This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 13:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Teaching EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Contract Staff in Preservice TeacherEducationClive Beck a & Clare Kosnik aa Ontario Institute for Studies in Education , University of Toronto ,Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, CanadaPublished online: 25 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Clive Beck & Clare Kosnik (2003) Contract Staff in Preservice Teacher Education,Teaching Education, 14:2, 187-200, DOI: 10.1080/1047621032000092977

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1047621032000092977

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching Education, Vol. 14, No. 2, August 2003

Contract Staff in Preservice TeacherEducationCLIVE BECK & CLARE KOSNIKOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, OntarioM5S 1V6, Canada

ABSTRACT Staff with a limited-term appointment, whether part-time or full-time, arebeing used increasingly in teacher education today. This raises the question of how it ispossible to offer a balanced preservice program when only a small proportion of the staff arepermanent academics with a career commitment to formal theory development. In this paperwe first describe a program that has attempted to resolve aspects of this problem by meansof a cohort and faculty-team approach. We then report on a study we conducted withcontract staff from this program on their experiences in the program and their perceivedeffectiveness in their role.

As soon as I was hired I felt a part of the community and was invited intothe community in a variety of ways … everybody seemed very interested inhaving me around. (Sandra, teaching assistant)

When a student teacher ended up in difficulty, I was lucky I had a teambehind me and I could come back and say, Okay … this is what thesituation is, how do we resolve this? (Sheila, seconded teacher)

There is a continuing trend in initial teacher education to employ “contract” staff;that is, individuals who have a limited-term appointment, whether part-time orfull-time, rather than a tenured or tenure-stream position. In the United Kingdom,for example, an extensive recent study found “an increasing number of staffappointed on part-time contracts and/or a greater proportion of full-timers beingappointed on temporary contracts” (Furlong, Barton, Miles, Whiting & Whitty,2000, p. 105). In their report on the study, the authors cite the case of a secondarypreservice program where permanent staff decreased from 14 in 1992 to nine in1995, despite an increase of 20% in enrolment. They note that the contract staffhired to assist in instruction often had quite high levels of responsibility in theprogram.

The contract staff employed in preservice education often include: (a) teachers,administrators, and consultants on loan or “seconded” from the school system,

ISSN 1047-6210 (print)/ISSN 1470-1286 (online)/03/020187-14 2003 School of Education, The University of QueenslandDOI: 10.1080/1047621032000092977

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

188 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

usually with the same salary and benefits as in their regular employment and withthe right to return to the school system on completion of their contract; (b) graduatestudents of education who use the contract work as a source of financial assistanceand a means of strengthening their qualifications in teacher education; (c) doctoralgraduates seeking a career in teacher education who have not yet obtained atenure-stream appointment; and (d) retired university faculty or school-system staffwho wish to continue their work in education and supplement their retirementincome.

Universities appoint contract staff to preservice programs for several reasons, amajor one being financial. While the costs to a university of secondees from theschool system are often comparable with those of permanent faculty, the costs ofother categories of contract staff are typically much less; and the long-term financialcommitment is less with contract appointments. A second reason for employingcontract staff is to ensure that a significant proportion of instructors in the preserviceprogram have recent practical knowledge of schooling. Third, contract staff arefrequently used to fill a gap in instructional expertise resulting from a temporary orongoing shortage of permanent faculty in a specific area. Finally, contract staff mustsometimes be employed because permanent faculty simply refuse to engage inpreservice education, due to its low status and lack of rewards.

In North America a division of labor often exists between tenured/tenure-streamfaculty and contract staff, the former doing much of the campus course instructionand the latter most of the practicum supervision (Slick, 1998; Tom, 1997). Such aseparation of roles may appear justified in that permanent staff usually have greaterknowledge of formal theory than contract staff. However, this arrangement tends toaccentuate the divide between the campus program and the practicum, and leavesstudent-teachers with the challenging task of applying theory on their own (Bullough& Gitlin, 1995). Furthermore, contract staff often lack the authority and theknowledge of the campus program needed to do a satisfactory job of supervision(Slick, 1998; Tom, 1997). Some writers maintain that problems such as these maybe alleviated by increased dialog between university faculty and field supervisors(Casey & Howson, 1993; Cole & Knowles, 1993). Others argue, however, thatuniversity instructors themselves must have substantial direct involvement in thefield, both to gain insights needed to develop sound theory and to support thestudent-teachers in their growth (Beck & Kosnik, 2002; Bullough & Kauchak, 1997;Ducharme & Ducharme, 1999; Murray, 1999). They reject a “trickle down” or“technical rationality” conception of professional practice, according to whichtheory is generated and disseminated at the university level and then merely appliedby practitioners (Schon, 1983).

In the United Kingdom, by contrast with North America, there has traditionallybeen an emphasis on integrating the campus program and the practicum, withpermanent university faculty playing a major role in practicum supervision. Accord-ingly, as the proportion of contract staff has increased there has been an effort toinvolve them in both course instruction and practicum supervision, mirroring thepractice of permanent faculty. However, permanent faculty in universities typicallyhave many other responsibilities apart from preservice teaching and supervision,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 189

including research and publication, graduate teaching, and general program admin-istration. Hence, as their numbers decline it is becoming increasingly difficult forthem to maintain a strong presence in the field (Furlong et al., 2000).

The question arises, then, whether the growing use of contract staff will inevitablyresult in reduced quality of teacher preparation. If one accepts (as we do) that thecampus program and the practicum should be integrated, with campus coursesaddressing both theory and practice, and those who teach the campus courses beinginvolved also in the practicum, how is this possible when only a very smallproportion of the staff are permanent academics with a career commitment to formaltheory development? How can student-teachers develop both a sound theoreticalapproach to education and effective teaching practices, under such conditions?

In our preservice cohort program at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Edu-cation, University of Toronto (OISE/UT), we have attempted to address thisproblem by means of a “faculty-team approach”, similar to that advocated byBullough and Gitlin (1995) and by Tom (1997). The general situation at ourinstitution is as described earlier: in the school of education as a whole, over 85%of preservice staff are on contract (7 years ago the figure was about 35%). In ourparticular program, with seven full-time and part-time staff, only two (the presentauthors) are permanent, and we are part-time in the program with extensive dutieselsewhere in the school of education. Furthermore, there is a high turnover ofcontract staff as secondees return to their school board and doctoral studentsgraduate. We realized early, then, that in order to achieve the kind of integratedprogram we believed in, we would have to find ways to initiate new staff quicklyinto the program and involve them fully in developing the program’s combinedtheoretical and practical approach, and implementing it throughout the program.

Several research studies conducted on our program (for example, Beck & Kosnik,2001, 2002) have suggested that our faculty-team structure works quite well fromthe point of view of the student-teachers: they speak of a consistent philosophy ofteaching and learning that pervades the program and is modeled in the teaching andsupervision practices of the staff. They believe the program arrangements help themacquire a sound general “theory” or “philosophy” of teaching as well as a repertoireof practical skills. However, we had never formally consulted the contract staffthemselves on their experience of the program and their perception of their effective-ness. The purpose of the present study was to do just this, with a view to gaininganother perspective on the integration of contract staff into the program and how itmight be enhanced. The student teachers appreciate it, but what is the experienceof the contract staff themselves? We will begin this report by providing informationon the program, the contract staff, and the methodology of our study. This will befollowed by a presentation of the findings of the study and a concluding discussion.

The Mid-Town Program and Its Contract Staff

Our 1-year, post-baccalaureate teacher education program prepares teachers for theelementary level, either primary/junior (Kindergarten to Grade 6) or junior/intermediate (Grades 4–8). Each year we have a cohort of about 65 student-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

190 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

teachers. Because of the cohort and faculty-team structure, we have the opportunityto develop an integrated program with a distinctive approach. Our program is oneof 10 elementary cohort programs at OISE/UT; it is called “Mid-Town” because ofthe location of our practicum schools in the highly multi-racial, multi-cultural urbancore of the city, just north of down-town.

One aspect of the Mid-Town approach is a sustained effort to build communitywithin the cohort, another is the integration of courses in the campus program, anda third aspect is a close connection between the campus program and the practicum.In each of the two semesters of the program, our students first do their student-teacher experience program (STEP) for 1 day a week, and then have a 4-week or5-week practice teaching session in the same school and classroom as their STEP.The STEP and the practice teaching session combined are what we call “thepracticum”. All members of the faculty team, including subject specialists andfoundations instructors, serve as practicum supervisors. Each of us is responsible forfrom one to three schools, depending on the extent of our appointment in theprogram; we visit our schools often to support both the student-teachers and theassociate teachers.

In 2000–2001, the year of this study, the staffing of the Mid-Town program wasas follows.

• Sheila: Elementary teacher seconded from a local school board; full-time inMid-Town; first year in full-time teacher education; Co-Coordinator and instruc-tor in Mid-Town; for many years an “associate teacher” (the term we use for“mentor” or “cooperating” teachers) with Mid-Town; has an M.Ed. degree.

• Andrew: Elementary teacher seconded from a school board; full-time in Mid-Town; first year in full-time teacher education; Co-Coordinator and instructor inMid-Town; formerly an associate teacher for another university; a doctoralstudent at OISE/UT.

• Elizabeth: Elementary principal seconded from a school board; first year in teachereducation; teaching assistant in Mid-Town (10 hours per week, although sheworked more); a doctoral student at OISE/UT.

• Marcus: Formerly a high school teacher and then teacher educator in scienceeducation in Kenya; second year with Mid-Town as a teaching assistant (10 hoursper week); studied teacher education in the UK; a doctoral student at OISE/UT.

• Sandra: Formerly a high school teacher; 2 years of part-time experience in teachereducation in another part of Canada; first year with Mid-Town as a teachingassistant (10 hours per week); a doctoral student at OISE/UT.

• Clare: Tenure-track faculty member in Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning atOISE/UT; established the Mid-Town program 13 years ago while part-time inteacher education; teaches the Language Arts course in Mid-Town; Director ofElementary Teacher Education at OISE/UT; also teaches at the graduate level.

• Clive: Tenured faculty member in Curriculum, Teaching, and Learning at OISE/UT; has been half-time in Mid-Town for 7 years; teaches the School and Societycourse in Mid-Town; also teaches half-time at the graduate level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 191

Research Methodology

The data source for the study was a semi-structured interview conducted individu-ally with four of the Mid-Town contract staff in summer 2001, just after the end ofthe program year. The fifth contract staff member, Andrew, was not available forinterview. The same questions were asked in all the interviews, but probe questionswere also asked and additional comment was encouraged. Most of the questionswere open-ended. The interviews were about 1 hour in length; they were tape-recorded and the tapes transcribed. The names of contract staff and partner schoolshave been replaced by pseudonyms in this report.

In analyzing the transcripts, we began by reading them several times to identifythemes related to the interviewees’ experience of the program and their perceptionsof its effectiveness or otherwise. For each theme we developed terms/phrases or“codes” that seemed to capture the point the interviewees were making. Based onour growing familiarity with the transcripts, we developed a draft outline of findingsand placed the themes under each general heading; then, going through thetranscripts again, we recorded the pages on which reference was made to eachtheme. During this process it became apparent that some themes should be deleted,combined, or modified and new ones added. We then began writing the report,going back to the transcripts to elaborate the themes and gather representativequotations; as we continued the writing and checking process, we found we had tomake further changes to the structure.

The methodology employed in this study was qualitative, as defined by Punch(1998). For example, we were participant observers, we had a small sample (the fourinterviewees), our interviews were largely open-ended, our data were often notexpressed numerically, we made extensive use of examples and quotations inreporting, and our concepts and hypotheses were modified as the analysis pro-ceeded. There was some reference to “quantities” in our reporting: we oftenindicated the number of interviewees who held a particular view. Following Ham-mersley (1992), Merriam (1998), and Punch (1998), we believe such informationcan be relevant even in a qualitative study. However, our inquiry was still primarilyinterpretive in nature. For example, the coding of responses was obviously partly amatter of judgment, and the meaning attached to each code or theme depended onour interpretation of the interviewees’ responses.

In considering our research methodology, it is important to recognize two limita-tions of the study. First, the contract staff in our program—and hence thoseinterviewed—were a distinctive group, who could only comment on a subset of theissues commonly raised with respect to contract staff in preservice education. Afrequent complaint in teacher education is that, in order to economize, universitieshire doctoral graduates on a stipend basis rather than giving them a regularappointment. As a result these staff lack permanent status, have a very heavyworkload, and receive much less pay per unit of work than permanent faculty. Thecontract staff in our study, by contrast, were either on loan from their school board,with a higher level of pay than most junior university faculty, or were current doctoralstudents, glad of the experience and additional financial support afforded by their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

192 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

contract work. In either case, the contract staff were satisfied with their employmentsituation, which in part explains their satisfaction with the program as a whole, andwere not in a position to speak to the problem of “exploited” doctoral graduatesworking under conditions of “work intensification”.

A further limitation of the study was that Mid-Town is an unusual program. Sinceits inception, this cohort-based subprogram has been guided by a distinctive philo-sophy of integration of theory and practice, which makes practitioners feel respectedand at home, and gives them a sense of being able to contribute to all aspects of theprogram. The program also emphasizes collaboration and cooperative leadershipand seeks to find innovative ways to make these a reality. Once again, these specialqualities of the program helped explain the positive attitudes of the interviewees, andalso meant that they could not comment (except through hearsay) on the experienceof contract staff in other types of program, whether at OISE/UT or elsewhere.

With such a distinctive sample and context, what could our study contribute toknowledge about contract staff in preservice education? The central questionspursued in the study were rather narrow in scope. We wished to obtain theinterviewees’ views on: (a) whether it is possible to have an effective teacher educationprogram involving a large proportion of contract staff; and (b) if so, what are someof the conditions of success in these circumstances? While this focus was limited, webelieved the study had the potential to be of considerable significance.

Findings

In general, the contract staff interviewed felt comfortable in the Mid-Town programand believed they were able to play a productive role, promoting the goals of theprogram. Furthermore, they attributed their effectiveness in part to the fact that theywere full members of the Mid-Town faculty team and received constant guidanceand support from the team. In presenting the findings, we shall often quote theinterviewees at some length to capture the finer nuances of their responses and toindicate more fully the meaning of the concepts and themes that emerged.

The Contract Staff Reported Being Included and Supported in the Program, and LearningFrom Their Involvement

Participation in the preservice program was a generally positive experience for thecontract staff. For example, they had a sense of belonging both on the faculty teamand in the cohort community. Sandra commented: “As soon as I was hired I felt apart of the community and was invited into the community in a variety ofways … everybody seemed very interested in having me around”. Elizabeth said:“What I really liked immediately was the idea of community and support … I washappily surprised that it wasn’t as isolating as graduate work can be”.

Beyond the general sense of inclusion, which was personally important, thecontract staff described the support and mentoring they received in their workassignments. Marcus said: “I found the Mid-Town staff to be very supportive:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 193

everyone would help you … that is the strength of being part of a cohort team”.Sandra remarked: “I had the feeling that the mentorship was there, if ever I neededit or wanted it … I knew I could go to anyone on the team and get support”. Sheilaobserved: “I hadn’t done a lot of teaching with adults … [but] I found the wholeteam very supportive, right from day one … they came into classes and everyone wasgood with feedback, just being really positive”.

Another positive aspect of the experience mentioned by all the interviewees washow much they learned. Sheila said: “Overall, it’s been a tremendous growthexperience”. Marcus observed that such involvement “helps with your theorybuilding [in teacher education]; it gives you an opportunity to test your beliefs”.Sandra described the year as “very important in my own professional growth”.Elizabeth commented:

It’s given me a window into how the whole [preservice] programgoes … and how you have to think about the student teachers coming withvery, very little knowledge and understanding of teaching … and that thereare people at all different places … and the amount of support they need.

All the contract staff noted how challenging the year had been, and two men-tioned how hard they had to work. On the whole, however, this was not a complaintor criticism, but rather an acknowledgement that they were new to the program andhad to quickly learn the ropes (as we will see later, however, they did offersuggestions for improving the induction process). Sandra said: “It was a very steeplearning curve. But I knew I would get the support—and I did, as we went throughthe year—to do some of the catching up I needed”. Sheila, who as a new Co-ordinator had a very heavy workload, nevertheless emphasized how much sheenjoyed the experience, commenting that “it’s probably been the best learningexperience I’ve ever had professionally”.

The Contract Staff Believed They Were Able to be Effective in the Program

The interviewees not only felt comfortable in the program and saw themselveslearning from it, they also believed they made a valuable contribution, despite beingnon-tenure-stream staff. All of them, based in part on their experience, defendedinvolving contract staff in preservice education. They spoke of the need for a balanceof different types of faculty on a preservice team. For example, Sheila said: “Studentteachers enjoy having professors instruct them … But having the [contract] peoplecoming right from the system in some capacity … created a nice balance … It was aneclectic mix of people but it created a really dynamic perspective within theprogram”. Sandra remarked:

There was a handful of students who gravitated to me once they started toknow what my interests were in terms of my doctoral work, my personalphilosophy, and how I was as a teacher. And … it reinforced [my view] thatas we work in community … we’re all different and all have differentstrengths … we are individual resources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

194 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

None of the interviewees thought their contract status was an impediment tofulfilling their role. For example, they were accepted by the student-teachers aslegitimate preservice instructors. Sandra stated that, because of the way she wasintroduced to the cohort on the first day, the student-teachers “understood that eventhough I was doing doctoral work, it wasn’t as if I’d never been in a school … Theyjust saw me as somebody who was in support of the program, and there for them”.Marcus said: “Because I had the confidence of the Mid-Town staff, I dealt with thestudent teachers with confidence, and that way maybe they realized there wassomething they could learn from me”.

Similarly, all the contract staff felt they were accepted by the administrators andassociate teachers in the practicum schools. For example, Marcus observed that, athis school, “there were never ideas like, This is just a teaching assistant … In time,they would just welcome me with, You’re from OISE, and discuss the details, lookat the students’ progress, and so on”. Sheila said:

The principals just said, Welcome to the school, and we were reallycomfortable dialoguing back and forth. The associate teachers wanted toknow how I got the job, how I applied, what sort of credentials you need,how long I have the job for, so they could stand in line! Because I was anassociate teacher before, they envisioned it as something they could do … itgave them hope in a sense. As a teacher in the Catholic system, I was a littleworried how people would react in the public schools … [but] I foundeverybody warm and welcoming.

The contract staff spoke not only of their acceptance by the student-teachers andthe practicum schools, but also their effectiveness in practicum supervision. Forexample, Sandra observed: “The practicum is an incredibly taxing part of theprogram, and I found the students would call me up just to talk about it”. Elizabethcommented: “When something came up in practice teaching and they needed helpwe’d be able to figure it out … [it was] something I was comfortable doing and wasable to transfer [from my previous experience]”.

Those interviewees who were more heavily involved in course instruction oncampus believed they had been able to contribute significantly in this role. Elizabethsaid: “[Over the year] I began to realize that what I had to offer was what thestudents needed … [For example], I was happy when we did the assessment work,before their second practicum … a number of them came up to me and said, Thatwas the clearest I’ve felt about assessment all year”. Similarly, Sheila felt she wasable to teach the science education course satisfactorily, even though she was not aspecialist in science education. “I found I had to read an awful lot of material frombooks I got from publishers, [but] I know what I did and I think the students valuedit”.

The Contract Staff Saw the Team Approach as Important for Their Effectiveness in theProgram

How was it that the contract staff, three of whom were in their first year in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 195

program, were able to be so effective in their role? (Two had been involved inpreservice education before, but using a rather different model.) To a large extentthe interviewees saw the faculty-team approach as important for their effectiveness.In the first place, the team arrangement made it possible to have an integrated andconsistent approach. For example, in relation to practicum supervision, Sheilanoted:

Mid-Town had it really good, because it was a team where everybody wascommitted to supervision and made the effort to go out to the schools, andhad good relationships with the associate teachers and the school adminis-trators … so they welcomed you into their classrooms and schools. So inthat sense supervision wasn’t a major difficulty.

The interviewees also spoke of how the team approach aided communication andhence their induction into their role. Elizabeth commented: “[I understood how theprogram worked] because you … would say to me, This is what we’re doing today,and this is why I’ve arranged it this way … And the same with Andrew andSheila … if it was going to be a Teacher Education Seminar session, or the retreat,they would say, This is what we need from you, so we’ll go and talk about that”.Marcus stated that he liked receiving his “induction” into the program through “themany meetings before term began, and visiting schools with other team members tosee how the supervision was done”.

Beyond common goals, communication, and formal and informal induction, thecontract staff spoke of the importance of support from the team in enhancing theireffectiveness. For example, Sheila said: “We had a faculty team in Mid-Town thatworked together and helped pick one another up or helped cover … And peopledidn’t make you feel guilty … everybody just kept a really positive attitude, and asa result the students felt very secure”. Later in the interview Sheila remarked: “[Inpracticum supervision] when a student ended up in difficulty, I was lucky I had ateam behind me and I could come back and say, Okay, Clare, this is what thesituation is, how do we resolve this?”.

While a common approach and mutual support were considered important,however, two of the interviewees stressed the need for flexibility and a degree ofindividual autonomy. Somewhat paradoxically, part of the reason they felt at homeand effective in the program was because they were allowed to follow their owninterests and abilities to some extent; for example, they had their own practicumschool, they taught topics related to their expertise, and they were attached to thewhole program rather than just one instructor and subject area. For example,Marcus said:

Everyone I went to was willing to help me, in fact I was wondering whetherI was Clare’s teaching assistant or whose. I liked that because I learned alot. If Clare is not there, you ask Clive, or somebody else … And of course,I liked knowing that Eglinton was my school. You end up knowing thefacilities and the materials they are using, so when the student teachers are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

196 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

going out you can advise them on where to get what, who to see, and soon.

In concluding this section, it should be noted that all the interviewees believed animportant condition for the effectiveness of contract staff in preservice educationwas having had previous school-system experience. In their view, belonging to asupportive faculty team is not normally sufficient by itself. For example, Marcusexpressed the view that “one should have had at least some experience of teaching;because these are real issues, and if you haven’t been exposed to them [you won’tbe able to help]”. And Sheila stated that knowledge of curriculum and schools “isincredibly valuable … I would say at least 10 years of experience [is needed in theschool system] … After 3 or 5 years of experience you have just begun to understandthe relationship between the teacher and the pupil, what the learning styles andlevels of students are, assessment and evaluation, or the new special educationinitiatives”.

The Interviewees Made Several Suggestions for Enhancing the Work of Contract Staff inthe Program

Despite their positive experience and sense of effectiveness, the interviewees made anumber of proposals for enhancing the involvement of contract staff in preserviceeducation. (In light of their comments we have already implemented several of thesesuggestions, at least to a degree.)

i. Two of the contract staff said their duties should be more formalized and spelledout more clearly. For example, Marcus commented that the procedure ofinitiating new contract staff into practicum supervision by having them ac-company permanent faculty into the schools should be followed in a moresystematic manner. He also felt the program handbooks describing “what we aregoing to do” should be more detailed than at present.

ii. Elizabeth and Marcus mentioned that they would like to have been moreinvolved in research on the program, both so they could teach better and fortheir own professional development.

iii. Sheila and Elizabeth stated that equipment and facilities for new contract staffshould be in place when they arrive: for example, their own office, desk,computer, and phone extension and access to the cohort and school of educatione-mail conferences.

iv. Sheila felt there should be more sharing of ideas among the various cohortprograms in the school of education, both among Coordinators and subjectinstructors. She acknowledged that considerable progress had been made in thisarea in the current year, with Coordinators’ meetings and sharing of handbooksand other materials, but felt this should be taken even further. She also thoughtthere should be more professional development opportunities for preservice staffin the school of education, and better publicizing of opportunities alreadyavailable.

v. Sheila believed there was need for more communication with—and acceptance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 197

of—contract staff on the part of the higher echelons in OISE/UT. She said: “Ifelt part of preservice, not the OISE community as a whole. The people didn’treally go out of their way … I just felt removed, here I was doing a job and thatwas it”.

vi. Sheila thought more weight should be given to the Coordinator role: “Theyallocate the time on the point system … and I think putting down coordinatingas two points underestimates the role. If there were problem situations, evenduring the practicum, a tremendous amount of time was spent making contact,following up, running out to resolve situations, and so on”.

Concluding Discussion

Obviously, the findings outlined relate to a particular model of teacher education, asdescribed earlier; also, the sample was small. Accordingly, care should be taken inattempting to apply the findings to other preservice settings. However, the responsesof the interviewees suggest that contract staff can make a major contribution inpreservice education, under certain conditions; notably, where theory and practiceare integrated in the program, and where contract staff are fully integrated into thelife and work of the program. By means of a faculty-team arrangement, with a highlevel of communication, collaboration, and support, it is possible to overcometypical problems such as separation between the campus program and the practicumand lack of authority of contract staff in the field. The contract staff interviewed feltwelcome and supported in the program and were able to establish a good relation-ship with student teachers and school personnel. They soon came to understandmost of the objectives of the program and were effective in implementing them, bothin the campus program and in the practicum placements.

It is important to note that, in our view, the contract staff interviewed did notunderstand all aspects of the distinctive Mid-Town program in which they partici-pated. Being new to the program, they had not explored fully the nature andjustification of the approach they were helping to shape and implement. Theircontribution to the theoretical development of the student-teachers, then, was inpart dependent on being involved in a larger, ongoing project with other staff,including tenured/tenure-stream faculty. Similarly, we believe the interviewees werenot aware of all the challenges faced in using contract staff in preservice education.They did not always understand the complex processes involved in establishing andmaintaining good relations with partner schools so they would be welcoming tocontract staff, and in building a sense of community among the student-teachers sothey would be willing to be inclusive toward all members of the team. And they didnot realize some of the problems of combining contract and permanent staff in afaculty team: for example, the differences of interest between the two categories andthe different pressures on each.

With these qualifications, however, we agree with the interviewees’ assessment ofthe very positive role contract staff can play in preservice education, within thecontext of a cohort and faculty-team approach. We share their optimism about theviability of such a model, given appropriate conditions. As they themselves noted,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

198 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

each member of a preservice team makes a distinctive contribution. What isimportant is not that every team member has exactly the same understandings andabilities, but that the program as a whole meets the needs of the student-teachers forboth theoretical insight and pedagogical skill.

One concern that might be raised about involving contract staff in an integrated,faculty-team approach is the possible loss of specialized expertise in course instruc-tion. We noted earlier the case of Sheila, who was responsible for the scienceeducation component of the program even though she was not a specialist in thisarea (although she had taught science, among other subjects, at the intermediatelevel for many years). This contrasts with the perhaps more typical situation wherea specialist in science education teaches the subject to a large number of student-teachers across the school of education. This loss of specialization with our cohortand faculty-team approach is parallel to that found in experimental programs in highschools where the same person teaches literature and social studies, or mathematicsand science to a cohort of 60 or 70 students (Lieberman, 1995; Meier, 1995;Wasley, 1994; Wood, 1998). However, we accept the argument in favor of thisapproach given by researchers; namely, that what is lost in terms of specializationis more than compensated for by gains in personal contact between teacherand students, a sense of community among the students, and acquisition by studentsof broad “approaches” or “habits of mind” rather than isolated information andskills.

But while contract staff can make a great contribution to preservice education inthe way we have described, it seems clear that the presence of a minimum pro-portion of tenured/tenure-stream faculty remains necessary. The theoretical insightsand commitments of permanent staff and the continuity they provide are essential.Just from a logistical point of view, as the UK experience indicates, problems arisewhen the proportion of permanent faculty in preservice education drops below acertain level. For example, even where faculty have a strong commitment tointegrating the campus program and the practicum, this may cease to be possible:there may simply be too many other demands on the time of the permanent faculty.

The need for significant involvement of permanent faculty in preservice educationpoints to the necessity of giving greater support, both financial and of other kinds,to the preservice program. More permanent faculty must be appointed to thepreservice program, and their work in the program must receive more recognitionand reward than at present (Kosnik & Beck, 2000; Winitzky, Stoddart & O’Keefe,1992). Under current conditions of minimal recognition and reward, many perma-nent faculty will refuse to do preservice education, at least in the labor-intensivemanner described in this paper; or they will simply “run out of energy” (Winitzkyet al., 1992).

In conclusion, then, what we would propose is a major re-thinking and recon-struction of preservice education, to take account of the considerations raised.Certainly, the preservice function in schools of education should receive a largerproportion of the revenue it earns than at present. However, while more money isessential, it is not by itself sufficient. Increasing the funding must be accompaniedby the development and implementation of an explicit, comprehensive approach to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Contract staff 199

preservice education. The approach we would recommend includes the followingelements. First, a substantial proportion of contract staff should continue to beemployed, but as a deliberate strategy based on what they can contribute, ratherthan merely as a way to economize: these people must be chosen carefully, usingguiding principles and formal interview committees. Second, permanent facultyshould be appointed to the preservice program who have a solid commitment tolinking theory and practice and, in particular, to engaging in preservice educationand forming partnerships with practicum schools. Third, the research, teaching, andprogram development of these permanent faculty should be recognized as of vitalimportance, receiving the same weight in promotion, tenure, and salary decisions asthe work of other faculty in the school of education. Fourth, the school of educationshould embrace a philosophy of integrating theory and practice that underscores theimportance of preservice work and makes contract staff feel respected and at home.Finally, a culture of collaboration and cooperative leadership should be establishedin the school of education, so that full integration of contract staff as described inthis paper occurs throughout the preservice program, rather than just in a fewexperimental subprograms. Unless contract staff are integrated with permanent staffin this way, their effectiveness will be undermined and the goal of linking theory andpractice will not be achieved to a significant degree.

References

BECK, C. & KOSNIK, C. (2001). From cohort to community in a preservice teacher educationprogram. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 925–948.

BECK, C. & KOSNIK, C. (2002). Professors and the practicum: Involvement of university faculty inpreservice practicum supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 6–19.

BULLOUGH, R. & GITLIN, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring selfand school context. New York: Garland.

BULLOUGH, R. & KAUCHAK, D. (1997). Partnerships between higher education and secondaryschools: Some problems. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 215–233.

CASEY, B. & HOWSON, P. (1993). Educating preservice students based on a problem-centredapproach to teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 361–369.

COLE, A. & KNOWLES, J.G. (1993). Shattered images: Understanding expectations and realities offield experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5/6), 457–471.

DUCHARME, E. & DUCHARME, M. (1999). Teacher educators and teachers: The need for excel-lence and spunk. In R. ROTH (Ed.), The role of the university in the preparation of teachers(pp. 41–58). London: Falmer.

FURLONG, J., BARTON, L., MILES, S., WHITING, C. & WHITTY, G. (2000). Teacher education intransition. Buckingham: Open University Press.

HAMMERSLEY, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? New York: Routledge.KOSNIK, C. & BECK, C. (2000). Who should perish, you or your students? Dilemmas of research

in teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 27(2), 119–135.LIEBERMAN, A. (Ed.) (1995). The work of restructuring schools. New York: Teachers College Press.MEIER, D. (1995). The power of their ideas. Boston, MA: Beacon.MERRIAM, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (rev. ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.MURRAY, F. (1999). The challenges teacher education presents for higher education. In R. ROTH

(Ed.), The role of the university in the preparation of teachers (pp. 59–86). London: Falmer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

200 C. Beck & C. Kosnik

PUNCH, K. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative & qualitative approaches. London:Sage.

SCHON, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.SLICK, S. (1998). The university supervisor: A disenfranchised outsider. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 14(8), 821–834.TOM, A. (1997). Redesigning teacher education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.WASLEY, P. (1994). Stirring the chalkdust: Tales of teachers changing classroom practice. New York:

Teachers College Press.WINITZKY, N., STODDART, T. & O’KEEFE, P. (1992). Great expectations: Emergent professional

development schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 3–18.WOOD, G. (1998). A time to learn: Creating community in America’s high schools. New York:

Penguin/Dutton.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

46 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014