The Complexity of American Teacher Education

Imig, David G.; Imig, Scott; Neel, Michael; Holmberg-Masden, Loretta

doi:10.1002/9781118955901.ch1

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the work of their networks and advocacy coalitions, IO policy actors facilitate policy convergence (Ferrare & Setari, 2018; Galey-Horn et al, 2020) toward a set of solutions rooted in the principles of neoliberal managerial technocracy (Kretchmar & Zeichner, 2016; Trujillo, 2014). While IO influences on teacher education policy have been recognized (Imig et al, 2018; Wiseman, 2012), their use of technocratic discourses in the construction of accountability regimes in teacher education has been largely overlooked. Through this project, I interrogate the assumptions and discursive moves embedded in IO proposals for teacher preparation accountability and show how technocracy operates as “a regime of truth,” which Foucault (1980) defined asthe types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and procedures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education

Aydarova

2023

Journal of Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermediary organizations’ (IOs) involvement in teacher education policies has grown in recent years. Apart from advocating for the introduction of alternative routes into the teaching profession, IOs have facilitated the spread of outcomes-based teacher preparation accountability. While previous studies examined the neoliberal market-based logic of their proposals, less is known about technocracy as a discourse informing teacher education redesign. To address this gap, I use the tools of critical policy and critical discourse analysis to examine how IOs advocated for and participated in the construction of outcomes-based accountability regimes. This analysis captures key elements of technocracy, such as the depoliticization of social issues, scientism, and the dismissal of opposition on which accountability regimes are built. By attending to the assumptions and inherent contradictions of technocratic discourses, I shed light on the ways in which accountability regimes dismiss opposition and seek to refashion governance structures in teacher education.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education

Aydarova

2023

Journal of Teacher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From alarmist reports describing teacher education programs as mediocre (Burke & DeLeon, 2020) to offering policy guidance that represents “an intentional epistemological and structural break with the traditions and norms of universities” (Cochran-Smith, Keefe, et al, 2018, p. 13), IOs have gained dominance in debates on teacher education policies (Imig et al, 2018; Wiseman, 2012). Some IOs provide alternative routes into the profession, such as Teach for America (TFA) and The New Teacher Project (TNTP); others influence policy by providing policy scripts and offering “disruptive” solutions to the problems of teachers’ professional preparation, such as the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) and the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelInEd).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The field of teacher education policy has long been populated by actors pursuing competing agendas (Wilson & Tamir, 2008). In recent years, however, teacher education policy has been increasingly influenced by intermediary organizations (IOs)—noninstitutional policy actors that include nonprofit and for-profit organizations, think tanks, and research institutes (Imig et al, 2018; Wiseman, 2012). With support from venture philanthropies, these groups have promoted policies that disrupt public education through the introduction of charter schools, vouchers, and alternative routes into teaching (DeBray et al, 2014; deMarrais et al, 2019; Lipman, 2015; Lubienski et al, 2016; Scott & Jabbar, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Playing Chess When You Only Have a Couple of Pawns: Policy Advocacy in Teacher Education

Aydarova

Rigney

Dana

2022

Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In recent years, intermediary organizations have increasingly influenced educational policy. Among other proposals, they have promoted teacher education redesign based on technocratic values and stringent accountability measures. In response to these policy changes and the intensifying crisis in the teaching profession, teacher educators have been called to engage in policy debates. Yet, to date, few studies have explored how teacher educators participate in policy advocacy. Purpose/Research Question: The purpose of this study is to examine variations in teacher educators’ efforts to influence policymaking decisions. Using the conceptual framework of policy advocacy, the study addresses the following research question: How do teacher educators engage in policy advocacy? Research Design: The study utilizes multiple case study methodology and incorporates four cases. Through a qualitative analysis of interviews, policy artifacts, policy documents, and videos of official policymaking and legislative meetings, we document how teacher educators seek to influence the direction of teacher education reforms by engaging with policymakers, the public, and other policy actors. We compare advocacy activities of different teacher educators and note the varying outcomes these activities produce. Findings: Our study shows that teacher educators engaged in information campaigning through research briefs, policy reports, letter writing, and sharing personal stories. Although some attempted to engage the public, most focused their efforts on building relationships with decision-makers. Despite those efforts, study participants were rarely consulted when new policies were conceptualized. Our study also points to a contrast between groups that worked to disrupt policy agendas of intermediary organizations and those that aligned their advocacy work with them. Those who attempted to advocate against the measures promoted by intermediary organizations faced more challenges than those who formed coalitions with intermediary organizations. Conclusions: Our study sheds light on the paradox teacher educators faced when they engaged in policy advocacy. Resisting the agendas of intermediary organizations (IOs) made policy advocacy more challenging for teacher educators. But coalitions with IOs could co-opt teacher educators’ voices toward technocratic agendas of teacher education reform.

show abstract

“…For decades, teacher educators and policymakers have sought to strengthen teacher professionalization Zeichner, 2014). In turn, the profession has been reframed as a policy problem (Cochran-Smith, 2004;D. Imig, S. Imig, Neel, & Holmberg-Masden, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Diverse Perspectives on edTPA Policy Implementation Across States: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Voto¹

2019

Proceedings of the 2019 AERA Annual Meeting

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2009, 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 amongst teacher educators. In this article, we examine such diverse perspectives. Highlighting the voices of administrators, faculty, staff, and teacher candidates (n = 68) across eight teacher preparation programs (TPPs) in two states, we evaluate how they have responded to varied edTPA policy designs and contexts. Results show both policy design and micro-organizational differences influence how these stakeholders have perceived and implemented edTPA--either as a framework for program redesign or compliance. In the process, we contend edTPA has many promises and pitfalls as a scalable policy tool for preparing and assessing future teachers.

show abstract

The Complexity of American Teacher Education

Cited by 4 publications

References 45 publications

Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education

Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education

Playing Chess When You Only Have a Couple of Pawns: Policy Advocacy in Teacher Education

Examining Diverse Perspectives on edTPA Policy Implementation Across States: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About