We explore the promise and possibility of innovation in professional development schools (PDS). Based on a systematic review of 351 articles from school university partnerships, this chapter provides an analysis as well as illustrations of professional development school innovation. Our analysis points to three gears of innovation including the PDS itself as the initial innovation, the infusion of inquiry and research within the PDS as a second level of innovation, and a third level of innovation characterized as innovative outcomes. These outcomes related to innovation (1) as collaboration that fills a PK-12 learning gap and complements PK-12 instruction, (2) that supports the redesign of teacher education to strengthen learning through clinical practice and build program coherence, (3) in job-embedded professional learning, and (4) related to expanding the scope of partnerships. We conclude by highlighting a series of insights gained from the analysis and identifying future possibilities and challenges for PDSs.

Generative AI offers a new lever for re-enchanting public administration, with the potential to contribute to a turning point in the project to ‘reinvent government’ through technology. Its deployment and use in public administration raise the question of its regulation. Adopting an empirical perspective, this chapter analyses how the United States of America and the European Union have regulated the deployment and use of this technology within their administrations. This transatlantic perspective is justified by the fact that these two entities have been very quick to regulate the issue of the deployment and use of this technology within their administrations. They are also considered to be emblematic actors in the regulation of AI. Finally, they share a common basis in terms of public law, namely their adherence to the rule of law. In this context, the chapter highlights four regulatory approaches to regulating the development and use of generative AI in public administration: command and control, the risk-based approach, the experimental approach, and the management-based approach. It also highlights the main legal issues raised by the use of such technology in public administration and the key administrative principles and values that need to be safeguarded.

The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly those fuelled by increasingly advanced large language models (LLMs), has raised concerns of their potential risks among policymakers globally. In July 2023, Chinese regulators enacted the Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services (“the Measures”). The Measures aim to mitigate various risks associated with public-facing generative AI services, particularly those concerning content safety and security. At the same time, Chinese regulators are seeking the further development and application of such technology across diverse industries. Tensions between these policy objectives are reflected in the provisions of the Measures that entail different types of obligations on generative AI service providers. Such tensions present significant challenges for implementation of the regulation. As Beijing moves towards establishing a comprehensive legal framework for AI governance, legislators will need to further clarify and balance the responsibilities of diverse stakeholders.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) raises ethical and social challenges that can be examined according to a normative and an epistemological approach. The normative approach, increasingly adopted by European institutions, identifies the pros and cons of technological advancement. The main pros concern technological innovation, economic development and the achievement of social goals and values. The disadvantages mainly concern cases of abuse, use or underuse of Gen AI. The epistemological approach investigates the specific way in which Gen AI produces information, knowledge, and a representation of reality that differs from that of human beings. To fully realise the impact of Gen AI, our paper contends that both these approaches should be pursued: an identification of the risks and opportunities of Gen AI also depends on considering how this form of AI works from an epistemological viewpoint and our ability to interact with it. Our analysis compares the epistemology of Gen AI with that of law, to highlight four problematic issues in terms of: (i) qualification; (ii) reliability; (iii) pluralism and novelty; (iv) technological dependence. The epistemological analysis of these issues leads to a better framing of the social and ethical aspects resulting from the use, abuse or underuse of Gen AI.

Grow Your Own (GYO) programs have been lauded as innovative pathways for the recruitment of teachers into the field of education. This chapter will focus specifically on how GYOs at the pre-collegiate level can be conceptualized as innovative partnerships between PK-12 schools and universities to serve as a pipeline into the teaching profession. We used the National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) Nine Essentials as a lens to analyze the GYO literature. The Nine Essentials outline the fundamental qualities of professional development schools (PDSs), which serve as exemplars of school-university partnerships. PDSs are lauded as contexts that “embrace a culture of innovation.” We describe the relationship between GYOs and each of the Nine Essentials including areas of strength and possible opportunities for future innovation. Finally, we offer implications for viewing and designing GYOs as innovative, in-depth partnerships between PK-12 schools and universities

When the National Association for Professional Development Schools (NAPDS) decided to change its name, it also changed its scope, increasing its draw to include all school–university partnerships (SUPs). This handbook will capture the essence of what had been all things professional development school (PDS) but will also begin to assume responsibility for the ideas related to this broader realm. School–university partnerships could range from the ephemeral, created for one grant project or one university class activity, to long-term committed relationships that may or may not be teacher education related. This commentary addresses the chapters pertaining to the all-important history and conceptual foundations of this work for future partnership scholars, considering each author’s thoughtful efforts and perspective and adding my own as a second generation PDS researcher and participant.

 Agency is fundamental to the work of all professionals and attempts to improve or reform education and schools must attend to teacher agency. This chapter provides a conceptual understanding and begins with an examination of terms used to describe the ways teachers act or are positioned, including agency, empowerment, autonomy, identity, self-efficacy, and voice, and explores the interrelationships among these terms. Contextual factors that impact teacher agency such as school culture, administrative style, practitioner inquiry, collaboration, measures of accountability, time constraints, and prior experience are reviewed. The fact that teacher agency may be expressed through professional attitudes and action, leadership, curriculum curation, and resistance to imposed mandates is explored, and finally, the authors highlight the benefits of agentic teachers to schools and students. School–University partnerships provide a unique opportunity to support teachers as agentic professionals and the chapter concludes with a set of specific recommendations to facilitate such an endeavor.

Clinical experiences are typically cited by teacher candidates as the most powerful component of their teacher education program (Cuenca, 2012; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Wilson et al., 2001). In addition, student teachers typically cite their cooperating teacher as the most “significant other” during their teacher education program (Karmos & Jacko, 1977; McClusky, 1999). As Dallas and Horn (2008) stated in 2008, the best way to learn to teach is to practice with highly qualified teachers. School–university partnerships, whether they be professional development schools or some other type of close partnership, promote deep collaboration between faculty and administrators in higher education and P-12 schools, as well as with teacher candidates to ensure the best possible sites for teacher development.

This chapter includes a systematic review of 111 peer-reviewed articles that were identified through ERIC via EBSCO Host with keywords related to student learning, student achievement, school–university partnerships, and professional development schools. Despite the keyword indicators focused on student outcomes, only twenty articles actually included student learning data, while 36 included data on teachers, teacher candidates, or administrators related to partnerships hoping to improve learning, and 65 articles were descriptive and included no data sources at all. We use a case from our own partnership work to provide a potential framework for future research in School–University partnerships and elaborate on implications for consideration for scholars hoping to link partnerships and their influence on student learning outcomes.

This chapter examines the complex relationship between religious fundamentalism and violent extremism, focusing on the socio-cognitive processes involved in radicalization. In the central part of our analysis, we explore how religious fundamentalism may contribute to violent extremism. Our investigation reveals that the relationship between these two variables is mediated by some group-related factors and ideologies (e.g., out-group hostility, perceived superiority, collective narcissism, ideological extremism, and extremist networks). Importantly, religious fundamentalism does not always lead to violent extremism; it is moderated by some situational and contextual factors (e.g., perceived injustice, perception of threat, and group tightness). We then discuss the implications of these findings for counter-violent extremism programs. We argue for a comprehensive approach, advocating for integrated interventions that combine ideological, psychological, and economic strategies. This assertion stems from the recognition that the drivers of violent extremism extend beyond religious narratives to include psychological factors and subjective and economic deprivation. As such, we caution against an approach that disregard nonideological aspects, as it may weaken the effectiveness of interventions.

Drawing on the extensive history of study of the terms and conditions (T&Cs) and privacy policies of social media companies, this paper reports the results of pilot empirical work conducted in January-March 2023, in which T&Cs were mapped across a representative sample of generative AI providers as well as some downstream deployers. Our study looked at providers of multiple modes of output (text, image, etc.), small and large sizes, and varying countries of origin. Our early findings indicate the emergence of a “platformisation paradigm”, in which providers of generative AI attempt to position themselves as neutral intermediaries similarly to search and social media platforms, but without the governance increasingly imposed on these actors, and in contradiction to their function as content generators rather than mere hosts for third party content.

As school–university partnerships (SUPs) continue to establish themselves in the larger context of improvement efforts in the field of education, it is less clear how they relate in design, process, and outcomes to other types of collaborative education research efforts (Penuel et al., 2020). In this study, we address calls for research on school-university partnerships (Darling-Hammond, 1994; Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Farrell et al., 2022) by examining the inputs and processes of different variations of collaborative education research (Penuel et al., 2020). We hypothesize that the inputs and processes of these collaborations have more similarities than differences. To test this hypothesis, we selected purposeful cases of a professional development school and a research–practice partnership launched during the same time period – the 1990s. Findings and implications for the field of collaborative education research and school–university partnerships are discussed.

Fear of transnational terrorism, along with revitalization of sectarian nationalism, continues to sunder social and political consensus across the world and encourage violent conflict. The focus here is on psychosocial factors that instigate and sustain violent extremism and polarizing group conflict. I describe the changing global landscape of transnational terrorism, encompassing mainly violent theocratic revivalism, and resurgent racial and ethnic supremacism wherein perceived threats to a dominant group’s core values lead to extremist reactions against feared replacement via minority and immigrant populations. Next, I explore the psychosocial nature of the rational actor versus devoted actor frameworks. Analysis centers upon how sacred values such as God or country, identity fusion with a group or idea, perceptions of spiritual strength overriding material strength, and social network dynamics motivate and maintain absolutist attitudes and support for violence whatever the risks, costs, or consequences. The psychology of the will to fight and die is illustrated in behavioral and brain studies with combatants and civilian populations in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, and North America. This is followed by considering how the internet and social media encourage propagation of polarized conflict, and how societies and policymakers might better deal with violent, value-driven extremism.

This commentary critically examines the Equity, and Student Learning part in The Cambridge Handbook of School–University Partnerships. Collectively, these chapters make inquiries and provide valuable insights into the assertive efforts of school–university partnerships (SUPs) to address social and economic inequalities for minoritized, marginalized, and otherized student groups within PreK-12 school systems. Effectively, these chapters highlight the potential and opportunities SUPs offer for redressing sociocultural gaps or lack of cultural competence or critical consciousness within teacher education programs together with the social and economic inequalities (i.e., opportunity gap) observed in PreK-12 schools. Correspondingly, these chapters provide timely and practical approaches for addressing the sociopolitical dilemmas SUPs are currently navigating.

In the context of an ever-shrinking world, where education concerns are shared across borders, and the 2030 deadline to achieve the 17 United Nation Sustainable Development Goals – specifically goal 4: “inclusive and equitable quality education … for all” is looming, it seems timely to take a look at school-university partnerships from a global perspective. This chapter begins with a quick scan of school-university partnerships, primarily in the US. It then examines school-university partnerships in – or with – other parts of the world, using available – and accessible – literature. What are some examples of school-university partnerships across different countries and what kinds of conversations frame this phenomenon? It closes by discussing some enduring issues that plague school-university partnerships and suggest how global collaborations might generate new insights into perennial problems.