This study identifies factors that are significantly related to student intentions to enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) occupations by age 30, and examines how those factors differ across definitions of STEM occupation, educational attainment levels, and student demographics. Data from 2009 High School Longitudinal Study base year were used, and were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression. Expectancy-value theory is the theoretical framework for this study. The findings from this study suggest that depending on the definition of STEM careers operationalized in the analysis, variation can be observed in the impact of gender, while the role of the expectancy-value constructs remains largely consistent across multiple definitions of STEM careers. The results also suggest that while expectancy-value constructs such as utility, interest, and attainment value are significantly related to the STEM career plans of White students, fewer significant relationships between expectancy-value constructs and the STEM career plans of Black and Hispanic students were identified. Additionally, findings from this study raise questions about the extent to which STEM career choices at the sub-bachelor's degree level can be understood as achievement-related choices, and thus the extent to which expectancy-value theory is a suitable framework for understanding those choices. K E Y W O R D Sattitudes and achievement, diversity, equity, gender, sociocultural issues J Res Sci Teach. 2018;1-28.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tea

edTPA is designed to strengthen teacher professionalization and provide a framework for program redesign. However, using a national assessment to shift the content of local programs is challenging because of their inherent organizational complexity. In this article, we focus on this complexity, using a systems lens to analyze edTPA implementation at a large, public university. Employing a mixed-methods case study design, we survey 250 teacher educators and candidates to understand how they interpret the demands of edTPA and how their varied perspectives impact each other. We interview a stratified, purposive subset of participants to explore mechanisms underlying quantitative findings. We find substantial internal variation in edTPA implementation that translates into differential support for candidates. This variation could not be explained by duration of implementation of edTPA. Varied perspectives may stem from distinct perceptions of teacher educators’ professional roles and the role they see edTPA playing in teacher professionalization.

Since 2009, the Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) has been rapidly implemented as a policy tool for strengthening teacher professionalization across the United States. However, its national assimilation has become a target for both praise and critique among teacher educators. In this article, we examine such diverse perspectives. Highlighting the sensemaking of administrators, faculty, staff, and teacher candidates ( n = 75) across eight teacher preparation programs (TPPs) in two states, we examine how they have responded to varied edTPA policy designs and program contexts. Results show that both policy design and programmatic differences influence how these stakeholders have perceived and implemented edTPA—either as a framework for inquiry or compliance. In the process, we contend that edTPA has many promises and pitfalls as a scalable policy tool for preparing and assessing future teachers.

This article examines the recent expansion of the federal role into teacher workforce policy, primarily as embodied by the Race to the Top Fund of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Such recent federal teacher workforce policy reflects an important expansion of the federal role into a policy domain that deserves more attention. The financial incentives and governance arrangements structuring federal-state relationships under these policies have proven effective at facilitating the enactment of state-level reforms. However, these policies ultimately pay too little attention to fundamental governance questions that must be addressed for efficacious teacher workforce development.

No abstract