Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships

Martin, Susan D., Snow, Jennifer L., & Torrez, Cheryl A. Franklin. (2011). Navigating the terrain of third space: Tensions with/in relationships in school-university partnerships. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(3), 299-311.

As a late-career teacher educator who has spent much time in schools in various contexts over many years, I have experienced firsthand the myriad tensions described by these three early-career teacher educators. The portrayal seems honest and accurate, and the complexity of the university liaison’s role in the school setting rings true for me. These three women collaboratively studied their experiences as they negotiated the difficult terrain that a university-school partnership can be. I thought to myself that in many ways they had a better experience than mine was when I began; the collaborative self-study documented here obviously provided a support system for these three women and served as a source of professional learning. I wish I’d been supported to do that; so often we are so busy trying to keep our own boats afloat that we do not take time for collaboration, and that is a mistake, particularly in situations such as the one described here, with high demands and often stressful interactions. The story of how these three supported one another comes through clearly here.

The article, though interesting, does not really break new ground; the tensions described here are just the same as those I encountered in my first “field supervision” experiences in the mid-1980s. What is new for these days, though, is the desire to generate some new paradigms for the relationships among the various school personnel and university teacher educators. Changes in the paradigms, though, will require adjustments in the mental images everyone has of teacher educators—everyone in the schools as well as everyone at the university. Though the seeds of changes are being sowed, the descriptions here tell me that not much has really changed substantively as yet. We still have the same power struggles and communication barriers among university faculty, school principals, mentor teachers, and student teachers. Relationships always were, and still are, and always will be the key to managing those struggles and forging productive collaboration. It is also true that some people were, are, and always will be easier to build relationships with than others. Every teacher educator can name principals who were exceptionally supportive and helped make the needed relationships happen. Every teacher educator can also name principals whose every action seemed to work against that kind of relationship building. Similarly, we all know mentor teachers of both kinds, and university teacher educators of both kinds. There are definitely some people who work well within collaborative models, and others who resist them. How do we select and nurture the most supportive collaborators for the shared endeavor that is teacher education?

The authors write about “third space”, a place where the school and university contexts find a bridge and a common ground, where all parties can learn. I wish to thank the authors for providing one of the clearest explanations of the notion of third space that I’ve read recently (check it out on page 300 of the article). The authors write about “hybrid” teacher educator roles. I’d like to see more study there. I’m not sure the three researchers here were truly “hybrid” teacher educators. They spent one day a week at their school sites, which is a substantial time commitment, but it seems to me that their chief loyalties and accountabilities were still to the university. For me, a truly “hybrid” teacher educator would be an equal member of both the school faculty and the university faculty, and would effectively be employed by both entities. That would be an interesting model with possibilities, though of course it would create some complex issues in the way the work of teacher education is done, assessed, and compensated, to name just a few issues.

Finally, the authors raise what I believe is a valid and serious question about who is doing the work with preservice teachers in school settings these days. They point out that often “field supervision” is done by graduate students, retired principals and teachers, and other adjunct instructors. Should such an important facet of teacher education be done by any but full-time faculty, regardless of how good at it (or not) some of these part-timers may seem to be? Working in the schools is difficult, time-consuming, energy-draining, and is regarded by some as the least desirable work to do in teacher education. It does not provide status, promotion, or tenure, unless one takes the time to write and publish about it, as these three authors did. As long as fieldwork is seen as a low status piece of the program for which we can hire any available part-timer at part-time salaries without benefits, then many of the tensions will continue, and collaborative relationships will not reach the potential they could reach. The authors raise these concerns at the end of the article, almost in passing, but who does this important work may be the most important factor in its effectiveness or ineffectiveness.