Microsoft Word - v23n44 fnl.doc Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 3/12/2015 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 3/12/2015 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 3/12/2015 SPECIAL ISSUE Teach For All and Global Teacher Education Reform education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 23 Number 44 April 20th, 2015 ISSN 1068-2341 Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All and its Impact on Global Education Reform Rolf Straubhaar University of Georgia United States & Daniel Friedrich Teachers College, Columbia University United States Citation: Straubhaar, R., & Friedrich, D. (2015). Theorizing and documenting the spread of Teach For All and its impact on global education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(44). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.2055. This article is part of the Special Issue on Teach For All and Global Teacher Education Reform of EPAA/AAPE, Guest Edited by Daniel Friedrich and Rolf Straubhaar. Abstract: Within global education policy, the role of multilateral agencies in pushing cross- national policy borrowing is increasingly being complemented by efforts from private international networks within civil society, such as Teach For All. This introductory article summarizes the scarce extant literature on Teach For All, highlighting the contributions to this growing area of inquiry within this special issue. Especially provocative and fruitful lines of further inquiry surrounding Teach For All and similar policy networks are also highlighted and explored. Keywords: Teach For All; Teach For America; education reform epaa aape E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 23 N o. 44 2 Conceptualizando y Documentando la Diseminación de Teach For All y Su Impacto en la Reforma Global de la Educación Resumen: En la esfera de la política educativa global, el rol de los organismos multilaterales está siendo complementado cada vez más por el trabajo de las redes privadas internacionales dentro de la sociedad civil, como lo es Teach For All. Este artículo introductorio resume la escasa literatura existente acerca de Teach For All, resaltando las contribuciones realizadas al campo por este número especial. También se subrayan y exploran las líneas de investigación más provocativas y productivas en torno a Teach For All y redes similares. Palabras-clave: Teach For All, Teach For America, reforma educativa Conceitualizando e Documentando a Propagação do Teach For All e Seu Impacto Sobre a Reforma Global da Educação Resumo: No âmbito da reforma escolar global, o papel da agências multilaterais está sendo cada vez mais complementado por redes privadas internacionais dentro da sociedade civil, como Teach For All. Este artigo introdutório resume-se a literatura escassa existente sobre Teach For All, com um focos nas contribuições desta edição especial à esta área de pesquisa. Também resume-se as linhas mais provocantes e frutíferas de pesquisa futura sobre Teach For All e redes semelhantes. Palavras-chave: Teach For All; Teach For America; reforma escolar In the contemporary global educational landscape, teacher education is undergoing rapid shifts, with a particular focus on preparing teachers to demonstrate international competitiveness on high-stakes achievement tests (Waldow, Takayama, & Sung, 2014) driven by various global actors and discourses. One increasingly prominent actor in this dynamic is Teach For All, an organization with the mission to combat educational inequality through the development of national-level nonprofits throughout the world. Specifically, Teach For All serves as an umbrella network that provides strategic support to social entrepreneurs that work to implement in their own countries the education reform ideals and organizational model popularized by the U.S.-based nonprofit Teach For America (TFA). Within the TFA model, nonprofits aspire to reduce educational inequality in a given country by recruiting high-achieving graduates from prominent national colleges to teach in high-needs schools for two years, on the basis of the assumption that high-performing college graduates can drastically improve their students’ performance and reduce the achievement gap between rich and poor. In the U.S.-based literature on Teach For America, the effectiveness of this model in reaching these goals has been highly contested. Several prominent evaluative studies have produced relatively positive results on student test scores at both the elementary (Decker, Mayer, & Glazerman, 2004; Raymond, Fletcher, & Luque, 2001) and secondary levels (Clark et al., 2013), though other scholars have prominently contested these results (Heilig & Jez, 2010, 2014), at times with their own rigorous evaluations that have shown students of Teach For America teachers receive lower test scores than those taught by traditionally certified teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2009; Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005). It is precisely this contestation of the TFA model within its original national context that has made the rapid international spread of that model so fascinating. Since Teach For All’s initial announcement at the 2007 Clinton Global Initiative, programs have been founded in more than 30 countries world-wide, including locations as diverse as Germany, India, Mexico, Japan, Estonia, Pakistan, Israel and Australia. Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All 3 Due to the international prominence of the TFA model and brand, these satellite programs often receive significant support from national governments and prominent foundations and corporations (both domestic and international). However, due to understandable differences in national cultural and policy contexts, these programs have experienced varying levels of reach, impact, and conflict with the established stakeholders. The degree of adaptation of the model has also varied extensively in response to differing local needs and policy contexts. Through the analyses and case studies contained in this special issue of Educational Policy Analysis Archives, the reader is able to gain a deeper understanding of the workings of this specific type of teacher education reform, with authors utilizing contrasting theoretical frameworks and numerous methodological approaches to make sense of both Teach For All’s global presence and its localized, national and regional-level impact. Research on Teach For All and the programs residing under its umbrella is currently extremely scarce (as noted by McConney, Woods-McConney, & Price, 2012), with the exception of evaluations and critiques of Teach For America (see Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Darling- Hammond, 2009; Decker et al., 2004; Raymond et al., 2001), and to a lesser extent, the United Kingdom’s Teach First (Hutchings, Maylor, Mendick, Menter, & Smart, 2006; Muijs, Chapman, Collins, & Armstrong, 2010). In most cases, the literature that does exist consists of large-scale quantitatively-based evaluations of the impact of particular Teach For All programs’ teachers on student achievement, conducted by multilateral funding agencies like the Inter-American Development Bank (Alfonso, Santiago & Bassi, 2010) and nationally-centered bodies like the Australian Council for Educational Research (Scott, Weldon, & Dinham, 2010; Weldon, McKenzie, Kleinhenz, & Reid, 2012, 2013) and Ofsted (2008) in the UK. While the rapid expansion of the network in part explains the relative dearth of literature on the subject, there are numerous aspects of Teach For All’s spread and influence that demand further scholarly attention: namely, the considerable funding Teach For All and its partners have gathered both from public and private partners, as well as the ways in which they are influencing public debate and policy around issues of teacher recruitment, retention and certification, the role of unions, learning assessment, and school policy. The articles collected in this special issue represent an initial foray into this essential conversation. Perhaps the most innovative contribution that can be made to the larger discussion of global education reform through analysis of Teach For All is a deeper understanding of the role of global transnational networks and organizations that are more modest in scope compared to the multilateral organizations (such as the World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], and the Inter-American Development Bank) examined in the extant literature (Philips & Ochs, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Such organizations have exerted influence on educational policy globally primarily through setting conditions for granting aid packages to countries with struggling economies (Jones, 2004), packages which have often encouraged particularly neoliberal or market-oriented approaches to public policy (Arnove, 1983; Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Gwynne & Kay, 2000). While organizations like Teach For All do not wield the same economic leverage, they have also served as mechanisms for the spread of particular models of education reform. Stephen Ball (2012) has provided one construct that could account for such influence in what he calls “Transnational Advocacy Networks,” or TANs: groups of (typically private) organizations brought together primarily by their “shared values” (p. 13). With regard to the Teach For All network in particular, Friedrich (2014) has previously built on this model to describe Teach For All’s extension through its national-level partners as a form of policy “micro-lending:” that is, helping relatively E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 23 N o. 44 4 small-scale social entrepreneurship efforts throughout the world use parallel methods (as done by Kiva, Grameen or other micro-lending agencies) as a means of targeting global educational needs. In this special issue, various contributors add to this initial research on Teach For All’s influence. In “Teach For All: Storytelling ‘Shared Solutions’ and Scaling Global Reform,” Chloe Ahmann examines Teach For All’s use of storytelling to communicate the logic behind its particular “brand” of leadership development: namely, that transformational leaders have particular characteristics in common, that Teach For All’s partners have demonstrated the ability to identify and cultivate such leaders in the educational sector, and that such high-impact leadership development is “scalable.” Through an analysis of Teach For All promotional materials and the public statements of its leaders (such as Wendy Kopp), Ahmann makes a compelling case for the role of storytelling in Teach For All’s spread of its particular organizational model and theory of change. Belen Cumsille and Ariel Fizbein bring a more targeted, regional focus to the discussion with their article “Crème de la Crème: The Teach For All experience and its lessons for policy-making in Latin America.” As Latin American scholars themselves, the authors undertake a very practical exercise in this piece, using semi-structured interviews with staff members from various Teach For All affiliates to identify what they see as best practices in teacher education that could improve pedagogical training throughout Latin America. Their findings are contextualized within the larger Latin American literature on teacher education. Priya Goel La Londe, T. Jameson Brewer and Christopher A. Lubienski further this special issue’s critical discussion with “The Proliferation of Teach For America around the Globe: Cloning Corporate Reform Through Teach For All.” In this largely theoretical essay, the authors develop their own construct to describe the support structure of Teach For All and similar organizations: namely, what they call global Intermediary Organization Networks (IONs), or the loose conglomerations of foundations, lobbyists, government officials and other actors who share a philosophical orientation towards particular educational reforms. Finally, in “Making All Children Count: Teach For All and the Universalizing Appeal of Data,” Daniel Friedrich, Mia Walter and Erica Colmenares similarly explore the discursive practices represented in the public statements of Teach For All and its affiliates, this time on social media. In particular, Friedrich, Walter and Colmenares discuss how Teach For All and its affiliates use a focus on principles of data collection and data-driven instruction, theorized here as dataspeak, to universalize the problems faced by Teach For All partner organizations despite their differences in cultural and social context. As stated earlier, we hope that these essays serve as a starting point for a larger conversation on the spread of Teach For All and its affiliates and their role in influencing trends in global education reform. We await much more rigorous scholarship focused on this growing phenomenon over the coming years, and hope that the research begun here proves useful in furthering that endeavor. References Alfonso, M., Santiago, A., & Bassi, M. (2010). Estimating the impact of placing top university graduates in vulnerable schools in Chile. Washington DC: Inter-American Development Bank. Arnove, R. (1983). The Ford Foundation and the transfer of knowledge: Convergence and divergence in the world-system. Compare, 13(1), 7-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305792830130102 Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. Abingdon: Routledge. Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All 5 Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalization mean for educational change? A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/324053 Clark, M. A., Chiang, H. S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The Effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows Programs. NCEE 2013-4015. Washington DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Educational opportunity and alternative certification: New evidence and new questions. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter?: Evidence about teacher certification, Teach For America, and teacher effectiveness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The Effects of Teach For America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Friedrich, D. S. (2014). Global microlending in education reform: Enseñá por Argentina and the neoliberalization of the grassroots. Comparative Education Review, 58(2), 296–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/675412 Gwynne, R. N., & Kay, C. (2000). Views from the periphery: Futures of neoliberalism in Latin America. Third World Quarterly, 21(1), 141-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590013279 Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach For America: A review of the evidence. Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teach-for-america Heilig, J. V., & Jez, S. J. (2014). Teach For America: A return to the evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved January 30, 2015 from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/teach-for-america-return Hutchings, M., Maylor, U., Mendick, H., Menter, I., & Smart, S. (2006). An evaluation of innovative approaches to teacher training on the Teach First programme: Final report to the Training and Development Agency for Schools. London: Institute for Policy Studies in Education. Jones, P. W. (2004). Taking the credit: Financing and policy linkages in the education portfolio of the World Bank. In G. Steiner-Khamsi (Ed.), The global politics of educational borrowing and lending, 188-200. New York: Teachers College Press. McConney, A., Woods-McConney, A., & Price, A. (2012). Fast track teacher education: A review of the research literature on Teach For All schemes. Murdoch, Australia: Murdoch University Centre for Learning, Change and Development. Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Collins, A., & Armstrong, P. (2010). Maximum impact evaluation: The impact of Teach First teachers in schools. Manchester: University of Manchester. Ofsted. (2008). Rising to the challenge: A review of the Teach First initial teacher training programme. London: Ofsted. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (Eds.). (2004). Educational policy borrowing: Historical perspectives. Oxford: Symposium Books. Raymond, M. E., Fletcher, S. H., & Luque, J. (2001). Teach For America: An evaluation of teacher differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: CREDO. Scott, C., Weldon, P., & Dinham, S. (2010). Teach for Australia pathway: Evaluation report phase 1 of 3. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing. New York: Teachers College Press. Waldow, F., Takayama, K., & Sung, Y.-K. (2014). Rethinking the pattern of external policy referencing: Media discourses over the “Asian Tigers” PISA success in Australia, Germany E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 23 N o. 44 6 and South Korea. Comparative Education, 1–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2013.860704 Weldon, P., McKenzie, P., Kleinhenz, E., & Reid, K. (2012). Teach for Australia pathway: Evaluation report phase 2 of 3. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Weldon, P., McKenzie, P., Kleinhenz, E., & Reid, K. (2013). Teach for Australia pathway: Evaluation report phase 3 of 3. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research. Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All 7 About the Authors Rolf Straubhaar University of Georgia rolf@uga.edu Rolf Straubhaar is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Georgia’s Center for Latino Achievement and Success in Education (CLASE). Trained as an anthropologist of educational policy, his research examines the spread, adaptation and implementation of educational policies in Brazil, the United States and Mozambique. His work has been published in the Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, Compare, Education and Urban Society, the High School Journal, and the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, among other sources. His dissertation on the spread of U.S.-based education reforms to Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2014 Frederick Erickson Outstanding Dissertation Award by the American Anthropological Association’s Council on Anthropology and Education. Daniel Friedrich Teachers College, Columbia University friedrich@tc.edu Daniel Friedrich is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum at Teachers College, Columbia University. His research explores the politics of global teacher education reform, as well as issues of memory, political violence and curriculum. His book Democratic Education as a Curricular Problem: Historical Consciousness and the Moralizing Limits of the Present was published by Routledge in 2014. That same year he was awarded the Early Career Scholar Award by the Critical Issues in Curriculum and Cultural Studies Special Interest Group at AERA. About the Guest Editors Daniel Friedrich Teachers College, Columbia University friedrich@tc.edu Daniel Friedrich is an Assistant Professor of Curriculum at Teachers College, Columbia University. His research explores the politics of global teacher education reform, as well as issues of memory, political violence and curriculum. His book Democratic Education as a Curricular Problem: Historical Consciousness and the Moralizing Limits of the Present was published by Routledge in 2014. That same year he was awarded the Early Career Scholar Award by the Critical Issues in Curriculum and Cultural Studies Special Interest Group at AERA. Rolf Straubhaar University of Georgia rolf@uga.edu Rolf Straubhaar is a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Georgia’s Center for Latino Achievement and Success in Education (CLASE). Trained as an anthropologist of educational policy, his research examines the spread, adaptation and implementation of educational policies in Brazil, the United States and Mozambique. His work has been published in the Comparative Education Review, Comparative Education, Compare, Education and Urban Society, the High School Journal, and the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, among other E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 23 N o. 44 8 sources. His dissertation on the spread of U.S.-based education reforms to Rio de Janeiro was awarded the 2014 Frederick Erickson Outstanding Dissertation Award by the American Anthropological Association’s Council on Anthropology and Education. SPECIAL ISSUE Teach For All and Global Teacher Education Reform education policy analysis archives Volume 23 Number 44 April 20th, 2015 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, it is distributed for non- commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or EPAA. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A2 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank; SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please contribute commentaries at http://epaa.info/wordpress/ and send errata notes to Gustavo E. Fischman fischman@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All 9 education policy analysis archives editorial board Editor Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University), Jeanne M. Powers (Arizona State University) Jessica Allen University of Colorado, Boulder Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Gary Anderson New York University Christopher Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski University of Illinois, Urbana- Champaign Angela Arzubiaga Arizona State University Samuel R. Lucas University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Maria Martinez-Coslo University of Texas, Arlington Robert Bickel Marshall University William Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder Henry Braun Boston College Tristan McCowan Institute of Education, London Eric Camburn University of Wisconsin, Madison Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Wendy C. Chi Jefferson County Public Schools in Golden, Colorado Julianne Moss Deakin University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio Arnold Danzig California State University, San Jose Noga O'Connor University of Iowa Antonia Darder Loyola Marymount University João Paraskveva University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Laurence Parker University of Utah Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research and Policy Susan L. Robertson Bristol University John Diamond Harvard University John Rogers University of California, Los Angeles Tara Donahue McREL International A. G. Rud Washington State University Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Felicia C. Sanders Institute of Education Sciences Christopher Joseph Frey Bowling Green State University Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Kimberly Scott Arizona State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina Wilmington Dorothy Shipps Baruch College/CUNY Gene V Glass Arizona State University Maria Teresa Tatto Michigan State University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Larisa Warhol Arizona State University Harvey Goldstein University of Bristol Cally Waite Social Science Research Council Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Eric M. Haas WestEd Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kimberly Joy Howard University of Southern California Ed Wiley University of Colorado, Boulder Aimee Howley Ohio University Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Craig Howley Ohio University John Willinsky Stanford University Steve Klees University of Maryland Kyo Yamashiro Los Angeles Education Research Institute E ducation Policy A nalysis A rchives V ol. 23 N o. 44 10 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editores: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University), Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Alejandro Canales (UNAM) y Jesús Romero Morante (Universidad de Cantabria) Armando Alcántara Santuario IISUE, UNAM México Fanni Muñoz Pontificia Universidad Católica de Perú, Claudio Almonacid University of Santiago, Chile Imanol Ordorika Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas – UNAM, México Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez Universidad de Murcia, España Maria Cristina Parra Sandoval Universidad de Zulia, Venezuela Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España Miguel A. Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Jose Joaquin Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile Monica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Paula Razquin Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina María Caridad García Universidad Católica del Norte, Chile Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Raimundo Cuesta Fernández IES Fray Luis de León, España Daniel Schugurensky Arizona State University, Estados Unidos Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigacion Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagogico IDEP Inés Dussel DIE-CINVESTAV, Mexico José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia Rafael Feito Alonso Universidad Complutense de Madrid. España Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Mario Rueda Beltrán IISUE, UNAM México Verónica García Martínez Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, México José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Francisco F. García Pérez Universidad de Sevilla, España Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Edna Luna Serrano Universidad Autónoma de Baja California, México Aida Terrón Bañuelos Universidad de Oviedo, España Alma Maldonado DIE-CINVESTAV México Jurjo Torres Santomé Universidad de la Coruña, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez IISUE, UNAM México Antoni Verger Planells University of Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé, Universitat de València, España José Felipe Martínez Fernández University of California Los Angeles, Estados Unidos Mario Yapu Universidad Para la Investigación Estratégica, Bolivia Theorizing and Documenting the Spread of Teach For All 11 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Associados: Rosa Maria Bueno Fisher e Luis A. Gandin (Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul) Dalila Andrade de Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Paulo Carrano Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brasil Luciano Mendes de Faria Filho Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil Alicia Maria Catalano de Bonamino Pontificia Universidade Católica-Rio, Brasil Lia Raquel Moreira Oliveira Universidade do Minho, Portugal Fabiana de Amorim Marcello Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Brasil Belmira Oliveira Bueno Universidade de São Paulo, Brasil Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona, Portugal Gaudêncio Frigotto Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Pia L. Wong California State University Sacramento, U.S.A Alfredo M Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Brasil Sandra Regina Sales Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Petronilha Beatriz Gonçalves e Silva Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Brasil Elba Siqueira Sá Barreto Fundação Carlos Chagas, Brasil Nadja Herman Pontificia Universidade Católica – Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Manuela Terrasêca Universidade do Porto, Portugal José Machado Pais Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal Robert Verhine Universidade Federal da Bahia, Brasil Wenceslao Machado de Oliveira Jr. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brasil Antônio A. S. Zuin University of York