View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Re-Professionalizing Teaching: The New Professionalism in the United States

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Re-Professionalizing Teaching: The New Professionalism in the United States
Language: English
Authors: Brass, Jory, Holloway, Jessica (ORCID 0000-0001-9267-3197)
Source: Critical Studies in Education. 2021 62(4):519-536.
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: 18
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Professionalism, Professional Identity, Commercialization, Standards, Accountability, Accreditation (Institutions), Teacher Education Programs, Performance Based Assessment, Teacher Evaluation, Value Added Models, Alignment (Education), Values, Middle School Teachers, Educational Change, Educational Policy, Federal Legislation, Educational Legislation, Federal Aid, Federal Programs
Geographic Terms: Arizona, Michigan
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: No Child Left Behind Act 2001, Race to the Top
DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2019.1579743
ISSN: 1750-8487
Abstract: This article examines the re-professionalization of teaching across a transformative decade of market-based and standards-based reforms in the U.S.A. The first section works with the sociological concept of the 'new professionalism' to situate the No Child Left Behind act, Race to the Top, and CAEP accreditation within a broader movement to align the professions with the commercial and managerial values of the private sector. The next section compares teacher interviews conducted at the onset of NCLB with interviews conducted at the height of Race to the Top to highlight how the ongoing shift from 'occupational' to 'organizational' governance of teaching can change how teachers think about and fashion themselves as teachers. This policy analysis and qualitative analysis aims to help the education field recognize, situate and interrupt education reforms that govern teaching and teacher education through standardization, commercialization and outcomes-based performance management.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1309238
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGBH3sXHNGLJLYSMsbn6rkAAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN9egu3WyEnItx4TrAIBEICBmyYSBjZIUMTATlK7a-qI5hYrlKLVFx_AYo6jp1LbcTiD84qDn4-sc5ARTMhNgi9gFyj74Sjfu-t-QLAvqgJoiI3NqOzx0lc2qKqcktmEZS3hhbMM1LUkRKcUry3njluT4BrA6Zum2q0AcwZt65Bhy77u4ZROawzyPk5cfqWuZs8K-_SzUVwqnedKWWyRQ7pKd5OrpUR1qSdO5Iab
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152395983;[30nj]01oct.21;2021Sep14.02:56;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152395983-1">Re-professionalizing teaching: the new professionalism in the United States </title> <p>This article examines the re-professionalization of teaching across a transformative decade of market-based and standards-based reforms in the U.S.A. The first section works with the sociological concept of the 'new professionalism' to situate the No Child Left Behind act, Race to the Top, and CAEP accreditation within a broader movement to align the professions with the commercial and managerial values of the private sector. The next section compares teacher interviews conducted at the onset of NCLB with interviews conducted at the height of Race to the Top to highlight how the ongoing shift from 'occupational' to 'organizational' governance of teaching can change how teachers think about and fashion themselves as teachers. This policy analysis and qualitative analysis aims to help the education field recognize, situate and interrupt education reforms that govern teaching and teacher education through standardization, commercialization and outcomes-based performance management.</p> <p>Keywords: New professionalism; teacher professionalism; organizational professionalism; standards; accountability; value-added models; education reform; education policy</p> <p>No one can doubt anymore that we are in the midst of the most massive transformation in public education since its creation. (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>])</p> <p>The last two decades of education reform have fundamentally shifted the contours of curriculum, teaching and teacher education in the United States. Peter Taubman's ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]) <emph>Teaching by Numbers</emph> traced the 'remarkable speed' at which the 'standards and accountability' measures of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 'profoundly affected all aspects of teaching, schooling, and teacher education in the United States'(p. 12). From 2009 to 2015, the Obama administration accelerated this 'massive transformation' with its signature education reform, Race to the Top. Race to the Top was a competitive grant program which leveraged $4.35 billion in economic stimulus funds to incentivize states to adopt the Common Core State Standards and CCSS-aligned tests, build longitudinal data systems to track student growth measures, expand educational privatisation and increase the role of student performance measures in teacher and administrator evaluation.</p> <p>These reforms mirror global policies which replace profession-oriented values in education with commercial, market and managerial values adapted from the private sector (Anderson & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]; Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]; Ball & Olmedo, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]; Connell, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]; Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref7">14</reflink>]; Gewirtz, Mahony, Hextall, & Cribb, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref8">15</reflink>]; Sachs, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]; Seddon & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]). Increasingly, however, many within the education professions have taken up language and practices that shift professional authority from educators, higher education and professional associations to edubusinesses, government, non-government organisations and philanthropic foundations (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref12">26</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]). This paper tries to interrupt this trend by working with the 'new professionalism' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref15">11</reflink>]) to help teachers, teacher educators and scholars engage the shifting power-knowledge networks at play as reforms re-align their professions with the ethics, extrinsic incentives and managerialism of multinational companies and organizations (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-2">The new professionalism</hd> <p>Sociologist of the professions Julia Evetts coined the 'new professionalism' to highlight a shift from a professionalism based on 'notions of partnership, collegiality, discretion and trust to increasing levels of managerialism, bureaucracy, standardization, assessment and performance review' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>], p. 407). The new professionalism may retain older conceptualizations of professional work and manifest in complex and hybrid ways that belie simplistic oppositions between an 'old' and 'new' professionalism (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref18">10</reflink>]). At the same time, Evetts' work draws a helpful distinction between 'occupational' and 'organizational' professionalism that illuminates how private sector logics and practices have migrated into the education professions through the New Public Management and global education reforms (Anderson & Herr, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Gewirtz et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref20">15</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>The 'occupational professionalism' represents a professionalism 'from within' – where practitioners and professional associations exercise considerable authority to develop and define the bases of their professional knowledge and practice, licensing and educational requirements, training and evaluation procedures, ethical codes, occupational cultures, and professional identities (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]). At its core, occupational professionalism</p> <p>incorporates collegial authority ... relations of practitioner trust from both employers and clients... autonomy and discretionary judgement and assessment by practitioners in complex cases ... lengthy systems of education and vocational training and the development of strong occupational identities and cultures. (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>], p. 23–24)</p> <p>In contrast, the 'organizational professionalism' represents a 'commercialized' and 'managerial' professionalism defined 'from above' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref24">11</reflink>]). In the organizational professionalism, managers play key roles in reorganizing practitioners' work and identities around the mission, objectives, and interests of the larger organization – the firm, the brand, the corporation, the school. The organizational professional is governed by 'hierarchical structures of responsibility and decision-making', such as 'the increased standardization of work ... managerial controls ... externalized forms of regulation and accountability measures, such as target-setting and performance review' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>], p.6).</p> <p>The 'new professionalism' situates ongoing shifts in the education professions within a broader movement to extend the organizational management practices of the private sector to the public sector and social welfare professions, such as medicine, nursing, social work, law enforcement, and teaching (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref26">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref27">11</reflink>]). Indeed, 'organizational' logics and languages are rife within global education reforms, such as the increasing focus on 'standards and accountability'; measurable 'outcomes' and quantitative measures of 'school improvement', 'teacher quality' and 'teacher effectiveness'; 'evidence-based' education and 'data-driven' decision-making; 'alternative routes' to teacher certification and fast-track 'residency models' that bypass or minimize university coursework; 'value-added' models and standardized teacher performance assessments; and the outsourcing of curriculum, professional development, and teacher evaluation to commercial vendors, consultants and private-sector 'partners'. In many countries, these discourses and technologies of reform have been set above and against 'occupational' values in education as they realign teaching and teacher education with 'organizational' values, economic rationalities, commercial products and outcomes-based performance management (Anderson & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]; Furlong et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref30">14</reflink>]; Gewirtz et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]; Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref32">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-3">The new professionalism and 21st century policies</hd> <p>For roughly three decades, this ensemble of education policies has diminished a professionalism 'from within' education and worked against the ethics of public service, social welfare, and professional autonomy that animated and governed previous generations of educators (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref33">3</reflink>]; Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]; Connell, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref35">9</reflink>]; Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>]). Critical scholars have recognized how the turn towards standardization, commercialization and managerialism has placed 'good teachers on dangerous ground' (Connell, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref37">9</reflink>]) and could lead to the end of university-based teacher education (Kumashiro, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]), if not the end of public schools (Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref39">17</reflink>]). Increasingly, however, professionals within education have facilitated these shifts by taking up languages, practices, 'partnerships' and funding streams that discredit educators' expertise and undermine trust in teachers, public schools and higher education (Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]; Kumashiro, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref41">18</reflink>]; Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref42">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]). This suggests that many teachers and teacher educators may be unaware of the policies, politics, and power relations that are re-structuring their professional practice (Rizvi & Lingard, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref44">21</reflink>]) – or that the current language and tools at their disposal are inadequate for analysing and navigating rapid changes within their professions.</p> <p>The remainder of this paper explores the affordances and constraints of the 'new professionalism' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref46">11</reflink>]) as a conceptual tool to recognize and respond to global reforms that realign teaching and teacher education with private sector logics and practices (Anderson & Herr, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]). Citing Foucault, Ball and Olmedo ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]) argue that resistance to neoliberal reform might begin with educators recognizing the power-knowledge relations in which we are immersed. Foucault approached this by historicizing present languages and practices through genealogy and analysing the political rationalities and technologies that produce and constrain possible fields of thought, action, and desire. A genealogy of teacher professionalism would complicate Evetts' narrative of historical succession in which the organizational professionalism has supplanted the occupational professionalism, and the occupational-organizational binary is ripe to be deconstructed and historicized. At the same time, the analytical distinction between occupational and organizational professionalism provides metalanguage which draws attention to shifting power-knowledge relationships as the education professions increasingly are governed by</p> <p>bureaucratic, hierarchical, and managerial controls rather than collegial relations; managerial and organizational objectives rather than client trust based on competencies and [often] licensing; budgetary restrictions and financial rationalizations; the standardization of work places rather than discretion; and performance targets, accountability, and sometimes political controls (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>], p. 24)</p> <p>These shifts clearly cede professional authority to organizational managers and new policy networks that often discredit and circumvent the education professions (Ball & Junemann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]). For the purposes of this article, however, we neither defend the occupational professionalism nor dismiss the organizational professionalism as an ideological ruse to privatize and 'de-professionalize' education (e.g. Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref51">27</reflink>]). Rather, we are working with the new professionalism as a conceptual tool and navigational tool that can help the education field name and grapple with shifting governmental assemblages in which their work and their selves are attuned to aims, values, and managerial practices adapted from the private sector (Anderson & Herr, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; Ball & Olmedo, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>]; Hursh, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref55">27</reflink>]). As a conceptual tool of education policy analysis, for example, the new professionalism enables us to track a rapid shift from 'occupational' to 'organizational' values and practices across the federal government's two major policy initiatives of the early 21<sups>st</sups> century, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, and in the new accreditation body for teacher education programs, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-4">No child left behind</hd> <p>The federal No Child Left Behind Act governed elementary and secondary education in the United States from 2002 until 2015 (https://www..ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html). NCLB – officially the 2001 re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – constituted a radical break in federal education policy (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]). Since the 1960s, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act distributed federal funding to disadvantaged students attending public schools in low income communities to help states equalize educational resources and opportunities. In contrast, NCLB made these federal grants contingent upon states expanding market-based 'school choice' initiatives and implementing a punitive 'standards and accountability' apparatus to hold schools 'accountable' for academic achievement measures.</p> <p>In terms of teacher professionalism, NCLB constituted a partial shift from occupational to organizational governance of teachers' work. NCLB's definition of a 'highly qualified teacher' maintained a degree of inputs-based, occupational professionalism by requiring teachers to earn a bachelor's degree, complete state certification, and demonstrate content knowledge in their assigned subjects. At the same time, the legislation also extended 'alternative routes' to teacher certification for military veterans, Teach for America corps and targeted professionals to bypass teacher education programs in colleges and universities.</p> <p>NCLB also extended hierarchical and bureaucratic controls of teachers' work through content-area standards, test-based accountability, and 'evidence-based' interventions vetted by the Bush administration's What Works Clearinghouse. Under NCLB, any public school receiving federal funding was required to align its curriculum and assessments with state standards and achievement tests; thus, standards and standardised testing were positioned to guide or replace teachers' professional discretion in matters of curriculum and pedagogy. NCLB's school-based 'accountability' was predicated on annual measures of Adequate Yearly Progress – performance targets that specified yearly gains in test scores necessary for schools to reach 100% academic proficiency by 2014. Schools that failed to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress in consecutive years were subject to escalating punitive measures (including school closure) and federal mandates to adopt supplementary education services sourced by for-profit and non-profit vendors. Specifically, NCLB required schools to spend federal grants on 'evidence-based interventions' vetted by the Bush administration's What Works Clearinghouse: a panel of bureaucrats and economists who sanctioned the commercial vendors and external consultants whom schools could contract with NCLB funding. Thus, NCLB was spawned by and implicated in a shift from an occupational professionalism to an organizational professionalism governed by 'increasing levels of managerialism, bureaucracy, standardization, assessment and performance review' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>], p. 407).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-5">Race to the top: teacher evaluation</hd> <p>The Obama administration's Race to the Top (2009–2015) also increased educational managerialism, standardization, commercialization and performativity (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>]). As noted in the introduction, Race to the Top leveraged federal grants and No Child Left Behind waivers to expand standardization, test-based accountability, data infrastructures, educational privatisation and measures of teacher effectiveness (https://www..ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf). Each of these policy initiatives extended organizational controls of teachers' work; in the interest of space, however, our focus here is on federal guidelines for teacher evaluation.</p> <p>Under Race to the Top, states' and schools' eligibility for federal grants was contingent on teacher evaluation systems that incorporated 'multiple measures of teacher effectiveness, including measures of student performance.' This provision created a thriving market for commercial vendors to develop 'value-added models' and additional measures of teacher performance, such as standardized teacher performance assessments.</p> <p>Value-added models are statistical models designed to measure the 'value' a teacher 'adds to' (or 'detracts from') students' standardized achievement scores over time. They were originally designed for the cattle industry but have since been introduced into education by economists as tools to link teacher performance to measures of student performance. Value-added measures have expanded the capacities of organizational managers and external agencies to govern the teaching profession 'from above' by calculating teacher performance targets, measuring teacher effectiveness and providing data for personnel decisions, such as awarding merit-based pay, promotion and/or teacher tenure.</p> <p>For-profit and non-profit vendors also have developed teacher evaluation systems that link performance-based pay to value-added models and standardized teacher performance assessments. These include standards-based rubrics and classroom observation instruments, such as the Danielson Framework for Teaching, TAP rubric, and edTPA, which operationally define effective teaching in observable and measurable terms for evaluation purposes. These teacher evaluation systems were not developed 'within' the profession by teachers or teacher educators; they were developed for commercial purposes by management consultants and economists (Danielson), venture philanthropy (TAP) and a partnership between Stanford University and Pearson corporation (edTPA).</p> <p>Over the last decade, many states, schools, and teacher education programs have adopted commercial teacher evaluation systems that meet federal guidelines for teacher evaluation. Under Race to the Top and other competitive grant programs, teacher evaluation has been outsourced to external vendors, and school-based teacher evaluations have shifted from teachers' collegial authority and professional judgments to value-added models, standards-based rubrics, and commercial instruments that calculate teachers' value and effectiveness.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-6">CAEP accreditation</hd> <p>The creation of the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation constitutes a similar shift in teacher education. Since the 1950s, U.S. teacher education programs had been accredited by accreditation bodies within higher education and by coalitions of professional organizations within education, such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. With the rise of Race to the Top, however, these accreditation bodies were dissolved and absorbed into a new accreditation body, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (<ulink href="http://caepnet.org/">http://caepnet.org/</ulink>).</p> <p>CAEP accreditation exemplifies the paradigmatic shift from an occupational to organizational professionalism: 'The CAEP Standards are a significant paradigm shift from a focus on inputs and compliance to an evidence-based culture, learning outcomes, and continuous improvement' (<ulink href="http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals">http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals</ulink>). The accreditation of teacher education programs has shifted from collegial authority to 'quality assurance ... continuous improvement ... fiscal efficiency ... accountability ... standards and performance reporting ... outcomes based evidence ... data-driven performance measures, and evidence-based accreditation' to assure the 'excellence ... quality ... credibility ... and impact' of 'educator preparation providers' (<ulink href="http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals">http://caepnet.org/about/vision-mission-goals</ulink>).</p> <p>The language of 'educator preparation providers' has extended professional accreditation to 'teacher training' programs outside of higher education. With the paradigmatic shift from 'inputs' to 'outputs', the quality of teachers and teacher educators is no longer a function of their academic degrees, educational credentials, or professional experience; instead, CAEP has 'define(d) quality in terms of organizational performance.' In CAEP accreditation, education preparation providers – inside or outside of higher education – must demonstrate alignment with CAEP standards and establish 'data systems' to report 'quality indicators' for their program's candidates and graduates, including data which 'provides evidence of positive impact on P-12 student learning'. In this corporate model of outcomes-based performance management, measures of productivity or output signify the 'quality' or 'effectiveness' of teachers, university faculty, and educational organizations.</p> <p>With the rise of CAEP accreditation, teacher certification is also validating, normalizing and extending the new professionalism. Teacher education is not centred on the formation of teachers whose professional choices are governed by occupational norms, the public interest or specialized educational knowledge; rather, the work of teacher education is to provide data that enables the state and external agencies to audit, monitor and manage the performance of teachers and teacher educators 'from a distance' (Rose, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]) and 'from above' (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-7">Occupational professionalism & advanced liberal government</hd> <p>Education policies represent struggles over values (Rizvi & Lingard, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>]) and struggles to control the field of professional judgment (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>]). The 'new professionalism' brings into relief how No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and CAEP accreditation constitute new power-knowledge networks that bind the education professions to bureaucratic and managerial controls and shift professional authority from higher education, professional organizations and educators to organizational managers, commercial vendors and new policy networks of business, government, non-government organizations and philanthropy (Ball & Junemann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>]). Situating these reforms within the new professionalism illuminates the contested nature of 'teacher quality' and what's at stake in the global policy shift towards standards, accountability, data, outcomes, impact and innovation.</p> <p>These global policy trends are fundamentally changing how educators are governed by others and how they govern themselves. For Foucault, technologies of government are made possible by and imbued with certain mentalities for acting upon and through individuals' conduct to steer them towards particular aims and values. At the same time the technologies of reform – such as markets, standards, and performativity – can be viewed as human technologies that constitute what's (im)possible to think or do as teachers, teacher educators and educational researchers (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>With the rise of 'advanced liberal' (Rose, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]) government, educators' professional thoughts and conduct may be contingent upon and caught up in a heterogeneous assemblage of pedagogical knowledges (e.g. learning targets, evidence-based interventions), vocabularies (21<sups>st</sups> century skills), practices of calculation (value-added models), educational aims ('college and career readiness'), organizational objectives (school rankings), types of authority (markets, OECD, learning sciences), human capacities (disciplinary and pedagogical knowledge), non-human objects and devices (federal grants, commercial reading curricula), school timetables and architectural forms (examination cycles, data walls), forms of judgment (Danielson Framework, data-based decision-making), regimes of supervision (edTPA, CAEP accreditation) and inscription devices (TAP rubric). Particular assemblages make possible and limit how they can think and feel about education, understand themselves and their work, and discipline their own conduct as they fashion themselves as proper teacher-professionals (Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>]; Perryman, Ball, Braun, & Maguire, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>This technological view of government provides an alternative to critical scholarship that characterizes the new professionalism as a 'de-professionalized professionalism' which 'de-skills' and 'de-professionalizes' the work of teachers (e.g. Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref68">27</reflink>]). Clearly, the organizational professionalism has attacked traditional spheres of educational expertise, diminished educators' spheres of professional discretion and eroded occupational values in education. At the same, the 'advanced liberal' government of the 21<sups>st</sups> century does not work by denying peoples' capacities for choice or by crushing their subjectivities. Rather, Nikolas Rose ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref69">22</reflink>]) notes, the subjects of advanced liberalism are conceived as <emph>active</emph> individuals who make choices to further their self-interests and take active roles in governing themselves; the role of policy is to enable markets and to act indirectly upon the actions of individuals and organizations 'by focusing on results: setting targets, promulgating standards, monitoring outputs, allocating budgets, undertaking audits (Rose, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref70">22</reflink>], p. 146). These technologies produce new spheres of policy problems (e.g. PISA reports, achievement gaps) and political intervention (e.g. teacher quality), and they make it possible for a range of authorities to steer educators' conduct from a distance and attune technologies of the self to governmental objectives and organizational values (Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref71">8</reflink>]). As Foucault notes, power both creates and constrains our possibilities for subjectivity, action and resistance.</p> <p>In this sense, teachers are not <emph>de</emph>-professionalized, but <emph>re-professionalized</emph> (Seddon & Levin, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]) – for better or worse – as they come to think and talk about teaching in terms of measurable outcomes, align their professional judgment with standards and rubrics, implement commercial curricula and professional development packages, render their work auditable to organizational managers and accreditation bodies and organize themselves in response to performance targets and pay-for-performance incentives. As Evetts ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref73">11</reflink>], p. 412) notes, 'managerial demands for quality control and audit, target setting and performance review become reinterpreted as the promotion of professionalism'.</p> <p>How might this 'new professionalism' manifest in local contexts? How have rapid policy shifts over the last two decades changed the ways in which teachers might understand and position themselves and their profession? How might organizational values and practices enable, animate and constrain teachers' self-fashioning? The remainder of this article highlights material effects of the ongoing shift from organizational to occupational professionalism through a comparative case study (Bartlett & Vavrus, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref74">6</reflink>]) which juxtaposes teacher interviews conducted at the onset of No Child Left Behind (Brass, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref75">7</reflink>]) with those conducted at the height of Race to the Top (Holloway-Libell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref76">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-8">Comparative cases of teacher professionalism</hd> <p>In <emph>Rethinking Case Study Research</emph>, Bartlett and Vavrus ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>]) argue that traditional qualitative researchers and critical education policy scholars miss a major opportunity by <emph>not</emph> integrating comparison into their work. In their view, comparing a policy or phenomenon <emph>across</emph> sites, space and time is a generative (yet under-utilized) means by which educational researchers can trace how concepts shift over time and how networks of relations (re)form and shift across spatial and temporal contexts.</p> <p>Our present study compared teacher interviews conducted a decade apart in order to trace the rise of the 'new professionalism' across time and space (Bartlett & Vavrus, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]). The first study (Brass, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]) included group interviews with five (self-selected) English teachers in the state of Michigan to examine their professional induction in the early stage of No Child Left Behind (2004–2005). The second study (Holloway-Libell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref80">16</reflink>]) interviewed seven (self-selected) teachers from an Arizona middle school that implemented a high-stakes teacher evaluation system under Race to the Top. Given our interests in tracing the rise of the new professionalism across a pivotal decade of education reform, the teacher interviews we conducted in these different contexts represented strong points of comparison in at least two respects.</p> <p>First, our interviews occurred at opposite ends of a pivotal decade of standards and accountability reforms (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>]). The 2004–2005 Michigan study coincided with the onset of No Child Left Behind – a transitional moment in which schools were aligning themselves with standards and high-stakes testing, but not yet subject to NCLB's punitive measures or commercial interventions. In contrast, the 2013–2014 Arizona study was conducted after a decade of 'standards and accountability' reforms in a school that was three years into its implementation of the TAP System – a commercial teacher evaluation system that combined value-added measures with rubric-based teacher observation measures for a number of high-stakes personnel purposes (e.g., merit-pay, professional development, retention/promotion).</p> <p>Second, the teachers in our respective studies had been certified through teacher education programs that exemplified the 'occupational' and 'organizational' professionalism. The English teachers in the 2003–2005 study were graduates of the nationally recognized teacher education program at Michigan State University. MSU exemplified the occupational professionalism with its lengthy, five-year teacher education program; its program was known for its extensive coursework and school placements – in particular, its year-long student teaching 'internship' – and its focus on pedagogical content knowledge, reflective practice and teacher inquiry. In contrast, the Arizona teachers in the 2013–2014 study were certified through Teach for America – an alternative certification program – and Arizona State University, which former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan named a national model for 'teacher training' due its focus on 'outcomes' and entrepreneurial innovation. Both Teach for America and ASU exemplified the organizational professionalism with their short-term 'residency models' of teacher training, commercial and philanthropic partnerships and focus on standards, high-stakes testing and measures of teacher performance.</p> <p>Neither of our interviews were designed to trace how teacher professionalism had shifted over a decade, nor were they supplemented by school-based observations that examined how networks of relations (re)formed and shifted across spatial and temporal contexts (e.g. Bartlett & Vavrus, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref82">6</reflink>]). In spite of these limitations, however, the new professionalism (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>]) provided an analytical framework to compare the corpus of quotes from our original studies in which participants referenced (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>) the standardization of work, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>) bureaucratic, hierarchical, and managerial controls, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>) organizational objectives, accountability, and performance targets. This enabled us to 'trace across' cases (Bartlett & Vavrus, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]) and compare how these teachers' ways of reasoning about themselves and their profession were made possible by and linked to particular governmental assemblages and policy technologies (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref88">3</reflink>]; Rose, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The following sections juxtapose representative and exemplary quotes that highlight the power-knowledge relationships at play in the ongoing shift from an 'occupational' to 'organizational' professionalism. These emergent forms of teacher professionalism may or may not feature prominently across different contexts of teaching and schooling – we are not comparing small-scale studies to draw broader conclusions. Rather, comparing teacher accountability policies and the phenomenon of teacher professionalism across two cases highlights forms of teacher professionalism that have emerged with reforms that govern teaching through the standardization of work, bureaucratic and managerial controls, accountability and performance measures (Anderson & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>]; Ball, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref91">3</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-9">Standardization of work: 2004–2005</hd> <p>In the 2004–2005 study, the Michigan English teachers rarely brought up 'standards' in unstructured group interviews. Content-area standards were described as unnecessary and insulting to teachers with academic degrees in English and education: 'How stupid do they think teachers are if they think that English majors need a list of standards to tell us what "English" is?!' (Scott Applecroft)</p> <p>Here, their professionalism was tied to the discipline of English studies and specialized knowledge of English curriculum and pedagogy. The Michigan teachers were sometimes ambivalent about their teacher education program, yet it made available occupational discourses and positions from which they critiqued, resisted and minimally complied with standardization. For example, the idea that good teaching could be standardized contradicted an established position within English education that teaching and learning were social processes that were inescapably contextual and, thus, neither universal nor predictable:</p> <p>When I think of teaching, I think of my Dad showing me how to use a tool ... He's like 'do this... it's a process...[But] when I think of teaching ... <emph>there is no concrete process</emph>. There are so many different approaches with thirty kids, so what you do is to try to come up with a variety of ways to ... facilitate that interaction with the material. (Scott Applecroft, emphasis in original)</p> <p>In the first study, it was reasoned that teachers learned to understand the complexity of teaching and develop professional practice through recursive inquiry and reflection:</p> <p>You want to understand the students better, too – about what works for them and what are their learning styles and stuff ... where you may not get a good feel with one class, one time. And if things do [go well] – it worked with this group, this time. Why? (Mindy O'Malley)</p> <p>With the onset of standards-based education under No Child Left Behind, however, standards and standardized testing were described as limiting teachers' professional discretion and inhibiting practices of learner-centred and culturally relevant teaching:</p> <p>[Students] are just not finding the connections between [the standards-based crap] and their world experiences. I know that's problematic for me ... It gets back to the whole issue that everyone comes with their own experiences and their own set of references. I mean, you just can't standardize that. (Celia Brett)</p> <p>But I feel like every day when I walk in, that's what administration is telling me to do: 'Put this peg in this hole. If it doesn't fit, make it fit'. (Holly Robison)</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-10">Standardization of work: 2013–2014</hd> <p>In stark contrast, the Arizona teachers didn't see the language of standards and the commercial TAP rubric as coming 'from above', but as authoritative definitions of good teaching. As the subjects of teacher preparation programs and schools which emphasized standards and standards-based assessment, such language was part of their vernacular and conceptual understanding of how teaching should be practiced. Mary Baker explained that 'the standards in the rubric do make you a better teacher, makes you evaluate what you're doing, and I have actually improved.' Some teachers also made connections between the rubric, rubric assessment, and student learning:</p> <p>[T]he more knowledgeable you are of the rubric, the higher you're going to score ... As long as I was focused on all these things [in the rubric], my lesson was coming together, and the students were learning at a much better rate. (Nicole Gibbons)</p> <p>Similarly, the TAP rubric authorized what counted as professional language and practice:</p> <p>The rubric helped me to become a much better teacher. It made me more aware of things that I didn't think about before. It put a name to things I was already doing, so [my evaluator] is like, you did this this and this, and I'm like, oh, that's what it's called. Okay, well I'm doing it right then. It's just confirmation that you're doing your job. And, you know, now you get rewarded for it. (Nicole Gibbons)</p> <p>Standardization facilitated a common language and understanding between the teachers and their evaluators, which helped teachers know how to improve:</p> <p>I like that [the TAP rubric is] all spelled out, like here's what you need to do to get this number, so I like that ability to go back to look at it and find out where it could go....I [also] think the post-conference, the ability to talk to the evaluator and find out, like, what it was that they saw and actually giving something to me to help boost up those [low scoring] areas. (Mary Baker)</p> <p>Partially breaking with the other Arizona teachers, Jennifer acknowledged some dissonance as she aligned her practice with the TAP rubric. With a master's degree and teaching experience that predated NCLB and Race to the Top, she reasoned 'the current system sucks the fun out of teaching...we're so busy trying to make sure that we cross our i's and... and dot our t's [sic]...I don't get to concentrate on teaching kids'. Her answer was 'to integrate as much of both types of instruction as possible so that it's still meeting those TAP requirements, but still meeting the needs of my students, and the two are sometimes mutually exclusive'.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-11">Bureaucratic and managerial controls: 2004–2005</hd> <p>The rise of NCLB extended bureaucratic and managerial controls in secondary schools. The Michigan teachers reasoned the bureaucratic demands of accountability and school accreditation undermined the intellectual and collegial work of teaching:</p> <p>When I think of 'teaching', though – and this bugs me – I just think that like 90% of the job isn't 'educational'... it's paper pushing... There's just not time to grade, reflect, and plan together ... or like actually have your own intellectual experience. (Celia Brett)</p> <p>Here, occupational discourses and bureaucratic discourses of teaching were almost mutually exclusive. At the very least, bureaucratic and administrative mandates 'from above' had begun to displace a professionalism focused on pedagogy, collegiality, reflective practice and understandings of teaching and learning as complex, social processes:</p> <p>When we were in [our teacher education program], we were learning [social] processes. Now everything is CYA, CYA ... How did that jump from what happens in your classroom [to Cover Your Ass]? It's like 'teaching' is secondary. (Holly Robison)</p> <p>I've gained such an appreciation for my internship because we were able to sit and just like bathe in the teaching ... We were able to spend all this time directly with the students, reviewing our own work, talking about it with other people in the same situation ... We were not handling 100% of the bullshit that we have to handle now. (Scott Applecroft)</p> <p>With administrative and government mandates increasingly governing teachers' work from above, Celia asserted teachers' professional discretion:</p> <p>Teachers make the final choices and decisions about curriculum, relationships, and practice when they walk into the classroom with their students every day ... Regardless of accountability standards, administrative evaluations, district mandates, and [test] scores, TEACHERS CHOOSE.</p> <p>At the same time, this assertion of professional authority was a response to her observation that students and teachers seemed 'much more interested in being told HOW to do something from ... those considered "experts" [than] be seen as experts in their own educational quest.' Alluding to Paulo Freire, Celia critiqued an oppressive culture of schooling in which students and teachers internalized hierarchical controls:</p> <p>In any context of hierarchical structure in schools, I am seeing the oppressed co-dependent with the oppressor: district/school professional development, staff meetings, classrooms ... Ironically, this only seems to strengthen and perpetuate unhealthy relationships that [compromise] teachers' and students'... agency.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-12">Bureaucratic and managerial controls: 2013–2014</hd> <p>Less than a decade later, the Arizona teachers embraced hierarchical controls that the Michigan teachers considered oppressive. Evaluations were a significant part of their professional induction. The tight coupling of hierarchical evaluation and professional advancement within the TAP System made it reasonable for teachers to view such practices as proving their competence and commitments to improvement:</p> <p>I tried to plan more questions in advance and wrote them into my lesson ... so that [the evaluator] could see that this is the question that I'm going to ask, so at least she knew that I was thinking about it.... [M]y score went up...which I was happy with (Christina Harris).</p> <p>As teachers internalized the authority of externally defined standards and learned to align their self-judgments with evaluators' evaluation scores, the TAP rubric worked as a technology of self-evaluation and continuous self-improvement. For instance, first-year teacher Christina requested additional monitoring from her evaluators and administrators:</p> <p>I talked to my master teachers and my principals, and I asked them if they could come in and watch me, because I just, there's only so far I can take myself...I don't know where to go next. Someone tell me what I'm doing wrong.</p> <p>In the second study, teachers' willingness to be monitored, managed, and evaluated divided the good teachers and schools from the bad ones:</p> <p>[U]sually the bad teachers will leave because they don't want to be evaluated, so to me it just weeds them out right off the bat. And they weed themselves out to another district that doesn't have as strict evaluations, and then to me that just makes that district worse, you know, because they're just sitting there not trying to improve themselves. (Mary Baker)</p> <p>The Arizona teachers rejected the Michigan teachers' view that teachers should be trusted to exercise their professional discretion. As Christina Harris explained, 'We shouldn't just be locked up in our classrooms thinking that we're doing amazing jobs because there is always something that you can improve'.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-13">Accountability and performance measures: 2004–2005</hd> <p>The Michigan teachers' practice was governed by social welfare aims that were not readily measurable or testable, such as fostering students' personal growth, autonomy and critical consciousness. The rationale of test-based 'accountability' was nearly unintelligible since standardized tests were understood as limited and inappropriate measures of learning, much less teaching:</p> <p>Mindy: So, [high-stakes testing] is so weird it's... I don't get it?!</p> <p>Holly: Because it's stupid!</p> <p>Scott: Bragging rights. But we get our students' [test scores] back, and maybe, <emph>maybe</emph>, like, look to see who got the best score.</p> <p>Holly: So!</p> <p>Scott: Exactly! How is <emph>that</emph> [score] any measure, whatsoever, of what they learned?</p> <p>Mindy: Is <emph>that</emph> [score] what keeps you motivated to keep following this, then? That's bullshit, man! That bothers me.</p> <p>For them, test-based accountability did not position teaching as a profession:</p> <p>In most other professions, you determine your progress ... But if you're a teacher ... it's basically everything we do is measured by someone else's achievement. It's like the group project from Hell! You know, it's like my grade completely depends on the random people I get stuck with! (Holly Robison)</p> <p>Instead, accountability was an external imposition on the teaching profession by non-educators with limited, industrial views of learning and assessment:</p> <p>You try to care about learning ... but unfortunately everybody <emph>outside of the teaching profession</emph> expects you to be dealing with the 'not-learning'–the visible and concrete [outcomes]. It makes me think of working at a factory for how many years: there are no variables. You churn out those parts and either they work or they don't. If they don't work, you go back and fix them. Clean cut. Plain and simple. (Scott Applecroft, italics added)</p> <p>For Scott, it also was ironic to have worked factory jobs to pay for higher education only to discover that teachers also were subject to accountability measures that resembled industrial management. Similarly, Celia noted the irony of leaving her first career for a profession she thought would be committed to public service and students' social welfare:</p> <p>Why did I choose this profession? Oh yeah, I wanted to be committed to something bigger than a pay check. Unfortunately, I still feel like I need to get into a position where I feel like I am doing something bigger than collecting a pay check! How ironic! ... Where in all of this [reform] are the considerations about the students – those, supposedly, that we claim to be educating?!</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-14">Accountability and performance measures: 2013–2014</hd> <p>In contrast, the Arizona teachers identified with organizational objectives and performance measures that were largely determined outside of the profession, qualifying the worth of themselves and their disciplines in terms of test scores. Christina described the value of her music program in terms of improving her school's market share and its math and reading scores:</p> <p>[I]f you have a good [music] program that recruits more students to your school, everybody wins ... I don't think band makes you smarter but I think it attracts smarter kids, so that could up that [test] score... And I think that if, if I'm doing my job as in the general music sense, too, that I could be helping their math and reading scores.</p> <p>John aligned his professional goals with the organizational objectives of improving student outcomes and helping kids achieve the Common Core's 'college and career readiness standards'–</p> <p>I mean, if you can't shift the [test score] numbers, which history has shown us that you can't, then what do I do then? And the answer is, like, be as effective as you can. ... If you put together a tight lesson and you manage behavior and then you get your class into high school, then ... like, student outcomes become better. And I think that's what, like, my goal is now: produce high school-, college- and career-ready kids.</p> <p>Test-based accountability had been nearly unintelligible to the Michigan teachers in the early years of No Child Left Behind. Less than a decade later, however, John could not think of alternatives to measuring student or teacher performance through testing. Teaching was just another job that produced something needing to be measured:</p> <p>I think you just, you have to measure performance somehow, and that's a standardized test, and teacher's job performance has to somehow be tied to that.... you have to produce the best product that you can, which is who can perform on a test.</p> <p>Organizational objectives were important to the Arizona teachers, but so were financial incentives. Their school used valued-added and TAP observation scores to award merit-based pay, which often justified the additional pressures of ongoing evaluation, as described by Sarah Fraser: 'I stress out so hard core before each of these observations. I think, (a) because personally I'm a perfectionist and I'm like, I want to get a good review, and (b) it's tied to pay, and it's like, I'm poor.'</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-15">Re-professionalizing the teacher</hd> <p>This paper worked with the new professionalism concept to highlight how teachers have been re-professionalized across a decade of education policies that subjected education to escalating standardization, managerial controls, financial incentives, external accountability and performance targets (Evetts, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref92">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref93">11</reflink>]). Teachers do not automatically fashion themselves as the kinds of subjects that discourses constitute and policies prescribe. However, the effects of early 21st century reforms have been nearly unavoidable for today's teachers and teacher educators:</p> <p>None of us who teach, regardless of the educational level, are immune to the effects of the transformation taking place. It reaches into the corners of our practices, constricts our daily life in schools, and influences how we think about what we do in classrooms. It dictates how we spend at least some of our professional time, how our work is evaluated, and how we determine the meaning of our work. (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref94">25</reflink>], p. 13)</p> <p>At the same time, it's not inevitable – but strange – that many educational leaders, teacher education programs and professional associations have aligned themselves with reforms that undermine their professional authority and status (Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref95">25</reflink>]). On one hand, this points to the power of the organizational professionalism – 21st century reforms illustrate how new policy networks can steer and control education from a distance by setting standards and accountability measures, extending bureaucratic and managerial controls, leveraging budget cuts and financial incentives and normalizing economic rationales and the language of business management in education.</p> <p>On the other hand, the education professions' complicity in their own marginalization also points to limitations of education's occupational discourse. Educators' expertise, collegiality and professional autonomy are worth protecting; however, the professions of teaching and teacher education are often governed by 'practical' concerns and psychological knowledges, which work against critical engagements with policy, politics and power relations (Kumashiro, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref96">18</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref97">27</reflink>]). The historical separation of education policy studies and teacher education also has created conditions in which educators are often unaware of policies and politics that implicate their work (Rizvi & Lingard, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref98">27</reflink>]). Indeed, the most prevalent approaches to university-based teacher education and school-based professional development have not prepared teachers to analyse education policies or to navigate past and present struggles over the field of professional judgment. As Michigan teacher Celia Brett explained, these professional norms and institutional conditions 'within' education have rendered educators susceptible to bureaucratic and political controls which they cannot name:</p> <p>there's an element of the boogie man that ... dictates what we will and won't do ... a giant puppet[eer] that everyone thinks is in control and nobody thinks they have control over. I think that creates huge problems for who we define ourselves as educators. But if we recognized that bureaucracy for what it is – [if we had] the opportunity time-wise, resource-wise, education-wise to be more in touch with what it is and how to navigate within it – then people could do more about it.</p> <p>Much like Sachs' ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref99">23</reflink>]) distinction between 'managerial' and 'democratic' discourses of teacher professionalism, Evetts' ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref100">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref101">11</reflink>]) 'new professionalism' can help the education professions name contemporary policy shifts and situate them within a broader movement to transfer private sector logics and performance management into the public sector and social welfare professions (Anderson & Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref102">1</reflink>]). As Ball and Olmedo ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref103">5</reflink>]) argue, 'Resisting performativity at a discursive level implies problematising the essence and "raw material" of our own practices. It requires the deconstruction and recreation of the self and a certain capacity to examine ourselves critically' (p. 89). The new professionalism can heighten critical awareness of the ways teachers and teacher educators have been positioned by others – and positioned themselves – through standardization, CAEP accreditation, TAP evaluations, federal grants and the paradigmatic shift from 'inputs' to 'outputs' in teacher education. This meta-language draws attention to the ways the education professions have been taking up organizational values and managerial practices and (thus) ceding their professional authority to organizational managers, commercial vendors, government, the assessment industry, venture philanthropy and edubusinesses (Ball & Junemann, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref104">4</reflink>]; Zeichner, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref105">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>Like all concepts, however, the new professionalism is necessarily partial and obscures other networks of relations. For example, the occupational-organizational binary obscures how many 'occupational' norms and practices in education were made possible by progressive era reforms which linked the education profession to the scientific management of business and industry (Popkewitz, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref106">20</reflink>]). Likewise, this analytical distinction cannot account for the ways that psychological discourses 'within' the education professions have paved the way for educational commercialization and privatization, fast-track teacher certification and teacher performance measures (Friedrich, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref107">13</reflink>]; Taubman, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref108">25</reflink>]). Therefore, even as we find the new professionalism 'good to think with' in some instances, we also aim to complicate its dichotomous framing of an occupational professionalism 'from within' versus an organizational professionalism 'from above'.</p> <p>These caveats acknowledged, the new professionalism concept can help those within the education professions to recognize and evaluate the languages and practices that new policy networks have mobilized to steer education 'from above' and to supplant the expertise of teachers, teachers' unions, professional organizations, and higher education. Being able to name and situate how teachers and teacher educators have been re-professionalized across a series of 21<sups>st</sups> century reforms can spur more reflexive, critical and strategic engagements with global policies that replace democratic accountability and professional self-governance with organizational values, economic aims and corporate managerialism (Brennan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref109">8</reflink>]). The new professionalism can help educators name these shifts and their possible effects, which may be a preliminary move toward recognizing and exploiting cracks in the performative regime and resisting the mundane languages, practices and outcomes that constitute a new professionalism in education.</p> <hd id="AN0152395983-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0152395983-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, G., & Cohen, M. (2015). Redesigning the identities of teachers and leaders: A framework for studying new professionalism and educator resistance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (85), 1 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, G., & Herr, K. (2015). New public management and the new professionalism in education: Framing the issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23 (84), 1 – 5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215 – 228.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol : The Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J., & Olmedo, A. (2013). Care of the self, resistance, and subjectivity under neoliberal governmentalities. Critical Studies in Education, 54 (1), 85 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref74" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref75" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Brass, J. (2006). Making people 'people': A genealogy of English teaching in U.S. secondary schools (unpublished dissertation). East Lansing, MI : Michigan State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref34" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brennan, M. (2009). Steering teachers: Working to control the feminized profession of education. Journal of Sociology, 45 (4), 339 – 359.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and profesionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50 (3), 213 – 229.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and the new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59 (4), 406 – 422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evetts, J. (2012). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Sociopedia.isa. doi: 10.1177/205684601231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedrich, D. (2014). "We brought it upon ourselves": University-based teacher education and the emergence of boot-camp-style routes to teacher certification. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (2), 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.). (2009). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. London and New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gewirtz, S., Mahony, P., Hextall, I., & Cribb, A. (Eds.). (2009). Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges, and ways forward. New York and London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holloway-Libell, Jessica. 2014. Teacher evaluation systems: How teachers and teacher quality are (re)defined by market-based discourses (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tempe : Arizona State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hursh, D. (2015). The end of public schools: The corporate reform agenda to privatize education. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumashiro, K. (2010). Seeing the bigger picture: Troubling movements to end teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (1–2), 56 – 65.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perryman, J., Ball, S. J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2017). Translating policy: Governmentality and the reflective teacher. Journal of Education Policy, 32 (6), 745 – 756.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popkewitz, T. (1994). Professionalization in teaching and teacher education: Some notes on its history, ideology, and potential. Teaching & Teacher Education, 10, 1 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, N. (1999). Powers of freedom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy, 16 (2), 149 – 161.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seddon, T., & Levin, S. (Eds.). (2013). Educators, professionalism, and politics: Global transitions, national spaces, and professional projects. London and New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taubman, P. (2012). Educational Revolution. Occasional paper series, 2012 (27). Retrieved from https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2012/iss27/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544 – 1552.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jory Brass and Jessica Holloway</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Jory Brass has a PhD in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy from Michigan State University. His research examines the history and cultural politics of English teaching using approaches influenced by the work of Foucault. His work has been published internationally in the fields of English education, curriculum theory, education policy, and the history and philosophy of education.</p> <p>Jessica Holloway , PhD, is a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre in Research for Educational Impact (REDI) at Deakin University. Her current research draws on post-structural theory to understand contemporary modes of accountability and its production of new teacher and leader subjectivities. Her current project, entitled Teacher Leaders and Democracy: An International Study, looks at modes of distributive leadership in U.S. and Australian schools.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref107"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1309238
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Re-Professionalizing Teaching: The New Professionalism in the United States
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brass%2C+Jory%22">Brass, Jory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holloway%2C+Jessica%22">Holloway, Jessica</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9267-3197">0000-0001-9267-3197</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Critical+Studies+in+Education%22"><i>Critical Studies in Education</i></searchLink>. 2021 62(4):519-536.
– 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: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– 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="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professionalism%22">Professionalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professional+Identity%22">Professional Identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Commercialization%22">Commercialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accountability%22">Accountability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Accreditation+%28Institutions%29%22">Accreditation (Institutions)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance+Based+Assessment%22">Performance Based Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Evaluation%22">Teacher Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Value+Added+Models%22">Value Added Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alignment+%28Education%29%22">Alignment (Education)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Values%22">Values</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Teachers%22">Middle School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Aid%22">Federal Aid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Programs%22">Federal Programs</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Arizona%22">Arizona</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Michigan%22">Michigan</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22No+Child+Left+Behind+Act+2001%22">No Child Left Behind Act 2001</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Race+to+the+Top%22">Race to the Top</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/17508487.2019.1579743
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1750-8487
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article examines the re-professionalization of teaching across a transformative decade of market-based and standards-based reforms in the U.S.A. The first section works with the sociological concept of the 'new professionalism' to situate the No Child Left Behind act, Race to the Top, and CAEP accreditation within a broader movement to align the professions with the commercial and managerial values of the private sector. The next section compares teacher interviews conducted at the onset of NCLB with interviews conducted at the height of Race to the Top to highlight how the ongoing shift from 'occupational' to 'organizational' governance of teaching can change how teachers think about and fashion themselves as teachers. This policy analysis and qualitative analysis aims to help the education field recognize, situate and interrupt education reforms that govern teaching and teacher education through standardization, commercialization and outcomes-based performance management.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1309238
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1309238
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/17508487.2019.1579743
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 519
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Professionalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Professional Identity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Commercialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accountability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Accreditation (Institutions)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance Based Assessment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Value Added Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alignment (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Values
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Aid
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Arizona
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Michigan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: No Child Left Behind Act 2001
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Race to the Top
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Re-Professionalizing Teaching: The New Professionalism in the United States
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brass, Jory
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holloway, Jessica
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1750-8487
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Critical Studies in Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1