Practicum Partnership SA Model of Practicum Partnership between Schools of Teacher Education Presented at NAFEA Conference 2008 by Jenny Cox & Jane Mitchell.

Practicum Partnership

SA Model of Practicum Partnership between Schools of Teacher Education

Presented at NAFEA Conference 2008 by

Jenny Cox & Jane Mitchell – Tabor Adelaide, SA

“FINDERS / KEEPERS”

“Finders/Keepers”

RULES

Game 1

1. FINDERS need to get rid of as many of their coloured cards as possible by exchanging them for a ‘blue’ KEEPERS card.

2. FINDERS may not exchange cards with another FINDER.

3. KEEPERS may choose whether or not they will exchange cards with FINDERS.

4. KEEPERS may or may not give reasons for not exchanging cards.

“Finders/Keepers”

RULESGame 21. FINDERS may only swap cards with their

designated KEEPER:A – yellowB – greenC – redD – orange

2. Yellow, green and red FINDERS may approach orange FINDERS, to get permission to swap cards with D also.

3. KEEPERS – it may or may not be to your advantage to swap cards

A Partnership is…

…a formal agreement between two or more entities who work together in pursuit of common goals;1

…a relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.2

Partnering… with whom?

Pre-service Teachers Sites – Mentor Teachers, Site Coordinators University Liaison Staff Governing bodies eg. Teachers Registration

Board of South Australia, Department of Education and Children’s Services, Catholic Education, Lutheran Education Australia, Association of Independent Schools of SA

Have you thought about…

partnering with other universities/colleges?

“The Enemy”

What is your perception of other universities or colleges?

“The Enemy”

Do you have an existing relationship with other providers (universities/colleges)?

Would you like more people ‘on your side’?

Do you want a bigger ‘voice’?

SA Model of Practicum Partnership

The current group was established in 2000 Teacher Education course providers in SA:

Flinders University Adelaide University University of South Australia Tabor Adelaide

Established to discuss issues relating to Professional Experience arising from concerns voiced by sites


Concerns from Sites: Receive multiple requests from several

providers of Teacher Education Variety of programs Varying time frames of practicum (duration

and the school term)


How can this process be rationalised?

How can we limit the number of requests to sites?


Solution: Allocate specific sites to each School of

Teacher Education Establish protocols between Schools of

Teacher Education


So….

How was this achieved?


University/College representatives sat down and went through the list of all schools in the metropolitan and greater metropolitan areas and with:

Collaboration, Cooperation, and Compromise,

were able to allocate sites to each university.


Initially, the primary schools were nominally placed with each provider depending on factors such as:

Relationships already established Location Specific course areas (eg. early childhood,

language specialties, etc)

Gawler

Murray Bridge

Victor Harbor

Approximate area included in SA

Practicum Partnership for

professional experience in

primary schools


This, however, was just a starting point.

A letter of explanation about the new Practicum Partnership was sent to sites.

The various school systems and sites themselves had, and still have, a choice about whether or not they would participate in the partnership arrangement and work with the nominated School of Teacher Education.


These arrangements were not designed to exclude access to a particular site by pre-service teachers from other providers, but to provide a framework around which we can be guided.

The ‘home provider’ can approach the other providers as necessary for specific requests.


We aim to work with the other providers, not against them.


So what are the ongoing concerns of the Practicum Partnership?


Ongoing Concerns: Review partnership sites – swapping, adding,

deleting as required Work with key stakeholders eg. DECS, TRB to

ensure their requirements are being met as far as Professional Experience in concerned, and providing them periodically with statistics

Provide support for each other Share information


Ongoing Concerns (cont): We are a central body to which members and

others can address issues Review reporting procedures and changes to

requirements Brief other providers on major course changes

which may affect them.


Currently, this partnership is intended for Primary placements only.

It was deemed neither necessary nor practical at the initial set up of the partnership that secondary placements be approached in the same way due to the specific nature of student placement requirements with regard to subject majors. Some secondary schools, however, have chosen to work with just one or two universities for reasons outlined previously.


Positives: Sites receive only one set of requests for

placements to be considered each semester or year

Effective communication is established with one School of Teacher Education regarding practicum placements and management of the in-school program

Sites become familiar with the timing, structure, expectations, assessment and reporting of programs


Positives (cont): Cost effective - time, money, emotional energy Simplified processing of claims for payment of

supervising personnel Clustering of pre-service teachers in sites will

facilitate effective practicum supervision and peer interaction

Schools of Teacher Education work together and not in competition so much which builds positive relationships


Positives (cont): United voice when facing issues eg.

Government requirement regarding the number of practicum days

All sites on the master list are approached each year – no site gets forgotten!


Negatives: Site Supervisor might move to another school Limited resources – allocated sites may not

have the required placement eg. specific year level for a particular pre-service teacher

Site wanting to select which provider(s) they associate with

Some schools react negatively to the concept of being “owned”.


Conclusion:Overall, we have found that the benefits gained

from this partnership far outweigh the time and effort taken to establish it.

We have formed a collaborative, cooperative system where members are respected and encouraged.

As a result of the Practicum Partnership, relationships have been strengthened between the sites and individual Schools of Teacher Education, and between the Schools of Education themselves.

Group Session

How might this model work for your situation?

Arrange yourselves in State/Regional groups.

Group Session

Questions to Consider:1. What is your current catchment area?2. What would be your ideal working relationship with

a school?3. Who are the stakeholders in your particular region?4. What impacts do your placements have on other

universities/colleges? Eg. Regional areas5. How much do other states impact on you? Do you

really know?6. Can the SA model be implemented in your

particular circumstances?


References:1. (2004-2008) Definition of Partnership [online] SVPM, Montreal

http://www.spvm.qc.ca/EN/service/1_5_3_1_definition-partenariat.asp [Accessed 14 Nov 2008]

2. (2008) Definition: Partnership [online] Free Dictionary by Farlex Inc. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/partnership [Accessed 14 Nov 2008]

3. (2000-2008) Atlas of South Australia [online] Government of South Australia http://www.atlas.sa.gov.au/images/RRegMaps2Adelaide.jpg [Accessed 14 Nov 2008]

Practicum Partnership SA Model of Practicum Partnership between Schools of Teacher Education Presented at NAFEA Conference 2008 by Jenny Cox & Jane Mitchell.

Documents