For many years the Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland has relied extensively on the teaching internship as a means of affording prospective teachers an opportunity to integrate theory and practice in an educational setting. More recently within the Reflective and Critical Internship Programme and resulting QUAD relationship of cooperating teacher, intern supervisor, intern and subject matter, efforts have been undertaken to enhance and facilitate valuable educational experiences through which interrelationships among components of the university program might be brought into focus through the teaching experience. This exercise of facilitation has assumed different formats over the past decade leading to development of the present internship delivery model.

Notice from Government on July 1, 1988 concerning introduction of a compulsory internship as the prerequisite for teacher certification mandated that all student interns spend one semester (approximately thirteen weeks) in a school setting engaged in teaching activities. To meet this demand faculty members, normally as part of their teaching responsibility, were encouraged to assume supervisory roles -- undertaking the supervision of some five to ten students as the equivalent of one instructional course section within their workloads. The difficulty with this arrangement was that there were simply never enough faculty members available to supervise the large number of student interns. To overcome this situation efforts were undertaken to second practising teachers to the supervisory role on both a per school and regional basis with very positive results. However, two major problems emerged at this stage of evolutionary development -- minimal intern placement in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and spiralling financial costs.

Under this supervisory arrangement a majority of interns were placed in schools within St. John's/Mount Pearl and surrounding areas resulting in too few students being located throughout rural Newfoundland and Labrador simply because intern supervision was difficult to arrange. As a result many schools and school districts were being denied an opportunity to participate in the professional development of future educators. Along with this logistics shortcoming the sheer cost associated with supervisory secondments exceeded the ability of the Faculty of Education to finance. As a result, attention was turned to exploring alternative delivery modes.

There is an old saying that necessity is the mother of invention! Certainly forces at work within the Faculty of Education served as a catalyst for the need to seriously pursue the issue of an alternative mode of internship supervision. To begin with the Faculty underwent a radical downsizing from 91 members in 1986-87 to 48 members in 1996-97. This sizeable decrease in staff complement dictated that with fewer bodies to cover existing programmes, insufficient faculty were available for supervising interns. Moreover, the total faculty budget was continuously being pared, thereby eliminating any possibility of continuing with teacher secondments or realizing faculty expansion. And so the stage was set for some very serious decision making. Since the very existence of the Faculty of Education hinged on the preparation of teachers, and since the preparation of teachers necessitated undertaking a full semester of internship, a bold and innovative solution to the existing dilemma had to be created . The result has become what we now refer to as the University-School District Partnership.¹

The initial building blocks for the current model of internship delivery lay in the very essence of the internship QUAD. Clearly both the field and the Faculty of Education were active participants in the professional formation of student interns, with the former serving as cooperating teachers and the latter fulfilling a supervisory role. Why not consider the possibility of forging a partnership between school district and Faculty whereby the district would be paid to orient, place and supervise interns while the Faculty would fulfil an overall coordinative role? If the Faculty would supply each district with all necessary placement and evaluative material relative to the student interns, why couldn't the district in turn assign intern supervisory responsibilities to competent and capable educators -- principals, central office staff, teams of teachers, etc.? Thus the stage was set in the Fall of 1993 to launch this delivery mode in five Newfoundland and Labrador school districts. A legal contract duly signed by each participating party -- district and Faculty -- formalized the undertaking of responsibility for internship supervision by each district partner.

From the outset the University - School District partnership proved quite popular with those districts involved. Student interns who otherwise could not have been directly supervised by the Faculty in the more rural areas of this Province were now able to be placed in their home districts. Each district assigned a central office staff person to the task of placing, orienting and ensuring that each intern was supervised and evaluated according to the expectations of the Faculty of Education. Each school in turn assigned the intern to a cooperating teacher. For the most part school principals acted in the role of intern supervisor. While this input from principals has been appreciated it has proven to be a restrictive factor of the model which is only now being addressed. It was never the intention of this partnership to have principals assume supervisory responsibility unless that individual wished to do so. The reason for this was quite obvious -- role responsibilities of principals simply precluded the contribution of time required for effective intern supervision. Yet, despite concerns of principals of being overburdened and the best efforts of this Faculty to encourage teachers, vice-principals, department heads and/or central office coordinators to assume this supervisory role, many school principals still view their supervisory participation as essential to the success of this model and are therefore determined to remain so involved.

Throughout the first years of operation this partnership model both the Faculty of Education and districts were frustrated by a lack of procedural consistency regarding intern observation and evaluation. This was a fair criticism but interestingly the model itself was not the problem. Instead it was obvious that the plethora of forms used to observe and evaluate interns were in need of revision in accordance with the new delivery model. In fact these forms were so poorly received that some districts began to create their own instruments -- something that was not allowed under the terms and conditions of the contract entered into by the district and the Faculty. The message was again loud and clear: districts were asking this Faculty to re-examine the evaluation and observation instruments with a view to developing new formats and create instructional guidelines for their use. These newly designed instruments and handbook are now being piloted during Fall 1997.

Achieving standardization in practice required the Faculty of Education to follow further advice from districts to improve the presence of the University in school districts over the duration of the semester long internship. To accomplish this two additional roles were created, namely, district liaison officer and internship professional development officer. Again, it can be seen that this partnership has thrived on the responsiveness of each participant's requests for refinements -- the Faculty to requests for improving standardization in practice and improvement of communication, and the districts to requests for improved communication between central office and schools along with improved clustering of interns throughout each district to facilitate district liaison. Through continuous monitoring by the Office of Undergraduate Student Services, this partnership model has expanded in usage throughout the Province, becoming more effective and user friendly in the process. Currently nine of the Province's ten school districts are involved in this partnering process². The large urban district of Avalon East with its close proximity to the University has not yet participated but is considering the possibility of doing so in the near future once a piloting process has been put in place.

The current University-School District Partnership is predicated on the underlying assumption that an extended practicum is necessary to the training of teachers. Delivery of the teaching internship through this model has greatly assisted the Faculty of Education in affording prospective teachers an opportunity to acquire already critical teaching skills while interning in various provincial school districts. Clearly this partnership has already exhibited a number of strengths, some of which include an opportunity for students to return to their home districts during the internship; an opportunity for students to be placed within districts so as to maximize their contact with district resources; and the opportunity for school districts to observe potential employees. Too, this partnership has enabled experienced teachers in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to pass on their expertise to interns.

This internship partnership operates across the semester in a manner similar to many other teaching internships throughout the country--the difference being the extent of school district involvement in the supervisory role. The district assigns each intern to a cooperating teacher and also identifies a supervisor to work with both the intern and cooperating teacher over the 13 week internship period. Formative and summative evaluation of intern performance is conducted through the use of university-approved evaluation instruments. As usual the cooperating teacher and supervisor prepare individual reports on each intern's progress.

University assistance is provided to each partner district throughout the semester. The district liaison officer has responsibilities for meeting with cooperating teachers, interns, supervisors and principals in individual school districts within the first three weeks of a semester; facilitating at a further point in the semester a reflective session for interns in each district to focus on topics of general concern such as teacher welfare matters, reflective journal writing, evaluation, etc.; maintaining communication links with intern supervisors in the school districts to ensure procedural standardization; serving as a troubleshooter; and liaising with the coordinator of undergraduate programs. The internship professional development officer is a faculty member who is responsible for the development and delivery of professional in-service for cooperating teachers and supervisors as deemed necessary. A major initiative in this regard took place in the Fall of 1997.

Successful operation of this University - School District Partnership has required the Office of Undergraduate Student Services, as that arm of the Faculty of Education directly responsible for undergraduate programs, to assume an active role in the overall coordination of the internship experience.³ This Office answers questions pertaining to all aspects of the internship program; advises on matters of attendance, unprofessional conduct, intern performance, etc.; arranges for all required materials to be sent to the districts; trouble shoots; liaises with the district liaison officers; and updates the Associate Dean, Undergraduate Programs on all ongoing internship matters.

The very nature of this partnership model requires each district central office to assume critical role responsibilities. These include selecting cooperating teachers and supervisors; providing (and updating) the Faculty of Education with details of the placement and supervision arrangements for interns; briefing school personnel about the internship program and distributing material provided by the Faculty of Education; providing information to school personnel regarding the professional background of interns; working with cooperating teachers and interns in designing a program of activities; arranging an orientation session for interns at the beginning of the semester; whenever possible including interns in district professional development activities; holding discussions with cooperating teachers, supervisors, and interns; keeping the Faculty of Education informed of any problems in the intern's program; compiling and returning the district grade report (to contain grades for all interns in the district) to the Faculty of Education as soon as possible following the end date of the internship; and ensuring that the Faculty of Education receives a complete evaluation file for each intern.

Role responsibilities assigned to cooperating teachers, interns, and principals follow on those traditionally ascribed to these positions. However, in those instances where the principal is also the supervisor he/she assumes the following supervisory responsibilities: observing the intern teaching at least once every 6-10 school days; assisting the intern in the critical-reflective analysis of the relationship between theory and practice with the intent of improving practice; conferring with the cooperating teacher regarding the intern's progress; preparing reports of the intern's progress and discussing these reports with the intern; and monitoring the overall professional development of the intern.

The Faculty of Education at Memorial University of Newfoundland remains confident that the University-School District Partnership will continue to provide an effective avenue for encouraging increased school district involvement in the formation of prospective teachers. To this end the Faculty is committed to providing opportunity for professional in-service of cooperating teachers and supervisors. Whereas this has been a long held goal of the Faculty, the first such undertaking occurred in October, 1997. During this time a two-day pilot seminar was held for representatives from four Newfoundland and Labrador school districts. Each participating district sent two experienced cooperating teachers (one primary/elementary and one secondary) along with the central office staff member responsible for district internship coordination to an intensive two-day session at Littledale Conference Centre in St. John's. Participants lived in residence during the two day seminar during which critical-reflective pedagogical presentations were made by members of the Faculty of Education. While attending this Professional In-Service and Strategic Planning Seminar, participants dialogued with members of the Faculty of Education to accomplish two major goals: a critical examination of the pedagogy underlying the role of the cooperating teacher in a critical-reflective internship experience, and collective development of a strategy for meeting the ongoing professional needs of cooperating teachers and supervisors in all districts currently participating in this partnership model. This two-day experience was designed to contribute to improved communication between the field and the Faculty as well as pave the way for district identified lead/master teachers to assume, in addition to their cooperating teacher role, greater prominence in the supervision of interns. Given that the Faculty of Education bears ultimate responsibility for the teaching internship, this session represented one of the few occasions when re presentatives from the faculty and the field were able to sit down together in a "think tank" environment to communicate and improve upon an already successful partnership venture.

The future of the University-School District Partnership is promising. Born from a need to deliver an internship unique in its innovative outreach to provincial school districts, the partnership model is rooted in the strong belief that the pre-education of teachers is a jointly held responsibility of the Faculty of Education and the profession. This belief has not been based on any desire to shift or deny the responsibility of the Faculty of Education for initial teacher education but on the firm belief that the best teacher education programs in the country are those with active participation by practising teachers. The real benefit has been to interns who can now be totally supervised by current practising teachers. Under this approach, interns can become more fully integrated into the school and thus the profession at an earlier stage.

Considerable work remains to be done to hone the effectiveness of this model. Partnerships by their very definition require continuous attention to the needs satisfaction of participants. That there remains those who are somewhat skeptical regarding the long term viability of this venture is understandable. Change is a phenomenon affecting individuals, groups and organizations in a variety of ways. However, time, effective communication and increased opportunities to become involved in the operation of this partnership are essential to the garnering of individual/group support and ownership. While there are those who may feel that the Faculty has given up control of the internship, there is every opportunity to demonstrate that rather than losing control this Faculty has gained a partner in delivering a more effective internship experience and, in the process, has experienced a sharing of control. There never has been nor will there ever be any attempt to move the internship away from the Faculty of Education whose responsibility it is by legal mandate. Rather this model has provided a professional working partnership with the field which many say is long overdue. It remains for this Faculty, through ventures such as the Professional In-Service and Strategic Planning Seminar this Fall, to provide ongoing guidance and direction to the field regarding internship delivery and, in return, be receptive to advice received. After all, is this not the very essence of an effective partnership?