Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:12 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
15 SES 06 A
Paper Session
| ||
    | ||
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Strategic Professional Experience Partnerships to Strengthen Mentor Teacher Participation: An Explanatory Mixed-Methods Study Across Australian Jurisdictions (2017–2021) 1: Charles Darwin University, Australia; 2: University of Western Australia; 3: Murdoch Universtiy Presenting Author:Mentor teachers are essential to high-quality initial teacher education, supporting pre-service teachers to bridge theory and practice. In Australia, mentoring is largely voluntary and increasingly unsustainable, limiting placement capacity and constraining the teacher pipeline during workforce shortages. Although universities are responsible for leading school–university partnerships, sustaining these across multiple jurisdictions, remote contexts, and online programs is resource-intensive, making effective partnerships critical to teacher preparation and system sustainability. While professional experience is not compulsory in many European and OECD contexts, it remains critical for teacher preparation and professional learning, making mentor teachers and education partnerships pivotal to teacher growth and system sustainability. This paper reports an explanatory sequential mixed methods study examining how education partnership models shape mentor teacher participation over time and place. Drawing on five years of longitudinal placement data (2017–2021) from a small regional Australian university delivering on-campus and online ITE programs across all states and territories, the study addressed three research questions: (RQ1) What patterns and trends characterised mentor teacher participation over time and place (Northern Territory [NT] compared with other jurisdictions)? (RQ2) What partnership elements and models were evident across contexts? (RQ3) How do strategic education partnerships explain mentor teacher participation over time and place? The analysis was guided by Giggs’ (2020) education partnership continuum, which conceptualises partnerships as progressing from cooperative to coordinated and collaborative relationships. Partnership strength was interpreted through six enabling elements: purposeful planning and flexible implementation; shared values and goals; open communication; commitment; trust; and leadership. This framework enabled analysis of how partnership arrangements supported or constrained mentor teacher participation across contexts. Quantitative findings showed growth alongside divergence. Across jurisdictions, the number of schools hosting PSTs increased, but patterns of mentor engagement differed substantially. In the NT, participating schools increased from 61 in 2017 to 97 in 2021, while other jurisdictions fluctuated before rising sharply from 100 to 382. Mentoring intensity also diverged. In the NT, many mentors supervised multiple PSTs each year—particularly in 2020 and 2021—whereas mentors in other jurisdictions typically hosted only one PST annually. As a result, the NT hosted more PSTs overall, increasing from 224 in 2017 to 536 in 2021, compared with growth from 122 to 481 elsewhere. In 2020–2021, 36.5% of all PST placements occurred in the NT. Mentor teacher numbers increased in both contexts. In the NT, mentor numbers rose from 162 in 2017 to 174 in 2019, then increased substantially to 364 in 2021 (2020 data unavailable). In other jurisdictions, numbers grew from 133 to 474. Most NT schools hosted one to two PSTs per year, though some mentored more than nine annually, whereas schools elsewhere typically hosted only one. Geographically, NT placements were concentrated in Darwin (outer regional), with 28–39% occurring in remote areas, compared with only 6–7% remote placements elsewhere, which were predominantly metropolitan or inner regional. The qualitative phase used a comparative case study design with embedded units (NT and other jurisdictions) to explain these patterns. Findings showed that a system-wide Teaching Schools Partnership between the university and the NT Department of Education created a coordinated partnership environment characterised by clearer roles, structured communication, and dedicated resourcing, including placement coordination, school-based professional learning leadership, and mentor incentives. In contrast, placements in other jurisdictions relied primarily on cooperative agreements with limited communication and resourcing. Overall, the study demonstrates that strategically planned and resourced cooperative and coordinated partnerships can increase mentor participation and placement capacity. These models offer a pragmatic and scalable alternative to idealised collaborative partnerships, which may be costly and difficult to sustain across jurisdictions, remote contexts, and transnationally. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Design: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was employed, consisting of a quantitative phase followed by a qualitative phase to explain quantitative results, with integration through joint displays and analytic inference. Context and sample: The study was conducted at a regional Australian university delivering primary and secondary (K–12) ITE programs on-campus and online across Australia. The analysis focused on K–12 placements because early childhood data were not consistently available in the same way. Quantitative data sources and instruments: Quantitative data comprised longitudinal mentor participation records from the university placement system for all K–12 mentor teachers supervising PSTs between 2017 and 2021. Variables included mentor identity (de-identified), host school, school location, year level, and number of PSTs supervised per calendar year. School geolocation and staffing indicators (e.g., full-time equivalent teachers) were retrieved from MySchool to support analyses of school size and location patterns. Data were de-identified, coded, and analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS to identify trends, clusters and patterns by jurisdiction (NT vs other). Qualitative data sources and procedures: To explain quantitative trends, a single descriptive case study was undertaken with two embedded units (NT; other jurisdictions). The qualitative dataset comprised eight university and public documents relating to professional experience partnerships and strategic actions to strengthen mentor participation across 2017–2021 (including the 2020–2021 strategic plan). Documents were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, organised deductively around Giggs’ partnership elements and models, and presented as themes describing partnership enactment by context. Integration and rigour: Integration occurred through joint displays aligning qualitative themes with quantitative variables to draw explanatory inferences (i.e., how partnership elements and resourcing conditions shaped participation patterns). Rigour was supported through mixed-methods quality criteria (quantitative validity/reliability; qualitative trustworthiness/credibility) and attention to inference quality and legitimation. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This study demonstrates that mentor teacher participation in initial teacher education (ITE) is shaped not only by placement demand or regulatory requirements, but by the structure, enactment, and resourcing of school–university partnerships. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of schools hosting pre-service teachers (PSTs) increased across all jurisdictions. However, mentor engagement varied markedly by context. In the Northern Territory (NT), participation intensified over time, with many mentors hosting multiple PSTs annually—particularly in 2020–2021—while in other jurisdictions, mentors typically supervised only one PST per year. From a European and OECD perspective, these findings inform debates on partnership sustainability, teacher workload, and the governance of practice-based learning. The case study shows that mentor participation is shaped more by partnership conditions than demand alone. In the NT, a system-wide Teaching Schools Partnership established a coordinated environment with shared goals, structured communication across university, system, and school levels, and sustained leadership, underpinned by dedicated resourcing for coordination, mentor learning, and workload recognition. By contrast, partnerships in other jurisdictions more closely resembled cooperative models common across many European contexts, where formal agreements define responsibilities but ongoing interaction, joint problem solving, and partnership-specific resourcing are limited. These arrangements constrained the translation of strategic intent into practice and limited mentor participation despite increasing system-level demand for placements. Study limitations include reliance on documentary data for the qualitative component and the non-causal design. The key implication for European and OECD research, policy, and practice is pragmatic. While collaborative partnerships are often positioned as the gold standard, this study indicates that well-designed cooperative and coordinated partnerships can significantly strengthen mentor participation when strategically planned, adequately resourced, and responsive to local and regional conditions. Effective partnerships were associated with clear roles, robust communication, recognition of mentor workload, and differentiated context-sensitive approaches. References Ambrosetti, A. (2014). Are you ready to be a mentor?: Preparing teachers for mentoring pre-service teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.2 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology, 18(3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Clarke, A., Triggs, V., & Nielsen, W. (2014). Cooperating teacher participation in teacher education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 163–202. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313499618 Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2017.1315399 Giggs, D. M. (2020). A review of research: To develop a conceptual framework for educational partnerships. Education Leadership Review, 21(1), 28–40. Griffiths, M., Shean, M., & Jackson, D. (2021). Supervision in initial teacher education: A scoping review. Issues in Educational Research, 31(2), 476–494. Hilton, A. L., Morrison, C., McLure, F. I., Dehle, K. G., & Fielder, S. (2025). Changes in mentor teacher participation in postgraduate secondary initial teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2). Lasrado, F., Dean, B., & Eady, M. (2024). University-workplace partnerships in work-integrated learning: A scoping review. International Journal of Work-Integrated Learning, 24(4), 565–602. Ledger, S., Ure, C., Burgess, M., & Morrison, C. (2020). Professional experience in Australian initial teacher education: An appraisal of policy and practice. Higher Education Studies, 10(4), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n4p116 Mutton, T., Burn, K., Hagger, H., & Thirlwall, K. (2018). Teacher Education Partnerships: Policy and Practice (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781041057260 Mutton, T., Burn, K., & Molway, L. (2024). The role of schools within initial teacher education in England: An exploration of the shifting policy focus over the past 50 years. Journal of Education for Teaching, 50(5), 924-945. 10.1080/02607476.2024.2413167 Smith, I., Brisard, E., & Menter, I. (2006). Models of partnership developments in initial teacher education in the four components of the United Kingdom: recent trends and current challenges. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470600655136 Walker, R., Morrison, C., & Hay, I. (2019). Evaluating quality in professional experience partnerships for graduate teacher employability. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability, 10(1), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.21153/jtlge2019vol10no1art791 Yin, R. K. (2012). Case study methods. In H. Cooper et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–155). APA. 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Separate, Parallel or Integrated? Exploring Different Types of Interprofessional Collaboration Between School-based Social Workers and Kindergarten Teachers 1: Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R. (China); 2: Oxford University, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Research background Over the past two decades, there has been increasing global attention on providing quality early childhood education and care, with growing advocacy for programmes and services that support children and their families in need, creating emerging opportunities for school-based social work interventions and other community-based services (Morris et al., 2018; Testa, 2025). According to UNICEF (2022), social work services have the potential to advance social justice and prevent severe issues, such as violence, abuse, exploitation, and family neglect and parent-child separation. These services also support the well-being of children and families by reducing poverty, identifying and addressing financial and material challenges, and ensuring access to essential welfare within living communities (Barth et al., 2022). In early childhood settings, social workers have taken on a more expansive role that extends beyond service provision to include observing and identifying the root causes of family difficulties encountered within children’s support (Azzi-Lessing, 2010). This expanded role enables both school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers to bridge gaps and foster broader social value (Testa, 2025). In line with international trends towards collaborative practice, these school-based professionals in Hong Kong are also committed to interdisciplinary teams and provide early intervention through consultation and workshops, enhancing children’s growth in formal education and society (Legislative Council, 2015). Reflecting this commitment, research by Lau and Ho (2018) demonstrates that their work significantly improved early identification and response to diverse family needs, cultivating a more inclusive, supportive, and responsive environment. Despite the growing emphasis on collaboration worldwide, interprofessional collaboration between social workers and kindergarten teachers remains limited in practice across many contexts, including Hong Kong (Anderson-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). Prior research has also identified several barriers that may limit the effectiveness of interprofessional collaboration, including insufficient recognition of diverse professional capacities, fixedly defined roles for school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers. Particularly, many social workers feel unsupported and misunderstood, underutilised, and left out of decision-making regarding their roles within the broader educational system (Elswick et al., 2019).
Theoretical perspective Interprofessional collaboration refers to the communicative and decision-making processes in which professionals integrate diverse forms of knowledge and skills to achieve shared objectives. It typically entails coordinated actions by two or more professional groups and agencies, with the intention of fostering greater responsibility, assertiveness, and the development of mutual trust and respect through joint rather than isolated efforts (Ingebrigtsen & Hanssen, 2023). In the specific context of early education and childcare, the responsibilities of various professionals include establishing structured communication channels, such as regular meetings and reports, to exchange information and coordinate decision-making and planning for children and families (Willumsen, 2006). Within this collaborative framework, social workers can also integrate behavioural and mental health interventions and reinforcement strategies into classroom instruction, gaining valuable insights into children’s behaviour through classroom observation and ongoing communication with teachers (Viggiani et al., 2002). This collaboration challenges conventional roles and boundaries, encouraging professionals to engage in shared problem-solving and co-develop intervention strategies (Edwards et al., 2015). Moreover, it can establish an open and supportive environment that encourages reflection, participation, and flexibility, enabling school professionals to build mutual trust and respond collaboratively to the challenges children and their families face. To explore the types of interprofessional collaboration between school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers, this study seeks insights and experiences from kindergarten teachers in Hong Kong. It aims to address the following key questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Context and participants In the 2024/25 academic year, 734 kindergartens in Hong Kong participated in the Kindergarten Education Scheme, which was introduced in 2017/18. This scheme aims to enhance access to quality kindergarten education and strengthen professional support services in the early childhood sector (Education Bureau, n.d.). This emphasis is reflected in the Kindergarten Education Curriculum Guideline (2017), which outlines a regulated system with clear standards for kindergartens and school-based social work services. It also highlights the importance of teacher professionalism, family engagement, and cross-sectoral collaboration. Teachers’ roles are expanded through their collaboration with families and communities. This study draws on data from a larger research project investigating the work of kindergarten teachers in the changing context, involving 37 classroom and head teachers from nine kindergartens. Data collection This study collected data from kindergarten teachers through semi-structured interviews designed to explore their thoughts and experiences. Follow-up questions facilitated deeper insights into their perspectives. Teachers were invited by the principals of their respective kindergartens and informed about the purpose of the study before providing their consent. From a larger research project, a subset of 20 teachers' interview data was selected for this study. These participants were selected for their rich, detailed narratives about their collaborative work with school-based social workers. Their experiences reflect how school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers coordinate and integrate actions to support and assist children and families in need. The interviews are conducted in Cantonese and average 60 minutes each. The interviews were audio-recorded to ensure accurate capture of the participating teachers’ responses, and the recordings were subsequently transcribed verbatim. Data analysis This study seeks to identify the qualitatively different ways in which participating teachers experience and conceptualise collaboration with school-based social workers. Given the diversity of collaboration in early childhood settings, this approach enables researchers to capture various types of collaborative experiences while maintaining meaningful variation across cases. This methodology is well-suited for analysing complex interprofessional collaboration that may vary across and within kindergartens, influenced by context, individual agency, and organisational structures. To enhance analytical rigour and trustworthiness, the data collected across the various phases of the research were reviewed by two researchers to interpret their meanings and reach consensus on the emerging thematic categories (Kettunen & Tynjälä, 2018). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Interview data revealed three types of interprofessional collaboration between school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers. Type 1: Strong reliance on the role of social workers in a collaborative relationship School-based social workers play a central role in the support network for children and families by addressing their psychological needs and enhancing parenting skills. They provide tailored interventions that operate independently from kindergarten teachers. School-based social workers are responsible for planning, coordinating, and delivering assistance, particularly in cases involving complex family situations. Meanwhile, kindergarten teachers implement the guidance and recommendations provided by social workers. Type 2: A reciprocal collaborative relationship between social workers and teachers In this parallel collaboration, school-based social workers complement kindergarten teachers by coordinating community and material resources for families, while teachers focus on addressing children’s learning and educational needs. This partnership is clearly defined by the professional roles involved in supporting children and families. Initially, kindergarten teachers identify behavioural issues and educational needs through classroom observations and communication with parents. These cases are then referred to school-based social workers, who take the lead in engaging with caregivers, organising support groups, providing counselling and therapeutic activities, and coordinating community resources. Type 3: Integrated collaboration in building an interprofessional relationship This collaboration features a high degree of integration between school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers. Both professionals conduct home visits to gain insights into family background, living conditions, and the underlying reasons for children’s emotional or behavioural difficulties. This approach provides a deeper understanding for them and extends beyond that. Social workers regularly enter classrooms to observe children and deliver emotional or social-emotional learning sessions for targeted children with specific developmental or psychosocial needs. Throughout this collaborative process, school-based social workers and kindergarten teachers can adjust support strategies, discuss children’s progress, and determine appropriate follow-up actions. References Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39–53. Azzi-Lessing, L. (2010). Growing together: Expanding roles for social work practice in early childhood settings. Social Work, 55(3), 255–263. Barth, R. P., Berrick, J. D., Garcia, A. R., Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Gyourko, J. R., & Greeson, J. K. P. (2022). Research to consider while effectively re-designing child welfare services. Research on Social Work Practice, 32(5), 483–498. Education Bureau (2017). Kindergarten Educatin Cirriculum Guide. https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/major-level-of-edu/preprimary/ENG_KGECG_2017.pdf Education Bureau. (n.d.). Figures and statistics. https://www.edb.gov.hk/en/about-edb/publications-stat/figures/index.html Edwards, C. M., Newell, J. M., & Rich, D. W. et al. (2015). Teaching interprofessional practice: An exploratory course assignment in social work and speech language pathology. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35, 529-543. Elswick, S. E., Cuellar, M. J., & Mason, S. E. (2019). Leadership and school social work in the USA: A qualitative assessment. School Mental Health, 11(4), 535–548. Ingebrigtsen, T., & Hanssen, N. B. (2023). Interprofessional collaboration in the Norwegian early childhood education and care context. In S. Alisauskiene, N. Bahdanovich Hanssen, & D. Kairienė (Eds.), Interprofessional and family-professional collaboration for inclusive early childhood education and care (pp. 159–178). Palgrave Macmillan. Kettunen, J., & Tynjälä, P. (2018). Applying phenomenography in guidance and counselling research. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 46(1), 1–11. Lau, Y. K., & Ho, W. L. (2018). Family-centered kindergarten social work services in Hong Kong: A pilot project. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 12(2), 116-126. Legislative Council. (2015). Legislative Council Panel on Welfare Services Pilot Scheme on On-site Pre-school Rehabilitation Services. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr15-16/english/panels/ws/papers/ws20151214cb2-421-4-e.pdf Morris, K., Mason, W., & Bywaters, P., et al. (2018). Social work, deprivation and child welfare interventions. Child & Family Social Work, 23(3), 364–372. Testa, D. (2025). Interprofessional collaboration: How social workers, psychologists, and teachers collaborate to address student wellbeing. Australian Social Work, 78(3), 341-354. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2022). Social service workers in schools: Their role in addressing violence against children and other child protection concerns. https://www.unicef.org/media/117456/file/SSW%20in%20Schools%20Technical%20Note.pdf Viggiani, P., Reid, W., & Bailey, C. (2002). Social worker-teacher collaboration in the classroom: Help for elementary students at risk of failure. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(5), 604-620. Willumsen, E. (2006). Leadership in interprofessional collaboration – the case of childcare in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(4), 403-413. 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper Research Partnership Models in Opportunity Areas Policy: 2017-2022 1: Durham University, United Kingdom; 2: University of Bath, United Kingdom Presenting Author:This paper provides a comprehensive evaluation of the Opportunity Areas (OA) in England, a place-based education initiative introduced by the Department for Education (DfE) in 2016 with the stated aim of improving social mobility through targeted investment in school improvement (Department for Education, 2017a). Opportunity Areas were selected on the basis of the 2016 Social Mobility Index (SMI), which highlighted entrenched inequalities in educational outcomes and progression opportunities (Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission, 2015; DfE, 2017b). The programme distributed funding across 12 areas to support locally designed interventions focused primarily on education, skills, and employability. While DfE documents provide process evaluation findings on policy implementation (Scandone et al, 2022), there remains limited independent empirical assessment of the programme’s impact on educational outcomes or rigorous analysis of how policy mechanisms operated across different local contexts. This paper contributes to the ‘From the Centre to the Periphery’ project, a major three-year quasi-experimental independent evaluation of the impact of the Opportunity Areas programme, which began in October 2024. Working in close partnership with stakeholders, the project seeks to inform the design of future place-based education and labour market initiatives. The study addresses the evidence gap by combining longitudinal quantitative analysis of large-scale national administrative and survey data with in-depth qualitative process evaluation. The qualitative component spans 12 research locations, 6 Opportunity Areas alongside 6 matched comparator areas, and has begun to surface cross-cutting themes around the role of networks and collaborations in shaping how place-based policy is received and enacted at the local level. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The quantitative component of the study draws on annual school census and attainment data from the National Pupil Database (NPD) published by the DfE, as well as Longitudinal Educational Outcomes (LEO) data which link NPD data to data on further and higher education and later employment and earnings. Using publicly accessible NPD data, we conducted initial analyses comparing outcomes in Opportunity Areas with national averages from 2013 to 2019. This period enables examination of pre-policy trends, the initial implementation phase following the introduction of the Opportunity Areas in 2016-17, and outcomes up to the final year prior to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The indicators analysed include attainment at Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 4, attendance, exclusions, and outcomes for disadvantaged pupils, particularly those eligible for Free School Meals (FSM) and children looked after. Outcomes in Opportunity Areas are compared with national averages to assess whether gaps narrowed, widened, or remained stable following the introduction of the policy. Aggregate analyses are presented separately for primary and secondary phases, and disaggregated analyses focus on disadvantaged pupils to examine equity effects. To extend this work, we have begun analysing specially requested individual-level NPD and LEO data, enabling us to make more detailed comparisons between outcomes in Opportunity Areas and those in statistically matched comparison areas through Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis. We will examine attendance, exclusions, and attainment (using NPD) and progression to FE and HE study and later employment and earnings (using LEO). By August 2026, we should also be in a position to share these findings. This component draws on semi-structured interviews with strategic-level stakeholders, including policy architects, regional delivery leads, local authority representatives, school and academy trust leaders, and partner organisations involved in OA implementation. School site visits were conducted in selected areas to gather practitioner-level perspectives on the delivery of the programme, including observations of partnership practices and local contextual conditions. Focus groups were additionally conducted with young people at the individual level to explore their experiences of OA projects. The qualitative analysis focuses on mapping the organisational and structural basis of the policy, examining how partnership models were formed, how priorities were negotiated, and how interventions were selected and delivered within diverse local contexts. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Initial quantitative analyses show Opportunity Areas (OAs) achieved modest improvements relative to national benchmarks after implementation. In some areas, particularly at Key Stage 2, attainment gaps narrowed in early policy years. However, these gains were uneven across areas and cohorts and were not sustained over time. By 2018-19, many OAs had plateaued or reverted towards pre-policy trajectories. At Key Stage 4, evidence of improvement is weaker, with limited sustained gains for disadvantaged pupils. These findings suggest OAs generated short-term mobilisation effects from new funding and visibility but did not produce lasting structural improvements in educational outcomes. Qualitative findings highlight the central role of partnership models in OA design. Multi-agency partnerships linking local authorities, schools, academy trusts, higher education institutions, and local stakeholders created new collaborative spaces, strengthened cross-sector relationships and increased recognition of educational challenges. Dedicated funding supported coordination and encouraged locally responsive, evidence-informed school improvement approaches. However, stakeholders emphasised significant constraints. Many viewed OAs as short-term initiatives addressing deeply entrenched structural issues, such as poverty, labour-market insecurity, limited infrastructure, and restricted external support. Partnerships could coordinate school-level activity but lacked capacity to address broader socioeconomic barriers. Interviewees reported tensions between national expectations and local realities, alongside pressures arising from short funding cycles and the difficulty of demonstrating measurable impact within a limited timeframe. Across the 12 areas, qualitative findings highlight the centrality of networks and collaborations in shaping how the OA programme was designed and delivered at the local level. Partnerships connected schools and organisations, shared resources, and built local capacity, with many collaborative structures persisting beyond the formal end of the programme in 2022 through research networks, professional learning communities, and emerging knowledge-hub models. While OAs did not transform structural inequalities, they established local infrastructures whose sustainability depended on strong relationships, relevance to local needs, and practices embedded beyond the life of the funding. References Department for Education (2017a) Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential: A plan for improving social mobility through education. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/improving-social-mobility-through-education. Department for Education (2017b) Opportunity Areas Selection Methodology. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-and-opportunity-areas. Department for Education (2017c) Fenland and East Cambridgeshire opportunity area: delivery plan. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-mobility-and-opportunity-areas. Scandone, B., Bury, J., Robinson, Y., Rezaian, M., Roberts, E., Takala, H. & Woodbridge, H. (2022) Opportunity Areas: Process Evaluation – Years 1-4. Department for Education. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/opportunity-area-programme-research-and-analysis. Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission. (2015) Social Mobility Index. HM Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission. | ||