The past decade has indeed witnessed ambitious attempts to reform education systems and drive change on a large scale (Fullan, 2009; Qian and Walker, 2020). In response to this trend, an increasing number of district educational departments are orchestrating partnerships between universities and schools to enhance teacher learning and elevate the quality of education. Previous studies have pinpointed the elements that contribute to a beneficial university-school partnership in improving schools (Calabrese & Tan, 2018; Fisher & Firestone, 2006; Peters, 2002; Farrell et al., 2022). These studies often focus on university academics collaborating with teachers in a specific discipline or research group to support teacher learning. However, questions remain about the practical realities and challenges schools encounter when they actively engage in and strive to involve more teachers in such top-down collaborations. How can schools be more effectively motivated to lead the reform process through institutional design? These issues are significant and warrant further investigation.

This study is grounded in a three-year District-University-School (DUS) collaboration project aimed at improving six selected underperforming schools. In this initiative, the District identified six schools with developmental potential within its jurisdiction and commissioned University B to design and implement the improvement project. Guided by research literature and ongoing dialogues between the district and university departments, the project's goal was to enhance middle-level leadership in schools to foster teacher learning and professional development, thereby contributing to overall school improvement. The university team comprised seven researchers and fourteen research assistants. Six researchers were paired to oversee the enhancement work of the project, with a senior professor providing overall planning and guidance. Each school was assigned two research assistants. During the study, the two authors collaborated on two school improvement projects using an identical approach. However, the two schools showed different levels of participation. One school ultimately led the entire school's teachers to actively participate in the school improvement, while the other school always only had the same individual teacher involved in this project. Therefore, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) What conditions can facilitate successful DUS collaboration? (2) Do the conditions for successful collaboration among DUS stakeholders differ from those in US partnerships?

Several key factors have been identified as crucial for successful university-school partnerships. Firstly, shared goals, common planning, mutual respect have been highlighted as essential elements of school-university partnerships (Borthwick et al., 2003). Additionally, the professional and personal learning elements, the degree of congruence between the perspectives of school-based mentors and teacher educators has been emphasized as a factor supporting effective partnership working (Kershner et al., 2013; Marsh, 2019). The importance of fostering research engagement in partnership schools through networking and value creation that foster equality in partnerships has also been highlighted as a means to promote effective university-school partnerships (Shinners, 2006; Maskit & Orland-Barak, 2015; Cornelissen et al., 2017). But currently, few studies have revealed what are the effective conditions for partnerships between schools and universities initiated from a regional top-down perspective. This article argues that in top-down District-University-School partnerships, the District, as a representative of the district government, can utilize its administrative authority and resources to facilitate collaboration between universities and schools for school improvement. However, this top-down approach may also undermine the school's confidence in the university, leading to tepid participation in the collaborative effort. In the DUS partnership context, successful cooperation is predicated on the university members' accurate assessment of the school's needs and strategic planning for teacher and school development.

Data Collection Since the project emphasizes research-informed practices, we have collected almost all the process data of the project's three-year progress. Due to the Covid-19, over the course of nearly a year, extensive communication occurred among the three parties with meetings frequently held in the District's meeting room. All the meetings had been recorded and transcribed. Subsequent to these meetings, the authors collected narrative texts from ten middle-level administrators across the two schools, who were invited to articulate their perspectives on the school culture and their personal visions and missions. Utilizing this data, the university members organized workshops to facilitate discussions with school staff about their visions for school improvement. The workshops had also been recorded and transcribed. Following the workshops, further interviews with the principals of each school were conducted. These activities enabled the authors to gain a deeper understanding of each school's needs and to pinpoint the key areas requiring enhancement. Between April 2021 and January 2023, the authors visited the schools bi-monthly and orchestrated a variety of activities to aid teachers in conducting action research. For instance, School S elected to focus on "Promoting students' holistic development in subject-based teaching," creating a cohort of 'seed teachers' that included both seasoned educators and motivated newcomers. The authors worked closely with these teachers to deepen their understanding of holistic development in subject-based learning and to collaboratively design lesson plans. During this period, 16 instructional videos were recorded, and data from interviews with 13 actively participating teachers were collected. School H, with its diverse student population, concentrated on the action research project "Promoting cultural integration in subject-based teaching." Although the authors participated in classroom observations and assisted teachers in refining their research proposals, their direct influence on instructional practices was limited. The materials collected included eight reflective journals from the school members dating back to the initial workshop, sixteen research proposals drafted by teachers, and insights from interviews with school members. Data analysis Thematic analysis, combining inductive and deductive logic (Braun & Clarke, 2006), was guided by Clarke and Hollingsworth's model (2002). Emergent information was expected from the data. Following Braun and Clarke's approach, initial codes and relevant themes were created, exemplified with quotes. Code validity was ensured through researcher triangulation. Codes were then grouped into themes, such as school leadership, district leadership and teacher educators’ factors.

The paper contributes to global discussions on enhancing understanding of diverse practices and effective strategies in systematic school improvement across various cultural and educational contexts. (1) The principal's judgment determines whether the school genuinely wishes to take part in a DUS partnership program. The principal of School S took full advantage of the District's opportunity for improvement and made full use of the University's assistance to put his own educational philosophy into practice. However, it appears that the principal of School H’s perception of the project was limited to a research project and only needing to produce a research report. This enables us to consider if administrative habitus has an impact on this further. Although located in District D, this school is directly under the control of the city's Municipal Commission of Education, and its principal has the same rank as the district's education commissioner. This makes us consider D's dual role in the DUS partnership further. (2) In China, the District can leverage its administrative authority and resources to help universities and schools work together to improve schools. However, this top-down strategy can also cause the school to lose faith in the university. On the other hand, administrative logic will be incorporated into and even override academic logic in DUS partnerships that are established by District. (3) The foundation of trust is established when the school is willing to collaborate with the university. This is achieved through the precise diagnosis of the school's needs by university members. If the school does not cooperate at all, the university academics' attempts to improve the school will be like trying to cook without rice. This study explores the significant role played by the District in promoting school engagement and, based on this, proposes that the timing of different stakeholders' involvement is crucial.

Borthwick, A., Stirling, T., Nauman, A., & Cook, D. (2003). Achieving Successful School-University Collaboration. Urban Education, 38(3), 330-371. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a Model of Teacher Professional Growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947–967. Chen,X.M., & An,C.(2022). How did Teachers Learn in Boundary Crossing Lesson Study in a Chinese Secondary School? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 42(1),13-27. Cornelissen, F., McLellan, R., & Schofield, J. (2017). Fostering Research Engagement in Partnership Schools: Networking and Value Creation. Oxford Review of Education, 43(6), 695-717. Farrell,C.C., Penuel,W. R., Allen,A., Anderson,E.R., Bohannon,A.X., Coburn,C.E.&Brown,S. L.(2022).Learning at the Boundaries of Research and Practice: A Framework for Understanding Research-Practice Partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51 (3),197-208. Fullan M (2009). Large-scale Reform Comes of Age. Journal of Educational Change, 10: 101–113. Fisher,J.,&Firestone,W.(2006).Teacher Learning in a School-University Partnership: Exploring the Role of Social Trust and Teaching Efficacy Beliefs. The teacher college record,108(6),1155-1185. Henrick,E.C.,Cobb,P.,Penuel,W.R.,Jackson,K.&Clark,T.(2017).Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness. William T.Grant Foundation. Kamler,E.,Szpara,M.,Dornisch,M.,Goubeaud,K.,Levine,G.,&Brechtel,S.(2009).Realities of a School-University Partnership: Focus on Leadership. Journal of school leadership,19(1),81-117. Kershner, R., Pedder, D., & Doddington, C. (2013). Professional Learning during a Schools-University Partnership Master of Education Course: Teachers’ Perspectives of their Learning Experiences. Teachers and Teaching, 19(1), 33-49. Marsh, B. (2019). Developing a Project within a School-University Partnership: Factors that Influence Effective Partnership Working. Research Papers in Education, 36(2), 233-256. Maskit, D. and Orland-Barak, L. (2015). University-School Partnerships: Student Teachers’ Evaluations across Nine Partnerships in Israel. Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy, 41(3), 285-306. Miller, A., Reyes, J., Wyttenbach, M., & Ezeugwu, G. (2022). The limits of the “system of schools” approach: superintendent perspectives on change efforts in U.S. catholic school systems. Journal of Educational Change, 24(4), 943-970. Peters,J.(2002).University-School Collaboration: Identifying Faulty Assumption. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,30(3),229-242. Qian H.Y. and Walker A. (2020). System Reform in China: Mobilising and Sharing Resources across Schools. In: Harris A and Jones MS (eds) Leading and Transforming Education Systems: Evidence, Insights, Critiques and Reflections. Singapore: Springer, 33–46. Shinners, K. (2006). Follow the Leader. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(3), 206-214.