Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships
- The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I The History and Conceptual Foundations of School–University Partnerships
- Part II Teachers and Learning to Teach in School–University Partnerships
- Part III Equity and Student Learning in School–University Partnerships
- Part IV Leadership in School–University Partnerships
- Part V Community Schools as School–University Partnerships
- Part VI Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- Introduction to Part VI: Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- 37 Exploring the Promise and Possibility of Innovation in Professional Development Schools
- 38 Locating Practitioner Inquiry within the Professional Development School Movement
- 39 Teacher Inquiry in Professional Development Schools
- 40 Leveraging Action Research to Create Innovative P-12 Systems Change in School–University Partnerships
- 41 Professional Development Schools as Networked, Systemic Innovations
- 42 Pre-Collegiate Grow Your Own Programs as Innovative School–University Partnerships
- 43 What’s Needed Now
- 44 Commentary on Part VI: Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- Part VII Funding, Policy, and the Politics of School–University Partnerships
- Part VIII Looking at School–University Partnerships across Geographic and Cultural Borders
- Index
- References
44 - Commentary on Part VI: Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
Considerations for a Version 3.0
from Part VI - Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 November 2025
Edited in association with
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships
- The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Part I The History and Conceptual Foundations of School–University Partnerships
- Part II Teachers and Learning to Teach in School–University Partnerships
- Part III Equity and Student Learning in School–University Partnerships
- Part IV Leadership in School–University Partnerships
- Part V Community Schools as School–University Partnerships
- Part VI Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- Introduction to Part VI: Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- 37 Exploring the Promise and Possibility of Innovation in Professional Development Schools
- 38 Locating Practitioner Inquiry within the Professional Development School Movement
- 39 Teacher Inquiry in Professional Development Schools
- 40 Leveraging Action Research to Create Innovative P-12 Systems Change in School–University Partnerships
- 41 Professional Development Schools as Networked, Systemic Innovations
- 42 Pre-Collegiate Grow Your Own Programs as Innovative School–University Partnerships
- 43 What’s Needed Now
- 44 Commentary on Part VI: Inquiry and Innovation in School–University Partnerships
- Part VII Funding, Policy, and the Politics of School–University Partnerships
- Part VIII Looking at School–University Partnerships across Geographic and Cultural Borders
- Index
- References
Summary
In this commentary I take the idea of an “SUP 3.0” as offered by Diane Yendol-Hoppey and her colleagues and use it as the overarching consideration for my discussion of inquiry and innovation in school–university partnerships (SUPs). Previously, SUP researchers may have considered the developmental stages of partnerships as outlined by the professional development school (PDS) Standards of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2001) as an organizer for their critiques of partnership efforts. My colleague Jeanne Tunks and I (2007) collaborated on how to align the PDS standards with the appropriate research methodologies put forth by the American Educational Research Association (AERA) to provide partnership researchers practical advice in the hopes of one day attaining what traditionally has been regarded as the gold standard of research–experimental (or at least quasi-experimental) design. However, fallout from the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) impacted many schools by not only narrowing curriculum and teaching but also causing distrust about the nature, purpose, and logistics of educational research, thus undermining the ability to share ideas and learn from one another, including issues about race and equity.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships , pp. 722 - 728Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2025
References
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2001). Standards for professional development schools. Author.Google Scholar
Neapolitan, J. E. (2011, April). Connections between PDS partnerships and institutional classification. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Somekh, B., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Action research for educational reform: Remodeling action research theories and practices in local contexts. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 5–21.10.1080/09650790802667402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunks, J. L., & Neapolitan, J. E. (2007). A framework for research on professional development schools. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this chapter
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.