Initiating, enacting and sustaining partnerships to inform post-school pathways

ABSTRACT

Partnerships with local public sector agencies, enterprises and tertiary institutions offer a means to inform young people about post-school pathways into working life and occupations that schools alone cannot achieve. Informing about those pathways is an important, yet, complex educational goal for schooling. This is because much of schooling effort privileges and is directed towards higher education entry. Often advice provided to young people through schools is by teachers and administrators who are, understandably, unacquainted with the range of post-school pathways other than higher education. School guidance officers report being ill-equipped and unable to provide students personalised advice. Consequently, sources of advice and experiences beyond the school are now being utilised, particularly through the growing role of partnerships. These partnerships take diverse forms and comprise different kinds of institutional alignments and are increasingly being viewed as essential bases for supporting effective and informed post-school transitions. This article presents and discusses a review of literature and a recent investigation to advance principles and practices of how such partnerships can be best initiated, enacted, and sustained over time and they can meet the goals of informing and guiding young people’s pathways, including options other than progression to higher education.

KEYWORDS:

• Principles and practices of initiating
• enacting and sustaining partnerships
• post-school pathways
• partnerships
• career decision-making

Partnerships and post-school pathways

The educational tasks of informing young people about and assisting their transition into working life and occupations to which they are suited have always been an important, but complex, goal for schooling (Dewey, 1916). They are important because, rather than an end in itself, school education aims to prepare young people for life beyond their schooling years. This aim extends, ultimately, to their capacities to engage in occupations in which they are interested and best suited. As these occupations are significant elements of adult life and their subjectivity (Noon, Blyton, and Morrell 2013) and are engaged with universally by working age adults regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social origins, this is an important outcome of schooling. Perhaps, the keenest measure of an effective educational system is to see individuals’ engagement in occupations they find worthwhile, regardless of their status, as being distributed evenly across gender, class and ethnicity. However, achieving this outcome is problematic as much of schooling effort is directed towards more advanced and higher forms of education (Wyman et al. 2017), and this is particularly evident in the present era of high aspirations by young people and their parents in countries with both developed and developing industrial economies (Billett et al. 2022). Hence, there is a need to engage with them to provide advice, guidance and ascertain their interests and goals. Not the least here is that the educative experiences provided for school-aged children – the enacted curriculum – are often constrained to the kinds of activities and interactions that can be provided in and through schools, that shapes what they learn and its prospects for applicability outside of and after school life. Moreover, teachers and administrators are often, understandably and unsurprisingly, not fully informed about the range of post-school pathways including the range of occupations that sit outside of their personal experiences (Fuller et al. 2014). Furthermore, in Australia, school guidance and career officers report being ill-equipped for and lack resources to provide personalised advice about post-schoopathways aligned to interests and capacities of large numbers of students in the junior and senior years (Billett, Choy, and Hodge 2020).

Consequently, sources of advice and experiences beyond the ‘school fence’, so to speak, are now required in countries like Australia and seen as viable contributions that supplement what schools can provide and enact.¹ In this country, which is the location of what is reported and discussed here, growing concerns about advice for post-school pathways, the adequacy of senior year schooling curriculum and challenges in labour markets are prompting considerations of how working with partners beyond the school fence can assist (Farmer and Grace 2021; Skills Queensland 2010). Central here to governmental policy and local initiatives is the growing role of partnerships between schools and local enterprises and community organisations (Billett et al. 2023) that can provide advice and experiences for young people and in doing so to inform decision-making and trajectories beyond schooling (Billett et al. 2007). Broadly referred to as partnerships, albeit taking different forms and comprising different kinds of institutions, they offer means for informing young people’s decision-making about post-school pathways from schooling to tertiary education or directly to working life. These partnerships are often quite hybrid but can provide occupationally specific educational experiences, such as occupationally specific courses, and facilitate links between schools and workplaces for students to engage in work placements, work experience or practicums. This can assist young people identify and participate in their preferred occupations, thus contributing positively to their educational and occupation orientation processes (Kogler, Vogl and Astleithner, 2023). Such partnerships are important in the senior years of schooling to provide a wider range of educational experiences than can be provided through schools alone and through what is possible to be afforded by them.

Given that these partnerships are now essential elements of the senior year schooling provision, in countries like Australia (ACER 2008, 2010; DET 2008; Skills Queensland 2010), it is necessary to understand how they can be best initiated, enacted and sustained over time in this country and others. Aligned with the phases of initiation, enactment and continuity is how partnerships can most effectively, in tandem meet the goals of informing and guiding young people’s pathways beyond schooling. More than focusing on the continuity of these partnerships as agencies to assist schooling (e.g. the Gateway to Industry Schools Program – Skills Queensland 2010), it is important to know how they can contribute to informing and providing experiences that inform and guide young people’s post-school pathways. This includes consideration of options other than progression to university entry. The concern here is not to dissuade young people from progressing to higher education, but redressing the growing orthodoxy that university entry is the default post-school option, when vocational education offers viable alternatives for many young people.

The aim of this paper is to consolidate and generate from the research literature a comprehensive set of premises for forming, enacting and sustaining partnerships that are able to provide advice and experiences for young people centred on informed and effective post-school transitions. It does this through a comprehensive review and deductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006; Braun and Clarke 2012; Squires 2023) of general guidelines and recommendations drawn from Australian case studies of partnerships (Billett et al. 2023). In each of these six cases of partnerships, the focus was on what constitutes their effectiveness was advanced. The process of review and thematic analysis of these criteria resulted in a set of five premises that underpin effective partnerships, including i) shared purposes and goals, and intended outcomes ii) shared ownership and decision-making and relations with partners, iii) resources and capacity building for partnership work, iv) governance and leadership, and v) trust and trustworthiness. These premises were explored further through identifying principles and practices, drawn from partnership models in Australia and overseas, associated with, respectively, how partnerships are initiated, enacted and sustained over time. To this end, a review of literature relating to challenges emerging from the heightened aspirations of young people and their parents that limit what are seen as viable post-school pathways is progressed first. Following that are the purposes and roles of partnerships in addressing these challenges. Then, the formation, enactment and continuity of partnerships are discussed drawing upon relevant literature. Given that they are essential to bridging experiences within schools to those outside of it, the aim here is to identify qualities of partnership relations prior to advancing how they can inform and guide young people in decision-making and providing experiences shaping their post-school pathways. In all, it is proposed that partnerships ‘do not just happen’ because of external demand: they have to be enabled and supported. Partnership work is founded on collective effort and often cannot be judged by measurable outcomes, but on the processes that make partnerships work (Billett et al. 2007). Hence, principles and practices associated with those processes need to be identified and translated into guidelines that inform, enable and support partnership work to advance their shared outcomes. These principles also provide a platform to make judgements about the efficacy of partnership work. However, partners themselves need to initiate, develop and sustain the capacities required for this work, and their effectiveness needs to be regularly monitored and reviewed and goals refined, if required, to assist their sustainability. Yet, no direct claim is made for these principles and practices being applicable beyond the local, regional and national contexts in which they were investigated. However, they might do.

Post-school pathways, aspirations and expectations

Considerations of young people’s pathways beyond schools have long been of concern for personal, educational and societal reasons (Dewey, 1916). In recent times and globally, those concerns have become more intense and focused on promoting employability, avoiding inappropriate choices leading to low retention in courses and work and to assist secure the development of the skills that communities and societies need (e.g. Aarkrog 2020; Billett, Choy, and Hodge 2020; Stalder and Lüthi, 2020, UNESCO-UNEVOC; 2018). Yet, providing impartial advice and informed guidance to address these concerns has become increasingly demanding. Globally, the heightened aspirations of young people and their parents are leading to a privileging of university entrance at the cost of other post-school pathways, such as those provided through vocational education and training (VET) (Clement 2014; Fuller et al. 2014; Parliament of Victoria, Economic, Education, Jobs and Skills Committee 2018). In part, those aspirations (i.e. something to which one might aspire) are becoming expectations (i.e. expected outcomes) that arise from the greater duration of schooling, the different kinds and levels of status afforded to specific occupations, the perceived qualities of work and levels of remuneration across occupations (Clement 2014). In short, there is a growing expectation that young people will be able to engage in occupations that have elevated societal status, exercised in ways that are perceived as being clean, affording high levels of professional discretion and are very well remunerated, though highly competitive (Clement 2014). Whilst this situation is unsurprising, it is becoming a seemingly orthodox expectation in countries with both developed and developing economies (UNESCO-UNEVOC 2018). It is clearly appropriate and desirable that young people and their parents seek to achieve the best outcomes they can, which includes seeking to access occupations held in high societal esteem. Yet, these kinds of occupations are not easily accessible and subject to extreme competition and levels of educational achievement. Some are subject to very restricted entry and, there may be a mismatch between young people’s aspirations and the requirements of those occupations. For instance, there are very high attrition rates in apprenticeship programmes and others focused on occupational preparation, such as nursing (Dioron, Jones and Hall 2008; Dragon 2009). Together, these factors, in turn, generate and exacerbate, the relatively low standing of VET and the occupations it serves, in countries with both developed (Cedefop 2014, Clement 2014) and developing economies (UNESCO-UNEVOC 2018) with, for instance, impacts on the numbers and kinds of students who become VET students.

The consequences of this lack of engagement in VET for individuals and societies are at least fourfold. Firstly, emphasising university entrance distorts and makes asymmetrical the provision of post-school education, as captured by the concept of ‘university or bust’ (Wyman et al., 2017). That is, university entrance is increasingly seen as being a desirable and orthodox pathway from schools and alternatives are projected as unattractive and inferior. Secondly, this privileging can lead to circuitous and unproductive pathways for young people, particularly those unable to secure entry into courses leading to identifiable and, especially, prestigious occupations (Wolf 2011; Wolf et al. 2016). Hence, young people may be participating in undergraduate degrees that have no identifiable employment outcome and are their second or third choice. This can then require young people to undertake specialised postgraduate studies in attempting to secure desired occupational outcomes with commensurate financial and personal costs and lengthy tertiary educational pathways. Thirdly, these actions further deflate the interest in and attractiveness of VET programmes as they become seen as being only for those who cannot secure university entrance (Billett, Choy, and Hodge 2020). Fourthly, and beyond the impact on young people, there is a societal cost and burden. This includes the skill shortages in the occupations that VET serves and the services that the community wants from its graduates, which is seen as a growing concern in many jurisdictions, including Australia and the United Kingdom (Farmer and Grace 2021, Wolf et al. 2016).

It follows that there are direct consequences from this skill shortage for the provision of the goods and services that Australians desire, can gain access to and afford that is now prompting governmental action, such as promoting the use of partnership. Moreover, and more broadly and strategically with the growing imperatives to be more nationally self-reliant, such a trend is counter to key national interests and goals that is dependent upon having the range and quantum of skilled workers generated through the vocational education system. Central here is enacting vocational education and training (VET) ‘school to work’ pathways that are attractive, engaging, and effective for young people (Farmer and Grace 2021).

Realising such goals requires collective action and engagement to inform and guide that decision-making of young people and those who influence them (Billett, Choy, and Hodge 2020). Engaging young people, their parents and teachers in educative experiences that can assist their understanding will be essential to change current attitudes towards VET and the occupations it serves. This engagement needs to progress in ways supporting informed and impartial decision-making about their post-school pathways and, if possible, provide opportunities for experiencing their preferred occupations. Yet, it is acknowledged that schools are not always best placed to provide these kinds of advice and experiences (Clarke 2015). Hence, it is necessary to identify ways of providing access to and engaging students with contributions, experience and advice that can best be found beyond the ‘school fence’. Earlier examples of collective action and engagement associated with students navigating potential gaps in the transition from school to employment emphasised the importance of partnerships amongst local businesses, schools and tertiary education institutions, and facilitated at the local level (e.g. ACER 2008; Billett et al. 2007; Black 2008b; Kilpatrick et al., 2003; Clerke 2013a; Wheeler et al. 2018) to achieve these kinds of outcomes.

It was also found that initiating, sustaining and enacting these partnerships was premised on the extent to which having shared concerns about the issues confronting young people to overcome partisan concerns and work in a collective way rather than individual institutional interests was central to their formation, enactment and sustainability. By degree, these issues can be addressed through localised arrangements, that bring the voices and concerns of these young people into the conversations, either directly or indirectly through engagement with familiars of different kinds (e.g. family members, acquaintances, friends). It was found that partnerships need to proceed in ways that achieved intended goals and realised positive changes for partners and are guided by practices likely to secure those outcomes (Billett et al. 2007). To this end, through a process of literature review and synthesis of recent empirical work, here the attempt is to delineate key premises for effective partnership formation and from that to identify principles and practices that are enacted to effectively guide and support the development and continuity of partnerships.

Partnerships and their enactment

The literature indicates that, internationally, both government and non-governmental agencies are advocating partnerships as the means for sharing resources, mutual benefits, improving service delivery and building enhanced capability locally (Alexadiou and Ozga 2000; Bano 2019; Cairns and Harris 2011; Dalziel and Willis 2015; Green et al. 1999; Matibane 2010; OECD 1994a, 1994b; Plumb et al. 2012; Seixas and Berkes 2009; United Nations Development Program 1997). This advocacy has arisen out of a range of concerns and imperatives, which includes centralised agencies, such as those organising industry competencies or educational provisions, struggling to understand and accommodate the diverse needs of communities (e.g. O’Donoghue 2001), and growing interest in capacity building at the local level to make more effective targeting and delivery of services (e.g. Kosky 2001; Osei-Kyei & Chan 2018, Tauté, 2020). Added here is an emerging concern to secure social and economic goals through local partnerships and decision-making and growing governmental interest in engaging and mobilising individuals and communities (Field, 2000) more directly in civic activity (Poret, 2019, Selsky & Parker, 2005) and community-building projects directed towards such intended purposes (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009, Svara & Denhardt, 2010). Thus, there are both economic and social imperatives directing government and nongovernment agencies to initiate and support local partnerships across nation states. However, some emerging concerns are that, firstly, governments might enact and use partnerships only for their own purposes, and, secondly, that the partnerships will evolve into entities whose priority is its own sustainability and continuity (Cardini 2006), rather than, first and foremost, the interests of communities it serves. Indeed, in the Australian context, these have been labelled as ‘enacted’ social partnerships (Billett et al. 2007) that are quite distinct from those arising from broadly cultural sentiments such as Beruf and Bildung in Germany (e.g. Deissinger 1994)

From earlier investigations in Australia, partnerships have been defined as shared localised networks that connect combinations of local community groups’ concerns about young people, education and training providers, industry and government, to address local issues and community-building activities (Seddon & Billett, 2004). Some of the partnerships evolve out of local concerns, such as those focusing on skill shortages or concerns about unemployment (e.g. Pillay et al., 2014). More typically, new partnerships are those ‘enacted’ by government and non-government agencies to address specific policy concerns (i.e. the industry–school partnerships agenda). These are referred to as enacted partnerships (Billett et al. 2007). For example, for a variety of reasons, in Australia, schools have been encouraged, at both state and federal policy levels, to establish partnerships within their local communities (Black 2008b; Clerke 2013a, 2013b; DEH 2005). These reasons include promoting understandings of local community needs, engaging with parents to support locally based educational activities and to identify opportunities for providing experiences to students that cannot be afforded through schools. The Australian Council for Educational Research views the growing interest in school–community partnerships in Australia as a reaction to and in the context of:

… the rise of extended schools (United Kingdom), integrated schools (Scotland), community schools (United States), ‘“joined-up”’ services, place-based learning, community-based learning, social partnerships, asset building and networked learning communities [which] are all part of the same shift towards shared responsibility for the outcomes of young people.

(ACER 2008, 5)

However, given their requirements for localised commitment, more than mere policy-borrowing is required and student outcomes that are central to their success and continuity. Australian reviews of partnership projects, serially, highlight the advantages and outcomes that can arise within schools (ACER 2008, 2010; Black 2008a, 2008b; Clerke 2013a, 2013b; DEEWR 2013; DEST 2006; Kilpatrick et al. 2003; Lonsdale 2011; Wierenga et al. 2008). A common advantage rehearsed across these reviews is that students’ ability to access and engage in experiences beyond the ‘school fence’ is central to informing their transitions to post-school life. Central here is sustaining commitment from individual and institutional partners to achieve these outcomes.

When encouraging school-to-work transition programmes to address the local labour market demand in specific communities, individual schools are increasingly seeking out and adopting partnerships between schools and industry (Pillay et al., 2014). This strategy is not unique to Australia as, internationally, government and industry stakeholders are actively involved in driving the industry–school partnerships (ISPs) agenda. Internationally, this agenda is characterised by collaborative arrangements amongst governments, industry and schools to promote informed career trajectories (Flynn et al., 2016). These partnerships are now entrenched in some education systems ostensibly to make education more responsive to social and economic needs (Ozga & Jones, 2006, Verger, 2012). The nature of these partnerships can be viewed as a continuum ranging from informal collaboration to complex formal agreements to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Moreover, the form of these partnerships is evolving. As they become more central to governmental and educational agendas, the trend is to not rely upon local initiatives alone to form these partnerships, instead inviting them for quite specific purposes and organising their governance and providing budgets. For instance, the Gateway to Industry Schools Program (GISP) in Queensland, Australia is one such example (Hay & Kapitzke, 2009, Kapitzke & Hay, 2011). There are examples in other Australian states such as local learning and employment networks (LLENs) established by the Victorian state government to address issues of school-to-work transitions (Victorian State Government, 2023).

Yet, even when enacted by central agencies, the processes for effective formation, development and maintenance of these partnerships are both potentially complex and diverse across different kinds of partnerships thus requiring kinds of support and guidance (Billett et al. 2007). This situation may be contrary to the circumstances in which partnerships have occurred organically, without clear definitions and guidelines for their creation and implementation. In 2004, Henderson and Tilbury reported a lack of empirical research in this area, making it difficult to address the questions ‘“what constitutes an effective partnership?”’ or ‘“how can effective partnerships be developed?”’ (p. 45). Since then, focussed inquiries have seeking to identify and advance guidelines for effective partnership work and criteria seen as leading to their success (ACER 2008; Billett et al. 2007; Black 2008b, Clerke 2013a; DEST 2006; Kilpatrick et al. 2003; Wheeler et al. 2018).

Premises, principles and practices constituting effective partnership work

As foreshadowed, from the review and analysis of guidelines and recommendations in the literature, five premises were identified as bases to explore further principles and practices guiding initial and ongoing partnership work. The initial formation of these premises is informed by an empirical study of 16 partnerships and a review of literature conducted by Wheeler et al. (2018) who identified nine such key qualities. These were then subject to a secondary process drawing upon a review that focused more specifically on the phases of formation, enactment and being sustained over time, resulting in five such premises that incorporated those advanced by Wheeler et al. (2018). In this way, a systematic and comprehensive review of qualities and their alignment with forming, enacting and sustaining the partnerships were achieved across these reviews. Table 1 summarises the number of partnerships investigated in the studies of partnerships.

Table 1. Number of partnerships investigated.

Studies of partnerships	Number of partnerships investigated
Billett et al. (2007)	10
Black (2008b)	4*
Clerke (2013a)	16
DEST (2006)	61
Kilpatrick et al. (2003)	5
Wheeler et al. (2018)	16
Total	112

Note: *clusters of networks for the compulsory and post-compulsory years of schooling.

What follows is the elaboration of the five premises. In each instance, the premise is described and manifested in a set of aligned principles and practices, guiding the development, ongoing operation and sustainability (i.e. sustaining) of partnership work. In Table 2, these premises are brought together in the form of principles and practices associated with initiating, enacting and sustaining partnerships to support post-school pathways. In this table, the premises are displayed horizontally. Under each of the premise are the columns setting out the principles and practices associated with the three-stage development of partnerships (i.e. initiating, enacting and sustaining).

Table 2. Principles and practices of initiating, enacting and sustaining partnerships.

	INITIATING	ENACTING	SUSTAINING
Shared purposes and goals, and intended outcomes
Principles	Need for common purposes and goals to attract partners Requirement for consensus among partners on desired outcomes and means of achieving them	Need for partners to collaborate in achieving common goals Commonly recognised need to make change to address local needs/concerns	Revisiting and, potentially, revising purposes and goals are central to sustaining partners’ engagement and their commitment to the partnership Sustaining partnership work requires evidence of achieving intended outcomes, not the partnership
Practices	Identify the partners’ interests and concerns, and develop a framework for collectively realising these as goals Develop, articulate, and practice shared purposes and goals that engage partners	Adopt processes that identify and formulate purposes and goals on a shared basis amongst partners Develop and enact processes for the partners to actively review and revise goals, identify achievements, and renew commitment Direct partnership work and partners’ efforts and contributions to achieve intended outcomes	Use shared processes with partners to sustain the continuity of the partnership’s purposes and goals. Engage partners in processes for actively reviewing and revising goals, identifying achievements, and renewing commitment Enact decision-making processes that sustain partners’ commitment and generate shared ownership of and means of achieving intended goals
Shared ownership and decision-making and relations with partners
Principles	Requirement for collaboration and consensus on ownership and decision-making processes	Enactment of ownership and decision-making processes based on principles of collaboration and consensus	Effectively sustaining the partnership is premised on shared ownership and decision-making underpinned by collaborative and consensus building participation
Practices	Enact decision-making processes that engage partners in ways that include and generate shared ownership Build trust and commitment through encouraging collaborative participation and shared decision-making in ways that are inclusive and respectful	Engage in decision-making processes that enact shared ownership Endorse and consolidate existing partnerships by recognising their contributions, and facilitating new and strategic partners to maintain those partnership	Enact governance processes that demonstrably engage partners over time to sustain shared ownership and consensus decision-making Continue to endorse and consolidate existing relationships, recognise partners’ contributions, and facilitate new and strategic relationships, to maintain those relations
Resources and capacity building for partnership work
Principles	Need for partners to contribute to adequate resourcing to achieve outcomes	Engaging partners of different kinds and in ways to provide adequate resourcing to achieve outcomes	Partnership activities need to be premised upon the adequacy of resources and demands being made upon partners, to sustain their commitments, and maintain capacities for partnership work
Practices	Identify the kinds and extent of resources required to organise and enact the means to achieve shared goals, associated with positive change Identify and build the capacities for partnership work	Make decisions about activities, interactions and programs being cognisant of the adequacy of partners’ resources and commitments Develop and enact interventions to provide support and build partners’ capacities through practices of strong sense of collectiveness and individuals/organisations’ readiness to participate effectively as partners	Make decisions about activities, interactions and programs being cognisant of the adequacy of resources and partners’ commitments to achieve realistic goals Continue to support and enhance capacities needed to maintain strong sense of collectivity and individuals/organisations’ readiness to participate effectively as partners
Partnership governance and leadership
Principles	Principles of governance, role formation and procedures required to engage partners Partners’ engagement is premised on their leadership commitment to the partnership	Principles of governance, role formation and procedures required to be enacted to engage partners and secure their outcomes Evidence of demonstrated leadership commitment is required to engage partners	Principles of governance, roles and procedures required to be demonstrably shared in ways to sustain partners’ commitment Sustaining partners’ leadership commitment to the partnership premised upon demonstrable benefits of its contributions and resources
Practices	Facilitate consensus engagement and building processes that attract and provide roles for partners Justify endorsement by partners’ leadership for engagement in partnership by demonstrating worth	Enact consensus-based processes of governance that demonstrably engage partners and benefit from their roles and participation Engage with and secure commitment from partners’ leadership to garner and utilise their contributions and resources in partnership processes	Sustain the enactment of consensus-based processes of governance through engaging partners and demonstrating benefit from their contributions and commitments. Be able to demonstrate the value of the partners’ contribution and resources likely to be central to sustaining their commitment
Trust and trustworthiness
Principles	Focusing on building trust amongst partners is an essential step to initiate an effective partnership	Partnership processes and activities need to be enacted in ways that build and sustain trust within and across partner organisations and personnel	Partnership processes and activities need to be enacted in sustained ways over time that secure trust within and across partner organisations and personnel
Practices	Initiate engagements that demonstrate openness and trustworthiness required to initiate effective partnerships Establish processes that engage and inform partners, including encouraging cooperation and collaboration	Enact transparency and be sensitive to a range of partners’ specific imperatives and bases for achieving outcomes Focus on and address partners’ differing needs and expectations	Enact processes over time that are transparent and sensitive to a range of partners’ specific imperatives and bases for achieving outcomes Continue to build trust through processes that engage, inform and be informed by partners’ contributions

Shared purposes and goals, and intended outcomes

The formation of partnerships requires common purposes and goals that attract partners. This can involve identifying potential partners’ interests and concerns and developing a collective means to realise these goals and, importantly, for these goals to be translated into tangible results (i.e. intended outcomes). At this stage, goals need to be clear, realistic, achievable and reflecting shared concerns for partners to work towards common interests (e.g. ACER 2008; Black 2008b, Clerke 2013a). In enacting partnership work, there is a need for partners to collaborate in achieving commonly agreed goals that reflect collective interest. For example, quality partnership programmes such as apprenticeships relied on strong partnerships between employers and training providers that worked against the grain of competitive market relations (Brockmann and Smith 2023). Over time and beyond initial development (i.e. enacting and sustaining), focusing on shared purposes/goals and intended outcomes can helpfully comprise the partners actively appraising, reviewing and revising goals, identifying achievements, and renewing commitment (Billett et al. 2007). Therefore, these goals were not fixed, but evolved through engagement and interaction and the working through of localised agendas. Sustained partnership work is evidenced through achievement of intended outcomes, not the partnership per se (Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a).

While some partnerships might share a common interest in addressing an issue, partners likely bring distinct perspectives about the issue that is the focus of the partnership work and how it might be enacted (e.g. Billett et al. 2007, Cardini 2006, Wheeler et al., 2018). In other partnerships, there might be different and competing interests being enacted (Billett et al. 2007). Thus, it should not be assumed that partnerships in their formation and evolution are benign, as they may comprise different interests that may be more or less consistent with the stated consensus-derived goals (Billett, Clemans, and Seddon 2005, 2007, Wheeler et al., 2018). Hence, while needing to identify common bases and goals for proceeding, there may be diverse views, and lack of consonance in approaches for realising these goals. While problematic, this collective work concern can be informing and empowering in the first instance and essential for the difficult tasks of building on this sentiment and the effort to sustain the partnership over time, in the second. Having identified shared goals and intended outcomes, including social obligations, another important premise for establishing and maintaining partnerships is developing sense of ownership and decision-making processes and relations with partners.

Shared ownership and decision-making and relations with partners

Across all three stages of partnership work (i.e. initiating, enacting and sustaining), it is essential for all partners to be involved in decision-making (e.g. ACER (2008); Kilpatrick et al., 2003), allowing for building trust and promoting engagement and continuation. That is, each partner contributes meaningfully to the planning and implementation of the partnership work. There is a requirement for collaboration and consensus on ownership and decision-making processes (e.g. Black 2008b, Clerke 2013a). For example, in a school–community partnership, both school and community should play an active and purposeful role in school decision-making, in part based on direct or indirect engagement with students, parents, and caregivers. Enacting the partnership work based on this premise necessitates engaging partners in decision-making processes that reflect shared ownership and broad engagement. Such sense of ownership and shared decision-making can be achieved through building and maintaining relations with partners (e.g. Billett et al. 2007). It can initially involve building trust and commitment, encouraging participation, and developing processes that are inclusive and respectful (Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a) – that extends to those who are the focus of the partnership work (e.g. young people). Mutual respect needs to be exercised between partners to build and maintain relationships. However, the relation building should not be wholly premised on the presentation of information (e.g. newsletters, parental meetings). Instead, this relationship-building might best arise through consultations that are underpinned by processes of engaging partners in the staged development of the partnership based on a mutual sharing of expertise, knowledge, resources and skills (Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a). Over time, partnership work likely involves the need for endorsing and consolidating existing relationships, recognising partners’ contributions, and facilitating new and strategic relationships to maintain those relations (Billett et al. 2007). To effectively build relations with partners, there is a need for partners to contribute to adequate resourcing and building and maintaining capacities for partnership work (e.g. ACER 2008; Billett et al. 2007, Kilpatrick et al. 2003, Clerke 2013a, Wheeler et al., 2018), which is the next important premise for effective partnership work.

Resources and capacity building for partnership work

In any partnership work, adequate resources are likely to be essential for the partnership to fulfill its purposes and goals, and to achieve intended outcomes, particularly in terms of time, finance and human capital (ACER (2008); Black 2008b). Thus, building the capacities for partnership work initially involves engaging partners in the collective work of the partnership, through developing the infrastructure and resources needed to achieve goals, associated with bringing about positive changes (e.g. Billett et al. 2007, Wheeler et al., 2018). Partnerships of different kinds may require support or specific interventions to develop the capacity for partnership work (Billett, Clemans, and Seddon 2005, 2007). There may be a strong sense of collectivity and a readiness of individuals or organisations to participate effectively as partners, but building the capacity to maintain effective partnership work is essential for their development and continuity (Billett, Clemans, and Seddon 2005, 2007, Seddon & Billett, 2004). Much of this capacity can be developed through engaging in partnership supported by collective processes that acknowledge this engagement as a learning process and a shared learning environment. Over time, it is necessary to continue to support and enhance capacities needed to maintain a strong sense of collectivity and individuals/organisations’ readiness to participate effectively as partners (Billett et al. 2007).

Developing capacities for partnership work is also aligned with achieving shared goals and intended outcomes. The capacity building can include the ability to make decisions about activities, interactions and programmes being cognisant of the adequacy of resources and partners’ commitments to achieve realistic goals (Billett et al. 2007, Black 2008b, Clerke 2013a). It also involves developing capacities to work effectively with partners to build and maintain positive relations with partners (Billett et al. 2007). Thus, partnership activities need to be premised upon the adequacy of resources and demands being made upon partners, to sustain their commitments, and maintain capacities for partnership work. Importantly, this capacity building and its sustainability needs to be premised on partnership governance and leadership commitment (e.g. ACER (2008); Billett et al. 2007, Wheeler et al., 2018).

Partnership governance and leadership

Effective governance is seen as important for the development of partnerships and their continuity over times (e.g. ACER (2008); Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013aDEST (2006); Wheeler et al., 2018). Early in their development and at later stages, establishing ground rules for governance, clearly identified roles and clear procedures to secure and sustain partners’ commitment are held to be important principles (ACER (2008); Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a). Initially, building governance and leadership can involve formulating and adopting consistent, transparent and workable guidelines and procedures for the partnership work and enactment of leadership (Billett et al. 2007, Black 2008b). Well organised and clear operating procedures are likely to secure engagement and ensure maximum participation from partners. Hence, the governance and leadership of partnerships need to be dedicated to building trust and communicating freely and fairly with their partners. Over time, this needs to extend to encouraging discussion and alternative viewpoints, and enacting mechanisms that can challenge or question the consensus within the partnership (Billett et al. 2007, DEST 2006). Partnerships, albeit in different forms, require governance and leadership that is pertinent to their structure, purposes and goals, which is essential for the effective formation and continuity, through engaging in, being responsive to and inclusive of their partners (Billett et al. 2007; DEST (2006); Wheeler et al., 2018). Through such governance structure and leadership commitment, trust and trustworthiness can be ensured and mature within the partnership. That commitment can arise from shared social obligations.

Trust and trustworthiness

A key principle for, and practice of, partnerships is the building of trust through processes that engage, inform, and reciprocally are informed by participants’ contributions (ACER (2008); Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a). It is an essential step to initiate an effective partnership. Building trust initially involves establishing processes that engage and inform partners, including encouraging cooperation and collaboration (Billett et al. 2007, Brockmann and Smith 2023, James Relly & Laczik, 2022). Close collaborations and effective communication between training providers, employers and young people based on high level of trust were evidenced to underpin successful mechanisms for ensuring quality partnership programmes such as apprenticeships (James Relly & Laczik, 2022). Throughout the above processes, the issue of trust and its development and continuity needs to be brought to the forefront. Trust can be built through enacting transparency and being sensitive to a range of partners’ specific imperatives and bases for achieving outcomes, thus focusing on and addressing partners’ differing needs and expectations (ACER (2008); Billett et al. 2007, Clerke 2013a, Wheeler et al., 2018). Importantly, these partnership processes and activities need to be enacted in sustained ways over time that secure trust within and across partner organisations and personnel. Yet, the establishment of trust takes time and genuine effort. In some cases, the forming of a partnership is underpinned by a history of relationships premised on trust and familiarity (Billett & Seddon, 2004). Achieving trust and trustworthiness requires engaging with partners in ways that build their confidence and consider mutual interests (Billett et al. 2007). Such confidence building can start with formulating a strategic plan that is realistic in achieving its goals. Establishment of trust can also come from the capacity to enact the partnership work to achieve intended outcomes associated with positive changes.

Advancing partnership formation and enactment

As noted, informing young people, their parents and other familiars about postschool pathways and providing experiences that can shape decision-making about them more broadly and inclusively is an important educational objective that cannot be addressed wholly through schooling and from the confines of schools’ physical and social environments. Instead, it is necessary to engage with partners beyond the ‘school fence’ to inform and provide such experiences. Hence, the important role of partnerships between schools and enterprises and agencies that can realise such goals. However, these partnerships cannot be relied upon to just happen. Given their importance intentional, focused and considered actions are required by government, local communities and schools. The premises and associated sets of principles and practices advanced and discussed and proposed above are offered as tentative guidelines that can be enacted to enable and support partnership work to advance their desired outcomes. They can be used to provide a platform from which to make judgements about the efficacy of partnership work in achieving these kinds of outcomes. What is evident in these principles and practices is that beyond the governmental and local community efforts to promote and secure these partnerships, it will be necessary for partners themselves to initiate, develop and sustain the capacities required for partnership work and to achieve the kinds of outcomes that are desired locally and make contributions, collectively, nationally. Such is their growing importance that there is a need for means by which the health, progress and outcomes of these partnerships might be monitored and reviewed and, where necessary, processes and goals refined to ensure their viability and sustainability. Evaluating partnerships could be achieved through appraising the quality and sustainability of partnership work through the premises and their associated principles and practices articulated above. A process-oriented approach to evaluate the efficacy of the processes of partnership work might also be based upon such a set of principles and practices. That is, the evaluations should be focussed on the processes used by the partnerships to initiate, enact and sustain their work, rather than being judged on the basis of measurable outcomes. Realising these outcomes is important for how they can engage with and inform young people, their parents and also teachers and administrators about post-school pathways and provide experiences that may enhance the decision-making processes about those pathways.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stephen Billett

Dr Stephen Billett is Professor of Adult and Vocational Education at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. After a career in clothing manufacturing, he was a vocational educator, teacher educator, professional educator and policy work in Queensland. Since 1992, he has researched and published widely in fields of learning for occupations, vocational education, workplace learning, work, higher education and conceptual accounts of learning for occupational purposes. He was a Fulbright scholar (1999), National Teaching Fellow (2009-11), ARC Future Fellow (2011-16) recipient of honorary doctorates from Jyvaskala University, Finland (2013) and University of Geneva (2020), elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences of Australia (2015), research fellow at Oxford University (2019-25), adjunct professor at University of Stavanger, Norway (2019-23) and University Vast, Sweden (2019-2023). His current projects focus on: the standing of vocational education, integration of work experiences to promote employability, alignments between learning and innovations at work, resilience in healthcare workers, worklife learning, continuing education and training, developing adaptability through internships in Singaporean post-secondary educational institutions, wisdom in practice and widening access to mature ages students. He is the founding and editor in chief of the journal Vocations and Learning, and the Professional and practice-based learning book series.

Sarojni Choy

Professor Sarojni Choy has expertise in vocational and continuing education with a strong record of leadership in research, teaching, management, industry engagement, and policy at National, State and Institutional levels. Her research focus includes workplace learning, practice-based learning, continuing education and training, integration of learning in different sites, and workforce development. She draws on how adults learn to develop their knowledge, skills and attributes for productive work, thereby contribute to personal, social and economic outcomes. These areas of interest have relevance to reforms relevant to contemporary industries and societies across the globe. Her research has strong implications for practice based and lifelong learning for workers to remain employed and employable in emerging economies. Prof. Choy’s area of research investigations is informed through a combination of positivist and interpretive paradigms. Her leadership in research is demonstrated by a record of successful activities comprising academic publications, securing research funding, editorship of international journals, and developing novice researchers. Prof. Choy has successfully delivered a range of professional development programs to develop learning leaders locally, nationally and internationally.

Kathy Gibbs

Dr Kathy Gibbs was a Secondary school teacher and school leader (Deputy Principal and Acting Principal) with over 35 years teaching experience in P-12 co-educational and single sex schools across two states, namely New South Wales and Queensland. She has worked in both metropolitan and rural schools. During this time, she also held positions including Work Experience and Careers co-ordinators. She joined Griffith University as a lecturer in 2016. Dr Gibbs is now a senior lecturer in a variety of undergraduate and postgraduate education courses. She is a lead researcher in teaching practices well-suited to learning for all students. She has a keen interest in alternative pathways for school leavers as well as exploring the schooling experiences of students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Those interests extend to engaging in national forums, international collaborations and an emerging track record in this field.

Anh Hai Le

Dr Anh Hai Le is a Research Fellow in the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University, Australia. Her research interest focuses on curriculum development in different contexts including tertiary education, with a particular interest in the process of building knowledge through scholarly engagement with industry in mix-sector higher education institutions. She has diverse experience, in teaching and curriculum development, across various disciplines in the higher education sector. She is also a mixed-method researcher with extensive experience working on a range of large projects with her expertise on quantitative and qualitative data analysis, including technique of quantifying the qualitative when analysing substantial sets of interview data. Much of her recent research has focused on lifelong and adult education.

Loraine McKay

Dr Loraine McKay is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and Professional Studies at Griffith University, Australia. She is currently Initial Teacher Education Director. After a 20-year career as a primary school teacher she moved into a full-time role as an academic where her research interests focus on preservice teacher identity development. She uses arts-based processes to engage preservice teachers in various forms of reflection to examine sociocultural and personal factors that support identity, agency, resilience and wellbeing, and to explore the affective nature of teaching. She is passionate about social justice and the role that education and teachers can play in improving life opportunities for all children, particularly those who experience trauma. Her current projects focus on ways to diversify the teacher workforce and the opportunities provided through employment-based pathways.

Stephen Hay

Dr Stephen Hay is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia. Adopting a sociological approach, his research and scholarship focuses on advancing social justice, sustainable goals and human rights within and beyond the field of compulsory education. In particular, his scholarship is directed towards inclusion and social justice in school education for students with disabilities, globalisation and its impacts on education policy in compulsory education, schooling to employment transitions for young people, particularly school leavers not intending to progress to university, Health and Physical Education curriculum and pedagogy and education research methodologies associated with these topics.

Notes

1. The reference to ‘beyond the school fence’ refers to seeking outside advise from sources beyond the school, but also outside of the kinds of activities and interactions that, for good and bad, shape what occurs in schools that might be quite different than beyond them.