58ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P An Emerging University- School-Community Partnership: A Story in Two Acts Authors SEUNGHO MOON JON SCHMIDT ANNA PRESS DAVE ENSMINGER MITCH HENDRICKSON keywords: Partnership, Narrative Research, Community Engagement abstract This paper shares narratives regarding an institutional effort to build a sustainable partnership with schools and communities. Loyola University Chicago has developed and strengthened partnerships with eight community schools in Chicago Public Schools (CPS) District over the past decades to promote equity and social justice in the urban context. The sustainability of partnerships is an ongoing issue in university- assisted community schools. Guided by poststructuralist versions of narrative research, the five authors write and share memories about their engagement in university partnerships with communities and schools. This paper explores the “how” of partnerships rather than reiterating strategies of “what works” in partnerships. The authors articulate the complexity of community partnerships and crucial elements to consider for advancing partnerships. As examples, the authors explore the creation of a field-based teacher education program (Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities; TLLSC) as well as a community-centered, justice-oriented graduate program (Curriculum, Culture, and Communities; 3Cs). These degree programs focus on educating students as research practitioners in the ongoing sustainable support and collaboration among schools, universities, and communities. An asset-based frame is employed across narratives in developing and implementing degree programs and offering core courses. The subjectivities of each author enrich the conversations on ongoing efforts to build sustainable, trust-based partnerships. Drawing from our narratives, the authors hope PK-20 educators, university leaders, and community leaders collaboratively and critically reflect on their practices in partnership and utilize some of our narratives and themes as starting points of an ongoing conversation. Overall, this paper contributes to extending the approach to community partnership and equity- oriented education, highlighting the value of university-community partnerships for local schools and institutional efforts. introduction We live in a world of stories – stories of lived experience in a context-dependent on cultural and political discourses. We also live in a world of complexities – a space of imagining different 59 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P approaches to education, drawing upon “open, dynamic, relational, creative” possibilities (Doll, 2012, p. 10). The five authors of this paper, with different roles and responsibilities in UACS (University Assisted Community Schools) projects in a university, examine the complex, dynamic nature of mutual benefits among partners and sustainable partnerships using our lived experiences and associated narratives. This paper uses these researchers’ vignettes to explore an institutional effort to create sustainable partnerships with local community schools. The partnership framework Loyola University Chicago (LUC) developed and implemented has been discussed in other publications (Schmidt et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2021). These publications describe how LUC has collaborated to create partnerships with local public schools and organizations in a metropolitan area. Major issues in community-university partnerships are discussed, including centering relationships, sustainability efforts, interdisciplinary collaboration, and mutual benefit (Schmidt et al., 2020; Schmidt et al., 2021).). During our research meetings for this specific study, the authors discussed the value of telling stories about our experiences throughout these partnerships and the institutional effort to make them sustainable. Extant literature on community partnerships addresses what works well in creating and implementing school and community partnerships and how to replicate promising models in other public schools (Jentleson, 2011; Soska & Butterfield, 2010; Yamamura & Koth, 2018). For example, the Professional Development Schools (PDS) model emerged in the 1990s, asking universities to reform teacher education practices to more effectively meet the needs of urban students, their teachers, and teacher candidates by providing pedagogy in authentic school settings (Hunzicker, 2018; Wong & Glass, 2005). Successful pathways to the development of UACS include collaborative leadership, mutuality, and whole community development, as well as acknowledging UACS’ benefits and challenges (Clark-Louque et al., 2020). In addition to this frame of “what” works, this paper explores the “how” of community engagement. It emphasizes the “process” and lived experiences of developing and implementing partnerships. Methodologically, the authors adopt poststructuralist narrative research versions to explore relationships across schools, communities, and university units. Memory writing is applied as a major data source and data-gathering process (Richardson, 2000). In her memory writing, Miller (2010) emphasizes political, discursive, and conflicted memories in portraying her professional experiences in curriculum theorizing. Poststructuralist versions of narrative research “disrupt and contest any grand narrative” and highlight “impossibilities of interpreting, representing, narrating any one ‘history” (Miller, 2010, p. 9). According to Miller (2010), memory writing and remembrances of the past are never “full” or “accurate,” yet, historical meanings are discursively and politically constructed and represented through memory writing. During research meetings from the fall of 2021 and spring of 2023, the five authors shared their experiences with university-community-school partnerships. They interrogated discursively, culturally, and socio-politically constructed meanings of mutual benefits, relationships, and partnerships in community engagement. During the data collection and analysis processes, the leading author of this paper underscored that the acts of “remembering” is political, partial, and impossible to represent the realities. Rather, our memory writing is an effort to interpret the discursively constructed historical, political, and cultural “meanings” of our lived experiences with partnership and community 60ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P engagement. The selected memories in this paper are the results of the authors’ scholarly, professional endeavors to explore multiple layers of community partnership practices. Thus, the authors create a space to conduct community partnership research differently to share the chaos and complexities involved in university-school- community partnerships. A prelude and two acts with two scenes are the frames the authors employ to illustrate and theorize our lived experiences. This paper illustrates vignettes to explore an institutional effort to create sustainable partnerships with local schools and communities. During the research meetings, the authors have reflected on the memories and stories we share and how they represent our experience collaborating with schools and communities. Guiding reflective questions include (a) what lived experiences are involved in community-university-school partnerships and how meanings are interpreted discursively, (b) what memories the authors share in the process of building sustainable partnerships via institutional efforts, such as developing degree programs, and (c) what we learn, relearn, or unlearn via such efforts to create partnerships from our lived experiences and subjectivities. For example, we were interested in “paradoxical thinking” (Strier, 2014) that cannot be essentialized with a predictable, linear version of partnership, such as effectiveness vs. relationships. We work in a “non-profit” organization, yet “profit” is inevitably required to run and manage this tuition-driven private, urban higher educational institution. We work in an environment where staff turnover has been a reality at university, and local school levels and partnership efforts may therefore shift with new leadership. Yet, we seek to sustain the core principles of partnership. Disorder and chaos may be present within a partnership as it evolves, yet the foundation of the partnership, its emerging and sustained multilayered relationships, remain constant. These stories are woven to represent how relationships are embedded in our work and the institutional efforts that have been made to support this work through field-based teacher education programs and community- centered graduate programs. We present our story as a drama in one prelude and two acts. The prelude offers the context of Loyola University Chicago’s efforts to reframe community-centered teacher education. The two acts with multiple characters share stories to deliver diverse perspectives on partnership. These stories include the ideation, development, and delivery of university-assisted community school and academic degree programs. The prelude of this paper illustrates the development of a teacher preparation program, entitled Teaching, Learning, and Leading with Schools and Communities (TLLSC). This paper shares a nonlinear, indirect communication between an instructor and a graduate student in a transformed doctoral program, entitled Curriculum, Culture, and Communities (3Cs). In between, we incorporate stories from the community and school partnership work. These stories and vignettes will invite readers to participate differently in these complex dimensions of partnership. Ultimately, this paper is a critical space for co-creating scholarship based on lived experiences and their complexities of them in universities and communities while simultaneously articulating the dilemmas and conflicts associated with UACS. It provides discursively and politically constructed experiences and realities of faculty members and graduate students who have interacted with students, families, community members, partnership leaders, and other university faculty and researchers. The key to this shift toward community and student-centered research in practice, as well as its continued evolution, is the reflection of data as lived experiences among those involved in the work of UACS. A larger project 61 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P examines different stakeholder perspectives to provide stories and insight into a sustainable partnership model. Many diverse voices of teachers, community organization leaders, and school leaders are represented and theorized. The university-side narratives are the main focus of this paper. cast of characters Moon. Faculty/Co-director of the new doctoral program (3Cs Program) Schmidt. Faculty/Instructor of the new doctoral program (3Cs Program) Press. Doctoral student in Schmidt’s class (3Cs Program) Ensminger. Faculty/Co-director of the new doctoral program (3Cs Program)/ Previous Chair of teacher preparation program (TLLSC) Hendrickson. Director of UACS initiative prologue: centering partnership in education: wherein loyola university chicago launches an apprenticeship-based teacher education program (tllsc) Teacher education faculty, including Ensminger, determined that we needed to work closely with school partners to determine the necessary skills, knowledge, and dispositions that a graduating teacher candidate would need upon entering the classroom. In the 1990s, the Professional School Development model emerged (Hunzicker, 2018), providing the impetus for teacher preparation programs' transformation. In 2010 professional organizations in the U.S. (i.e., AACTE 2010, NCATE 2010) messaged the need for teacher preparation programs to prioritize clinical experiences and effectively partner with local PK-12 schools and community organizations when preparing future teachers. These set the stage for the Dean of LUC’s School of Education (SOE) to challenge teacher education faculty to “throw away” the traditional approach to teacher education with its disconnected and segmented courses and limited clinical experiences. The Dean challenged LUC’s faculty to change how teacher preparation occurred to prepare teachers to teach ALL students. To guide this restructuring process, LUC’s teacher educators developed a set of enduring understandings (EUs) that represented the practice and profession of teaching across all certifications (e.g., Elementary, Secondary, Special Education, etc.). Next, we envisioned the clinical experiences that would address these EUs. Clinical experiences served as the principal component of teacher training; content would be centered and delivered in authentic learning and teaching spaces (Ryan et al., 2014). Situating clinical experiences at the core of training meant the delivery and discussion of supporting content materials would occur in schools. TLLSC’s redesign resembled clinical training in medical professions, with candidates developing professional knowledge and skills through interactions with university faculty, PK- 12 professionals, and PK-12 students in school buildings. We engaged partner schools in this redesign. PK-12 educators helped identify and refine the nature of clinical experiences and develop the projects and activities that reflected the work of professional teachers. One particularly memorable event involved student dispositions. LUC faculty had developed a set of critical dispositions for candidates to develop during the program. Some faculty questioned the inclusion of a self-care disposition (e.g., maintaining one’s intellectual, emotional, and 62ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P physical well-being to fulfill one’s professional responsibilities effectively). Faculty discussed dropping this disposition, but when presented at a working session, school partners took an ardent stance on including a self-care disposition arguing that in-service teachers need to develop ways to cultivate their well-being. Faculty were surprised by how strongly teachers and administrators felt about this. We might have removed it had we not dialogued with partners and listened to their perspectives. Instead, we kept the disposition and worked on how to address it meaningfully in program design. Without our partners’ active participation, LUC’s teacher educators may have made some short-sighted decisions around the needs of our candidates, which could have impacted their growth and development as future teachers. This experience validated the work we were doing together and helped us develop a better program and ensure that our partners’ future colleagues (LUC teacher candidates) would be better prepared to take on their roles as teachers in Chicago Public Schools (CPS). It also was an essential experience in our partnership work and signaled that all of us were prepared to discuss, sometimes debate, and ultimately arrive at key decisions together. Teachers in our partner schools play an essential role in preparing future teachers; they guide the development of future colleagues. They begin to facilitate candidates’ development from the first semester as candidates ask them about their experiences, and later in the program, they co- create lessons and co-teach during internships. In addition, teachers often advocate for hiring our graduates or provide guidance in their job searches. Ensminger reflected: “What is exciting is we now have graduates teaching in partner schools whose classrooms are the setting for our candidates’ field experiences. I think this only strengthens the partnerships and experiences of our candidates.” This is the type of sustainability we continue to strive for. Through the process, faculty laid the groundwork for TLLSC and its implementation in partnership with schools in our community. Although LUC’s SOE had partner schools from the get-go, teacher candidates had not fully engaged them in developing clinical experiences or identifying what they could do while in schools. The main goal of TLLSC is to prepare future teachers in diverse urban settings. Spending time in partner schools develops a commitment to working in urban schools. They enter their careers with realistic perceptions of working in this context and serving diverse student populations. One graduate remarked: “Although my first year was hard and I worked long hours, I never felt surprised or felt I was not prepared to work with my students and their families.” Administrators in our partner schools are familiar with the apprenticeship-based experiences of candidates in the program. One local school partner administrator said: “I want to fill my school with LUC graduates. They get it; they understand what it takes to work in my school.” Spending time in partner schools develops a commitment to working in urban schools. They enter their careers with realistic percep- tions of working in this context and serving diverse student populations. One graduate remarked: “Although my first year was hard and I worked long hours, I never felt surprised or felt I was not prepared to work with my stu- dents and their families.” VO L . 5, I S S U E 163 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P act 1: evolving and sustaining partnerships: Wherein Loyola University Chicago establishes and grows multiple community school partnership initiatives scene 1: reimagining schools as centers of community Hendrickson. Director of UACS initiative Several years into LUC’s education partnership with public schools, faculty discussed deepening relationships and connections to local neighborhood public schools. The relationships established through TLLSC were thriving but not comprehensive in intent. LUC’s flagship full-school partnership with Senn High School generated dozens of in and out-of-school projects and demonstrated the opportunity to extend this full- school model to other partner schools. Funding through the university's five-year strategic plan provided institutional/management support and enabled the SOE to apply for Community School Initiative funding. The SOE, on behalf of the university, entered into full-school partnerships with seven additional schools in the community. The community schools model encourages schools to connect with diverse community partners to support students, teachers, and families. With investment, proper coordination, and strategic partnership development, schools become support centers that meet students’ physical, psychological, academic, social, and emotional needs. Community school efforts subsequently generated more than 100 out-of-school (OST) programs, including academic support, athletics, book clubs, digital media, poetry, anime and manga, arts and music, and student leadership. More than 1500 students enrolled in programs during the 2019-2020 school year alone, and more than 500 parents participated in adult programming (e.g., tax preparation, ESL, cooking and nutrition, fitness, and gardening workshops). Seven full-time Resource Coordinators (RC) coordinate site-based work while LUC engages more than 420 faculty and students who volunteer in programs. Campus-based learning programs also emerged: Civic leadership, post-secondary exposure, science internships, STEM projects, and a local news reporting bureau. One principal noted: “Our partnership with LUC has a powerful impact on the Kairos (pseudonym) community. The collaboration benefits every student in this building; it reaches the whole child and encourages social, emotional, physical, and academic growth. Our partnership with LUC helps us connect home, school, and community in a way that makes student success possible at Kairos.” This positive feedback illustrates that LUC’s implementation of the community schools model as a strategy for supporting area public schools has successfully prioritized the needs of students attending partner public schools. Universities have multiple, sometimes contradictory, roles, one of which is as agents of positive social change. This is particularly true for the potential for universities to influence local public schools positively. Most partners are excited by the prospect of working with the university, This work uncovers more and more potential for sustained col- laborative action. Relationship-building and mutuality in those relationships must remain a central component of the partner- ships' planning, implementation, and evalua- tion. 64ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P engaging university resources, and exploring community-based research opportunities focused on neighborhood schools. For example, Chicago Public Schools is eager to build more school-based partnerships and thriving community school models in collaboration with Loyola University Chicago. This work uncovers more and more potential for sustained collaborative action. Relationship-building and mutuality in those relationships must remain a central component of the partnerships' planning, implementation, and evaluation. scene 2: emerging hubs of support as described by moon, a professor in 3cs program Loyola University Chicago and partner schools value family interests, their needs, and available resources to create and/or develop ongoing youth and parent programs. These programs move beyond the idea of schools as academic centers to consider more holistic approaches to children’s development and relevant family support. Even before the pandemic hit in 2020, Socio- emotional learning (SEL) has been a core thread that runs through UACS programs. Educators and community leaders emphasize the core components of SEL, such as self-awareness and building and sustaining relationships (Weissberg et al., 2015). Developing hubs of support that prioritize children’s well-being means that SEL needs to be equity-centered, which includes the centrality of identities, including race and ethnicity (Humphries & McKay-Jackson, 2022). At one of the dozens of diverse programs that span LUC’s community school partnerships, Author A exchanged ideas with a fourth-grade girl about her experience in a program that teaches circus skills and provides mentoring, and emotional and academic support. Delphia (pseudonym): Before, I didn't like to wear my natural hair out. Moon: I love your hair! I really love it. Delphia: Thank you. And now, when I take out my hair, I could wear it to school and didn't care. Moon: So, would you mind telling me more of your natural hair? Because I really love it. What made you have a different idea about your hair? Delphia: My natural hair is really short, like her hair, and but like more curly. And before, I didn't think I could wear it out because I used to be so insecure about myself. And now, when I look in the mirror, I have more confidence in myself. Delphia, a young Black student, said she now feels more confident wearing her hair naturally. She credited the program’s instructors, who helped her become prouder of herself and her identity. The authors in this paper argue that UACS can be a framework to interrogate existing metrics for student success, particularly in historically and politically underresourced communities. Creating supportive partnerships can help bolster UACS centers education and family support in the context of local neighborhoods so that students and families have adequate support for their academic, intellectual, and socio-emo- tional growth. Simultaneously, the university, as part of the community, becomes another hub to provide resources to support students and community members. 65 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P learning contexts that promote healthy, culturally responsive socio-emotional learning. UACS centers education and family support in the context of local neighborhoods so that students and families have adequate support for their academic, intellectual, and socio-emotional growth. Simultaneously, the university, as part of the community, becomes another hub to provide resources to support students and community members. The web of hubs aims to provide resources and educational support, acknowledging and building upon all community members' different roles and responsibilities. act 2: institutionalizing partnership philosophy and practices: Wherein Loyola University Chicago seeks to teach collaborative partnership strategies to professionals in the field scene 1: a new graduate program emerges by moon, schmidt, and ensminger “So, where shall we start?” I, Moon, started the Ed.D. in Curriculum & Instruction (C&I) Program Review Task Force meeting with this open-ended question to prepare for faculty response to the urgent call to evaluate the current C&I graduate programs: The [C&I] program has experienced a recent reduction in applications and admission. There are also questions related to consistency of procedures for students across their experience within the program. The program faculty believes that the clarification of the purpose and procedures of the program would enhance marketability and the overall quality of the program. The message was clear. The new goal was to run a graduate program based on market values, including high enrollment rates. “Hmmm…” I sighed in front of my colleagues in the task force comprised of several Teaching and Learning (T&L) affinity group faculty members, including Ensminger and Schmidt. I could not ignore the neoliberal influence in higher education. Profit- driven market values have become the prerequisite to maintaining a graduate program. It was the first time I became acquainted with the term “RtE” (Revenue to Expense) to make “both ends meet” (or increasing the revenue more than expenses). Upper administrators kept using talking points such as “no money, no mission.” The relationship between the two words starting with “m” for mission and money is, of course, complicated. An institution cannot pursue money (a.k.a. profit) exclusively, as it’s supposed to be dedicated to social change with the pursuit of the public good. I felt the pressure to navigate this conflict. “Unfortunately, the program is suspended for one year, although our current Ed.D. in C&I program has a few admitted students.” I had to share with colleagues the sad news of the suspension of C&I Program for the 2018-2019 academic year. One colleague initiated our conversation based on existing assets: “We are in a great city at a university with a social justice mission. Faculty are working on community-embedded research with local schools and communities.” Another colleague named our unique, rigorous, field- based, apprenticeship-based teacher education program (TLLSC). “We could consider changing our program name to highlight a curriculum that is community-embedded and social justice- oriented.” I felt positive energy, like something new would emerge from this collaboration with dear colleagues. We were all aligned in our views of asset-based education and our vision of higher education partnering with communities. ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s 66 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P In a draft proposal for 3Cs Program, faculty articulated a shared vision, emphasizing the mission of LUC and the strengths/assets disposition that guides the School of Education (SOE). Thus, the School creates a graduate program that prepares master’s and doctoral students to focus on working in settings that promote university-school partnership and/or teacher preparation/PD in field-based settings. This vision builds on two major strengths of LUC’s T&L affinity group: (a) University-School- Community Partnerships and (b) Field-based teacher education preparation. In working on new graduate programs, faculty found value in the university’s social justice mission enacted via in-depth, ongoing partnerships with local communities. We made conscious efforts to develop a new graduate program that could embody LUC’s mission and commitment to advocating social justice. 3Cs Program faculty underscored this mission-driven purpose and ensured that the value of the new graduate program was well aligned with community schools’ emphasis on sustainable partnerships. 3Cs Program was created at the intersection of a partnership philosophy and a commitment to generating ongoing, sustainable support. Notably, the notion of “education” is not limited to PK- 12 schooling but also schools, universities, and communities. I sensed the need to educate curriculum specialists as experts in developing and implementing socially-just curriculum and programs to advance equity in organizations and communities. In 2021, the T&L affinity group launched a new graduate program emphasizing curriculum, partnerships, research, and practice. Although the upper administrators pushed the program redesign due to budgetary concerns, we built it focusing on the assets of LUC and principles of community engagement and effective partnership practices. Paradoxically, 3Cs Program enrolled a cohort of 30+ students for the first year of implementation. We emphasized mission over money, and the return on investment followed. scene 2: a reflective dialogue between schmidt “Faculty/Instructor of the new doctoral program – 3Cs Program) and Press (Doctoral student in Schmidt’s class) Stage Notes: Press’s narrative is in italics; Schmidt’s narrative is in regular font “Spring” semester was full of snow, not rain. It felt dreary, but hopeful. I was acclimatizing to LUC, learning about its programs and people. This was my second semester of the 3Cs Program as a doctoral student, and I was enrolled in a course about teaching and learning in urban communities. The pandemic was still raging so class was virtual, of course. The professor was explaining an assignment and I immediately felt a sense of confusion. “We have to do what?” I asked a classmate in a private chat. “I think we need to find a school and figure out how to help them help themselves.” Something about this felt wrong to me. Why would the school need an outsider to step in and “help”? Wouldn’t this play into deficit-based thinking? This critical and healthy tension is ever-present in our collaborative work with community organizations and schools. LUC’s SOE uses a place- based engagement strategy (Yamamura & Koth, 2018). A deep commitment to relationships with and among our partners is at the heart of the place- based strategy. This means being present with organizations in the work. Likewise, community school strategies enable us to be present in the struggles and celebrations and, we think, engage in work that generates new learning opportunities 67 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P for students and opens new collaborative ventures with existing partners. We intentionally seek to partner with local organizations and institutions to reflect our mission and values. As a result, local partnerships are, we believe, more likely to be sustainable, accountable, mutually beneficial, and less likely to reflect one-off, transactional projects. I’m sitting in an online class about teaching and learning in urban contexts, being asked to partner with a local community school that I’ve never visited to develop an asset map. I don’t know any of the schools and lack direction on asset mapping too. I feel lost. Cognitive dissonance is an important component of transformative learning (Mezirow, 2015). Too much dissonance may lead to panic and flight from learning and prevent the student from achieving new insights and, ultimately, a new sense of equilibrium. Navigating these spaces is challenging for both students and educators. I have always believed that the most powerful learning is when students can work through the discomfort and puzzle the solutions out on their own or, more ideally, in collaboration with their peers. This wasn’t the only assignment that provoked discomfort. Many times, over the course of the semester I had to grapple with my own positionality in context. As someone who’s new to this city, what is my role in trying to “help”? What does it mean to insert myself into a school or community and then just as quickly leave? How can I do meaningful contextualized place-based work without ever having visited these places? Ohito (2016) critiques the ability of preservice education programs to prepare white teachers for engagement with marginalized racial identities adequately. Her article was one of the first we read in our redesigned Teaching and Learning in Urban Communities course offering. Her critique provides a way to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The course intended to offer a lens through which to examine the realities of urban learning spaces that have long been influenced, if not characterized, by historical, institutional, systemic, and cultural racism. Our journey began introspectively by examining our social identities and how we have been socialized into implicit and unconscious biases. We moved to an examination of how our organizations and institutions have been similarly marked by racism. This preparation enabled us to consider schools and school systems as well as classrooms both imprinted by racism but as places where we can intentionally conduct anti-racist work. I asked students to engage in asset mapping to support the school’s work to be present in its community, which is often neglected due to the unrelenting asks placed on schools. Though short-term and confined to a single semester, the resulting map, I felt, could be a resource for schools to enact new partnerships and/or energize existing ones. Asset mapping turns deficit thinking on its head. Instead of believing that schools must do all the work, it communicates that community partners stand ready. Instead of viewing students and families as problems to be fixed, it communicates that families bring experiences, resources, and insights that can enrich school communities. Thankfully, the instructor welcomed this discourse and emphasized that the steps we were taking as students in this course connecting with university-assisted community schools were part of a larger journey. Starting with the theoretical underpinnings of community schooling, we built our way up to conducting group projects. My partner and I met with our school’s administration and counseling teams multiple 68ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P times. Our discussions changed our direction, and I appreciated the opportunity to glean insight into their many successes but was also cognizant of the ongoing traumas. The asset mapping project wasn’t about stepping into a school community to solve problems, it was about considering the resources that already exist within and outside those school walls in collaboration with school staff. One of my first opportunities upon moving to this in January of 1991 was to join a research team at the ABCD Institute (Asset Based Community Development) of a prestigious private research university. The Institute has moved to another private university (ABCD Institute | DePaul University, Chicago). The philosophy of asset- based development has deep implications for communities and their schools. At Loyola University Chicago, ABCD addresses how we might approach our work with communities and how teachers might approach their work with students. Asset-based community development informs our SOE approach by addressing the question of how we might work with communities and how teachers might work with students. Do we address the perceived problems we see, or do we seek to develop communities, classrooms, and students based on the skills, interests, and talents our students and citizens offer? The asset-mapping project becomes an opportunity for students to develop this disposition and this skill set. It often helps them to uncover the hidden and engage in generative discussions that lead to productive relationships and positive outcomes. After the semester ended, we were invited to attend a staff meeting to discuss the asset mapping project. Asset mapping wasn’t about choosing a school at random and “helping them help themselves” it was about reciprocal learning and sharing. This asset-mapping experience in partnership with a local school generated important perspectives, but there’s still work to be done to figure out how best to nurture these relationships catalyzed by coursework into mutual, sustaining bonds. From TLLSC’s advent to 3Cs Program's construction, we are moving toward in-depth collaboration with community organizations and schools. We hope to develop professionals with a disposition to seek partners, collaborators, and “co-conspirators” (Smith, 2020) beyond the walls of their institutions. The haranguing notion that “I” should be able to do this on my own, we hope, begins to dissipate as we move closer to fuller, more sustainable expressions of partnership in our work. The community school work that Loyola University Chicago has engaged in over the past five years provides us with the concrete opportunity to live out the vision we put forward in our academic programs. conclusion As educators, we seek to advance an understanding of schools as deeply rooted in, shaped by, and responsive to their communities. We seek to The philosophy of asset-based development has deep implica- tions for communities and their schools. At Loyola University Chicago, ABCD address- es how we might approach our work with com- munities and how teachers might approach their work with students. Asset-based commu- nity development informs our SOE approach by addressing the question of how we might work with communities and how teachers might work with students. 69 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P build learning opportunities at our university that engage our students in schools and communities throughout their learning experiences, including apprenticeships in schools, internships with our school and community partnership, and academic projects with practical relevance that engage and support schools and communities. We continue to build on-campus partnerships across the university to help us all strive toward the university's vision and mission. In 2011, LUC set out to transform teacher preparation by developing an apprenticeship, site-based model. Supported by extant literature, we quickly realized that school and community partners would need to support the university to generate and sustain this model (Daniel, Quartz, & Oakes, 2019). Participation in our program redesign process was an enormous benefit to us but also a benefit to our partner schools, organizations, and cultural institutions. They would gain well- trained professionals, have access to eager students seeking to provide support in classrooms and community spaces during their four years of university education and be able to share and advance the importance of their work among developing teachers. Teachers learning in authentic teaching spaces was the mantra. Indeed, our student graduates are sought after, highly thought of, and make significant contributions not just to the individual classrooms but also to their schools and communities. The field-based model is paying dividends. This work is ever-evolving. We see a beginning point of this journey – our work to revise and revitalize our teacher preparation program, a second leg of the journey – our work to expand and deepen our work with partner schools through community school partnership, and a concluding (at least for now) stage of the journey during which we have built 3Cs Program, the doctoral program. They cannot remain as static programs representative of a “completed” approach to university school engagement work and education within our institution. Instead, they represent a deep engagement with our communities and community partners to change the face of education for our students and communities. Multiple approaches and strategies are required to advance equity through community engagement and university-community-school partnerships. This paper has articulated how institutions developed degree programs (e.g., TLLSC and 3Cs Program) for advancing partnerships as an evolving process, continuously collaborating with faculty, staff, community leaders, and school personnel. This process is complex and complicated, as articulated in the narratives presented in the paper about mutual benefits in partnerships and relational trust to create and sustain new degree programs. The authors anticipate that these snapshot versions of narratives inspire other educators and community leaders to revisit their practices in partnerships and offer another approach to community engagement supported by university resources and mission. They cannot remain as static programs representative of a “completed” approach to university school engagement work and education within our institution. Instead, they repre- sent a deep engagement with our commu- nities and community partners to change the face of education for our students and communities. Multiple approaches and strat- egies are required to advance equity through community engagement and university-com- munity-school partnerships. 70ENGAGE! | st u d e n t vo i c e s M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P The curtain does not fall on this enterprise. The stage does not now go dark. The actors do not retire to their homes and then choose a new opportunity for performance. The story continues through our commitments to emerging forms of teaching and learning, community partnerships, and full community engagement. One of the roles of the university in community engagement work, we believe, is to generate collaboratively, share, and hold the vision of deep community engagement that is premised on authentic, trusting, and powerful relationships among our organizations and institutions. Holding a vision is a sacred act. It requires patience, commitment, and wisdom: patience to know that we are not yet there; commitment to know that we are moving ever closer if we stay the course; and wisdom to know we will never truly arrive. The work continues. 71 VO L . 5, I S S U E 1 M O O N E T. A L . | E M E R G I N G U N I V E R S I T Y P A R T N E R S H I P References American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (2010). 21st cen- tury knowledge and skills in educator preparation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED519336.pdf Chandler, P & Barron, L. (2021). Rethinking school-university partner- ships: A new way forward. Information Age Publishing. Clark-Louque, A. R., Lindsey, R. B., Quezada, R. L., & Jew, C. L. (2020). Equity partnerships: A culturally proficient guide to family, school, and community engagement. Corwin. Daniel, J., Quartz, K. H., & Oakes, J. (2019). Teaching in community schools: Creating conditions for deeper learning. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 453–480. https:// doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821126 Doll, W. E. Jr. (2012). Complexity and the culture of curriculum. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexi- ty and Education, 9(1). 10-29. Humphries, M.L. & McKay-Jackson, C. (2022). The role of race in social and emotional learning (SEL) training for preservice school social workers and teachers. Children & Schools, 44(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/ cdab031 Hunzicker, J. (2018). Teacher lead- ership in professional development schools: A definition, brief history, and call for further study. In Hun- zicker, J. (Ed.). Teacher leadership in professional development schools (pp.19-37). Howard House. Jentleson, B. C. (2011). Better togeth- er: A model university-community partnership for urban youth. Teachers College Press. Miller, J. L. (2010). Nostalgia for the future: Imagining histories of JCT and the Bergamo conferences. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 26(2), 7-23. Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5-12. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Trans- forming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. (Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning). https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED512807. pdf Ohito, E. (2016). Making the emper- or’s new clothes visible in anti-racist teacher education: Enacting a peda- gogy of discomfort with white preser- vice teachers. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(4), 454-467. Richardson, L. (2000). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 923- 948). Sage. Ryan, A.M., Ensminger, D.C, Heineke, A.J., Kennedy, A.S., Prasse, D.P., & Smetana, L.K. (2014). Teaching, learn- ing, and leading with schools and communities: One urban university re-envisions teacher preparation for the next generation. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(2), 139-154. Schmidt, J., Ensminger, D., & Hen- drickson, M. (2020). Place-based engagement on Chicago’s northeast side: Towards sustainable relation- ships in university-school partnership work. Universities and Community Schools, 10(1), 65-82. Schmidt, J., Tocci, C. & Cullinane, M. (2021). Sustainable, mutually bene- ficial and placed-based: Building and maintaining a dynamic school-uni- versity partnership. In Chandler, P. T., & Barron, L. (Eds). Rethinking school-university partnerships: A new way forward (pp. 209-228). Informa- tion Age Publishing. Smith, K. (2020, July 14). To All the White Allies Seeking to Become Co-Conspirators, Here Are Things to Think About. Philly’s 7th Ward. https://phillys7thward.org/2020/07/ to-all-the-white-allies-seeking-to- become-co-conspirators-here-are- things-to-think-about Soska, T. M. & Johnson Butterfield, A. K. (2010). University-community partnerships: Universities in civic engagement. Routledge. Strier, R. (2014). Fields of paradox: University-community partnerships. Higher Education, 68, 155-165. Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domi- trovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (Eds.). (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weiss- berg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–19). The Guilford Press. Wong, P. & Glass, R. (2005). As- sessing a professional development school approach to preparing teach- ers for urban schools serving low-in- come, culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Teacher Educa- tion Quarterly, 32(3), 63-77. Yamamura, E. & Koth, K. (2018). Place-based community engagement in higher education: A strategy to transform universities and communi- ties. Stylus Publishing.