The Collective Impact in ‘Creating’ a Teacher-Lessons Learned from Participation in a Grow-Your-Own Initiative

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting topic.

Do not add citations in the abstract.

Reduce the number of keywords.

It would be advisable to add an image to support the text in the introduction and the objective at the end, along with more bibliography.

The results mention a spreadsheet that might be interesting to add to give more weight to this point.

Increase the font size of the figures.

Add limitations and future studies.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. Please see below how we have addressed your comments.

1	Do not add citations in the abstract.	This has been updated so that there are no citations within the abstract.
	Reduce the number of keywords.	The number of keywords has been reduced.
	The results mention a spreadsheet that might be interesting to add to give more weight to this point.	Due to FERPA, we are unable to add this image to the manuscript.
	Increase the font size of the figures.	Font size of images has been increased.
	Add limitations and future studies.	These have been added following the conclusion section of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised manuscript. Your current version is much better and I could tell that you put a lot of effort to improve your manuscript. 

Nevertheless, I suggest to revise the conclusion section as well, focusing on implementing your results in a variety of academic fields while emphasizing the adaptations that should be considered in different disciplines.  

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. Please see below how we have addressed your comments.

2

I suggest to revise the conclusion section as well, focusing on implementing your results in a variety of academic fields while emphasizing the adaptations that should be considered in different disciplines.

A couple of sentences have been added to the end of the conclusion that discusses other talent pipelines outside of education.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research uses a qualitative self-study design that is appropriate. The concentration on a Grow-Your-Own (GYO) program aligns with the imperative to tackle pressing educational workforce issues. The contextual applicability of this work is clear—it provides useful information about how school districts and universities can partner to address teacher shortages by helping paraprofessionals become certified teachers. The innovation of the manuscript is not in theory creation but in its thorough description of program design and its reflective, collaborative process. The manuscript is well-organized overall and proceeds logically from context to conclusion.

The literature review references a broad range of sources, effectively reinforcing the urgency of the teacher shortage and the importance of diversifying the teaching workforce. While the phrase "collective impact" is mentioned numerous times, it is not theorized in-depth nor is theoretical literature drawn upon. Including seminal writings that both define and utilize collective impact frameworks (e.g., Kania & Kramer, 2011) would provide theoretical depth and allow readers to more fully grasp the collaborative model that the authors are trying to present.

The methods section appropriately identifies self-study as the chosen design and outlines the use of multiple data sources, including planning documents, interviews, and participant feedback. Triangulation, memoing, and member checking are named and correspond to qualitative best practices. The inclusion of critical friends and an audit trail also serves to add trustworthiness. These processes, although, are described at a superficial level. The article would be strengthened with more description of how raw data were analyzed—that is, how inductive themes emerged and how interpretations were checked. Inclusion of representative quotations, data excerpts, or a table explaining the coding process would allow transparency and make the analysis more credible.

The presentation of findings through inductive thematic analysis is is clearly structured around the recruitment, enrollment, and retention core categories. Lessons learned and program development are clearly communicated through the text. Some general descriptive information to provide additional weight and clarity to the findings would enhance the analysis. Consider reporting participant numbers, demographic makeup, or how prevalent certain themes were across data sources. I think, inclusion of a summary table linking broad themes to data quotations and response frequencies would improve analytic rigor and reader accessibility.

The discussion section is a strength of the manuscript, offering concrete, actionable insights that are useful for institutional partners seeking to replicate or adapt the model. It reflects a deep understanding of the systems-level changes required to support GYO participants effectively. Nonetheless, the discussion would be improved by more clearly tying the findings back to earlier literature and theoretical frameworks.

 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. Please see below how we have addressed your comments.

3	While the phrase "collective impact" is mentioned numerous times, it is not theorized in-depth nor is theoretical literature drawn upon. Including seminal writings that both define and utilize collective impact frameworks (e.g., Kania & Kramer, 2011) would provide theoretical depth and allow readers to more fully grasp the collaborative model that the authors are trying to present.	Wording has been updated throughout the manuscript that emphasizes collaboration, which more closely aligns with the point of this manuscript.
	The methods section appropriately identifies self-study as the chosen design and outlines the use of multiple data sources, including planning documents, interviews, and participant feedback. Triangulation, memoing, and member checking are named and correspond to qualitative best practices. The inclusion of critical friends and an audit trail also serves to add trustworthiness. These processes, although, are described at a superficial level. The article would be strengthened with more description of how raw data were analyzed—that is, how inductive themes emerged and how interpretations were checked.	We appreciate this comment and agree that this section could be more robust with additional information. This section has been added to.
	Some general descriptive information to provide additional weight and clarity to the findings would enhance the analysis. Consider reporting participant numbers, demographic makeup.	An N=14 with additional context has been added to line 331 and 332.
	Nonetheless, the discussion would be improved by more clearly tying the findings back to earlier literature.	Thank you; this has been done by adding relevant wording and citations from the earlier literature.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this is very important work as fewer and fewer people seem to be interested in preparing to be teachers. I applaud the work. The edits completed strengthened the article significantly. 

I would note that there is only anecdotal evidence presented for a successful outcome, no quantitative data. I am not seeing the impact on either number of candidates entering the program, or an increase in success once entered. If it is too early to know the impact, it would be well to more clearly state the timeline for opportunity to have corroborating data. 

I do not see the purpose of the figure on page 5 with the funnel. To me it is confusing and potentially misleading. It appears that you are intentionally narrowing the cohort with each level of engagement. I would hope that is not your main purpose. 

The last paragraph on page 9, lines 355-362 states that there are "four key areas" in the preparation program. It is not clear in the current statement what these are! Please number them or find another way to clarify. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for your feedback. Please see below how we have addressed your comments.

4	I am not seeing the impact on either number of candidates entering the program, or an increase in success once entered. If it is too early to know the impact, it would be well to more clearly state the timeline for opportunity to have corroborating data.	It is too early to know as the students are still in the process of completing the program. A sentence has been added describing this.
	I do not see the purpose of the figure on page 5 with the funnel. To me it is confusing and potentially misleading. It appears that you are intentionally narrowing the cohort with each level of engagement. I would hope that is not your main purpose.	This image reflects the three overarching factors that go into successful planning for a GYO program, which is what the image intends.
	The last paragraph on page 9, lines 355-362 states that there are "four key areas" in the preparation program. It is not clear in the current statement what these are! Please number them or find another way to clarify.	Thank you for this; I agree that this specific wording wasn’t needed so it has been deleted for a broader overview.