that this created for students and this is readily understandable in
training which is based on subject expertise, a factor reflected
in institutional and departmental arrangements. It underlines again
that the diversity seen by Patrick et al does not consist of an
institutional and organised response to changing and variable
conditions
in schools
and classrooms
which however may become the
career realities for substantial groups
of young teachers.
Despite the claims of the importance of practice there is no indication
that this implies or is based upon collaboration with schools. In
a sense schools as they are present problems both for staff and for
students that are not resolved by the emphasis upon the priority
of the university in, for example, selection of schools, and assess-
ment of students. Behind the hesitancy and the reluctance for
partnership shown in the research is an awareness that student teachers
need a special place in the school and one that schools with their
own
create
commitment have in the past not always found it possible
and sustain. But university departments appear to be
reluctant
to take
responsibility for this in the structure of their
relationship with
schools. Underlying this there may be a more
intangible source
dislocation
that concerns what university
departments see
as
good schools
a good education, good pupils and
good classes.
traditions
from the selective secondary
with the
grammar and the
independent schools from where
substantial numbers of their students have come and where some will
return as teachers. It may be that the maintenance of quality, the
preservation of standards, legitimate concerns of universities and
teacher education, has within
a logic of separateness that
defines the limits of partnership.