79
sible for the conduct of courses.
They examine the nature of the
supervisory relationship and comment
One possibility is that supervision is used to
counteract the influence of the school, and
therefore help explain the apparent decline in school
may
effect over the year .....
It is suggested that if the
in
sympathy with school
norms
supervising teacher is
and sees the acceptance
process as inducing them he will play down Supervison.
If he does not want the student to conform to staff
norms, he will supervise quite closely. The effect
of this would be that to turn out informally-oriented
teachers in a basically formal Grammer school would
require a considerable amount of ’countervailing
influence' through supervision. (1973 Ch6 P58)
This not only suggests that teachers have a considerable amount of
autonomy in their supervision but also that they have considerable
power in relation
to student attitudes and behaviour (1973 Ch6 P67).
Such a finding is
critical whether
teacher
training moves to embrace
partnership with schools
and hence' give an enhanced role to teachers
or whether school and university
relatively separate thus
When the outcome of the Sussex
giving to teachers power by default.
scheme is examined it is noted that the extension of the tutor role
into the school produced protective constraints on students regarding
the types of teaching they were able to take on. Although students
worked with the teacher-tutors this did not influence the amount
of joint preparation or teaching nor indeed the degree to which students
felt accepted into their teaching practice schools (1973 Ch8 P25).
Here it may be seen that prevailing conceptions of teaching and
training as an individual pursuit die hard and that a long apprentice-
ship and initiation is seen as essential. Equally the structure
of the course was at
the
same
working in ways unanticipated
in its design to heighten and prolong tension between the institutions.