229When communication factors are in deficit, we have found that they act as barri-
ers to successful implementation of paired placement models. There is a greater
need of relationship management between schools that deliver the program and the
university, particularly as the implementation of the model expands. A strategy in
response to this need for stronger relationships was the implementation of regular
school visits, managed by an Academic Liaison Team of adjunct academics to build
up a relationship with the school over the year.
The implementation of Model B has become more complex as the paired place-
ment model expands across year levels and cohorts. The opportunity was opened to
third year students in their final semester in 2015. We found that some supervising
teachers needed to be reminded that third year students have different requirements
from fourth year or master’s level students. It is a challenge to pair students in the
same year level because Model B is opt in, not mandatory. While the university has
ensured that they communicated this with the supervising teachers, the feedback has
been that this is not an ideal situation. Despite the opportunity for our third year
students to be mentored informally by fourth year or master’s level students, the
university has discontinued this practice.
Discussion
In this chapter we have presented two models of paired placement implemented to
accommodate the economic and political drivers of initial teacher education in
Australia. These paired placement models cannot eliminate all tensions related to
professional experience, however. In practice, developing innovative school part-
nerships takes time and resources. The models of paired placement in professional
experience that we have presented in this chapter are usually advantageous to those
who participate (Lang et al., 2015 ; Nguyen, 2013 ) and satisfy some of the political
drivers by providing an authentic transition into the profession. However, in our
experience, there are a series of operational barriers and challenges. Neither model
would be successful without professional and academic staff setting up contracts,
accommodating local curricula and maintaining strong communication between
universities and schools.
We each have experienced greater success using these models with one cohort of
preservice teachers from one degree program. Complexities arose with Model B
when a variety of cohorts had the option of undertaking the model, which intro-
duced difficulties in timetabling in two campus locations. The different structure of
the annual calendar in schools and semesters in university presents challenges in
timetabling that require extra planning and administrative overload. We have also
each noted the importance of the school and university commitment required to
enable the program to succeed. Supervising teachers need time to meet and discuss
with preservice teachers and university academic mentors. University academic
mentors must be allocated time to visit schools. These meetings must be part of
teachers’ and academics’ workload, and when this occurs, the model works best.
13 Paired Placements in Intensified School and University Environments: Advantages...