Teacher Education at Trinity University Meets the STEPS Interpretive Framework

  • Shari AlbrightEmail author
  • Angela Breidenstein
  • Josephine Ryan


This chapter investigates the principles and practices which have guided the highly regarded Professional Development School (PDS) partnerships at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, USA, and analyzes them in relation to the STEPS Interpretive Framework. The analysis is undertaken as a dialogue between an insider from Trinity University seeking to articulate the significant features of their partnerships and an outsider teacher educator making connections to the STEPS Interpretive Framework. Trinity partnerships have emphasized principles, including education as “transformation,” the centrality of “relationships,” and strong university leadership. Analysis of Trinity approaches in terms of the STEPS Framework suggests that faithfulness to overriding partnership principles has promoted strength and resilience in its partnerships with schools, indicating that the framework is justified in proposing principles and practices which can guide successful partnership development no matter where it takes place.


University-school partnerships Professional Development Schools Teacher education Transformational education 


  1. Boyer, L. E. (1995). The basic school. Carnegie Foundation.Google Scholar
  2. Breidenstein, A., Fahey, K., Glickman, C., & Hensley, F. (2012). Leading for powerful learning: A guide for instructional leaders. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Daly, A. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  4. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fahey, K. & Ippolito, J. (2015). Toward a general theory of SRI’s intentional learning communities. School Reform Initiative. Retrieved on December 15, 2016 from
  8. Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hirsch Jr, E. D. (2010). The schools we need: And why we don’t have them. Anchor.Google Scholar
  10. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow’s schools. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.Google Scholar
  11. Homes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers. East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.Google Scholar
  12. Jones, M., Hobbs, L., Kenny, J., Campbell, C., Chittleborough, G., Gilbert, A., et al. (2016). Successful university-school partnerships: An Interpretive framework to inform partnership practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 108–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koppich, J. (2000). Trinity University: Preparing teachers for tomorrow’s schools. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teacher education: Preparation in a five-year program (pp. 1–48). New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Kruger, T., Davies, A., Eckersley, B., Newell, F., & Cherednichenko, B. (2009). Effective and sustainable university-school partnerships. Beyond determined efforts of inspired individuals. Canberra: Teaching Australia. [Electronic version]. Retrieved from
  15. Le Cornu, R. (2015). Professional experience: Learning from the past to build the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S. and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership Influences Student Learning. The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved on December 15, 2016 from
  17. National Centre for Teacher Residencies. (2017). Recommendations for state support for effective teacher residencies. NCTR. Downloaded:
  18. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Noman, P. (2006). When a PDS isn’t working: Confronting the question of pulling out. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Quinn, B. P. (2015). International school of the Americas: Social emotional learning and social justice education for the 21st Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy. in Education.Google Scholar
  21. Ryan, J. & Jones, M. (2014). Communication in the practicum: Fostering relationships between universities and schools. In M. Jones & J. Ryan. Successful teacher education. Partnerships, reflective practice and the place of technology. pp. 103–120. Rotterdam: The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Sergiovanni, T. (n.d.). San Antonio International School of the Americas: Living and learning in today’s global market place—a prospectus.Google Scholar
  23. The STEPS project (2015). Science teacher education partnership with schools. Interpretive framework May 2015. Retrieved from
  24. Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. (2015). Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers. Retrieved from
  25. United States Department of Education. (2017). No child left behind: Elementary and secondary education act (ESEA). Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shari Albright
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angela Breidenstein
    • 1
  • Josephine Ryan
    • 2
  1. 1.Trinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Australian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations