very much in line with the current focus of schools to build capacity within their
own staff in the targeted areas due to government priorities.
This programme is under intense scrutiny and is being monitored by four separate
processes—Ministry of Education contract monitoring, independent monitoring by
an external agency appointed by the Ministry of Education, external monitoring by
the Education Council New Zealand and an embedded developmental evaluation
funded by the university. Evaluations are indicating we are delivering high-quality
programmes at the appropriate postgraduate level and student teacher quality is high.
However these evaluations are highlighting the importance of building mentor
teacher and lecturer capacity, developing a shared vision and understanding of the
conceptual framework between schools and university and the intensive and
time-consuming process required by schools and university to implement the pro-
gramme in its true spirit.
The evaluations are also highlighting the tensions between concurrently devel-
oping a practice base and supporting academic work at postgraduate level.
Providing time and resources to build capacity and establish roles of school
mentors and university lecturers in the school context is a difficult process when
these people are responsible for running their own teaching programmes which
have high contact and assessment loads. Building capacity is not an overnight
process and we are certainly undergoing a steep learning curve to ensure we enact
the programme in the way it is intended.
15.4 Case Study: University of Auckland
15.4.1 Background
The practicum has long been considered to be a critical component of the
University of Auckland’s ITE programmes. However, while the faculty has enjoyed
positive relationships with its practicum schools we were also aware that student
teachers’practicum experiences could be variable and that there was often a dis-
connect between the campus and practicum components of teacher education
programmes.
15.4.1.1 Reframing Practicum Project (RPP)
Our response to addressing such issues was the Reframing Practicum Project (RPP),
which began in 2008. Over the course of that year we worked with 20 primary
principals with whom we had long-standing practicum relationships to develop a
different approach to thefinal practicum in a 3-year undergraduate primary teacher
education degree. The focus of the project was on rethinking roles, relationships
and sites for the practicum with the aim of the more effective preparation of
beginning teachers through the development of more robust and authentic
230 B. Cooper and L. Grudnoff