Leadership at all levels is pivotal as school–university partnerships (SUPs) seek to cultivate a culture of collaboration. Leaders across roles – be they school principals, university faculty and administrators, or teacher leaders – act as linchpins who not only facilitate the flow of knowledge and resources between institutions, but also engender a sense of shared vision and purpose. Leadership requires navigating the complexities of differing institutional norms, aligning diverse stakeholder interests, and fostering an environment conducive to collaborative innovation. The complex endeavor of developing dynamic leadership and robust partnerships between schools and universities underscores the pivotal work of partnerships seeking simultaneous renewal. This part of the handbook includes four compelling chapters that delineate both conceptual understanding of the work of leaders as well as the practical ramifications of leadership within SUPs.

The chapters in this section represent timely and relevant research related to justice in school–university partnerships (SUPs). Each chapter frames the effect of SUPs on the adults, as school-based and university-based educators, and their effect on the quality of teaching and learning in schools. In a broad review of the literature, D. Polly and E. Colonnese’s chapter reveals patterns linking SUPs and student learning outcomes. I value their call for more robust research about equity and student learning in SUPs. Simply, we need not be afraid to conduct more research closely examining student outcomes in SUPs. The authors beckon for research that draws on more alternative methodologies (beyond descriptive approaches) to show effects on a wide variety of student learning outcomes including but not limited to student’s grades, student self-reported data, attendance data, graduation data, student behavior data, researcher or teacher created assessments.

Generative AI promises to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and practice in the United States. Already several disputes have arisen that are likely to break new ground in determining what IP protects and what actions infringe. Generative AI is also likely to have a significant impact on the practice of searching for prior art, creating new materials, and policing rights. This chapter surveys the emerging law of generative AI and IP in the United States, sticking as close as possible to near-term developments and controversies. All of the major IP areas are covered, at least briefly, including copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights of publicity. For each of these areas, the chapter evaluates the protectability of AI-generated materials under current law, the potential liability of AI providers for their use of existing materials, and likely changes to the practice of creation and enforcement.

It is well-known that, to be properly valued, high-quality products must be distinguishable from poor-quality ones. When they are not, indistinguishability creates an asymmetry in information that, in turn, leads to a lemons problem, defined as the market erosion of high-quality products. Although the valuation of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems’ outputs is still largely unknown, preliminary studies show that, all other things being equal, human-made works are evaluated at significantly higher values than machine-enabled ones. Given that these works are often indistinguishable, all the conditions for a lemons problem are present. Against that background, this Chapter proposes a Darwinian reading to highlight how GenAI could potentially lead to “unnatural selection” in the art market—specifically, a competition between human-made and machine-enabled artworks that is not based on the merits but distorted by asymmetrical information. This Chapter proposes solutions ranging from top-down rules of origin to bottom-up signalling. It is argued that both approaches can be employed in copyright law to identify where the human author has exercised the free and creative choices required to meet the criterion of originality, and thus copyrightability.

This chapter will focus on how Chinese and Japanese copyright law balance content owner’s desire for copyright protection with the national policy goal of enabling and promoting technological advancement, in particular in the area of AI-related progress. In discussing this emerging area of law, we will focus mainly on the two most fundamental questions that the widespread adoption of generative AI pose to copyright regulators: (1) does the use and refinement of training data violate copyright law, and (2) who owns a copyright in content produced by or with the help of AI?

The education landscape is rich with partnerships between K-12 schools and colleges of education (Handscomb et al., 2014). The challenges that both institutions face are daunting. These partnerships arguably do an adequate job of facilitating a set of transactional activities that both schools and universities require to perform their objective functions. Policy recommendations need to lean into places where partnerships make sense; funding needs to follow and align; and while there will always be politics, we would hope for autonomy and deregulation so that ideas and people can flourish.

This chapter explores the intricate relationship between consumer protection and GenAI. Prominent tools like Bing Chat, ChatGPT4.0, Google’s Gemini (formerly known as Bard), OpenAI’s DALL·E, and Snapchat’s AI chatbot are widely recognized, and they dominate the generative AI landscape. However, numerous smaller, unbranded GenAI tools are embedded within major platforms, often going unrecognized by consumers as AI-driven technology. In particular, the focus of this chapter is the phenomenon of algorithmic consumers, whose interactions with digital tools, including GenAI, have become increasingly dynamic, engaging, and personalized. Indeed, the rise of algorithmic consumers marks a pivotal shift in consumer behaviour, which is now characterized by heightened levels of interactivity and customization.

Following on the heels of the publication A Nation at Risk (1983) and formation of the Holmes Group (1986), the author explores the development and evolution of school–university partnership as essential to quality teacher education. Select aspects of the empirical and conceptual work of John Goodlad and his colleagues are described as especially helpful for understanding partnership and addressing its considerable challenges. Among the most significant of these is the idea of “simultaneous renewal,” a reminder of the need to think ecologically about institutional change, and of “The Agenda for Education in a Democracy” as a response to the imperative need for clarity about the social purposes of education and attentiveness to the character and quality of human relationships, of how partners ought to treat one another. The author argues for focus on the “manners of democracy” as a way of life that include hospitality, attuned listening, voice, reflectivity and evidential discernment.

Nearly thirty years ago, the Holmes Partnership Group (1995) envisioned educators of color as essential to school–university partnerships (SUPs), to the transformation of teacher education, and to achieving equity in public schools. This chapter asserts that the Holmes Partnership Group linked together culture, pedagogy, and the proportional representation of educators of color as a core conceptual foundation of SUPs. Using their final report, Tomorrow’s Schools of Education, as a key SUP policy and governance document, the author provides a retrospective examination of literature on today’s racially and ethnically diverse PK-20 educator pipeline as connected to the goals of cultural pluralism within a democracy and equitable access and opportunity in student learning. The chapter concludes with implications for future research that connects SUPs, social justice teacher education, and the well-being and sustainability of educators of color.

Generative AI has catapulted into the legal debate through the popular applications ChatGPT, Bard, Dall-E, and others. While the predominant focus has hitherto centred on issues of copyright infringement and regulatory strategies, particularly within the ambit of the AI Act, it is imperative to acknowledge that generative AI also engenders substantial tension with data protection laws. The example of generative AI puts a finger on the sore spot of the contentious relationship between data protection law and machine learning built on the unresolved conflict between the protection of individuals, rooted in fundamental data protection rights and the massive amounts of data required for machine learning, which renders data processing nearly universal. In the case of LLMs, which scrape nearly the whole internet, this training inevitably relies on and possibly even creates personal data under the GDPR. This tension manifests across multiple dimensions, encompassing data subjects’ rights, the foundational principles of data protection, and the fundamental categories of data protection. Drawing on ongoing investigations by data protection authorities in Europe, this paper undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the intricate interplay between generative AI and data protection within the European legal framework.

In this handbook, spanning twenty-two thematic chapters over four levels of analyses, our ambition has been to offer a comprehensive overview of the major psychological and adjacent approaches to violent extremism. This collection represents the culmination of a collective effort to create a resource that was previously unavailable – one that we would have greatly valued at the beginning of our careers. By engaging with this handbook, researchers and students across disciplines, practitioners, policymakers, and other interested individuals gain a thorough understanding of the current state of the field.

There is a need for culturally responsive pedagogy in school–university partnerships to prepare teachers for working with Micronesian Islanders in the state of Hawai’i. As United States public schools become more culturally diverse, there is a need for teacher education programs to better prepare candidates for working with demographically diverse students. Situated in the Hawai’i public school context, we explain how teacher preparation programs may better prepare teacher candidates for working effectively with culturally and linguistically diverse students. An empirical study details how the literature informed our efforts as teacher educators to promote teacher candidates’ understandings of culturally responsive pedagogy to work effectively with Micronesian Islanders; a historically marginalized student population in Hawaii’s public schools. The chapter concludes with suggestions for research, practice, and policy surrounding increased the use of culturally responsive pedagogy in school–university partnerships to prepare teacher candidates for working with historically marginalized student populations.

This review of research on school–university partnerships (SUPs) begins by presenting an overview of the relevant literature including scoping reviews, research mapping, systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews published between 1997 and 2023. The review found three questions were typically addressed in the studies; the first focused on the characteristics of successful partnerships, the second on the outcomes of partnership work and the third on the extent to which partnerships focused on issues of equity. In addition, the review noted that since the earliest reviews of research on PDSs there has been a concern with the quality of that research. A number of suggestions are offered to improve the quality of research including attention to the development of appropriate measures for evaluation, an appreciation for complexity, a close investigation of local context, and a stance of patience and humility. The chapter closes with technical and ethical guidelines for future research.

Moral beliefs are often proposed as causes of violent extremism, specifically, and political violence more generally. Yet, few empirical studies focus on the general causal links between morality and violent extremism. We review several strands of scholarship that bear directly or indirectly on the morality-extremism link. Several general psychological frameworks that cover morality can be applied to explain extremism, notably the Moral Foundations Theory, the Theory of Honour Culture, moral universalism, and theories of moral dilemmas (the Trolley problem literature). Other approaches, such as Virtuous Violence and Sacred Values Theory, provide more direct morality-based explanations for extremism. Our main contention is that the causal link between moral beliefs and violent extremism remains woefully unexplored and that this presents a sharp contrast with the central role that extremist movements often attribute to moral narratives in their justifications for violence. We highlight the need to incorporate morality-based appeals (linked to the reviewed frameworks) in studies of interventions to combat violent extremism and that policymakers should recognize the potentially significant role of moral beliefs as a driver of extremism.

School–university partnerships lie at the heart of pre-service teacher education programmes, though there are “disconnect[s] between what students are taught in campus courses and their opportunities for learning to enact these practices” (Zeichner 2010, p.91). At the heart of school–university partnerships is a conception of the type of teacher that the teacher education programme expects. Drawing on the UK context, we explore ways programme integration can be achieved through research-informed clinical practice, enabling programs “to facilitate and deepen the interplay between the different kinds of knowledge that are generated and validated within the different contexts of school and university” (Burn & Mutton, 2015, p.217). Central to this is the process of “practical theorising,” although this approach also presents a number of challenges. We conclude by exploring the potential for enhanced school–university partnerships to extend beyond pre-service teacher education to in-service teachers’ engagement with research and researchers.

By showcasing examples of scholarship about school–university partnerships (SUPs) in contexts other than the continental United States, this part of the handbook aims to expand the frame of our vision and enable us to see a more complete picture of the possibilities that might emerge from SUPs. A broader perspective can bring our own context more clearly into focus, enabling us to see subtleties that might have remained hidden and making some well-known attributes look surprisingly new, for good or for ill. In addition, as we adjust our gaze to take in both the similarities and differences between our own context and others, we may also begin to see that these variations do not exist in a single binary plane (us and others), but that the similarities and differences abound within and among SUPs in “other” places as well. Thus, we hope that these chapters will be viewed holistically, as a small peek at the vast potential of SUPs to improve education in many different ways, in many different places.

The five contributions in this part are varied in three significant ways. First these chapters cover a diverse geographic range. Secondly, the chapters reflect the diversity of types of programs that fall under the wide umbrella of the term school–university partnerships (SUPs). Finally, the chapters are unalike in genre, as one is a literature review, one a report on a study abroad program for pre-service teachers, and three are analyses of teacher-preparation focused SUPs in different national and regional settings. I see these three aspects of diversity of these chapters as a strength, as collectively the chapters help us appreciate the challenges and possibilities of creating a field of research on comparative international perspectives on SUPs.