the partnership. The goals should be based upon a shared vision jointly developed by the schools and the university. Traditionally, schools have had the goal of improving student achievement and universities have had the goal of improving teacher education. A partnership between the two means they "own" each others goals. The partnership is about the joint improvement of both student achievement and teacher preparation.
      2. identifying and institutionalizing recognition and reward systems that reinforce the partnership goals, so if one of the shared goals of a university-school partnership is to produce initially licensed teachers ready to teach, then the schools and university must structure recognition and reward systems to ensure that the quality production of teachers is built into the system by the organizations in the partnership.
      3. developing written agreements or letters of understanding are important in sustaining partnerships; the process of negotiating the agreement helps to identify shared goals and clarify expected results and benefits for both the schools and the university. Superintendents, deans, chairs of school boards and university trustees should be among the agreement signees. It is important to note that contractual relationships, though necessary, cannot be expected to sustain partnerships; all of the other elements being described in this concept paper must also be present.
   3. Predisposition.  Developing strategic partnerships as a means to achieve improvement in teacher preparation and development is a significant departure from past practice. Successful partnerships will be founded on the following predispositions, initially by the deans of education and superintendents and later by the faculty and staff in the partnership:
      1. trust is absolutely key to long term successful partnerships. Trust builds on an explicit organizational track record as well as personal relationships where people routinely deliver on promises made. Effective partnerships are characterized by an alignment between what is said and what is done between people in the consenting organizations. The creation and maintenance of honest and open communication between the schools and university is essential to building and sustaining trust;
      2. the attitudes and assumptions that permeate organizations and their people play a major role in successful partnerships. There must be an acceptance on the part of the administration, faculty, and staff that developing strategic partnerships is essential in a major strategy for improving schools and the professional preparation of teachers, administrators, and other school-based professionals.

2. Partnership in Action⁷ is the ability of the partners to influence policies, processes, and programs that affect the operational performance of the partnership. Thus, the key indicator is the ability to affect the day-to-day working relationships of the partners. There are at least three major actions that help define successful partnerships:

1. Shared Knowledge.  Partnerships ultimately survive on a deep foundation of shared knowledge between partner organizations. University-school partners must understand the environment and culture that affects how the other works if they are to support and influence each other in critical areas.
2. Mutual Dependency.  In every partnership there are distinctive competencies and resources, so that if the partnership fails, each member of the partnership loses. Successful university-school partnerships learn how to manage an environment where each holds critical cards tied to the other's success. Cortada⁸ refers to this as having real "skin in the game," such as allocated time, money, technology, special expertise, or facilities. As a result, each member's influence over key policies and decisions increases.
3. Organizational Linkages.  Successful partnerships are characterized by formal and informal linkages at all levels in the organization. Three types of linkages are:
   1. process integration where the two-way actions and activities cross traditional university-school boundaries, using partners' human resources and facilities, and sharing costs, to bring about school improvement and better prepared teachers, administrators, and other school-based professionals, thus necessitating joint planning;
   2. information integration that involves the exchange of information within and between the university and schools to better plan and monitor organizational actions;
   3. social networks that develop at all levels between people and groups or teams in the partnership organizations are critical to the long term success of partnerships. Cross-training or short-term assignments help develop an understanding and appreciation of the partner's culture and work environments. The personal relationships built between universities and schools enable leaders to manage across the rough spots that inevitably arise.

Building and Sustaining Strategic Partnerships

Strategic partnerships do not just develop serendipitously over time between organizations that may be working together. They require energy and leadership to grow and develop. Henderson⁹ reported six major actions corporate executives have taken to build and sustain partnerships, actions which also seem to have face validity for public sector partnerships. (See Figure 3 below) These action steps are revised and briefly described below and related to university-school partnerships. 

1. members of the partnership must be jointly prepared and trained in those task-related activities in which high interdependency exist, such as joint supervision of intern teachers;
2. there needs to be a general education for individuals to understand and appreciate the knowledge and skills of other members of the partnership;
3. there needs to be direct and frequent on-site interaction to better understand the culture and "customer needs" of the partners. Faculty and administrator exchanges, guest lecturing, action research, and joint curriculum development are just some of the strategies university and public school professionals can employ to get inside of and better understand the others' culture.

Joint Planning: There must develop an ongoing, iterative planning process that reflects both strategic thinking and the translation of that strategy into action. Joint planning is a key organizational linkage in strategic partnerships. There are at least four impacts of the planning process:

1. planning is a primary mechanism for negotiating and agreeing upon the mutual benefits that can be derived from effective university-school partnerships;
2. planning is a primary mechanism for creating a common set of goals necessary to give shared direction to the partnership;
3. planning allows for shared assessment of changing conditions which allows for quicker adjustments and response time between partners.
4. planning itself is a form of education, thus creating a shared knowledge base between university-school partners.

Assessment and Accountability: Identifying and creating appropriate measures to monitor results and to judge performance is an important function of strategic partnerships. The willingness and ability of partnerships to design and implement assessment and accountability systems are necessary to building and sustaining partnerships. These actions may fall into three areas:

1. designing compatible recognition and reward systems that reflect joint commitment between multiple systems (public schools and universities) that historically have employed very different reward structures;
2. identifying benchmarks of best practices in other comparable human service partnerships to measure progress toward achieving common goal and establishing higher benchmarks;
3. designing and implementing shared information systems, primarily related to university/public school student and faculty/teacher success and follow-up so that commitments, activities, and performance to be documented and monitored are important for holding partners accountable and for building trust between partners.

Teaming: Teams, including natural work groups and cross-functional teams between partnership organizations, provide three significant contributions to effective partnerships. Effective teams can:

1. provide a means to access and coordinate the diverse knowledge and skills within and between the universities and the public schools;
2. build social networks that can support commitment and spark innovation in programs and services;
3. support stability between the organizations by maintaining the direction of the partnerships and organizational memory as players change over time.

Multilevel Human Resource Strategy: Actions to build partnership must address all levels and all personnel of the partnership organizations. Partnerships are relatively easy to form between organizational leaders like deans and superintendents. However, partnerships are not likely to last beyond the tenure of the senior leadership unless there is a plan to develop relationships among and between faculty and staff throughout the organization, which is more challenging. Thus, a multilevel human resource strategy aimed at direct partnership development actions across departments and between different faculty-staff roles is key to developing sustainable university-school partnerships. An effective plan will build a shared knowledge base, strengthen organizational linkages, maintain an organizational memory even as administrators, faculty, and staff come and go, and generally improve the disposition to partnering.

Technology: Effective partnerships require significant technology support, primarily for four reasons. They are:

1. to reduce costs in some areas, most notably travel and mail services, if reliable e-mail and other telecommunications links are established and maintained;
2. to enhance communication of partnership information and activities as alluded to above;
3. to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of team members;
4. to support a wide array of performance management data which allows partners to document and build a track record on partnership commitments and activities.

Summary

University-School Teacher Education Partnerships are premised upon John Goodlad's  conclusion that "any teacher education program created or conducted without the collaboration of surrounding schools is defective."¹⁰ Henderson's "partnership concept" applied to university-school partnerships implies that they must be guided by a shared vision, mission, and goals that are jointly-crafted by members of both organizations. The vision, mission, and goals must focus equally on transformation of the school and renewal of the teacher education program. The partnership must be guided by a governance structure that supports equal participation by members in a clearly articulated decision-making process. The governance structure must also be one that is empowered to develop policy and to oversee implementation of partnership plans. Finally, this structure must establish an ongoing communication and feedback system at many levels that allows everyone in the partnership organizations to assess and monitor progress, to identify problems, and to develop self-correcting mechanisms.

Partnerships that follow these guidelines can be created between public schools and universities. But more importantly, partnerships can be sustained to become a potent strategy for reform and continuous improvement in public schooling, teacher education, and student achievement, and for building public confidence in public schools and schools of education.

Endnotes

1	Deans' Council on Teacher Education. A proposal to establish university-school teacher education partnerships  in North Carolina, The University of North Carolina General Administration, January, 1997.
2	Deans' Council on Teacher Education. Implementation plan to establish university-school teacher education partnerships  in North Carolina, The University of North Carolina General Administration, January, 1997.
3	Cortada, J. W. Do you take this partner?, The Total Quality Review, November/December, 1995.
4	Henderson, J. C. Plugging into strategicpartnerships: The critical IS connection,. Sloan Management Review, Spring, 1990, Volume 31, Number 3.
5	Ibid p. 5.
6	Ibid pp. 9-11.
7	Ibid pp.  11-14.
8	Cortada, p. 11.
9	Henderson, pp. 14-17.
10	Goodlad, J. Why we need a complete redesign of teacher, education, Educational Leadership, Volume 49, no. 3, 1991.

---