Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 1/23/2018 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 1/26/2018 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 1/26/2018 SPECIAL ISSUE Navigating the Contested Terrain of Teacher Education Policy and Practice education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 26 Number 25 March 5, 2018 ISSN 1068-2341 Navigating the Contested Terrain of Teacher Education Policy and Practice: Introduction to the Special Issue Elena Aydarova Auburn University & David C. Berliner Arizona State University United States Citation: Aydarova, E., & Berliner D. C. (2018). Navigating the contested terrain of teacher education policy and practice: Introduction to the special issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(25). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3739 This article is part of the Special Issue, Navigating the Contested Terrain of Teacher Education Policy and Practice, guest edited by Elena Aydarova and David Berliner. Abstract: In the policy climate where various actors claim to have the solutions for the enduring challenges of teacher education, policy deliberations sideline certain voices. This introduction to the special issue explores policy contestations surrounding teacher education and highlights some of the perspectives overlooked by policy debates. It lays out new priorities for the teacher education community to ensure that the profession’s collective voice would be heard by policy-makers and by the public at large. Keywords: education policy, teacher education http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3739 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 Navegando en el terreno disputado de la política y la práctica de la formación docente: Introducción a la edición especial Resumen: En el clima político en el que varios agentes aseguran tener las soluciones para los desafíos que persisten en la formación del profesorado, las deliberaciones sobre políticas dejan atrás ciertas voces. Esta introducción al número especial explora los conflictos de políticas que rodean la educación de docentes y resalta algunas de las perspectivas que pasan por alto los debates sobre políticas. Establece nuevas prioridades para la comunidad de formación docente para garantizar que la voz colectiva de la profesión sea escuchada por los responsables políticos y por el público en general. Palabras-clave: política educativa, formación docente Navegando no terreno disputado da política e prática da formação de professores: Introdução à edição especial Resumo: No clima político em que vários agentes afirmam ter soluções para os desafios que persistem na formação de professores, as deliberações políticas deixam certas vozes. Esta introdução à questão especial explora os conflitos políticos em torno da formação de professores e destaca algumas das perspectivas que ignoram os debates políticos. Estabelece novas prioridades para a comunidade de formação de professores par a garantir que a voz coletiva da profissão seja ouvida pelos decisores políticos e pelo público em geral. Palavras-chave: política educacional, formação de professores Navigating the Contested Terrain of Teacher Education Policy and Practice The last 20 years have been tumultuous for university-based teacher education in the United States (Baltodano, 2012; Bullough, 2014; Sleeter, 2008; Weiner, 2007; Zeichner, 2010) and around the world (Beauchamp et al., 2016; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012; Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2013; Trippestad, Swennen, & Werler, 2017). Debates over the quality of education contributed to reframing of teacher education as a policy problem, in which changes in parameters could produce better results (Cochran-Smith, 2004). This reframing ushered in an increased focus on deregulating entry into the teaching profession, privatizing teacher preparation, as well as decreasing autonomy of university-based teacher education (Baltodano, 2012; Bullough, 2016; Zeichner & Peña-Sandoval, 2015). Teachers and teacher educators have become subject to increased surveillance, micro-management, and scapegoating for educational and societal ills that are often beyond their control, such as poverty (Zeichner, 2009) or social stratification (Kumashiro, 2015). At the same time, urgent calls for increased accountability have facilitated the proliferation of bureaucratic machines that support the heavy-handed and often punitive data-driven policy infrastructure (Allington, 2005; Anagnostopoulos, Lewis & Young, 2013; Rutledge, & Jacobsen, 2013; Wilson, 2014). Of course, struggles over teacher education are not happening in a vacuum. Public higher education overall has witnessed years of defunding and weathered multiple attacks on programs with low utilitarian value that allegedly fail to prepare their graduates for jobs. In consideration of these challenges, we framed this special issue as an attempt to consider how educators and educational researchers navigate the contested terrain of teacher education policies and practices. Among the numerous submissions we received, a number of manuscripts focused on the challenges associated with the implementation of performance assessments for teacher licensure. These manuscripts constitute the first part of our special issue. In this Introduction to the special issue 3 introduction, we want to situate the challenges associated with performance assessments and described in these manuscripts in the broader contestations over teacher education. Contestations over Teacher Education Policies and Practices One of the responses to the attacks unleashed against teacher education as a low-quality institution (for example, Levine, 2006) has been a growing focus on the issues of design (Floden, Richmond, Drake, & Petchauer, 2017). Various groups have been exploring how to improve teacher education systems and structures so that program graduates will be prepared for the task of teaching on day one. For instance, focusing on practice, TeachingWorks headed by Deborah Ball at the University of Michigan championed the work on high-leverage practices, whereas Core Practices Consortium has promoted the work on the core practices of teaching. Texas Tech launched U.S.PREP – a coalition of universities seeking to transform teacher preparation through university- school partnerships, structured management of teacher candidates’ clinical practice, along with a strong focus on data collection. In this context, performance assessments developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) align with the other transformations in the field that seek to redesign teacher education based on more clearly articulated constructions of teaching and learning. Yet the focus on design alone does little to address educational reformers’ successes in challenging university-based teacher education and framing it as irrelevant. When reformers, economists, and conservative think-tanks refer to teacher education as “low quality,” their goal is not just to improve quality but rather to promote low-cost alternatives. The struggle over teacher education is not only a matter of human capital (how to improve the quality of those who enter) but also a matter of resources (how to decrease financial and time investments but receive the same returns). Consider, for example, how economists’ research comparing the achievement of students taught by different groups of teachers concludes that there is “little difference in the average academic achievement impacts of certified, uncertified and alternatively certified teachers” (Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2008, p. 629; also see Diaz, 2014). If students of the teachers who did not go through four or six years of teacher preparation do as well as or not as bad as the other students, then it is not clear that teacher education is worth the investment it currently requires. A recent report from Bellwether Education Foundation expresses the same sentiment in more direct terms: Every year, new teachers collectively spend about $4.8 billion on their training requirements, nearly all of which goes to teacher preparation programs. Unfortunately, it’s unclear whether that is money well spent. (Mitchell & King, 2016, p. 2) Hardly any design change in university-based teacher education can make it a cheap pathway into the profession. This underlying assumption facilitates the proliferation of alternative routes into teaching. Reformers’ attempts to bypass university-based teacher education and introduce shortened versions of job training for teachers have now been enshrined in federal legislation, despite growing evidence about the ineffectiveness of independent teacher education programs (Zeichner, 2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2015), for instance, equates the preparation of highly qualified teachers with a total bypassing of university-based teacher education. Teacher and principal preparation academies advocated by ESSA are not supposed to be burdened by “unnecessary restrictions” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 150) of having faculty with advanced degrees or engaged in research, of having basic expectations of infrastructure, or meeting Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 any credit hour or accreditation requirements. The problem is that teachers who are expected to take such fast tracks into the profession are supposed to teach in hard-to-staff schools, which could magnify existing inequities. Even though the provisions stipulate that teachers have to raise student achievement in order to receive a certificate from the academy, it is unlikely that in a highly segregated society where students’ achievement is often correlated with their race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status, a teacher with abridged preparation will undo the effects of massive social, political, and economic inequities. Ultimately, it is ironic to see the pursuit of quality take the path of decreased standards, lowered expectations, and eliminated provisions. The introduction of performance assessments was meant to accomplish the opposite – to increase standards and raise expectations about teachers’ effectiveness (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012). While this change was applauded by some in the reformers’ circles, others responded to them as an unjustifiable squandering of resources (yet again). Kate Walsh of the National Council for Teacher Quality in her blog post on edTPA commenting on Goldhaber’s findings that edTPA results are predictive of teacher effectiveness in reading but not in math, raised the question: Given that the edTPA is a lot of work for programs and is costly to boot, is this enough bang for the buck? After all, instructions for candidates entail 40 pages and candidates are alerted that they can be evaluated on the edTPA on nearly 700 different items. The process consumes the attention of teacher candidates and teacher educators in their programs for a good share of candidates' semester-long student teaching placement. (Walsh, 2016) A conservative education news group, The 74 Million, publicized a report produced by Bellwether Education Partners as a well-reasoned argument for relaxing entry requirements but making it harder for teachers to stay in the profession if they cannot improve students’ achievement1. The authors of this report pointed out that a lack of external research supporting the use of edTPA suggests that increasing barriers for entry into the profession is not the way to improve the quality of teaching (Aldeman & Mitchel, 2016). Reformers’ claims about a lack of research evidence to support teacher education practices, policies, or innovations are not new. In fact, contributors to this special issue raise similar concerns about the lack of research conducted by scholars outside of SCALE’s sphere of influence on the effectiveness and usefulness of performance assessments. Yet responding to critics would require the kind of research that would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out without substantial external funding. Opportunities for large-scale funded research, however, tend to decline (Sleeter, 2014). Instead, most support is directed towards a limited number of research areas. Most recently, the Department of Education has set aside funding to support the development of teacher academies (see above), confining most funding for teacher education research to STEM fields, special education, or English language learners. For example, the Education Secretary’s proposed priorities for Department of Education competitive grant programs released in 2017 for public discussion mentions teacher preparation only once: “Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of science, technology, engineering, and math subjects” (U.S. Department of Education, 2017, p. 47490). Such a narrow funding focus increases the risk that important questions raised by the critics of teacher education will remain largely unanswered due to a lack of support from federal funding. 1 https://www.the74million.org/article/a-radically-sensible-proposal-for-training-teachers-make-it-easier-to- enter-harder-to-stay/ https://www.the74million.org/article/a-radically-sensible-proposal-for-training-teachers-make-it-easier-to-enter-harder-to-stay/ https://www.the74million.org/article/a-radically-sensible-proposal-for-training-teachers-make-it-easier-to-enter-harder-to-stay/ Introduction to the special issue 5 Philanthropic foundations often step up to the plate and offer financial support for research in teacher education. Their funding, however, tends to support projects that align with the ideologies they promote, and generate evidence for the market-based policies they support (Au & Ferrare, 2015; Scott & Jabbar, 2014; Zeichner & Conklin, 2016). In particular, philanthropic funding has been instrumental in advancing privatization and technocratization of teacher education. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for example, has provided funding not only for TeachingWorks run by University of Michigan and U.S.Prep run by Texas Tech, but also for Relay Graduate School of Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies, Inc2 as well as Elevate Preparation, Impact Children (EPIC), led by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The latter awardees represent a move towards a greater involvement of private actors in teacher preparation, whereas the Transformation Centers’ overall focus on improving teacher preparation through data use, clinical practice, and measurable replicable practices captures a technocratic approach to teaching. Reformers’ successes in advancing their agendas are due in part to their ability to organize and mobilize resources in support of fairly standard talking points. Non-profit or private sector actors focus on network-building, coalition development, and targeting policy-makers with easily accessible messages. Consider, for example, the Hunt Institute – a non-profit organization in North Carolina – one among many actors engaged in disseminating policy proposals for teacher education reforms. The Institute’s vision is to influence policy and it does so by “conven[ing] governors, policymakers, and legislators, as we all as business, education, and civic leaders across the nation to provide them with the best information to make informed policy decisions” (Hunt Institute, 2014). That vision becomes enacted through legislators’ retreats and governors’ symposia that the Institute organizes. Unlike typical academic conferences, such events allow policy ideas to reach policymakers directly – the very audience that has the power to enact and implement them. The Hunt Institute’s initiative to provide 30-minute webcasts during lunch hours speaks to their readiness to deliver messages in ways that accommodate their audience’s busy schedules. In the context of these broader contestations, the teacher education community needs to consider a new set of priorities. To the matters of design it has to add the matters of public policy engagement to demonstrate its relevance to broader communities than just the readers of highly specialized journals. In other words, a pursuit of better models needs to be accompanied by activities that can help the teacher education community to reclaim a collective voice over the directions of change and its future. Reclaiming this voice requires building coalitions both within the field of teacher education and beyond it. Within the field itself, it is important to create spaces for dialogue about professional, moral, ethical, and democratic goals of teacher preparation. As it has been observed before, the field lacks a shared vision and a shared language about the teaching profession (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). To generate those, it is paramount for teacher educators to engage substantively with each other about the problems that plague the field and about the criticisms leveled against it. These dialogues, however, cannot be conducted pro forma. For example, AACTE claims that edTPA emerged out of consultations with teachers and teacher educators, yet contributors to this volume (along with others in the field – see Au, 2013; Dover & Schultz, 2016; Greenblatt & O’Hara, 2015; Tuck & Gorlewski, 2016) report on the marginalization and silencing that they experienced. 2 https://nctresidencies.org/ https://nctresidencies.org/ Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 Performance Assessments: Marginalized Voices and Underrepresented Perspectives Nick Henning, Alison Dover, Erica Dotson, and Ruchi Agarwal-Rangath (this volume) describe their struggles with teacher performance assessments and ways in which their critiques were silenced or sidelined. Using the methodological tools of counternarratives to document and critique the impact of teacher performance assessments on their work as teacher educators, they show how at the department, institution, and even professional organization levels, they were treated as “trouble-makers” and “cranks” because of their critical appraisal of performance assessments. In the context of widespread standardization of teacher education curriculum driven by external assessments and constant critiques of the field, performance assessments constrained the authors’ work, restricted the curriculum they had to teach, and limited the depth of their students’ engagement with the issues of diversity and social justice. Their responses to the imposition of performance assessments varied from covert subversion to overt resistance. It is for these acts of insubordination and disobedience that they became penalized. Christine Clayton (this volume), on the other hand, attends to the voices of student teachers over three semesters of edTPA implementation at her institution. Surveys and interviews with student teachers revealed that they saw misalignment between the feedback they received in their prior courses and on edTPA. Because student teachers felt unsupported by school mentors who were not familiar with the assessment and had to focus on what the assessment required rather what their students needed to learn, they came to see their work on edTPA as a subtractive experience. As such, it reduced student teachers’ learning instead of supporting it to strengthen the profession. Supplementing students’ perspectives with their own reflections, Martha Donovan and Susan Cannon (this volume) examine how they experienced edTPA as a dilemma that overshadowed the student teaching experiences of the teacher candidates they worked with. They address how their supervision of student teaching experience became transactional because of student teachers’ constant worry about edTPA results. According to Donovan and Cannon’s observations, student teachers’ focus on edTPA requirements, along with its price and failure rate, has turned teacher candidates into customers engaged in an economic transaction rather than professionals ready to embark on a long-term commitment to the ethical and democratic commitments of education. Finally, Stephanie Cross, Alyssa Dunn, and Erica Dotson (this volume) position their concerns about edTPA in the broader context of neoliberal transformations in teacher education. Framing those transformations as the “hydra of teacher education,” the authors record their experiences of hopelessness, silence, and acquiescence to the institutional policies that go counter their ethical commitments as social justice educators. The methodological tools of poetic inquiry afford the authors an opportunity to take an innovative approach to policy analysis and to chart pathways for collective resistance. As the authors describe the acts of resistance that they engaged in, such as a teach-in on the ban of ethnic studies in Arizona, they note the challenges and risks they faced. The backlash they experienced sent them back to the place of hopelessness and fear. While they seek to reclaim their positions as scholar activists, they also contemplate how challenging it is to struggle with the hydra whose heads grow back after they are cut off. To facilitate scholarly dialogue on the issues raised by these manuscripts, we invited the team from the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity to comment on the manuscripts included in this issue. We also encouraged the authors to respond back. The thoughtfulness of this dialogue and the diversity of perspectives it captures are a sign of health for a field in which it is hard to define what experiences make for a quality teacher education program or what practices can ensure equitable outcomes for students. The fact that quality and equity can be achieved in so many Introduction to the special issue 7 different ways creates situations in which what looks to be disarray or poor choices by one scholar, is really thoughtfulness about the profession from another vantage point. Yet to ensure teacher education’s continued future, we hope that scholarly interactions that demonstrate ability to hear across difference and to negotiate the establishment of common ground will become much more common. Moving Forward Dialogues within the field are important as stepping stones towards building collectives that work to disrupt the dismantling of teacher education and public schooling. This work is underway in many corners of the US. For example, Tuck and Gorlewski (2016) described the work of a collective of teacher educators in New York that combined efforts to counter the hegemonic logic of edTPA that they saw as a colonizing force. The Teacher Education Collective that brought together scholars from across the country published a sobering critique of Betsy DeVos’s candidacy for the Education Secretary in a regional newspaper.3 A group of junior scholars who comprise the Teacher Education Thought Collective responded to the new funding priorities by challenging its market-based logic. Another notable group active in opposing neoliberal education reforms is Deans for Justice and Equity. Their Declaration of Principles on Public Education, Democracy, and the Role of Federal Government issued in January 2017 demonstrates their commitments to the struggle against the dismantling of public education at large. Moving beyond the individualizing structures of academia, these various groups have undertaken the task of public intellectuals who “offer critique of policies and practices that are problematic in terms of logic and evidence or that will not serve the best interests of schoolchildren, families, and teachers” (Cochran-Smith, 2006, p. 203). Finally, it is important to reach beyond the field of teacher education to build alliances, networks, and coalitions that will strive towards a greater public good. These alliances can support underserved communities who seek just and equitable education for their children (Sleeter, 2008), reach out to policy-makers, or join activist groups in defending the rights of marginalized populations (Oakes, Rogers, & Lipton, 2006). Coalitions and alliances with social movements, policy communities, and grass-roots organizations could mobilize resources and generate long-lasting cultural changes that are necessary to address the inequities that exist in U.S. public education (Oakes & Lipton, 2002), to prevent deprofessionalization of teaching, and to preclude elimination of university-based teacher education. Echoing Bourdieu’s (2000) call for scholars to use their intellectual and social capital to support social movements that fight against the degradation and disruption of human life caused by neoliberalism, we encourage our readers to consider the struggles around them as opportunities to engage in a fight for a better future. Given all the contestations surrounding public education and teacher education in particular, now is not the time to remain silent. 3 https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2017/01/27/betsy-devos-unqualified-lead-education- department/97135790/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2017/01/27/betsy-devos-unqualified-lead-education-department/97135790/ https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2017/01/27/betsy-devos-unqualified-lead-education-department/97135790/ Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 References Aldeman, C. & Mitchel, A. L. (2016). No guarantees: Is it possible to ensure teachers are ready on day one? Boston, MA: Bellwether Education Partners. Allington, R. L. (2005). Ignoring the policy makers to improve teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275845 Anagnostopoulos, D., Rutledge, S. A., & Jacobsen, R. (2013). The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Au, W. (2013). What's a nice test like you doing in a place like this? The edTPA and corporate education “reform.” Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 22-27. Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (Eds.). (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Power and policy networks in the neoliberal state. New York, NY: Routledge. Baltodano, M. (2012). Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: The corporatization of schools of education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(4), 487-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.673025 Beauchamp, G., Clarke, L., Hulme, M., Jephcote, M., & Kennedy, A. (2016). Teacher education in times of change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Bourdieu, P. (2000). For a scholarship with commitment. Profession, 40-45. Bullough Jr, R. V. (2014). Recalling 40 years of teacher education in the USA: A personal essay. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 474-491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.956537 Bullough, R. V. (2016). Status and quality of teacher education in the US: Neoliberal and professional tensions. In J.C.-K. Lee & C. Day (eds.), Quality and Change in Teacher Education (pp. 59-75). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24139-5_4 Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4), 295- 299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104268057 Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Teacher education and the need for public intellectuals. The New Educator, 2(3), 181-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15476880600820136 Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.). (2012). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Diaz, V. (2014). Teach for America teachers are well trained, highly qualified, and get amazing results. In D. C. Berliner and G. V Glass, 50 myths and lies that threaten America’s public schools (pp. 67-73). New York, NY: Teachers College Press Dover, A. & Schultz, B. D. (2016). Troubling the edTPA: Illusions of objectivity and rigor. Educational Forum, 80(1), 95-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1102368 Ellis, V., & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming teacher education: Reconfiguring the academic work. London: Bloomsbury. Floden, R. E., Richmond, G., Drake, C., & Petchauer, E. (2017). How teacher education can elevate teacher quality: Evidence from research. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 360–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117721190 Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.). (2013). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Greenblatt, D., & O’Hara, K. E. (2015). Buyer beware: Lessons learned from edTPA implementation in New York State. Teacher Education Quarterly, 45(2), 57-67. Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906 Introduction to the special issue 9 Hunt Institute. (2014). Getting teachers learner-ready: Reforming teacher preparation. ReVision 4(4). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559388. Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005 Kumashiro, K. K. (2015). Review of proposed 2015 federal teacher preparation regulations. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr10- tchrprepregs_0.pdf. Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project. Lewis, W. D., & Young, T. V. (2013). The politics of accountability: Teacher education policy. Educational Policy, 27(2), 190-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812472725 Oakes, J., & Lipton, M. (2002). Struggling for educational equity in diverse communities: School reform as social movement. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3-4), 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021225728762 Oakes, J., Rogers, J., & Lipton, M. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Scott, J., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The hub and the spokes: Foundations, intermediary organizations, incentivist reforms, and the politics of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813515327 Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1947-1957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.04.003 Sleeter, C. (2014). Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher, 43(3), 146-153. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14528752 Trippestad, T. A., Swennen, A., & Werler, T. (Eds.). (2017). The Struggle for teacher education: International perspectives on governance and reforms. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Tuck, E., Gorlewski, J. (2016). Racist ordering, settler colonialism, and edTPA. Educational Policy, 30(1), 197-217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616483 U.S. Department of Education. (2015). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Secretary's proposed supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs. Federal Register, 82(196). Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/12/2017-22127/secretarys- proposed-supplemental-priorities-and-definitions-for-discretionary-grant-programs. Walsh, K. (2016). Three reasons why every teacher prep program should adopt edTPA… or not. Retrieved from https://www.nctq.org/blog/Three-reasons-why-every-teacher-prep-program-should-adopt- the-edTPAor-not. Weiner, L. (2007). A lethal threat to US teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 274-286. Wilson, S. M. (2014). Innovation and the evolving system of US teacher preparation. Theory into Practice, 53(3), 183-195. Zeichner, K. M. (2009). Teacher education and the struggle for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. 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(8), 1544–1552. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004 Zeichner, K. (2016). Independent teacher education programs: Apocryphal claims, illusory evidence. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Zeichner, K., & Conklin, H. G. (2016). Beyond knowledge ventriloquism and echo chambers: Raising the quality of the debate in teacher education. Teachers College Record, 118(12), 1-38. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559388 http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr10-tchrprepregs_0.pdf http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr10-tchrprepregs_0.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/12/2017-22127/secretarys-proposed-supplemental-priorities-and-definitions-for-discretionary-grant-programs https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/12/2017-22127/secretarys-proposed-supplemental-priorities-and-definitions-for-discretionary-grant-programs https://www.nctq.org/blog/Three-reasons-why-every-teacher-prep-program-should-adopt-the-edTPAor-not https://www.nctq.org/blog/Three-reasons-why-every-teacher-prep-program-should-adopt-the-edTPAor-not http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 Zeichner, K., & Peña-Sandoval, C. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the US: The role of the New Schools Venture Fund. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1-44. About the Authors/Guest Editors Elena Aydarova Auburn University eza0029@auburn.edu Website: https://elenaaydarova.com Elena Aydarova is Assistant Professor of Social Foundations at the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology at Auburn University. Her interdisciplinary research examines the interactions between global social change and the work of teachers, teaching, and teacher education through the lens of equity and social justice. Her projects have explored teacher education reforms in Russia and the US, internationalization of education, teacher retention, as well as privatization of teacher preparation. She has recently completed a book manuscript “Teacher Education Reforms as Political Theater: Policy Dramas in Neoliberal Contexts.” Throughout her career, Dr. Aydarova has taught in the United States, Ukraine, China, and the United Arab Emirates. David C. Berliner Arizona State University berliner@asu.edu David C. Berliner is Regents’ Professor Emeritus of Education at Arizona State University. Dr. Berliner is a member of the National Academy of Education (NEA), the International Education Academy (IEA), a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, and a past president of both the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Division of Educational Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA). He is the recipient of awards for distinguished contributions from APA, AERA, and the National Education Association (NEA). Dr. Berliner is co -author (with B. J. Biddle) of the best seller The Manufactured Crisis, co-author (with Ursula Casanova) of Putting Research to Work, co-author (with Gene Class) of 50 Myths and Lies that Threaten America's Public Schools, and co-author (with N. L. Gage) of six editions of the textbook Educational Psychology. He is co - editor of the first Handbook of Educational Psychology and the books Talks to Teachers, and Perspectives on Instructional Time. Professor Berliner has also authored more than 200 published articles, technical reports, and book chapters. He has taught at the University of Arizona, University of Massachusetts, Teachers College and Stanford University, as well as universities in Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. mailto:eza0029@auburn.edu https://elenaaydarova.com/ mailto:berliner@asu.edu Introduction to the special issue 11 SPECIAL ISSUE Navigating the Contested Terrain of Teacher Education Policy and Practice education policy analysis archives Volume 26 Number 25 March 5, 2018 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 th e 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 send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:Audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 12 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Scott Marley, Iveta Silova, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Gene V Glass Arizona State University Susan L. Robertson Bristol University, UK Gary Anderson New York University Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Jeff Bale OISE, University of Toronto, Canada Eric M. Haas WestEd A. G. Rud Washington State University Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio David C. Berliner Arizona State University Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley Henry Braun Boston College Aimee Howley Ohio University Jack Schneider College of the Holy Cross Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Steve Klees University of Maryland Noah Sobe Loyola University Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Sherman Dorn Arizona State University William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Introduction to the special issue 13 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Ezequiel Gomez Caride (Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina), Antonio Luzon (Universidad de Granada), Angelica Buendia (Metropolitan Autonomous University), José Luis Ramírez (Universidad de Sonora) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Paula Razquin Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/816') Education Policy Analysis Archives Vo l. 26 No. 25 SPECIAL ISSUE 14 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGV, Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil