Sustainability-by-design in school–university partnerships: the case of the Teaching Clinic

Abstract

This paper develops a sustainability-by-design framework for school–university partnerships (SUPs) based on the case of the Teaching Clinic (TC), a research-based service-learning (RBSL) SUP. We use the TC's history of scaling and forking to reflect on the framework's sustainability. We argue that sustainability is best understood as a partnership's capacity for adaptive resilience: the ability to remain functional, equitable and generative under changing conditions, rather than merely persisting over time or securing ongoing funding. We present a conceptual synthesis of the TC's design architecture, collaboration routines and documented implementation lessons across several countries and educational systems from 2019 to 2026. We treat the TC as a modular boundary-spanning infrastructure comprising roles, routines and boundary objects that reduce transaction costs and support continuity beyond individual actors. We position the TC within the broader landscape of research–practice partnerships, professional development schools and existing sustainability frameworks, drawing on comparative design knowledge generated through multiple adaptation and scaling waves of the TC. We propose (i) six TC building blocks that should remain invariant when scaling, (ii) an “interface” logic that specifies which elements can be adapted without diluting the partnership mechanism and (iii) a six-lever sustainability-by-design framework (reciprocal value, support in-frastructure, governance and role clarity, adaptive modularity, recruitment pipeline and trust and legitimacy) that supports partnership durability and transferability. We discuss equity mechanisms embedded in the model's design and identify persistent limitations, including facilitator dependency and quality variation across projects. The paper contributes an actionable, leader-facing framework for scaling SUP models internationally without losing conceptual coherence. It advances comparative insight by distinguishing between what must remain stable and what can be localised, offers a definition of sustainability centred on adaptive resilience rather than funding or longevity alone, and critically examines the TC's limitations alongside its affordances.