Introduction to PART 4 :
COOPERATION AND PARTNERSHIP IN TEACHER EDUCATION
Developing the practice of teaching is a complex task that needs the coordinated effort and involvement of persons at different levels: in the classroom, within a school, between a school and its environment, and between educational and political institutions. Cooperation and partnership can help to improve practice in schools, but as we see in this chapter it cannot be imposed even though it does involve different levels of cooperation. As Rudduck noted earlier partnerships are dependent on the help, trust and openness of the individuals involved. Prescribed or pressured partnerships without enduring commitment have doubtful effects. This is a central problem in the English system of reform described by Pope and her colleagues in this part.
Reform in England and Wales is based on a national curriculum and involves national student assessment that discourages local curricular initiatives and makes teachers more responsive to demands of the state and to the "market" in turn. Centrally imposed on schools such a system of control ignores teacher professional qualities and responsibilities. The effect of these constraints is partially resistance, conflicting goals and stress. However it need not be this way. University projects, for example, can offer support for new partnerships between teachers, students and tutors or between university lecturers and teachers. Such possibilities, involve partnerships which develop independently of official programs. The authors use the metaphor of a dance to describe their constructivist idea of partnership, encouraging everyone to join in and take control of their own steps.
Partnerships which may seem forced can have good effects. In the Ontario reform in technology education, described by Hill and Hopkins, pressures from the ministry of education and business and industry for increased community involvement succeeded in bringing school and community together to develop a project-based approach. In this project students were enthusiastic because they were involved in community based activities and new learning experiences. Teachers developed the confidence to risk unpredictable activities and to meet the needs of students in new ways. University lecturers were able to improve their teacher education program. Huber and his colleagues note, in the same vein, that there is a growing public demand for team work in society. Teachers seldom get the chance to get experience of or training in group work.
Huber and his colleagues found that they are aware of this demand and are willing to experiment with different approaches to cooperative in-service training: permanent seminars, collaborative relationships and fractal teaching and learning.
As we can see from these examples, the development of partnerships and cooperation is a dynamic process that depends on the experiences and insights of the persons involved. This cannot be gained by imposed control but only by a common understanding of requirements in the work situation. Universities as partners of schools can offer support and open space for this process. Government can establish the framework for effective dialogue of different partners on a basis of mutual respect and acknowledgement of teachers' professionalism.