View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Educators as Reformers: Competing Agendas

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Educators as Reformers: Competing Agendas
Language: English
Authors: Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Stringer Keefe, Elizabeth (ORCID 0000-0002-9573-4925), Carney, Molly Cummings
Source: European Journal of Teacher Education. 2018 41(5):572-590.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Educators, Change Agents, Educational Change, Preservice Teacher Education, Change Strategies, Politics of Education, Leadership Styles, Teacher Characteristics
DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2018.1523391
ISSN: 0261-9768
Abstract: Most of today's reforms of initial teacher education programs, policies, and practices have positioned teachers and teacher educators as the objects, rather than the agents of reform. In contrast, this article focuses on teacher educators as reformers by analyzing three approaches to reform that are initiated, developed, and promoted by teacher educators themselves: "entrepreneurial reform," "managerial reform," and "democratic reform." The article concentrates primarily on "teacher educators as reformers" in the US, but also includes examples from other countries. For each approach, the article considers: who the teacher educator reformers are and how they are positioned; how they construct the 'problem' of teacher education; what reforms they advocate as the 'solution'; and, how these are related to larger policy and political agendas. The article argues that this kind of analysis is critical to understanding the current discourse of reform and the competing agendas that dominate the politics of teacher education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 71
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1195070
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFlSlZE4XH4Nzz-9TBGeU1NAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJdMHlm-EYzCC9gCywIBEICBmqf6ukW042VLjmylvNMRWn1cxnIRR0dKVIo6yPWi9WPFu4WmUKtaylVVuDCMe3Fz91RrTTvkhTPTspeGChIS7ZXUxaqTMXz2Ot8pFFai42Ldj_dDEcQ7QKd-cd0mhgcLKhq2KJETBejBW7WaTRgy-lCF0dJvlbZR8EtqIzVago7m-8unoMku6eUlqXdxM_-53aeQuUkIbaDsBCA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0132616837;54n01dec.18;2018Oct27.11:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0132616837-1">Teacher educators as reformers: competing agendas </title> <p>Most of today’s reforms of initial teacher education programs, policies, and practices have positioned teachers and teacher educators as the objects, rather than the agents of reform. In contrast, this article focuses on teacher educators as reformers by analyzing three approaches to reform that are initiated, developed, and promoted by teacher educators themselves: entrepreneurial reform, managerial reform, and democratic reform. The article concentrates primarily on teacher educators as reformers in the US, but also includes examples from other countries. For each approach, the article considers: who the teacher educator reformers are and how they are positioned; how they construct the 'problem' of teacher education; what reforms they advocate as the 'solution'; and, how these are related to larger policy and political agendas. The article argues that this kind of analysis is critical to understanding the current discourse of reform and the competing agendas that dominate the politics of teacher education.</p> <p>Keywords: Teacher educators; teacher education; education reform; entrepreneurial reform; democratic education</p> <p>Over the past two decades, there have been multiple reforms of initial teacher education programs, policies, and practices. In many countries, the intention of teacher education reform has been to strengthen the quality and credentials of teachers and boost the effectiveness of preparation programs in order to enhance overall teacher quality. Most reforms have positioned teachers, teacher educators, and teacher education institutions/programs as the objects, rather than the agents, of reform. In contrast, this article focuses on <emph>teacher educators as reformers</emph> by analyzing approaches to teacher education reform that are initiated, developed, and promoted by teacher educators themselves. We argue that within the broad phenomenon of teacher educators themselves working as agents of teacher education reform, there are multiple competing approaches that involve different institutional actors and are based on markedly different assumptions, values, and strategies. This article begins with a brief discussion of the larger context of teacher education reform then turns to a nuanced analysis of the ways teacher educators are working as reformers.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-2">Teacher quality and teacher education reform: policy and political contexts</hd> <p>Based on the premise that education and the economy are inextricably linked, it has been assumed for more than two decades in the US, in European countries, and elsewhere that teachers can - and should - teach all students to world-class standards, serve as the linchpins in multiple educational and social reforms, and produce a well-qualified labor force to preserve or enhance a nation's position in the global economy (Cochran-Smith 2005; Furlong, Cochran-Smith, and Brennan 2009). In addition, it has been assumed that improving all students' access to teacher quality not only elevates individuals' academic achievement and overall educational attainment but is also central to a nation's long-term economic growth (Hanushek and Woessmann 2015). This complex set of assumptions, encouraged by the World Bank (2010); OECD (2005); UNESCO (2014), and other national and international organizations, has prompted unprecedented attention to teacher quality, including how nations recruit, select, prepare, develop, support, evaluate, and retain effective teachers. These issues have been taken up by policymakers at the highest levels.</p> <p>Despite the international preoccupation with supply and quality of teachers, the policy and political issues involved are not so straight forward as they are sometimes made to appear. In fact, the problematic reasoning behind the assumption that teacher quality is directly linked to individual and national economic prosperity has been widely critiqued (e.g. Apple 2006; Ball 2012; Ellis and McNicholl 2015; Luke 2004). Although elaboration of these critiques is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to point out that scholars have argued that by assuming teacher quality is the path to national economic prosperity, policymakers fail utterly to account for the structural and systemic inequalities that produce and reproduce educational and societal inequities in the first place. We would also note, as Akiba and LeTendre (2018) rightly suggest in their introductory chapter to the 2018 <emph>International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy</emph>, the whole concept of teacher quality has been contested. Akiba and LeTendre further argue that there is an emerging consensus among researchers that teacher quality is not simply about teachers' preparation, credentials, and knowledge, but also has to do with the organizational climates and cultures of schools, the support systems for effective learning routines that do or do not exist, teachers' beliefs about their own impact, and ongoing professional development amidst constantly changing expectations and requirements.</p> <p>Despite the growing research consensus that teacher quality is not determined simply by teachers' preparation and credentials, policy has not kept pace with research. In many countries, initial teacher education has been the focus of large-scale reforms, including new accountability systems, teacher preparation arrangements, and requirements. With many (perhaps even most) of these reforms, as we note in the introduction to this article, teacher educators have been positioned as the objects of reform and the implementers of reform agendas developed by others, rather than as the agents of reform. In this article, however, we take a different direction in keeping with the theme of this special issue about teaching and teacher education in uncertain times. To explore the phenomenon of <emph>teacher educators working as reformers</emph>, we draw on two primary sources. The first is a recent book by Project TEER (Teacher Education and Education Reform), a group of teacher education scholars and practitioners - including the three authors of this article - that researches teacher preparation policy, practice, and politics in relation to larger education reform movements in the US and beyond (Cochran-Smith et al. 2016b ; Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b). The second source is our study of teacher preparation at new graduate schools of education (nGSEs), which have emerged as part of the US 'ed reform' movement. We note that nGSEs are unaffiliated with universities, but offer pre-professional teacher preparation with master's degrees and teaching credentials (Cochran-Smith, Carney, and Miller 2016; Cochran-Smith et al. 2018a).</p> <p>In this article, we focus primarily on teacher educators as reformers in relation to initial teacher preparation in the US, but we also include, where appropriate, examples from other countries to show that our analysis is not limited only to the US. We argue that the work of teacher educators as reformers can be conceptualized in terms of three broad approaches, which we refer to as: <emph>entrepreneurial reform, managerial reform</emph>, and <emph>democratic reform</emph>. By naming these approaches, we are not attempting to capture the entire universe of reforms related to initial teacher preparation. Rather we focus only on those reforms initiated, led, and endorsed by teacher educators themselves. We are also not suggesting that any single approach necessarily characterizes teacher education reform in a particular country as a whole. In fact, by focusing primarily on the US and drawing our initial examples of the three approaches from the same country, we show that multiple approaches to teacher education reform may co-exist within the same national policy context and that these reforms may compete with one another.</p> <p>Finally, the three approaches we identify here are not offered as a typology of reforms initiated and led by teacher educators. Rather they emerged from a framework for capturing the complex intersection of four factors: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) who the teacher educator reformers are and where they are positioned within the field; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) what they perceive to be the the 'problem' of teacher education; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) what reforms they advocate and implement as the intended 'solution' or way to 'fix' the problem; and, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) how these reforms are related to and/or embedded within larger national and international policy and political agendas (see Figure 1).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Teacher educator-led reforms.</p> <p>We analyze the three approaches below beginning with primary examples from the US. Our analysis takes a critical policy studies approach (Sharp and Richardson 2001; Vidovich 2007) and uses ideas from frame theory, particularly the key concepts of diagnostic and prognostic frames (Entman 1993).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-3">Teacher educators as entrepreneurial reformers</hd> <p>We use the term, teacher educators as 'entrepreneurial reformers,' to refer to reforms initiated by the founders, leaders, and supporters of new non-profit or for-profit teacher education programs, organizations, institutes, and schools of education, intended to be innovative disruptions of traditional collegiate teacher preparation. Over the last two decades, the major development along these lines in the US has been relocating teacher preparation at 'new graduate schools of education' (nGSEs), an acronym we coined in our Spencer Foundation-funded study of this phenomenon. We use 'nGSE' to refer to new independent organizations that offer teacher preparation programs and use university language, such as 'graduate school of education' (GSE) and 'dean,' but are not affiliated with universities. Generally nGSEs offer 9-12 months (or more) of pre-professional teacher preparation leading to initial teacher licensure as well as master's degrees (Cochran-Smith, Carney, and Miller 2016). The most visible examples of the nGSE phenomenon in the US are High Tech High GSE, which was the first nGSE, and Relay GSE, which - with its 16 campuses in cities across the country - is the biggest (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018a). Like these two, which are very different from one another, many nGSEs are charter school-inspired and/or embedded in charter management organizations.</p> <p>Teacher preparation at some nGSEs is a controversial reform that has received both high praise and sharp critique. Praise for nGSEs often emphasizes their strong focus on the practicalities of teaching, success at recruiting a more diverse pool of teacher candidates, and attention to candidates' concerns about costs and flexible scheduling. On the other hand, critiques of teacher preparation at some nGSEs zero in on the non-university status of nGSEs coupled with their conferral of master's degrees, preparation of teachers for historically minoritized students that sometimes centers on non-flexible and pre-determined materials and methods, and the participation of private sector actors and funding. Relay GSE, for example, has been referred to as both the 'leading symbol of a burgeoning revolution in how America is learning to teach' (Schorr 2013) <emph>and</emph> as an entity that 'contributes to the inequitable distribution of professionally prepared teachers and the social stratification of schools according to the social class and racial composition of the student body' (Zeichner 2016).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-4">Who the teacher educators are</hd> <p>Relocating teacher preparation at nGSEs has been championed by a new cadre of teacher educators who are part of larger educational and social reform movements in the US, which include a variety of emerging educational entrepreneurs and reformers as well as new venture philanthropists (Scott 2016; Wilson 2014; Zeichner and Pena-Sandoval 2015). In their public statements and website information, spokespersons for this new group of teacher educators state that their goal is reinventing teacher preparation through innovation, disruption of business as usual, and challenges to the status quo (here, the 'status quo' refers primarily to university-based teacher preparation and the certification requirements and licensure mechanisms that go with it). It is not surprising, then, that many of the teacher educators at nGSEs have beliefs, practices, and credentials unlike those of teacher educators at many university programs.</p> <p>Some nGSES were founded by the leaders of charter schools and charter management organizations with the initial goal of preparing teachers primarily for those and similar elementary and secondary schools. Some of the leaders of nGSEs are former TFA members, while many faculty are school-based educators who focus on effective practice. In comparison to university teacher preparation programs, fewer nGSE teacher educators have PhDs, including at the highest levels of 'deans' and 'provosts.' As the regular use of terms such as 'GSE,' 'SOE,' 'U', 'dean,' and 'provost' suggests, nGSEs tend to utilize the nomenclature, but not the institutional structure or knowledge traditions, of universities. This break with the academic traditions of university-based teacher education is intentional. It signals nGSEs' deliberate move to disrupt and bypass university teacher education and leave behind business as usual.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-5">Teacher educators' perceptions of the teacher education 'problem' and 'solution'</hd> <p>In this article, we refer to the 'problem' of teacher education based on the assumption that policy problems related to education (and other public domains) do not exist 'out there,' waiting to be discovered by policymakers or reformers (Stone 2012). Rather, policy problems and solutions are constructed politically and rhetorically as part of larger debates about educational (and other) ideas, ideals, and worldviews (Entman 1993). Here, the 'problem' of teacher education refers to how the language and rhetoric of a reform construct teacher quality/teacher education issues and concerns in the US, including who or what 'caused' the problem and what kind of problem it actually is. We also consider how reformers construct the 'solution' to the perceived problem, including the theory of change behind the reforms they advocate and how it is presumed these will 'fix' the perceived problem.</p> <p>To illustrate, we focus on a comparison of university-based teacher preparation, on one hand, and preparation at an nGSE, on the other, from the perspective of the leaders of the well-known Sposato GSE. Named after its first principal, Sposato GSE is part of the larger Match Charter Management Organization located in Boston. The Sposato website (2015) offers a side-by-side comparison of what they refer to as 'a traditional education school approach' to teacher preparation and the 'Sposato approach.' The language and rhetoric used in the comparison reflect how Sposato leaders perceive both the 'problem' of teacher education and its 'solution.' For example, they indicate that with the 'traditional' education school approach, 'most time in courses [is] spent thinking about teaching,' while the Sposato approach is 'direct and prescriptive in its teaching of specific pedagogical 'moves and habits.' Further, according to the Sposato comparison, the traditional university approach provides 'several coaching sessions...of student teaching,' while the Sposato approach provides 'individualized feedback after every day [teacher candidates] student teach.' Similarly, traditional programs have faculty 'primarily composed of researchers,' while Sposato faculty is 'composed entirely of practitioners.' Finally, according to the comparison, the goal of traditional preparation is to prepare teachers for 'a wide variety of student populations across many types of schools,' while Sposato aims to prepare teachers for 'low-income students in high-performing college-preparatory public schools.'</p> <p>As this example illustrates, entrepreneurial teacher education reformers are clear about both the 'problem' of teacher education and its 'solution.' The founders and leaders of nGSEs argue, often very persuasively, that the major problem that needs to be reformed is 'traditional' college and university teacher preparation itself, which nGSE leaders tend to characterize as an overly expensive, time-consuming, and heavily theoretical enterprise that has failed to produce the effective teachers the nation needs, especially for urban schools and in high-need areas. Along similar lines, many entrepreneurial teacher education reformers see the 'solution' to the problem as relocating teacher preparation at nGSEs, which generally have more affordable funding models, are often more flexible and/or speedy in terms of requirements and time frames, and are focused explicitly on effective classroom and school practices rather than theory and research, which are seen as much less relevant to effective practice (Caperton and Whitmire 2012; Gastic 2014; Schorr 2013).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-6">National and international policy/political contexts</hd> <p>The entrepreneurial teacher education reformers are part of the larger US education reform movement where accountability is central, effective practice is primary, and privatized and/or alternative approaches are privileged (Mehta 2013). In the US, as we have pointed out, entrepreneurial reform is led by new teacher educators, and it is often made possible by support from private foundations and private venture funds (Zeichner 2016; Zeichner and Pena-Sandoval 2015). Although entrepreneurial reform of teacher education is more prominent in the US than in other countries, however, it is not unique to the US.</p> <p>In England, the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017 began to allow the establishment of private higher education institutions that, for the first time, do not need a Royal Charter (Ellis, Steadman, and Trippestad in press). Some of the first of these to open under the new rule are private teacher education providers, such as the Institute for Teaching, modelled after the US independent new graduate schools of education, which Ellis and his colleagues at Kings College are studying. They point out that the advertising materials of the Institute portray a 'crisis' in England's school system, including students' under-performance on PISA and a general lack of social mobility. The Institute positions traditional university teacher education as the 'problem' here and suggests that the 'solution' is relocating teacher preparation with new providers, like the Institute, where students earn a 'master's in effective teaching' (Ellis, Steadman, and Trippestad in press). The Institute promises to spread opportunity more effectively, close England's attainment gap, and make better use of the nation's talent for future national competitiveness and individual benefit.</p> <p>Along related but different lines is Hibernia College, Ireland's only accredited third-level completely online institution, located in Dublin and privately operated since 2000. Although the number of student teachers recruited to college programs in Ireland is controlled by Ireland's Department of Education and Skills, there is no control on the number of candidates recruited by private operators. Consequently, Hibernia is now the largest provider of teacher education in Ireland, the number of teachers prepared for primary classrooms at Ireland's five colleges has been greatly reduced, and there is an oversupply of candidates, which has resulted in unemployment among graduates (O'Doherty 2016).</p> <p>Finally, in Israel, four new 'KIPP' schools have recently opened. KIPP is an acronym for the controversial Knowledge is Power Program, the largest network of charter schools in the US, located in urban areas serving students of color and low-income families (KIPP n.d.a; KIPP n.d.b). The teachers recruited for KIPP schools in Israel undergo a crash teacher training course, provided by Relay GSE instructors from the US and designed to help them acquire 100 core practices related to classroom management and implementation of fixed lesson plans. This new avenue for teacher preparation has been supported by Israel's Ministry of Education but is questioned by many university teacher educators (L. Orland-Barack, personal communication 2018).</p> <p>These examples indicate that entrepreneurial reform in teacher education is part of larger market-driven, decentralized education reforms in multiple countries. This approach to reform is changing our ideas about who is considered a teacher educator and what are regarded as the 'problem' and 'solution' to issues of teacher preparation and teacher quality. Entrepreneurial reform, which represents discontinuous, rather than adaptive change (Hannan and Freeman) within the turbulent field of teacher education, is one notable aspect of the turbulence.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-7">Teacher educators as managerial reformers</hd> <p>Across the world, there are many examples of what we are calling 'managerial reform' in teacher education. By this phrase, we mean reforms intended to improve the quality of teacher preparation through centralized or uniform management of particular aspects of initial teacher education curriculum, requirements, duration, assessment, and/or arrangements. Most managerial reforms are initiated by national or state level policymakers, including ministries or departments of education, and then implemented - whether reluctantly or enthusiastically - by teacher educators involved in particular programs, organizations, or institutions. For example, over the last several decades in order to boost teacher quality, a number of countries have required that all teacher candidates earn master's degrees in order to qualify as teachers. Similarly, in some countries the central government has required mergers in the higher education sector between teacher colleges/polytechnics and universities, with the goal of creating fewer but stronger academic institutions for teacher preparation. Although these are clear examples of managerial reform in teacher education, in this article our focus is on teacher education reforms initiated and developed <emph>by teacher educators themselves</emph> rather than reforms wherein teacher educators are required to implement the mandates of central governments or other external regulatory agencies.</p> <p>In the US, the most prominent instantiations of managerial reform initiated by teacher educators are national-level teacher education assessment processes and accountability tools purportedly created 'by and for' the profession. Two are most notable: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>) the accreditation standards of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which was the result of the 2013 merger of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC); and, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>) the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment, known as edTPA, which is a nationally available assessment used to evaluate the performance of teacher candidates and currently required for teacher licensure or widely used in teacher education programs in 41 of the 50 US states (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-8">Who the teacher educators are</hd> <p>If entrepreneurial reform of teacher education in the US is led by a new cadre of teacher educators, then managerial reform is led by teacher education's old guard. That is, new assessment and accountability tools have been created and advocated as the key to reform of the profession by the leaders of teacher education's major professional organizations - what some have rightly characterized as the teacher education establishment (Taubman 2009). For CAEP's initial standards, policies and processes, the teacher educator reformers included the leaders of the two unifying agencies-NCATE, which was the major teacher education national accreditor, and TEAC, the smaller alternative national accreditor-as well as leaders of the new CAEP organization itself and the agencies and organizations that CAEP brought to the table (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b). With edTPA, the teacher educator reformers included leaders at Stanford's Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE) in partnership with leaders at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), the major organization of university-affiliated teacher education schools, colleges, and departments in the US (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b).</p> <p>Like entrepreneurial reform, managerial reform of teacher education in the US is controversial. On one hand, CAEP accreditation procedures and edTPA were repeatedly described by their promoters as created 'by and for the profession' to renew public confidence, increase professionalization, and self-police through uniform and universal standards and measures (edTPA, n.d.a; CAEP 2016; Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b). On the other hand, over time, many questions surfaced about professional representation and jurisdiction. Critiques suggested that both CAEP and edTPA were increasingly experienced by teacher candidates and teacher educators as externally imposed reforms not consistent with local values, and intended primarily to micro-manage through scrutiny, monitoring, and alignment (AACTE 2015; Picower and Marshall 2016; Tuck and Gorlewski 2016).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-9">Teacher educators' perceptions of the teacher education 'problem' and 'solution'</hd> <p>Interestingly what the managerial reformers perceive as the 'problem 'of teacher education is similar in some ways to what the entrepreneurial reformers perceive, but for different reasons. At a broad level, both groups see 'traditional' university-sponsored teacher preparation as the 'problem.' While the entrepreneurial reformers advocate the relocation of teacher preparation away from universities, the managerial reformers maintain that universities are the primary context for preparation, but they aim to alter dramatically how universities do business. Managerial reformers target the alleged failure of university teacher education to use uniform measures of professional competence coupled with the failure to make decisions according to data-based evidence about program impact and graduates' effectiveness (CAEP 2016; edTPA 2017; Teacher Preparation Analytics 2014). The managerial reformers conclude that these twin failures precipitated lack of public confidence in teacher education and the inability of university preparation to produce effective beginning teachers. Here, the 'solution' - or, the reform needed to fix the problem - is to hold teacher education accountable for impact and effectiveness using universal tools and assessments (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b).</p> <p>As we did with entrepreneurial reform above, here we take a closer look at one specific example of how managerial reformers construct the 'problem' of teacher education and the reforms needed. Faculty and staff at SCALE developed edTPA in partnership with AACTE. The controversial assessment, which was designed to assess what teacher candidates do and how they reflect on their work (AACTE n.d.), requires aspiring teachers to submit a portfolio of lessons and reflections that are scored by anonymous, external reviewers managed by the Pearson corporation. The portfolio highlights teacher candidates' knowledge and skills related to planning, instruction, and assessment through classroom video recordings, student work samples, and commentaries (Pecheone et al. 2013). The website for edTPA includes answers to Frequently Asked Questions. In response to questions about why edTPA was created, the website states: 'The teaching profession cannot afford to wait a year or more for new teachers to become really effective...New teachers have to be effective from Day 1' (edTPA n.d.b). This brief statement along with other edTPA materials (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b) suggests that the 'problem' of teacher education is its failure to produce new teachers who are immediately effective in schools and classrooms, and that the 'solution' is implementation of 'a research- and standards-based tool that can serve as a common and independent measure of candidate performance' (edTPA n.d.c). In short, the theory of change behind edTPA and behind CAEP's accreditation procedures is that the universal implementation of high-stakes public and uniform professional accountability tools will reform the profession and increase both public confidence and effectiveness, similar to the way the bar exam or board certification exams function in the major professions of law and medicine.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-10">National and international policy/political contexts</hd> <p>Like entrepreneurial reform, managerial reform initiated by teacher educators is part of the larger education reform movement in the US and, to a certain extent, globally. Unlike the entrepreneurial reformers who sidestep universities and relocate teacher preparation primarily outside of universities, however, we have argued that the managerial reformers want to fix university teacher education by managing it better, especially by enforcing standardized, uniform, and universal assessments and standards, which are considered the key to quality.</p> <p>Another interesting example of teacher educators as managerial reformers in the US is the group, Deans for Impact, which was founded in 2015 as a voluntary non-profit education organization that supports deans of schools of education and other educator preparation providers (including nGSEs) in efforts to improve programs (Deans for Impact 2015, 2017). This organization, controversial because of its buy-in to the effectiveness agenda and its ties to the charter school champion, New Schools Venture Fund, currently has 22 members who are deans of US graduate schools of education or executive directors of related organizations. The policy agenda of Deans for Impact is to urge states to produce better data about the impact of preparation program graduates and to emphasize that preparation programs are fully on board with the effectiveness agenda. In particular the group's purpose is to 'improve student learning outcomes by changing the way [the US] prepares teachers' (Deans for Impact 2018). Currently the group is creating a 'common indicators system,' including a classroom observation protocol, a teacher dispositions instrument (measuring dispositions such as 'grit' and efficacy), and a survey of how principals assess the preparedness of new teachers. The aim is widespread use of data from these indicators to drive preparation program improvement.</p> <p>Interestingly there are few examples of teacher educators themselves initiating and developing managerial reforms in countries other than the US. Although there are widespread managerial reforms of teacher education in countries across the world, these are almost exclusively initiated by regulatory agencies external to teacher education programs and institutions themselves. For example, Australia is currently implementing a requirement that teacher candidates pass a performance assessment. In many ways, this is similar to efforts in the US to require teacher candidates to pass edTPA or other standardized teacher performance assessments to demonstrate their readiness for the classroom. However in Australia, the impetus came from the central government, advised by the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (2014) and not from teacher educators themselves.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-11">Teacher educators as democratic reformers</hd> <p>The third approach to reform initiated and developed by teacher educators themselves is what we are calling 'democratic reform,' which contrasts sharply with both entrepreneurial reform and managerial reform. By 'democratic reform,' we refer to efforts by teacher educators to transform initial teacher preparation in support of the larger democratic project. This means emphasizing the obligation of teacher education programs and institutions in a democratic society to prepare teachers not only to work with others to enact deliberative democratic education but also to identify and work with others to eradicate the structures and systems that produce and reproduce school and societal inequity. This is built on the premise that in a democratic society, the work of teachers and teacher educators is a public enterprise for the common good rather than a market enterprise based on individual competition for private goods.</p> <p>In the US, democratic reforms include a loose collection of local, state, and national projects initiated by teacher educators. Here, we focus on two examples: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>) innovative teacher preparation programs with different but explicit democratic education goals; and, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>) 'Education Deans for Justice and Equity,' a new nationwide alliance of education school deans and former deans who are committed to furthering equity and justice in education through a collective public voice.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-12">Who the teacher educators are</hd> <p>Like managerial reformers, US teacher educators involved in democratic reforms work primarily in support of university-based teacher preparation programs, although, unlike managerial reformers, some democratic reformers operate away from the center of the teacher education establishment. Most are either faculty members directly involved in local program development or leaders of schools of education.</p> <p>Some teacher educators involved in democratic reform have established local innovative teacher preparation programs and partnerships working with community groups as co-equal teacher educators where there is an effort to shift power relationships toward more democratic arrangements and and to value the knowledge of community and family members. Examples include teacher education programs at Ball State University (Zygmunt and Clark 2015) and the University of Washington (Kretchmar and Zeichner 2016; Zeichner, Payne, and Brayko 2015). Additionally, some programs have worked to make democratic content itself integral to programs and have used principles of democracy as yardsticks against which teacher candidates' skills are evaluated. Examples include the program for the preparation of teachers of autistic students[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>] at Lesley University, which focuses on the tenets of self-advocacy, social justice, and democratic education (Keefe 2015, 2016), and the teacher preparation program at the University of California, Los Angeles, where teacher candidates are prepared to work with poor communities as educator activists (Quartz 2003). Beyond the local level, the Education Deans for Justice and Equity (EDJE) is a nationwide alliance of more than 200 deans/former deans of education schools, founded in 2016, with the goal of advancing equity and justice in education (Education Deans for Justice and Equity, 2018).</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-13">Teacher educators' perceptions of the teacher education 'problem' and 'solution'</hd> <p>US teacher educators involved in both entrepreneurial and managerial reform position university teacher education as the 'problem' of teacher education. In contrast, democratic reformers see the 'problem' as the impact of the larger neoliberal education reform movement itself. This includes the heavy emphasis on economic success, competition, and effectiveness narrowly defined as test scores, as well as the assumption that teachers and schools - rather than outside factors, such as poverty and the long history of policies and practices that have reproduced inequities - are responsible for school failure (Lipman 2011; Mehta 2013).</p> <p>From the perspective of democratic teacher educator reformers, the dominance of market-based reforms have undermined teacher education's many other goals and subtracted from its capacity to focus on equity, justice, community knowledge traditions, and democratic education (Au 2016; Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b). Democratic reformers construct the 'solution' to the problem - or the reform that is needed - as transformation of the work of teacher education, including resistance to the dominant accountability paradigm and an additive and democratic approach to education writ large.</p> <p>We use the mission statement of EDJE as a key example here. According to their website, EDJE (2018) makes this statement about its mission:</p> <p>Public education has, in many ways, functioned historically to sort and marginalize various groups, and so-called 'reforms' often exacerbate the problems. The purposes and the promises of public education are to prepare all students to succeed and flourish in life, and we insist this cannot be done without explicitly and intentionally addressing inequities and injustices in education, particularly regarding nationality, language, race, social class, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, and other dimensions of diversity. As deans of education, we have a moral responsibility to act on the following principles, individually and collectively.</p> <p></p> <p>The statement then lists multiple principles regarding the role of public education in a democratic society, the structures and systems the produce inequity, and the role of education school leaders in challenging the system.</p> <p>EDJE's statement encapsulates their perceptions, as one group of democratic reformers, of both the 'problem' and the 'solution' of teacher education. As they see it, the 'problem' is trying to educate all students <emph>without</emph> addressing the systems that produce and reproduce inequities and injustices in education. It follows then, that a central part of the 'solution' is deans and other education leaders taking action that addresses these injustices in their daily work as well as speaking out collectively to try to change the terms of the debate about education and teacher education reform.</p> <p>It is important to note that democratic reform is <emph>not</emph> part of the mainstream education reform movement in the US. In fact, democratic reformers reject the goal of closing the achievement gap in order to boost the quality of the work force so the nation can better compete in the global economy, which consolidates global economic power for the benefit of a few (Perkins 2004; Sleeter 2009) and masks the systemic and structural aspects of inequality that reproduce inequities for marginalized groups (Au 2016). Unlike entrepreneurial reformers who want to relocate teacher preparation at new institutions and managerial reformers who want universal accountability standards, teacher educators committed to democratic reform seek to dramatically reinvent and democratize university teacher education with the goal of strong democracy and strong equity (Cochran-Smith et al. 2018b).</p> <p>Like both entrepreneurial and managerial reform, democratic reform is controversial. Some critics starkly claim that focusing on equity and justice in teacher education precludes focusing adequately on teacher effectiveness (Crowe 2010; Schrag 1999). In addition, however, there are many challenges involved in this kind of work, not the least of which are the often-unexamined tensions within university programs themselves. In particular there are challenges between the demands of tuition-driven models of teacher preparation, on one hand, and the beliefs of teacher education leaders and faculty about what it takes to prepare teachers to work with others to create learning environments that are deliberative and democratic in increasingly diverse and divided societies, on the other.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-14">National and international policy/political contexts</hd> <p>As noted, teacher educators involved in democratic reforms push against and often explicitly challenge the dominant reform movement and the neoliberal policies and practices that are part of it. These efforts are not unique to the US.</p> <p>There are local programs initiated and developed by teacher educators with democratic and equity goals in many countries throughout the world. For example, in New Zealand, where positive aggregate results on international comparisons mask one of the largest gaps between high and low achieving students among OECD countries (Snook and O'Neill 2014), teacher educators have developed new programs, such as the Masters of Teaching Program, which is an innovative program sponsored by the University of Auckland where equity has been positioned as the center of coursework, fieldwork, and partnerships with schools (Cochran-Smith et al 2016a; Ell et al. 2017; Grudnoff et al. 2017). A second international example is the National Exceptional Teaching for Disadvantaged Schools program (NETDS), which originated at Queensland University of Technology (Burnett and Lampert 2016; Lampert and Burnett 2015) but has now 'scaled up' to seven universities in Australia. Prior to placements in high-poverty communities, NETDS teacher candidates have extensive coursework that explicitly rejects individualistic and universalistic definitions of equity and instead helps teacher candidates understand the conditions that produce and sustain inequity (Lampert et al. 2017). The NETDS program is - in part - a response and a rejection of the growing number of neoliberal educational reforms in Australia.</p> <p>Finally, we include Scotland as an example of democratic reform at a national level. Although Scotland has certainly been subject to the influences of the global education reform movement, historically the country has had a belief in the power of education as a force for social change and in the power of teachers and teacher educators in that process (Beauchamp et al. 2015). Teacher professionalism is at the heart of the teacher education policy agenda in Scotland as reflected in the General Teaching Council for Scotland, which is the world's first independent, self-regulating professional body of teaching with independent status from the government. A recent OECD (2014) report on Scottish Education described Scotland's high regard for teachers and its commitment to the centrality of teachers' professional judgement as 'an admirable counterbalance to the trends in many Western countries which have seen the status of teachers and teaching decline in past decades,' although the report also said these standards were harder to put into practice than they were to create.</p> <hd id="AN0132616837-15">Teacher educators as reformers: conclusion</hd> <p>This analysis of the different approaches of teacher education reformers has focused primarily on the features of entrepreneurial, managerial, and democratic reform. By way of an overview of these three and to emphasize the changing institutional landscape of teacher preparation, we present them side-by-side in Figure 2. Reading vertically, the columns in the figure represent the three approaches. Reading horizontally, the rows of the figure represent the four factors of our framework.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Teacher educators as reformers: competing Agendas.</p> <p>As Figure 1 shows, there are notable similarities as well as differences across the approaches. What we refer to in our framework as 'who the teacher educator reformers are' has to do with the institutional actors (Scott et al. 2000) involved in reform. Here, although they have sharply diverging goals, both the managerial and the democratic reformers are the leaders and faculty of university-based teacher preparation programs and institutions, which are structured to a great extent by the knowledge traditions, norms, and logics of universities. In contrast, the entrepreneurial reformers are the founders and leaders of an increasingly diverse array of teacher preparation providers intentionally unaffiliated with universities. As we noted, in many cases, these new organizations represent an intentional epistemological and structural break with the traditions and norms of universities.</p> <p>In contrast to the affinity in institutional positionality between managerial and democratic reformers, with the second factor in the framework - how the 'problem' of teacher education is constructed - there is instead affinity between the entrepreneurial and the managerial reformers. That is, as the second row of Figure 2 indicates, both entrepreneurial and managerial reformers identify the status quo of university teacher education as the 'problem 'in need of reform. The entrepreneurial reformers construct the major 'problem' as university teacher education's heavy emphasis on theory, lack of attention to the nuts and bolts of practice, and a non context-specific approach to preparation. The managerial reformers construct the 'problem' as universities' failure to develop as a profession and earn public confidence because they lack uniform assessments and data systems that drive continuous improvement based on program impact and graduates' effectiveness. Both these perspectives stand in sharp contrast to the democratic reformers' construction of the 'problem', which is the dominance of the education reform movement itself, with its heavy focus on teacher quality as the cause of poor student performance, its narrow definition of accountability and teacher effectiveness, and its lack of attention to the structural and systemic factors that produce inequities.</p> <p>Interestingly, as the third row of Figure 2 summarizes, even when teacher educator reformers agree on what the 'problem' of teacher education is, they diverge in the ways they construct the 'solution.' The entrepreneurial teacher educator reformers are relocating teacher preparation within new institutions, emphasizing strategies that 'work,' relying on private funding, and establishing new governance systems. The managerial reformers, on the other hand, have developed new standardized assessments and accreditation systems that require compliance and uniformity across institutions with the goal of controlling the sprawling enterprise of university teacher education. Finally the democratic reformers are involved in multiple efforts to interrogate the structures and systems that perpetuate inequity by concentrating on both the day-to-day leadership of education schools/teacher education programs and on collective public efforts to change the terms of the education reform debate, which mask the structural and racialized nature of inequality within a discourse of individualism and equal access.</p> <p>Finally, as the fourth row of Figure 2 suggests, there is affinity in the larger policy and political agendas to which entrepreneurial and managerial reforms are connected. Both are aligned with aspects of the larger market-oriented and/or neoliberal national and global education reform movements, which emphasize competition among schools and nations, data-driven decision making, high-stakes testing, and other accountability systems with severe consequences for failure to meet expectations. Democratic reforms are in direct opposition to these.</p> <p>Our intention in this article has not been to evaluate or critique the reform approaches initiated by teacher educators themselves. Rather, we have focused here on the institutional positionality of each group and how each constructs its own arguments and lays out its own assumptions. We argue that this kind of analysis is critical to understanding the current discourse of reform and the competing agendas that currently dominate the politics of teacher education.</p> <ref id="AN0132616837-16"> <title> Note </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Identity first language is used here in keeping with the recommendation of self-advocate colleagues and the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network [ASAN] (See, Brown, n.d.. 'Identity-First Language.'). The language is explicitly intended to be a disruption of typical language used in the field.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0132616837-17">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0132616837-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Akiba, M., and G. LeTendre. 2018. <emph>The Routledge International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy</emph>. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 2015. " AACTE Board Resolution on CAEP " https://aacte.org/news-room/press-releases-statements/488-aacte-board-resolution-on-caep.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Apple, M. 2006. <emph>Educating the "Right" Way: Markets, Standards, God and Inequality</emph>. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Au, W. 2016. " Meritocracy 2.0: High-Stakes, Standardized Testing as a Racial Project of Neoliberal Multiculturalism." <emph>Educational Policy</emph> 30 ( 1 ): 39 - 62. doi: 10.1177/0895904815614916.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. 2012. <emph>Global Education Inc: New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary</emph>. London, UK : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Beauchamp, G., L. Clarke, M. Hulme, and J. Murray. 2015. " Teacher Education in the United Kingdom Post Devolution: Convergences and Divergences." <emph>Oxford Review of Education</emph> 41 ( 2 ): 154 - 170. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1017403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burnett, B., and J. Lampert. 2016. " Re-Thinking Teacher Quality in High-Poverty Schools in Australia." In <emph>Education, Equity, Economy: Crafting a New Intersection</emph>, edited by G. W. Noblit and W. T. Pink, 51 - 72. New York, NY : Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Caperton, G., and R. Whitmire. 2012. <emph>The Achievable Dream: College Board Lessons on Creating Great Schools</emph>. New York, NY : College Board.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M. 2005. " The New Teacher Education: For Better or for Worse?." <emph>Educational Researcher</emph> 34 ( 7 ): 3 - 17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034007003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., M. Carney., E. S. Keefe, A. F. Miller, and J. G. Sanchez. 2018a, April. Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education: Studying a Controversial Innovation. Paper presented at 2018 AERA Annual Meeting, New York, NY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., M. C. Carney., E. S. Keefe, S. Burton, W. C. Chang, M. B. Fernandez, A. F. Miller, J. G. Sanchez, and M. Baker. 2018b. <emph>Reclaiming Accountability in Teacher Education</emph>. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., M. C. Carney., and A. Miller. 2016, November. Relocating Teacher Preparation: New Graduate Schools of Education and Their Implications. Paper presented at the Lynch School of Education 10th Anniversary Endowed Chairs Colloquium Series, Chestnut Hill, MA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., F. Ell., L. Grudnoff, M. Haigh, M. Hill, and L. Ludlow. 2016a. " Initial Teacher Education: What Does It Take to Put Equity at the Center?." <emph>Teaching and Teacher Education</emph> 57 : 67 - 78. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cochran-Smith, M., R. Stern., J. G. Sánchez, A. Miller, E. S. Keefe, M. B. Fernández, W.-C. Chang, M. C. Carney, S. Burton, and M. Baker. 2016b. <emph>Holding Teacher Education Accountable: A Review of Claims and Evidence</emph>. Boulder, CO : National Education Policy Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. 2016. " CAEP Accreditation Handbook, V.3) " July 30 2018 <ulink href="http://caepnet.org/~/media/CAEP%20Accreditation%20Handbook%5fMarch%202016.pdf?la=en">http://caepnet.org/~/media/CAEP%20Accreditation%20Handbook%5fMarch%202016.pdf?la=en</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crowe, E. 2010. <emph>Measuring What Matters: A Stronger Accountability Model for Teacher Education</emph>. Washington, DC : Center for American Progress.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deans for Impact. 2015. " Comments on the department of education's proposed regulation under title II of the higher education act " <ulink href="http://deansforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Deans%5ffor%5fImpact%5fLetter.pdf">http://deansforimpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Deans%5ffor%5fImpact%5fLetter.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deans for Impact. 2017. " From chaos to coherence: a policy Agenda for accessing and using outcomes data in educator preparation " <ulink href="http://www.deansforimpact.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/From%5fChaos%5fto%5fCoherence.pdf">http://www.deansforimpact.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/From%5fChaos%5fto%5fCoherence.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deans for Impact. 2018. " About Us " July 30 2018 https://deansforimpact.org/about-us/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> edTPA. 2017 November 3. Annual Administrative Report on edTPA Data Shows Continued Growth and Support for the First Nationally Available Assessment of Teacher Candidates. [Press Release]. July 30 2018 <ulink href="http://edtpa.aacte.org/news-area/annual-administrative-report-on-edtpa-data-shows-continued-growth-and-support-for-the-first-nationally-available-assessment-of-teacher-candidates.html">http://edtpa.aacte.org/news-area/annual-administrative-report-on-edtpa-data-shows-continued-growth-and-support-for-the-first-nationally-available-assessment-of-teacher-candidates.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> edTPA. n.d.a. " About edTPA " https://<ulink href="http://www.edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN%5fAboutEdTPA.html">www.edtpa.com/PageView.aspx?f=GEN%5fAboutEdTPA.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> edTPA. n.d.b. FAQ" July 30 2018 <ulink href="http://edtpa.aacte.org/faq">http://edtpa.aacte.org/faq</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> edTPA. n.d.c. "Fact Sheet„ July 30 2018 https://coe.uni.edu/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/edtpaFACTSHEET.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Deans for Justice and Equity. 2018. " Home Page " <ulink href="http://educationdeans.org/">http://educationdeans.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ell, F., M. Haigh, M. Cochran-Smith, L. Grudnoff, L. Ludlow, and M. F. Hill. 2017. " Mapping a Complex System: What Influences Teacher Learning during Initial Teacher Education? " <emph>Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education</emph> 45 ( 4 ): 327 - 345. doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2017.1309640.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, V., and J. McNicholl. 2015. <emph>Transforming Teacher Education: Reconfiguring the Academic Work</emph>. London, UK : Bloomsbury Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, V., S. Steadman., and T. Trippestad. in press. " Teacher Education and the GERM: Policy Entrepreneurship, Disruptive Innovation, and the Rhetorics of Reform." <emph>Educational Review</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Entman, R. M. 1993. " Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." <emph>Journal of Communication</emph> 43 ( 4 ): 51 - 58. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furlong, J., M. Cochran-Smith., and M. Brennan. 2009. <emph>Policy and Politics in Teacher Education</emph>. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gastic, B. 2014. " Closing the Opportunity Gap: Preparing the Next Generation of Effective Teachers." In <emph>Teacher Quality 2.0: Toward a New Era in Education Reform</emph>, edited by F. Hess and M. McShane, 91 - 108. Cambridge, MA : Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grudnoff, L., M. Haigh., M. Hill., M. Cochran-Smith, F. Ell, and L. Ludlow. 2017. " Teaching for Equity: Insights from International Evidence with Implications for a Teacher Education Curriculum." <emph>The Curriculum Journal</emph> 28 ( 3 ): 305 - 326. doi: 10.1080/09585176.2017.1292934.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hannan, M. T., and J. Freeman. 1989. <emph>Organizational Ecology</emph>. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanushek, E. A., and L. Woessmann. 2015. <emph>The Knowledge Capital or Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth</emph>. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keefe, E. S. 2015. <emph>Autism Spectrum Disorder: Through a Democratic Lens. Presentation</emph>. Boston, MA : Wheelock College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keefe, E. S. 2016. <emph>Graduate Studies in Autism: Program Matrix</emph>. Cambridge, MA : Lesley University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> KIPP. n.d. a. https://<ulink href="http://www.kipp.org/results/national/#question-1:-who-are-our-students">www.kipp.org/results/national/#question-1:-who-are-our-students</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> KIPP. n.d. b. <ulink href="http://www.kipp.org/results/national/#question-1:-who-are-our-students">http://www.kipp.org/results/national/#question-1:-who-are-our-students</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kretchmar, K., and K. Zeichner. 2016. " Teacher Prep 3.0: A Vision for Teacher Education to Impact Social Transformation." <emph>Journal of Education for Teaching</emph> 42 ( 4 ): 417 - 433. doi: 10.1080/02607476.2016.1215550.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lampert, J., and B. Burnett, Eds. 2015. <emph>Teacher Education for High Poverty Schools (Vol. 2)</emph>. New York, NY : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lampert, J., B. Burnett., B. Comber., A. Ferguson, and N. Barnes. 2017. " It's Not about Punitive': Exploring How Early-Career Teachers in High-Poverty Schools Respond to Critical Incidents." <emph>Critical Studies in Education</emph> 58 ( 1 ): 1 - 17. doi: 10.1080/17508487.2017.1385500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipman, P. 2011. " Neoliberal Education Restructuring Dangers and Opportunities of the Present Crisis." <emph>Monthly Review</emph> 63 ( 3 ): 114 - 127. doi: 10.14452/MR-063-03-2011-07_13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luke, A. 2004. " Teaching after the Market: From Commodity to Cosmopolitan." <emph>Teachers College Record</emph> 106 ( 7 ): 1422 - 1443. doi: 10.1111/tcre.2004.106.issue-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehta, J. 2013. " How Paradigms Create Politics: The Transformation of American Educational Policy, 1980-2001." <emph>American Educational Research Journal</emph> 50 ( 2 ): 285 - 324. doi: 10.3102/0002831212471417.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Doherty, T. 2016. " Teacher Education in the Republic of Ireland: A Challenging and Changing Landscape." In <emph>Teacher Education in Times of Change</emph>, edited by G. Beauchamp, L. Clarke, M. Hulme, M. Jephcote, A. Kennedy, G. Magennis, I. Menter, T. Mutton, T. O'Doherty, and G. Peiser, 125 - 140. Bristol, UK : Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2005. <emph>Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers</emph>. Paris, France: Office of Economic Cooperation and Development</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. 2014. <emph>Improving Schools in Wales: An OECD Perspective</emph>. Paris, France : Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pecheone, R., B. Shear, A. Whittaker, and L. Darling-Hammond. 2013. " edTPA Field Test: summary report " <emph>Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity</emph>. https://secure.aacte.org/apps/rl/res_get.php?fid=827&ref</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perkins, J. 2004. <emph>Confessions of an Economic Hit Man</emph>. San Francisco, CA : Berrett Koehler Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Picower, B., and A. M. Marshall. 2016. " Run like Hell to Look before You Leap: Teacher Educators' Responses to Preparing Teachers for Diversity and Social Justice in the Wake of edTPA." In <emph>Teacher Performance Assessment and Accountability Reforms: The Impacts of edTPA on Teaching and Schools</emph>, edited by J. H. Carter and H. A. Lochte, 189 - 212. New York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quartz, K. H. 2003. " Too Angry to Leave Supporting New Teachers' Commitment to Transform Urban Schools." <emph>Journal of Teacher Education</emph> 54 ( 2 ): 99 - 111. doi: 10.1177/0022487102250284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schorr, J. 2013. " A Revolution Begins in Teacher Prep." <emph>Stanford Social Innovation Review</emph> 11 ( 1 ). April 1, 2018. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/a_revolution_begins_in_teacher_prep.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrag, P. 1999. " Who Will Teach the Teachers? " <emph>University Business</emph> 29 : 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, J. 2016. " The Politics of Market Based Education Reform." In <emph>Learning from the Federal Market-Based Reforms</emph>, edited by M. Matthis and T. Trujillo, 9 - 37. Charlotte, NC : Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, W. R., M. Ruef, P. Mendel, and C. Caronna. 2000. <emph>Institutional Change and Healthcare Organizations. From Professional Dominance to Managed Care</emph>. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharp, L., and T. Richardson. 2001. " Reflections on Foucauldian Discourse Analysis in Planning and Environmental Research." <emph>Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning</emph> 3 ( 3 ): 193 - 210. doi: 10.1002/jepp.88.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sleeter, C. E. 2009. " Teacher Education, Neoliberalism, and Social Justice." In <emph>The Handbook of Social Justice in Education</emph>, edited by W. Ayers, T. Quinn, and D. Stovell, 611 - 624. Philadelphia, PA : Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snook, I., and J. O'Neill. 2014. " Poverty and Inequality of Educational Achievement." In <emph>Twelve Thousand Hours: Education and Poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand</emph>, edited by V. Carpenter and S. Osborne, 19 - 43. Auckland, NZ : Dunmore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sposato Graduate School of Education ( 2015 ). How We're Different. <ulink href="http://www.sposatogse.org/about/overview/">http://www.sposatogse.org/about/overview/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, D. 2012. <emph>Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making</emph>. 3rd ed. New York : Norton & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taubman, P. M. 2009. <emph>Teaching by Numbers: Deconstructing the Discourse of Standards and Accountability in Education</emph>. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group. 2014. " Action now: classroom ready teachers " <emph>(Australia Department of Education)</emph>. <ulink href="http://www.studentsrst.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group">http://www.studentsrst.gov.au/teacher-education-ministerial-advisory-group</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Teacher Preparation Analytics. 2014. " Building an Evidence Based System for Teacher Preparation " https://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/building_an_evidence_based_system_for_teacher_preparation_201409151.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuck, E., and J. Gorlewski. 2016. " Racist Ordering, Settler Colonialism, and edTPA: A Participatory Policy Analysis." <emph>Educational Policy</emph> 30 ( 1 ): 197 - 217. doi: 10.1177/0895904815616483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2014. " Wanted: trained teachers to ensure every child's right to primary education " <emph>[Policy Paper 15/Fact Sheet 30]</emph>. <ulink href="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002299/229913E.pdf">http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002299/229913E.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vidovich, L. 2007. " Removing Policy from Its Pedestal: Some Theoretical Framings and Practical Possibilities." <emph>Educational Review</emph> 59 ( 3 ): 285 - 298. doi: 10.1080/00131910701427231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, S. 2014. " Innovation and the Evolving System of U.S. Teacher Preparation." <emph>Theory Into Practice</emph> 53 ( 3 ): 183 - 195. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2014.916569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Bank. 2010. " Teacher politics around the world: objectives, rationale, methodological approach and products " <ulink href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/Vegasetal%5f%5fTeacherpoliciesaroundtheworld.draft.pdf">http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/Vegasetal%5f%5fTeacherpoliciesaroundtheworld.draft.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. 2016. <emph>Independent Teacher Education Programs: Apocryphal Claims, Illusory Evidence</emph>. Boulder, CO : National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teacher-education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K., K. A. Payne., and K. Brayko. 2015. " Democratizing Teacher Education." <emph>Journal of Teacher Education</emph> 66 ( 2 ): 122 - 135. doi: 10.1177/0022487114560908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K., and C. Pena-Sandoval. 2015. " Venture Philanthropy and Teacher Education Policy in the US: The Role of the New Schools Venture Fund." <emph>Teachers College Record</emph> 117 ( 6 ): 1 - 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zygmunt, E., and P. Clark. 2015. <emph>Transforming Teacher Education for Social Justice</emph>. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Marilyn Cochran-Smith; Elizabeth Stringer Keefe and Molly Cummings Carney</p> <p></p> <p>Marilyn Cochran-Smith holds the Cawthorne Chair in Teacher Education for Urban Schools at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, USA. Her scholarship over 30 years has focused on teacher education research, policy, and practice nationally and internationally with special attention to diversity, social justice, and practitioner inquiry. She is a past President of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and an elected member of the National Academy of Education. She is an author of the award-winning Reclaiming Accountability in Teacher Education (2018, Teachers College Press). She is Principal Investigator of a Spencer Foundation-supported study of teacher preparation at new graduate schools of education.</p> <p>Elizabeth Stringer Keefe is a teacher educator and researcher at the Graduate School of Education at Lesley University, USA.  As Co-Director of the Graduate Special Education Program and faculty coordinator of Graduate Studies in Autism, Stringer Keefe’s research focuses on teacher education and teacher education policy, special education teacher preparation, and teacher preparedness to educate autistic students. She is President of Massachusetts Council for Exceptional Children. She is co-author of Remixing the Curriculum: The Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Technology (2018, Rowman & Littlefield) and an author of the award-winning Reclaiming Accountability in Teacher Education (2018, Teachers College Press). Stringer Keefe is Co-Principal Investigator of a Spencer Foundation-supported study of teacher preparation at new graduate schools of education.</p> <p>Molly Cummings Carney is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College, USA, where she is studying teacher education and education policy. Her research focuses on innovation in initial teacher education, online teacher preparation, and equity and social justice in urban schools. She is an author of the award-winning Reclaiming Accountability in Teacher Education (2018, Teachers College Press) and Project Coordinator of a Spencer Foundation-supported study of teacher preparation at new graduate schools of education.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1195070
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Educators as Reformers: Competing Agendas
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cochran-Smith%2C+Marilyn%22">Cochran-Smith, Marilyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stringer+Keefe%2C+Elizabeth%22">Stringer Keefe, Elizabeth</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9573-4925">0000-0002-9573-4925</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carney%2C+Molly+Cummings%22">Carney, Molly Cummings</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22European+Journal+of+Teacher+Education%22"><i>European Journal of Teacher Education</i></searchLink>. 2018 41(5):572-590.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Educators%22">Teacher Educators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change+Agents%22">Change Agents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Change+Strategies%22">Change Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Politics+of+Education%22">Politics of Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Styles%22">Leadership Styles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02619768.2018.1523391
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0261-9768
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Most of today's reforms of initial teacher education programs, policies, and practices have positioned teachers and teacher educators as the objects, rather than the agents of reform. In contrast, this article focuses on teacher educators as reformers by analyzing three approaches to reform that are initiated, developed, and promoted by teacher educators themselves: "entrepreneurial reform," "managerial reform," and "democratic reform." The article concentrates primarily on "teacher educators as reformers" in the US, but also includes examples from other countries. For each approach, the article considers: who the teacher educator reformers are and how they are positioned; how they construct the 'problem' of teacher education; what reforms they advocate as the 'solution'; and, how these are related to larger policy and political agendas. The article argues that this kind of analysis is critical to understanding the current discourse of reform and the competing agendas that dominate the politics of teacher education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 71
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1195070
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1195070
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02619768.2018.1523391
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 572
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Educators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change Agents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Change Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Politics of Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Styles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Educators as Reformers: Competing Agendas
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cochran-Smith, Marilyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stringer Keefe, Elizabeth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carney, Molly Cummings
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0261-9768
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 41
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Journal of Teacher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1