According to the research literature, there are three reasons that draw teachers into teaching: (1) gender-related reasons, (2) altruistic reasons, and (3) monetary rewards and job flexibility. Based on data from three teacher preparation programs, this article argues that teachers who were trained at elite colleges and who chose teaching in urban schools rarely referred to any of the three reasons. Instead, these teachers tend to (a) conceptualize teaching around issues of social justice and social change, arguing they joined teaching to improve society, and (b) seek leadership positions in urban education. Using Bourdieu's concepts of field and capital, these arguments are theorized and hypotheses for further research are developed.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Education.

No abstract

This article explores empirical and theoretical literature relevant to accreditation of teacher education programs. The lack of substantial research on accreditation makes it impossible to make empirically based claims about the value-added of such processes, including how accreditation processes enhance the professionalization of teacher education. Contemporary scholarship, especially in sociology, also raises questions, especially about the uncritical acceptance of the professionalization movement in teacher education. After briefly reviewing three lines of criticism concerning professionalization, the authors use that literature to “read” both Wise’s (2005) description of the benefits of NCATE’s work and Murray’s (2005) description of TEAC’s role in enhancing professionalism in teacher education. Both authors presume that professionalization is a good; both fail to confront some of the central concerns about the exclusionary practices of professions in their descriptions of NCATE and TEAC. The authors conclude by suggesting that the professionalism movement within teacher education—while important—requires that we encourage and embrace both internal and external forms of criticism.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.