Sarah
We champion collaboration for our students, but what does meaningful collaboration look like in our partnerships?
Recent DfE guidance emphasises that, within collaborative arrangements, responsibility for programme quality remains with the lead institution. Partners should be “fully engaged”, understand the nature of the partnership and able to explain how it benefits them and their trainees. This raises an important question: are collaborative partnerships simply mechanisms for quality assurance or opportunities for genuine co-construction?
Research demonstrates that this distinction matters. Collaboration is most powerful as joint inquiry, shared problem-solving and reciprocal learning. This feels particularly significant within FE ITE, where trainees prepare to teach across diverse, complex settings, with their own culture, priorities and ways of working. Working across these contexts inevitably brings a degree of messiness. Expectations differ. Practices vary. Tensions sometimes emerge.
Yet perhaps that is the point. Strong partnerships are not formed by eliminating difference, but by navigating it together. Trust, mutual respect and a shared commitment to improvement enable collaboration that supports challenge, reflection and adaptation.
The challenge, then, is ensuring our collaborative structures reflect our collaborative values by creating space for joint decision-making, valuing partners’ expertise, and being willing to refine our practice together. In doing so, we strengthen our provision and model for our trainees what meaningful collaboration looks like: messy, negotiated, and responsive.
In what follows, colleagues from our PGCE/CertEd FE partnership reflect on our collaboration. Their experiences demonstrate that while collaboration may not be straightforward, it is often where the richest learning takes place.
Scott
Working alongside colleagues from SHU and UCEN Manchester has provided valuable opportunities to share ideas, reflect on practice, and enhance our post-16 teacher education programmes. Although each institution has its own identity and context, we quickly discovered many shared challenges and opportunities. This common ground created a strong foundation for collaborative working.
Through reciprocal visits, we observed trainee teachers in different learning environments, generating rich discussions around lesson planning, mentoring, observations and assessment. Rather than reinventing the wheel, we built on each other’s successes, challenged assumptions and identified new ways to support trainees.
Observing vocational teaching was particularly insightful. While our observation processes were broadly similar, comparing feedback approaches prompted reflection on what developmental feedback looks like and how best to encourage trainee self-reflection. Although we valued many of the same characteristics of effective teaching, we sometimes expressed feedback differently. Exploring these differences helped us develop greater consistency while respecting professional judgement and local context.
Mentoring has been another key focus, knowing how far the mentoring experience can vary across settings. Through collaborative reflection, we developed guidance for mentors, including crib sheets, drop-in support sessions and clearer expectations. This highlighted that effective mentoring depends not only on mentors’ expertise, but also on the support systems surrounding them.
Curriculum development has also been a significant outcome. Working closely with SHU, we reviewed how the programme could better meet the needs of today’s diverse trainee population. Together, we designed a curriculum that supports both pre-service and in-service trainees, enables part-time delivery, and allows PGCE and CertEd trainees to learn together while following appropriately differentiated assessment pathways.
Central to our partnership is the principle of confident humility—valuing our expertise while remaining open to learning from others. Rather than assuming existing practices were most effective, we approached the partnership with curiosity, welcomed constructive challenge and adapted where evidence suggested improvements. This has moved us beyond resource sharing towards a collaborative space for reflection, innovation and mutual learning.
Anna
As a newer member of this partnership, I have often felt like the new kid on the block. Joining an established network with strong relationships and years of collective experience meant stepping into a well-developed professional community. An important part of that process was listening, learning and understanding the expertise already within the group, while remaining curious about the thinking behind key decisions.
That process proved invaluable.
Through discussions about curriculum design, mentoring, trainee support and programme delivery, alongside visits to Chesterfield College, I gained a deeper understanding of both opportunities and challenges. Colleagues generously shared their knowledge, while remaining open to new perspectives, creating a culture where learning flowed in all directions. Being new to the partnership has also brought certain advantages.
Without the history of previous decisions, I found myself asking questions that others may not have considered. Why do we do it this way? How might trainees experience this process? How inclusive is this perspective? While these questions occasionally challenged assumptions, they also created opportunities for conversations about practice and priorities.
What I particularly appreciate is that professional challenge is not viewed as criticism but as an important aspect of collaborative learning. Some of our most productive discussions emerged when established expertise met fresh perspectives. Experienced colleagues helped me understand the rationale behind existing approaches, while my curiosity prompted reflection on whether those approaches remained the right ones.
These conversations have informed curriculum developments, refinements to processes and ongoing discussions about how best to support our mentors and trainees. Together, we have sought to reduce barriers and equip trainees with the knowledge, skills and confidence they need to thrive as FE teachers.
This experience has reinforced an important lesson: meaningful collaboration depends on balancing continuity with renewal. Established partnerships benefit from trust, expertise and institutional memory, but they are strengthened by new voices and perspectives. Ultimately, our partnership demonstrates that expertise is created collectively through dialogue, reflection and a willingness to learn from one another, mirroring what we hope to cultivate in our trainees.
Dr Sarah Boodt is a senior lecturer and collaborative course leader in the Sheffield Institute of Education.
Anna Kettlewell-Brown is a senior lecturer in Initial Teacher Education at UCEN Manchester
Scott Reed is PGCE/CertEd Programme Leader at Chesterfield College
Leave a Reply