School Placement, Agency and Partnership: Barriers to inclusion and opportunities for change in Initial Teacher Education

This article explores the paradox between the centrality of School Placement in Initial Teacher Education (ITE) in Ireland and the limited autonomy of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to ensure inclusive and equitable experiences for student teachers, particularly those students with disabilities. Central to Initial Teacher Education programmes in Ireland is the requirement by the professional body, the Teaching Council (TC), that all student teachers engage with school-based practice. The Teaching Council states the aim is to provide the opportunity for student teachers to put pedagogy into practice, embrace the role of educator in an authentic school context and begin to live the often long-held ambition of acting as an advocate for children and a key member of the local community (TC 2020). Alongside the importance placed on School Placement is a developing emphasis on the need to embed inclusive practices for student teachers. In the updated School Placement Guidelines, the Teaching Council states that placements must prepare student teachers to embrace inclusive practices and foster equitable participation in the classroom. The guidelines also embed Universal Design for Learning principles in School Placement (TC 2021).

This value of inclusive practices extends beyond School Placement to programme design and implementation. The Céim Standards for Initial Teacher Education (hereafter referred to as Céim) set out the requirements all ITE programmes of qualification for teaching in Ireland must meet in order to be accredited by the Teaching Council (TC 2020). These standards are highlighted as having been shaped by a consultative process, inclusive of a range of stakeholders. They place a significant emphasis on the importance of integration and diversity in programme content, stating that education programmes must embed inclusive practices across modules and not treat them superficially. Céim also explicitly highlights Universal Design for Learning as a framework to ensure teachers can design learning that is accessible to all students. Additionally, student teachers must experience placements in a variety of settings, including schools with diverse populations and inclusive practices. As of 2025, the Department of Education has introduced the obligation for programmes to begin to address how they will meet mandatory requirements for special education placements in School Placement (Circular 0039/2025). In regard to supporting student teachers with disabilities, Céim does not use the phrase reasonable accommodations but requires programmes to have student support and guidance systems in place.

School Placement is both prized and approached with apprehension by student teachers, as it marks the transition from student to teacher through Work Integrated Learning (WIL). Students experience what it is to be a teacher, inclusive of their place as ethical professionals, role models and key agents of societal reform. However, despite the Teaching Council’s emphasis on embedding inclusive practices in placements and Céim’s requirements that programmes integrate UDL across modules, significant barriers remain for students with disabilities. The supports and guidance mandated at programme level often fail to translate into realities of school-based environments, where the autonomy of HEIs to guarantee equitable experiences is limited. This underscores the paradox at the heart of ITE in Ireland: while inclusivity is central to policy and programme design, the lived experience of student teachers with disabilities in placement continues to be constrained by structural and contextual barriers.

Partnership: Informal, Uneven and Vulnerable

Partnership is broadly positioned within ITE as the framework within which School Placement is facilitated by host schools. However, it is a term which has thus far been applied very loosely and based on goodwill (Harford & O’Doherty, 2016). Gorman and Furlong describe how a range of different agendas are at play in School Placement, which serve to undermine the notion of partnership, including how the language which is used to describe that partnership can displace the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders (Gorman & Furlong, 2023). Partnership can vary in meaning, depending on who uses it, whether school, HEI, professional body or student (Casey, 2024). Currently, there is no national policy requirement for schools to host students for placement. Additionally, there is no tangible remuneration for hosting students. Consequently, schools make decisions on an individual basis, primarily motivated by local factors, availability of Co-operating Teachers deemed suitable and pre-existing informal relationships and arrangements. For students with a disability, this can result in a vulnerable experience of being exposed to arbitrary decision-making processes.

The partners in School Placement are expected to include the student teacher, the School Placement Tutor and the Co-operating Teacher in a model often described as triadic partnership (McIntyre & Morris, 1980). Each holds a distinctive role which can be described in somewhat reductionist terms as: assessed, assessor and facilitator. In recent doctoral research, I have presented an alternative model of partnership inclusive of an expanded membership comprising in addition of School Principals, Faculty and Newly Qualified Teachers in the roles of community context, academic input and peer support (Casey, 2025). This model facilitates specific points across partnership where partners work together in embedding best practice, rather than relying upon informal relationships. The RAPP Report (Students with Disabilities on Placement, AHEAD 2022) underscores the fact that many of the challenges faced by student teachers with disabilities during School Placement can be mitigated through proactive planning, disability equality awareness, and the provision of reasonable accommodations. However, a more detail driven, policy aligned system of School Placement is necessary to facilitate this level of planning. The report highlights the importance of pre-placement processes, collaborative documentation, and the use of technology and flexible arrangements to ensure equitable participation (AHEAD 2022). The recommendations stress the need for real partnerships between HEIs and placement providers to embed these supports, including mentoring programmes and tailored approaches for students with complex needs. While national policy and Teaching Council guidelines emphasise inclusivity and Universal Design for Learning, the translation of these principles into practice remains uneven due to the lack of autonomy of HEIs to make fully informed decisions as to where a student with a disability will be placed.

Partnership, as it currently exists, is highly informal and goodwill based. It assumes a system populated by individuals with passion, integrity and authenticity, but is based on an outdated assumption that the profile of a student teacher today is unchanged and unchanging. This can result in a destabilisation of the identity of a student teacher who does not fit within the assumptions of what it is to be in this role. Informal partnership, where the membership, terms and requirements of partnership are undefined, requires a high level of empathy and compassion at the level of the individual and the school. However, a good functioning system does not rely upon the exceptional. As educators, we are often willing consumers of ideals around partnership, lacking criticality in our initial acceptance of the concept and our role within it. A partnership model which relies heavily on the individual and the informal rather than the collective, and the process is not sustainable and is vulnerable to inconsistent decision-making processes. The vulnerable position of the student teacher, and specifically the student teacher with a disability is notable in an education system which emphasises agentic professionalism. Agentic professionalism refers to a way of being a professional where individuals actively exercise their agency or decision-making powers. Within the primary education sector, teacher agency has been highlighted in curriculum review as integral to the profession (NCCA 2023). This includes their capacity to make choices, take initiative, and shape their professional identity, rather than simply following externally imposed rules.

Agency and Identity: A Fragile Balance

Despite being the largest stakeholder group in teacher education, student teachers have limited influence over School Placement policy and are underrepresented in decision-making. The lack of autonomy in navigating diverse school environments can negatively affect their professional identity and wellbeing.  While the Teaching Council envisions School Placement as a welcoming, reflective, and socialising experience into the profession, for many, especially those with disabilities, the reality is one of high pressure, assessment anxiety, and inconsistent levels of school support. The Council’s principles of Innovation, Integration, and Improvement have not, to date, been translated into actionable policies for inclusive practice (TC 2020). Within HEIs, student teachers can access support services and reasonable accommodations. These may include advance notice of assessment visits, alternative planning formats (e.g., voice recordings, conceptual mapping), and assistive technologies. However, HEIs lack authority over whether schools will accept students for placement. Schools retain full discretion, and while some have developed placement policies, these often focus on logistical limits rather than inclusive criteria. The School Placement Working Group (SPWG), established by the Teaching Council with the task of reviewing how placement operates nationally, recognised action research on School Placement as key to bridging the gap between research, policy and practice in order to enable these areas to directly influence and support each other (SPWG 2019). Action research could support greater collaboration between stakeholders in education, thus improving feelings of agency and autonomy of students. Nonetheless there currently exists a gap in the implementation of research through placement due to inconsistent relationships between HEIs and schools. The convening of the SPWG in 2018 marked a move in the direction of collaborative practice and approaches to placement and a nationally centralised system which could support the provision of appropriate sites of practice for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, the efficacy of the SPWG was severely hindered by a variety of factors, including the start of the pandemic and the existing informality in arrangements.

Agency in the Curriculum and Practice

The redeveloped Primary Curriculum Framework for Primary and Special Schools emphasises the centrality of viewing children as unique, competent and caring individuals and the teacher as a committed, competent and agentic professional (NCCA 2023). Drawing on the work of Pristley et al (2012), the concept of agency is situated within

1.  the vision and principles of individual teachers’ capacities
2.  the cultural context, inclusive of the school culture
3. the structural context, inclusive of relationships within schools
4. The access to resources.

However, as student teachers enter an unfamiliar context of a host school, the potential for feelings of agency are greatly limited. This is exasperating for students with disabilities who are put at a disadvantage due to a lack of clarity as to the implications of disclosure or the appropriateness of the host school. Returning to the situation of agency, student teachers with disabilities can frequently experience a school culture which is unfamiliar with how best to harness the potential of the teacher as an individual, complex relations within the school where facilitating the student is presented as a favour by the school and limited access to appropriate resources. Consequently, the agency to engage emotionally and effectively, integrate new ideas into practice and beliefs and freedom to embrace the host context fully are severely limited.

Conclusion

This article critiques the disconnect between the importance of School Placement in Irish teacher education and the limited control HEIs have over ensuring inclusive experiences, especially for student teachers with disabilities. Inclusivity is central in policy but fragile in practice. While national policies embed inclusivity in teacher education, implementation remains uneven. This is due to the highly informal nature of partnership in School Placement and the lack of autonomy in placing students in practice sites. This leaves student teachers vulnerable to discretionary practices which can vary significantly in their quality.

A key recommendation of this paper is that HEIs come together to take a proactive role, guided by the RAPP research, in seeking policy-aligned partnerships with schools, where inclusivity is formally agreed as a collective responsibility.

This would be assisted by a revisiting of the recommendations of the SPWG, specifically in relation to creating a systemic structure to support inclusion. Action research could be leveraged as a mechanism through which HEIs and schools collaborate through embedded cycles of inquiry, integrating opportunities to share the research with school communities.

The provision of appropriate reasonable accommodations on School Placement is a key aspect of equality practice where HEIs and schools need to work collaboratively to identify possible barriers, challenges and solutions.

Solutions to raising awareness can be facilitated to some extent through proactive planning and the development of standard operating procedures which can be adapted at local level.

Student teachers with disabilities also experience constrained agency in placement, at a time where they may be feeling vulnerable due to the unfamiliar surroundings and assessment pressure. This is also due to inconsistent school cultures and a system where professional identity formation depends on goodwill rather than systemic processes. Without clear accountability structures, schools retain discretion over placements that can undermine equity.

 A reimagined partnership model will need to embed inclusivity as a collective responsibility across HEIs and schools. This article highlights the informal nature of school partnerships and the vulnerability of students navigating current inconsistent environments. While HEIs offer accommodations, they depend on schools’ willingness to host students. Consequently, to address the barriers to inclusion in School Placement a reimagined partnership model, structural reform, and authentic engagement to support diversity and uphold teacher agency are urgently required.