Purpose: Traditional models of clinical education (CE) in academic institutions include a Director of Clinical Education (DCE) and perhaps an Assistant DCE or Academic Coordinator of Clinical Education (ACCE) with an administrative person who may or may not be fully designated to the CE Program. Issues of workload, separation/isolation from the core curriculum/faculty, inability to carve out time for scholarship or serve on important committees are some of the challenges with the traditional model. Benefits of collaborative models of clinical education in the clinical setting are well documented in the literature. (Pabian, et al, Alpine et al, Rindflesch, et al) Benefits to the learner include greater peer support, teamwork and collaboration, and deeper levels of clinical reasoning. Benefits to the clinical instructor include increased teaching time and greater productivity. Currently, evidence is not available regarding the benefits of using a team-based approach to clinical education in the academic setting. However, recommendations from the National Study of Excellence and Innovation in Physical Therapist Education suggest the importance of shared leadership, effective teams, and strong partnerships to promote a culture of excellence. (Jensen, et al) Having a larger faculty team with administrative staff support could better meet the expanding roles and responsibilities of the DCE while allowing for a culture of excellence. The purpose of this platform presentation is to describe team-based models of clinical education in the academic setting. Methods/Description: The DCEs from three different academic programs will present their team-based models of clinical education. Each will describe their model with considerations for workload distribution and delineation of roles and responsibilities. Presenters will address strategies to successfully meet the challenges, which include, advocating for additional team members, ensuring effective team function, consistency in student advising, and equity of faculty workload (among other core faculty members). Several advantages of the team approach will also be discussed. Examples include, shared leadership, teaching opportunities throughout the rest of the curriculum, representation on major committees, ability to engage in scholarship, cross coverage for clinical education responsibilities, and expansion of support and resources for clinical partners. Results/Outcomes: These three academic institutions have adopted unique and successful faculty team approaches to leading the clinical education component. Each have been effective and efficient in meeting the day to day demands of clinical education, allowing more time for intentional strategic planning, building true partnerships, and innovation, ultimately resulting in higher faculty satisfaction, leadership, and pursuit for excellence. Conclusions/Relevance to the conference theme: The clinical education team model relates to building bridges and innovations for the future. The DCE is critical in fostering development of academic-clinical partnerships to promote a quality, coordinated curriculum. Based on a recent study on the contemporary role of the DCE, the DCE is a value-added faculty role that is multi-dimensional and interfaces with internal and external stakeholders (McCallum et al). For the DCE to fully meet expectations of the academy and needs of students, academic colleagues and clinical partners, the clinical education component of the curriculum needs to be supported by individuals with expertise in clinical education and workload needs to account for both predictable and unpredictable factors. A clinical education team offers flexibility in meeting the diverse needs, promotes leadership opportunities, and provides mentorship for new faculty. Ultimately, a collaborative model of clinical education in the academic setting will be critical in transforming clinical education in the future.