Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy: Critical and International Perspectives [1 ed.] 0815369271, 9780815369271

Citation preview

Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy

Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy examines the changing relationships between the state and the common (or public) good. Using teacher education policy as the frame of analysis, the authors examine history, cultural context, and lived experiences in 12 countries and the European Union to explicate which notions of justice, social inclusion and exclusion, and citizenship emerge. By situating teacher education policy within a larger philosophical framework regarding the relationship between the state and conceptions of the “common good,” this book analyzes the ideological and political desires of the state—how the state understands the common good, the future of national identity, and to what end schooling is imagined. Nikola Hobbel is Professor of English Education at Humboldt State University, United States. Barbara L. Bales is Director of Strategic Initiatives and Educational Innovation at the University of Wisconsin System Administration and Associate Professor of Teacher Education at the University of WisconsinMilwaukee, United States.

Routledge Research in International and Comparative Education

This is a series that offers a global platform to engage scholars in continuous academic debate on key challenges and the latest thinking on issues in the fast-growing field of International and Comparative Education. Books in the series include: Teaching and Learning Difficult Histories in International Contexts A Critical Sociocultural Approach Edited by Terrie Epstein and Carla L. Peck Globalization and Japanese “Exceptionalism” in Education Insider’s Views Into a Changing System Edited by Ryoko Tsuneyoshi Canadian Teacher Education A Curriculum History Edited by Theodore Michael Christou The Shifting Global World of Youth and Education Edited by Mabel Ann Brown The Making of Indigeneity, Curriculum History, and the Limits of Diversity Ligia L. López López Civil Society Organizations in Latin American Education Case Studies and Perspectives on Advocacy Regina Cortina and Constanza Lafuente Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy Critical and International Perspectives Edited by Nikola Hobbel & Barbara L. Bales For more information about the series, please visit www.routledge.com.

Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy Critical and International Perspectives Edited by Nikola Hobbel & Barbara L. Bales

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Nikola Hobbel & Barbara L. Bales to be identified as editors of this work, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-815-36927-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-25230-0 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

This book is dedicated to my parents, Emil and Evelyn Haller. —Barbara L. Bales To my mother, Karin-Elke Hobbel—immer weiter im Laufschritt! —Nikola Hobbel

Contents



Acknowledgments

x

Introduction: Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy: Critical and International Perspectives

1

NIKOLA HOBBEL AND BARBARA L. BALES

  1 Imagining the Good Teacher: The Nation, Teaching, and the Common Good

7

NIKOLA HOBBEL

PART 1

Tensions in Context: Caught Between the State and the Local

11

  2 Teacher Education Policies in the United States: Tensions Between Local and National Actors for Control of the Common Good

13

BARBARA L. BALES

  3 Teacher Education, Inc.: Attempts at Privatizing Teacher Preparation Systems in Brazil

31

JULIO EMÍLIO DINIZ-PEREIRA

  4 Negotiating Global and Local Encounters: 21st-Century Teacher Education Policy Challenges in the Philippines

41

VICENTE REYES

  5 Changing Modes of Governance in Australian Teacher Education Policy GLENN C. SAVAGE AND BOB LINGARD

64

viii Contents PART 2

Challenges to the State: Local Agency, Local Resistance

81

  6 Complicating the Narrative: Teacher Education Policies in Neoliberal Chile

83

ANDREA LIRA AND M. BEATRIZ FERNÁNDEZ

  7 Schoolteachers’ Professionalism and Teacher Training in Japan: From “Teaching Specialists” to “Learning Professionals”100 YUTO KITAMURA, TAKAYO OGISU, AND ERI YAMAZAKI

  8 The Aseem Community-Based Teacher Training Model: A Response to India’s Failed National Teacher Education Policies

115

RITA VERMA

  9 The Struggles Against Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa: Toward the Pedagogy of Common Good

128

BEKISIZWE S. NDIMANDE

PART 3

(Re)affirming State Power?

147

10 From Professionalism to Proletarianization: Teacher Education Policy and the Common Good in Turkey

149

HÜSEYIN YOLCU

11 Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms: A Search for Holistic Individual and National Development

164

PETER OTIATO OJIAMBO

12 EuroVisions in School Policy and the Knowledge Economy: A Genealogy of the Transnational Turn in European School and Teacher Education Policy

180

JOHN BENEDICTO KREJSLER

13 Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Israel From the Perspective of Those Outside the “Common Good” ISMAEL ABU-SAAD

195

Contents  ix 14 Canada’s Trojan Horse: Labor Mobility Legislation Concealing Deregulation and an Attack on Teacher Professionalism and the Common Good

213

PETER P. GRIMMETT



Afterword: Interactions of the Local and Global in Teacher Education Policy and Reforms

225

KENNETH M. ZEICHNER

Index

231

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following people for their help and support in this project: our first editorial agent, Naomi Silverman, who helped us frame our original idea and get it off the ground. Thanks to Matt Friberg for picking up the ball and running with it. Arnetha Ball generously agreed to discuss our work with us, and Tom Popkewitz helped us find authors in unfamiliar places. Our dear friend Thandeka Chapman kept us laughing as we pushed forward. Thank you to our families and mentors for their selfless support.

Introduction Navigating the Common Good in Teacher Education Policy: Critical and International Perspectives Nikola Hobbel and Barbara L. Bales This edited volume examines the changing relationships between the state and conceptions of the “common good.” Using teacher education policy as the frame of analysis, the authors examine history, cultural context, and lived experiences in 12 individual countries and one federation, the European Union, creating a global montage where notions of justice, social inclusion and exclusion, and citizenship emerge. Examined historically, teacher education policy tells us its legislative demands, its instantiation in lived experience, who will or can be the teachers for a nation’s schools, and to what end schooling is imagined. As such, teacher education policy serves as an appropriate frame of analysis as it indicates the ideological and political desires of the state—how the state imagines the common good, the future of national identity, internal conflicts regarding diversity and difference, and justice. Each chapter offers a three-dimensional portrait that includes an overview of the past 20 to 25 years of teacher education policy making, a narrative or case study of a teacher or teacher educator’s lived experience, concluding with a synthesis and discussion of the policy and its material consequences as these relate to national identity, social justice, inclusion and exclusion, equity and diversity.

Starting Points This book is a collective effort—a montage of teacher education policy around the globe. Each author takes up the challenge of analyzing a particular policy or set of policies affecting teacher education; in addition, our authors examine the lived experiences or material consequences of teacher education reforms. Situating teacher education policy within a larger philosophical framework regarding the relationship between the state and conceptions of the “common good” illuminates the ideological and political desires of the state—how the state imagines the common good, the future of national identity, and internal conflicts regarding diversity, difference, and justice. For example, in the past 20 years (or more), neoliberalism as a political/ideological approach to relationships between the common

2  Nikola Hobbel and Barbara L. Bales (read: public) good and the state has emerged as a salient heuristic for many industrialized nations: voucher and choice systems, charter schools, intensification of standardized testing, and the consequent de-professionalization of teachers are all instances that tell us that the state’s goal is to privatize public resources and at the same time reduce the common good to the notion of individual rights and responsibilities. However, neoliberalism does not adequately describe the changes in other industrialized and industrializing countries. Further, delimiting neoliberalism as the only relevant political heuristic for understanding recent, often rapid, changes in the thrust and goals of teaching and public schooling narrows and obscures particular (and important) instances that illustrate, perhaps more effectively, the nuances of the changing relationships and conceptions of social inclusion and exclusion as they are located in specific cultures. The larger goal of this project is to use teacher education policy as a way to understand how nations are (or are not) addressing the needs of diverse members of their societies in economically challenging times. Readers will notice the panoply of theoretical approaches and stylistic variation in these chapters: there are important reasons for these variations. The first reason springs from our consideration of the cultural and historical diversity of the authors and the cases they present. Although the global spread of Western ideologies cannot be denied, it would be intellectually reductive to expect the same approach, organization, and style from each chapter. Therefore, we have woven the chapters together by theme. Another reason for the range of work represented in this text is that there has been no monolithic critical way to study teacher education. In fact, many contemporary analyses of teacher education remain at the descriptive, post-positivistic level, a level at which political and ideological concerns are barely acknowledged. This book is an attempt to expand the ways in which teacher education policy analyses are conducted.

What Is Teacher Education? The phrase “teacher education” is often narrowly construed as the preparation of preservice teacher candidates. Yet, teacher education, and by extension teacher education policies, addresses a bandwidth of learning-to-teach components including the following: • Recruitment of candidates into teaching; • Preparation program inputs and outcomes (e.g., the acquisition, integration, and quality of disciplinary-based knowledge; pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge; and clinical experiences); • Credentialing and licensing; • Additional learning and professional development during one’s teaching career;

Introduction  3 • Mentor teacher knowledge, skills, and dispositions; • Evaluation of teachers’ classroom practices; and • Criteria by which one maintains a license to teach. (Bales & Muller, 2008) In this book, teacher education is conceptualized broadly and addresses many aspects of the learning-to-teach professional sequence. Policy makers, globally, direct efforts to control and legitimate teacher education with policies that attend to either a specific area or, more broadly, across the learningto-teach professional sequence.

Defining Teacher Education Policy In this text, we borrow the definitions of “policy” and “teacher education policy” from Hawley (1990), who states, The term policy describes those rules, statements of intent, and specified strategies that are formally adopted by legitimated individuals or agencies to guide collective action. Teacher education policy seeks to influence who shall teach; what prospective teachers know, are able to do, and value; and how the learning of teachers is structured. . . . Any number of factors influence the decisions made about these matters, but . . . this book focuses on] policies that are authoritatively issued by or on behalf of public officials with the purpose of shaping these decisions. (p. 136–137) Within this understanding, an analysis of teacher education policy can occur in any one specific arena or across the sequence.

Overview of the Book In Chapter 1, Nikola Hobbel seeks to engender a discussion among readers about the relationship between an imagined community’s (Anderson, 2006) future and its teachers—teachers who are responsible for cultivating the desires and ameliorating the apprehensions of the state’s regulatory trajectories. Specifically, she argues that understanding the teachers governed and described by policy as symbolically important agents is enmeshed in both local and global relations. Last, she considers how teacher education policy illuminates inclusion and exclusion, social justice, and belonging. Part 1: Tensions in Context: Caught Between the State and the Local This first section of the book gathers together cases in which federal or national policies conflict or exist in tension with local (including regional,

4  Nikola Hobbel and Barbara L. Bales urban, rural, etc.) concerns about teaching and teacher education. In this section, authors unpack the funded and unfunded mandates emerging from federalist and neoliberal policies, going into convincing detail. In Chapter 2, using the theory of a tipping point, the nature of policy problems and legislative instruments as levers of action, Barbara L. Bales examines how control of teacher education policies in the United States has changed over the past 25 years. Her use of a tipping point theory helps us understand how the “contagious” nature of nationally initiated, ­standards-based policies created an epidemic of reforms that engulfed the educational system, altering who was accountable for what, to whom they were accountable, and the process through which they are accountable. Her analysis reveals that over the course of 25 years, national policy makers’ selection of particular legislative instruments changed, reflecting a fundamental shift in assumptions about the “problem” and its projected consequences. Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira begins Chapter 3 by presenting official data about the expansion of higher education in Brazil, showing how this expansion has been taking place especially in the exponential growth of the private sector and how this affects the teacher education programs there. In addition, he discusses a strong trend in Brazil today: teacher education hosted by for-profit private institutions offering evening and increasingly online learning programs. Finally, he advocates for the urgent necessity of some important reversals in current teacher education policy for the radical change of the educational scenario in Brazil. Chapter 4 details the tensions between the global and the local in the Philippines. By first describing the nature of the global Education for All (EFA) movement and the Philippine Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), Vicente Reyes describes how teachers caught between the forces of these two reforms are placed in fundamental disjunctures in which their localized education practices clash with global (and purportedly new) innovations. Reyes goes on to show that these disjunctures affect teacher identity, agency, and ownership. Using sense-making as a lens, Reyes outlines a complex web of relationships between reform movements and teaching. Providing a close analysis of developments in Australian teacher education policy over the past few decades, Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard detail two trends in Chapter 5. The first is what they term a “progressive shift towards nationalization” as well as a second shift in the way teacher education is governed. Arguing that these two trends cannot be understood without a focus on the changing and unique nature of Australian federalism, the authors also outline what they call a “democratic deficit” emerging from these changing modes of governance. Part 2: Challenges to the State: Local Agency, Local Resistance In this section, authors allow us a view of the challenges, resistance, and onthe-ground reformations made by teachers, teacher educators, and parents

Introduction  5 striving to influence public education, build equity and professionalism, and act as local agents of change. Driven by desires to improve the educational conditions of children and the professional conditions of teaching, these agents take a variety of approaches—to degrees of greater and lesser success. In Chapter 6, Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández examine teacher education regulations in Chile, and they analyze how these effectively reduce teachers to technicians by using student achievement on standardized tests as the measure of concern. Still, by sharing the case of a teacher educator who insists on her professional knowledge in the face of these regulations, Lira and Fernández argue that whereas capitulation to regulations exists, so does resistance. Yuto Kitamura, Takayo Ogisu, and Eri Yamazaki show us in Chapter 7 how teachers in Japan employ their identities as “learning professionals” to modify and resist neoliberal and neoconservative policies in teacher training reforms. At the center of their thesis is that a collective movement known as manabi no kyodotai (school as a learning community) offers teachers an opportunity to regain some control over their own professionalism and agency. Rita Verma, the author of Chapter 8, outlines both the great diversity and great chasms of educational equity faced by educators in India. National policies, although acknowledging the disjunctures between the haves and the have-nots, have not been implemented in any manner that meaningfully addresses the disparities Indian schoolchildren and their teachers face. In building the case of the Aseem program in Mumbai, Verma shows that even in marginalized communities, an alternative, and effective, teacher education program can grow. In Chapter 9, Bekisizwe S. Ndimande offers a consideration of the power of teachers and parents working together to improve their schools in the face of the brutal history of South African apartheid. Struggling to reconcile the needs of their children and communities, the voices of these teachers and parents clearly show their critical consciousness. In choosing opportunities for their Black children, parents negotiate the desire to retain their own strength and values while also accessing the educational resources that were denied to them during apartheid. Part 3: (Re)Affirming State Power? The authors in this last section explore instances where, either through direct pressure or through pervasive ideological power, the education of teachers is deeply influenced by the state. State power, here, comes in the forms of “free market” discourses, imperialist enterprise, neoliberalism, and transnational struggles. Writing about Turkey, Hüseyin Yolcu paints a rather severe picture in Chapter 10. Market ideologies dominate education policies, and we see the vision for professionalism in teaching transformed into what Yolcu terms

6  Nikola Hobbel and Barbara L. Bales “Proletarianization”—a vision in which teachers are competitive rather than collaborative, are directed by state mandates, and have little job security. In Chapter 11, Peter Otiato Ojiambo contrasts several entities competing for the heart of Kenyan education. Caught in a nexus of colonial and postcolonial concerns, teacher education policies prove a contested space as Kenya seeks to redefine its future. Ojiambo argues for a holistic approach as he notes the challenges this approach faces. The discourse of the knowledge economy in the European Union (EU) is closely interrogated in Chapter 12 by John Benedicto Krejsler. Detailing the tensions between nation states and EU transnationalism, Krejsler explains how emergent truth regimes have changed discourses around the purposes of education. The heuristic of the knowledge economy illustrates the changes in what counts as a public good as it aligns states with the EU motto of “unity in diversity.” In Chapter 13, Ismael Abu-Saad outlines the selective nature of the concept of the “common good.” Describing the exclusion of the Palestinian Arab population as well as non-Western Jews in Israeli education policies, Abu-Saad shows how the practices proceeding from exclusionary policies continue to marginalize and subordinate communities. This subordination acts as a mechanism of control rather than a mechanism of democracy. Peter P. Grimmett returns to a forceful critique of neoliberalism in Canada in Chapter 14. Grimmett points out that this reductionary ideology valorizes economic rationality, diminishing communal and professional relationships in favor of competition for capital. By analyzing both the internal Canadian and the global aspects of this neoliberal push, the author argues that the professional status of teaching is in peril. Finally, in the afterword, Kenneth M. Zeichner reminds us of the potential and the power of teacher education that is produced by and for communities. By collaborating with teachers, parents, unions, school districts, and universities, teacher educators can envision and create more sustainable, socially just education for all.

References Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities (New ed.). London: Verso. Bales, B. L., & Mueller, J. J. (2008). Preparing teachers for a new era: Building bridges in the learning-to-teach professional sequence. The New Educator, 4(2), 152–168. doi:10.1080/15476880802014363 Hawley, W. D. (1990). Systematic analysis, public policy-making, and teacher education. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 136–156). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

1 Imagining the Good Teacher The Nation, Teaching, and the Common Good Nikola Hobbel

Finally, it is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Anderson (2006, p. 7)

Taking Anderson’s (2006) argument of a nation as an imagined community seriously, a matrix of questions emerges: what is the nature of the “deep, horizontal comradeship”? How can the limits and sovereignty of the nation be described? In considering these questions, it is possible to suggest that the idea of the common or public good is imbricated in this imagination— that is, this notion of the common good stands as proxy for the desires of the future that circulate throughout the state. Although associated with the citizens of the state, the common good is also discursively bound to those who do not belong—those, as Abu-Saad puts it (this volume), “outside the common good.” In the end, in the same instance in which we imagine the future of a nation or state, we imagine a shared, public good. This discursive common good permeates institutions through policies and practices.

Unpacking the Common Good Because the terms “common good” and “public good” are used somewhat interchangeably throughout this book, (re)defining them for the purposes of these cases is necessary. Rooted in Western Enlightenment philosophy, the common good emerges from classical liberalism—a philosophy that begins with the value and rights of the individual. Liberalism in this sense is defined by four dominant ideas: individualism, egalitarianism, meliorism, and universalism. The first, individualism, simply posits that the primary social unit in civil society is the singular man1, that the central concern of society must be around individual rights to life, liberty, and property. From this idea the next three flow—one autonomous individual is as free and as embodied with rights as the next (egalitarianism), that individuals (as enlightened actors) teleologically make society better and achieve progress (meliorism),

8  Nikola Hobbel and finally, that autonomous individuals are all equally invested and desirous of a better future (universalism) (Gray, 1995, p. xii). Under the ideological parameters of liberalism, the common good is achieved by individuals as they rationally act on the world in their own, albeit enlightened, self-interests. Clearly, the common good is embedded in the epistemology of Western culture—and therein lies the rub. To simply accept the term as useful in describing a range of political phenomena across the globe is to reinscribe or to valorize further a set of cultural values whose imperialistic, patriarchal, and destructive history cannot be overlooked. What, then, might be the purpose in using it at all? The idea of the common good constitutes a sliding signifier: it takes on different meanings in different contexts, including postcolonial and non-Western contexts. The second purpose in using the term is to simultaneously acknowledge the extent to which Western ideologies have reached around the world, informing contemporary analyses of neoliberalism, postcolonialism, and more. Returning to Anderson’s Imagined Community, it becomes clear that liberalism and the common good underlie the construction of “a deep, horizontal comradeship” (2006, p. 7) and are, in turn, inflected by the assumption of knowing who lies outside and beyond the comradeship. In other words, a community knows itself as much by what it thinks it is as it does by what it knows it is not—or who it is not.

Imagining the Good Teacher Circulating the ideas within a state regarding this comradeship, education acts as one of a nation’s primary constitutive technologies. In the practices of instruction, curricular content, the desires of a nation’s future are enacted by teachers. The policies governing teaching and teacher education are a kind of heuristic device, one that allows us to examine the collective vision of a nation. Take for an example one, small aspect of the standards movement: the policies governing teacher education standards in the United States. As I have described elsewhere (Hobbel, 2009), the standards movement generally (and teacher education standards particularly) has been promoted on both the left and right sides of the political aisle. The left has leveraged standards to strengthen the power of teachers, promoting the kind of professionalism of self-governing that is available to doctors and lawyers. The right leverages standards as a means to underscore “accountability,” regulating universities through teacher education standards and students through standards-based testing—all with little or no funding for these mandates. Teacher education standards in the United States devolve responsibility for the quality of education onto the individual teacher, charging him or her to be professional, rational, and egalitarian (Hobbel, 2009). The discourse of professionalism in teacher education standards includes subjectivities of

Imagining the Good Teacher  9 competitive individualism and lifelong learning. The professional teacher is constantly bettering him- or herself, works outside the parameters of the school day to do so, and is ready, willing, and able to take on other responsibilities (such as administration and librarianship). To act properly, the professional teacher must also be imbued with rationality—discursively, in the standards, this rationality is fashioned from the supposed neutrality of the sciences. This is the teacher who gathers and analyzes data to provide continual program improvement, who bases decisions on quantifiable data. The counter for this disposition is that it obscures those things for which measurements do not suffice, particularly the cultural and political weights of pedagogy, curricular content, and field experiences. Rationality in teacher education makes historically diverse school resources and the communities that they serve a problem that can be solved with logic and numbers. Last, egalitarianism governs the subjectivities of the professional teacher as well. This is the teacher who understands how to help all students learn worthwhile things. Again, in the frames of these policies, there exists a heavy gloss over what is “worthwhile” and what is meant by all students. Additionally, because policies give mere mention to these, without concrete direction or even accountability measures (those are for other kinds of knowledge and dispositions!), the raced, classed, gendered, and differently abled students fade into the background along with equity and access. Standards create an imaginary that exists at quite a remove from the material conditions of schools and schooling. In the United States, school funding streams are the result of federalist ideologies, which means that schools rely on private property taxes as their primary budgetary resource. Consequently, urban areas with high concentrations of commercial (including rental) properties, rural areas dominated by agriculture, and economically depressed areas where housing prices are low all suffer from reduced access to capital. But teacher education standards insist that all teachers align themselves with the policies’ preferred skills, knowledge, and dispositions, regardless of context. Additionally, the standards entirely ignore community diversity, resulting in a vision of the ideal, imagined teacher which is again targeted to reify dominant White, middle-class, monolingual subjectivities. That is, the common good is an exclusionary good, ignoring those outside its frame of classic liberalism.

Teacher Education Policy Considered from this perspective, teacher education policies have much to tell us about inclusion, exclusion, and social justice. In imagining the good teacher for a nation’s schools, policies also imagine the nation’s future citizenry, including its knowledge and the people’s possible scope of action— whether all people have the same rights and responsibilities is just one aspect of this concern. Another aspect is whether all people have access to personhood at all, and it is this question that lies at the heart of justice and equity.

10  Nikola Hobbel As Michael J. Sandel (1998) argues, The mere fact that certain practices are sanctioned by the traditions of a particular community is not enough to make them just. To make justice the creature of convention is to deprive it of its critical character. . . . Liberals who think the case for rights should be neutral toward substantive moral and religious doctrines and communitarians who think rights should rest on prevailing social values make a similar mistake; both try to avoid passing judgment on the content of the ends that rights promote. But these are not the only alternatives. A third possibility, more plausible in my view, is that rights depend for their justification on the moral importance of the ends they serve. (Loc. 117–123/5004) Following this line of reasoning, the right to a public education and the nature or quality of this education are primarily justified by the ends this right serves. In many countries, public education has been stratified according to the circulation of capital. Therefore, to return to the autonomous individual defined by life, liberty, and property, those without liberty and/ or property have reduced access to a high-quality education. Certainly, this isn’t news. But it is in the spaces of teacher education policy that these contests play out: if teachers are one of the important means by which imagined communities sustain their identities, then the state’s regulations regarding who can teach, what they will teach, and to whom they will teach it are integral to any analysis of educational reform. Teacher education policy acts as a nexus, a site of conflict, and a window to myriad relationships within and among nations and states. Although this may be true of many other kinds of policies, I argue that examining teacher education also offers an opportunity to see beyond policy as its own problematic into history, culture, and the politics of inclusion and exclusion.

Note 1 “Man” is used deliberately to accurately reflect the historical context of the Enlightenment era.

References Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined communities (New ed.). London: Verso. Gray, J. (1995). Liberalism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hobbel, N. (2009). Standards talk: Considering discourse in teacher education standards. In S. L. Groenke & J. A. Hatch (Eds.), Critical pedagogy and teacher education in the neoliberal era: Small openings (pp. 37–47). New York, NY: Springer. Sandel, M. J. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Part 1

Tensions in Context Caught Between the State and the Local

2 Teacher Education Policies in the United States Tensions Between Local and National Actors for Control of the Common Good Barbara L. Bales In the United States, like most countries, the expansion of educational opportunities has gone hand in hand with nation building. Yet, the jurisdictional power to decide who becomes teachers and their purpose in classrooms rests with each individual state. Today, the globalized economy and posting of national educational data to a plethora of international comparative achievements challenges this relationship. In fact, as local demands for quality teachers have escalated, there has been a corresponding increase in national policy efforts to tie the standards of student success expected at each grade level to a teacher’s effectiveness. In just over two decades, the U.S. education system has changed from one based on inputs to one based on outcomes and standards of performance through the authorization and reauthorization of key national education policies and their associated funding streams (e.g., Datnow & Park, 2009, or Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan, 2008). This chapter examines how national policies over the last 25 years replaced local definitions and control of the common good with a de facto national teacher education curriculum. In doing so, it asks the co-joined question: who is served by this change in policy-making authority and for what purpose? The responses raise questions about the political and cultural notions of teachers, teaching, and the common good. This chapter begins by defining the specific terms that shape this review of teacher education policy making. The next section shares a brief synopsis of the governance structures and historical context of teacher education policy making in the United States. The third section presents the study’s theoretical framework. A discussion of the research design follows. The next section examines a 25-year timeline of national teacher education policies. The chapter concludes with discussion of the study’s findings about teacher education policy making in the United States and changing perceptions of the common good. How I define and understand specific terms shapes my review of teacher education policy making and its relationship with the common good. In this chapter, I draw on United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

14  Barbara L. Bales Organization (2015), which states, “the common good may be defined as ‘constituted by goods that humans share intrinsically in common and that they communicate to each other, such as values, civic virtues and a sense of justice’.” (p. 77). The group suggests that [b]oth knowledge and education be considered common goods. This implies that the creation of knowledge, as well as its acquisition, validation and use, are common to all people as part of a collective societal endeavour. The notion of common good allows us to go beyond the influence of an individualistic socioeconomic theory inherent to the notion of ‘public good.’ (p. 11, emphasis added) This definition allows us to consider the role of teachers and the learning opportunities they afford students in classrooms as a collective societal endeavor. The term ‘teacher education’ addresses the bandwidth of learning-toteach components and includes the recruitment of candidates into teaching, preparation program outcomes, licensing, and evaluation of teachers’ classroom practices (Bales & Mueller, 2008). The definitions of ‘policy’ and ‘teacher education policy’ I borrow from Hawley (1990), who stated: The term policy describes those rules, statements of intent, and specified strategies that are formally adopted by legitimated individuals or agencies to guide collective action. Teacher education policy seeks to influence who shall teach; what prospective teachers know, are able to do, and value; and how the learning of teacher candidates is structured. . . . Any number of factors influence the decisions made about these matters, but . . . [such policies] are authoritatively issued by or on behalf of public officials with the purpose of shaping these decisions. (p. 136–137, emphasis original) This paper addresses national teacher education policies, so the phrase “policies that are authoritatively issued by or on behalf of public officials” cited earlier eliminates discussion about any relationship between an institution and a professional accrediting agency because it is not codified in national policy. Finally, I have only included teacher education policies affecting the preparation of classroom teachers. This delineation allowed me to focus attention on national policies that shaped the learning-to-teach professional sequence outlined earlier. With that said, let me begin by providing the historical context for teacher education policy-making authority in the United States.

Teacher Education Policies in the US  15

An Historical Context for Teacher Education Policy Making in the United States The notion of ‘local control’ is central in rhetorical debates surrounding teacher education reforms in the United States. This is because the United States Constitution, through the Tenth Amendment states, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (U.S. Const. amend. X, 1791). Jordan (1988) explains, The general principle of U.S. constitutional law is that the responsibility and authority for public elementary and secondary education are functions reserved for each of the 50 states. An extension of this principle is that states have an active role in licensing teachers. The rationale for state educator licensing programs is twofold. First, compulsory education requires parents to send their children to school, and parents have a right to assume (a) that an adequate standard of care is exercised while their children are under the care of the school, and (b) that the educators possess knowledge and skills related to teaching. (p. 7) Historically, then, public education and the preparation of teachers responsible for that education—teacher education, teacher licensing policies, school curricula, and assessments of learning—have been within each state’s jurisdiction. However, the United States Constitutional “phrase ‘provide for the . . . general welfare’ has been the basis of national involvement in education throughout our nation’s history” (Royster & Chernay, 1981, p. 26). This phrase lets national authorities construct educational policies and distribute aid. As a result, in times of any perceived educational crisis, national policy makers can try to entice or mandate state attention to issues of student achievement and teacher quality. The 1958 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) and the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) serve as two, key national policy interventions that superseded state control. The NDEA often marks the beginning of national involvement in teacher preparation because its theory of action was that well-prepared teachers would produce better-educated students who could better defend the country and thereby improve national security. In 1965, national authorities passed the ESEA, which provided categorical, federal, aid “to local educational agencies serving areas with high concentrations of children from low-income families to expand and improve their educational programs” (Kirst & Young, 1991, p. 45). The 1965 Higher Education Act (HEA) enacted the Teacher Corps Program, which recruited interns into teaching projects to work with

16  Barbara L. Bales underserved youth in high-poverty, urban settings. Title V of the HEA was subsequently refined through the Education Professions Development Act (EPDA) in 1967. The change required colleges and universities to integrate Teacher Corps Programs if they accepted HEA and EPDA funds. The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 bundled most national, categorical programs like the Teacher Corps Program into supplemental block grants to states and large school districts with the specific target of ‘education for the disadvantaged.’ This history of providing for the ‘general welfare’ through national policy making and funding as supplements to state and local teacher education efforts anchors the last 25 years of policy making in the United States.

Theoretical Framework This chapter draws together the theoretical tenets of policy problems, policy instruments as levers of action, and tipping points to examine national teacher education policy making over the last 25 years. Together, they shine a spotlight on the shifts in policy-making authority and any expected outcomes. The Theoretical Nature of Policy Problems and Legislative Instruments Any change in policy often rests on the assumption that there is a problem. Although the nature of that problem is “constituted by the differences among its definitions” (Edelman, 1985, p. 15), it often embodies a core set of agreed-upon facts generally supported by analytic data. At the core of this particular policy problem is the assumption that teacher quality contributes to student learning—both common goods—and some authority ought to be accountable for assuring a level of quality. Every policy also carries embedded assumptions about the inherent issue and reflects the normative aspects of a policy maker’s values and the social systems in which both are situated. Policy makers’ principles influence which legislative instrument is selected and, at the same time, project the expected outcome. Policy instruments, or tools, are “mechanisms that translate substantive policy goals into concrete actions” (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 134). The array of tools includes mandates, inducements, capacity building, system changing, and ideas. Each has a primary element, an expected result, and a range of associated costs and benefits. Selection of any particular instrument reflects an assumption about the policy problem and projects a typical consequence associated with noncompliance. Mandates establish rules that, in turn, dictate consistent behavior. Responsive action is expected regardless of capacity and, without the rule, would not occur with the desired frequency or consistency. Standards, as a policy tool, establish performance targets and are designed to standardize output and improve

Teacher Education Policies in the US  17 system delivery regardless of capacity. Capacity-building instruments offer some type of investment—cash, tax incentive, or exemption from other ­policies—to enhance the technical skills and competence of an organization. Ideas, as policy tools, persuade people that more desirable actions and outcomes exist by rethinking what is essential and envisioning a new pattern of behavior within the system (Weiss, 1990). Inducements solicit compliance with offers of money or other valued goods. System-changing instruments assume altering the authority in a faulty organizational structure will improve its efficiency. Each policy instrument also has an inherent accountability system. The system establishes who is accountable for what, to whom they are accountable, as well as the process through which they will be held accountable. Mandates, for example, direct changes within an organization, but the people implementing those changes are generally accountable to someone external to the organization. The external accountability system associated with standards assumes performance scales offer valid and reliable measures of appropriate components of the system. Inducements, on the other hand, particularly those unfunded or insufficient to stimulate change, rely on an internal accountability system. Internal accountability systems make any external monitoring of the expected outcome difficult. Tool selection, along with the specific inherent accountability mechanism, also offers a framework for identifying privileged voices in the making of teacher education policy. By extension then, these privileged voices define the common good. Thus, this 25-year history of teacher education policy making also highlights any changes in the common good. Figure 2.1 details the expected results, accountability, voice, costs, benefits, assumptions, and consequences of six policy instruments. The Theory of Tipping Points The theory of tipping points is used to explain the rapid change in behaviors or outcomes from an otherwise innocuous event. Drawing on the work of Grodzins (1957), Malcolm Gladwell (2000) suggests the term ‘tipping point’ is an event with three distinguishing characteristics. The first characteristic is that an action becomes “contagious” and causes an “epidemic” (p. 9). The second characteristic is that “little changes can somehow have big effects” (p. 10). The third, and perhaps most central, is that both changes “happen at one dramatic moment” (p. 8). Like an epidemic, the tipping point is that “dramatic moment . . . when everything can change all at once” (p. 8). Applied to this study, this theory can be used to describe how nationally initiated teacher education policy making became “contagious” and, in a short period, engulfed teachers, teacher educators, and other school-based personnel with an epidemic of reforms and new accountability mechanisms. This theory is also useful for locating changes in authority for the common good.

Expected Results/ Accountability System/Voice

Mandates Primary Element: Rules

Expected Results: Compliance, changed behavior, creates uniformity Accountability: External Voice: External

Expected Results: Enhancement of skill, competence, long-term returns Accountability: External Voice: External Ideas Expected Results: Primary Element: Persuading people more Cogent Argument desirable means exist Accountability: External Voice: External Inducements Expected Results: Primary Element: Production of value, shortMoney/ term returns Procurement Accountability: Internal Voice: Internal

Capacity Primary Element: Money/ Investments

Instrument

Assumptions/Consequences

Costs: Initiators responsible for production, oversight, displacement; producers responsible for overhead, matching, and avoidance Benefits: Imitators/producers, increased budget authority, client value received Costs: Initiators responsible for enforcement, targets must decide compliance and avoidance Benefits: Specific benefits to individuals, diffuse benefits to society

Assumptions: Policy contains compliance information; action is required regardless of capacity; good in its own right; rule forces action Consequences: Coercion is required; uniformity may not occur; establishes minimum standards; creates adversarial relationship

Assumptions: Valued good would not result without additional funds; capacity varies but exists; funds elicit performance Consequences: Funds needed to mobilize action, range of action tolerated

Costs: Short-term costs in initiating Assumptions: Knowledge, skill, competence required; capacity good in its own right or government instrumental to other purposes; fundamental Benefits: Short-term, specific failure of institution as previously existed benefits to receiving agency, longterm diffuse benefits to society Consequences: Capacity does not exist; investment needed to mobilize; tangible present benefits serve as proxies for future, intangible benefits Costs: None Assumptions: Exert leverage on people, Benefits: Policy able to direct behavioral repertoires not fixed patterns of action/inaction, Consequences: No visible sanctions empowers

Costs/Benefits

Expected Results: Changed delivery system: incentives Accountability: Newly created, internal Voice: Internal

System Changing Primary Element: Authority

Costs: Establishes a hierarchy of authority; initiators responsible for aligning system of delivery and establishing (a) scale of performance, (b) oversight, and (c) the associated accountability mechanism; producers must perform regardless of capacity Benefits: Standardizes output; improves system delivery; establishes a basis for measurement; defines specific, observable, performance threshold(s), requirement(s), or expectation(s); actors know expectations Costs: Loss of authority by established deliveries Benefits: Gain in authority by new deliverers

Assumptions: Existing institutions and incentives cannot produce desired results; changing distribution of authority changes what is produced Consequences: Institutional factors incite action and provokes defensive response; new institution raises new issues

Assumptions: Capacity exists or is easily attainable; performance scales are valid and reliable; standards target appropriate aspects of system performance. Consequences: Capacity may require investment; incomplete understanding of the system may result in misdirected standards of performance; variable interpretations of a standard lead to diffuse and unintended results.

Source: Bales (2006, updated in 2016).

Figure 2.1 Policy Instruments: Expected Results, Accountability, Voice, Costs and Benefits, Assumptions, and Consequences

Expected Results: Improved performance or outputs in targeted area(s) Accountability: External Voice: External

Standards Primary Element: Performance Benchmarks and Targets

20  Barbara L. Bales

Research Design Creating a timeline of major, national teacher education policies over the last 25 years offers one way to chronical changes in the teaching and learning landscape. Summary documents from these efforts were collected and examined. The analysis process began by uploading writing descriptions of the collected texts into N’Vivo and identifying essential features. This process facilitated the creation and tracking of both codes and coded segments for analysis. First cycle coding was deductive and structural in design (Saldana, 2016). Large extracts of data related to the theory of action and expected outcome in each policy were coded. Descriptive codes using the theories framing this study served as an initial point of analysis. A microanalysis of the language within each document followed. A comparison and analysis of coded sections within each policy was conducted, which yielded similar language patterns (e.g., Clark & Creswell, 2009; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). The coded segments underwent a second round of coding to note any interrelationships and patterns among them (Wolcott, 1994). Despite differences in audience, this inductive, side-by-side, analysis of the coded documents illuminated how each was “defining and redefining the other, saying and doing things differently throughout time” (Hodder, 2000, p. 704). Themes addressing perceptions about the educational problem, its projected consequences, which tool was selected, the accountability mechanism, and whose voice resonated within the policy emerged. Each theme was resituated in the data. Branching nodes were created to indicate the presence or absence of a theme or when relationships or gaps among them became evident. This process highlighted connections and negative examples then rendered responses to the question: who was served in this history of teacher education policy making, and for what purpose?

National Teacher Education Policy Making in the United States: A 25-Year History Teacher Education Policy Changes 1992–2000 Between 1992 and 1994, national authorities aligned the funding streams and amendments in the three major pieces of legislation: HEA in 1992, authorization of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994, and Reauthorization of the ESEA in 1994. The purposeful coordination of these inducement policies sought to reform teacher education in each state by changing the expectations for teaching and learning in public school classrooms.

Reauthorization of the HEA in 1992 Reauthorization of the HEA in 1992 altered direction of the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant program and provided states with funds for the “recruitment, preparation, licensing, and support of teachers” (United

Teacher Education Policies in the US  21 States Department of Education, 2001). In exchange, the grant required both the state and its teacher-preparing institutions to systematically assess the quality of candidates using, as proxy, the program completer pass rate. Each state submitted the pass rates of its teacher-preparing institutions to the U.S. Department of Education as part of a required Title II Report. National authorities, in turn, compiled the completion rates, rank ordered program quality, and publically reported the results. The 1992 reauthorization also included funding to the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) as well as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The primary constituencies for both groups were those state education agencies responsible for teacher licensing, program approval, and professional development. The new InTASC standards outlined the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed by beginning teachers and “were compatible with the more advanced teaching standards developed by the National Board” (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999, p. 387). These recommendations integrated easily with the other reform efforts. To date, each of the 50 states has standards that prospective teachers must meet prior to initial licensure (U.S. Department of Education-Office of Postsecondary Education, 2013), and 25 states have policies that provide stipends for National Board Certified Teachers.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act In 1994, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act positioned “teacher education pre-service and professional development as elements of [public] school reform” (Earley & Schneider, 1996, p. 318). As an inducement policy, it provided funds for states to develop content standards for student learning. It also provided funds to improve pre- and in-service teachers’ familiarity with their state’s content standards so they could better support children’s acquisition of that knowledge. Darling-Hammond (1990) summarized the Goals 2000 theory of action: If policymakers want to change teaching, they must pay attention to teacher knowledge. And if they are to attend to teacher knowledge, they must look beyond curriculum policies to those policies that control teacher education and certification, as well as ongoing professional development, supervision, and evaluation. (p. 346) The Goals 2000 funding streams, however, were insufficient. As a result, implementation of the desired policies was scattered across the 50 states.

1994 Reauthorization of the ESEA The 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, Improving America’s Schools Act, included a combination of mandates and inducements to force state

22  Barbara L. Bales adoption of the standards-based Goals 2000 reforms. In doing so, the 1994 ESEA directed attention to improving the educational quality of what students learn, how teachers teach, and how teachers learn to teach (National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996). Today, although there is some variation, most state policies include some or all of the following standards-based reforms: • Academic learning standards for students; • Alignment of teacher standards and various assessments of teacher learning; • Use of student achievement data to monitor performance; and • Accountability provisions that rewarded or sanctioned schools or students based on measured performance. (Hamilton et al., 2008) Legislators’ use of mandates and inducements also shifted the accountability system to the U.S. Department of Education through a mandated HEA report and various ESEA funding streams. This decade ushered in policies that strengthened national efforts to control teacher education and raise student achievement levels. The shift also introduced a “new educational accountability” (Elmore, Abelman, & Fuhrman, 1996). Most states complied and met at least one of the new requirements because of the associated funding streams. Few met all. Teacher Education Policy Changes 2001–2008 The 2001 reauthorization of the ESEA, commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), tied state compliance of the Goals 2000 policy to essential public school and higher education funding and a series of public reporting systems. NCLB also put forward the expectation that every child would have access to a highly qualified teacher (HQT). A HQT, according to national authorities, had a bachelor’s degree, full state certification or licensure, and evidence that they knew each subject they taught (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Forty-eight states complied. Each codified performance-based teacher standards and mandated the desired changes in teacher knowledge through their authority to approve preparation programs and license teachers. Theoretically, then, teacher candidates moving through state-approved preparation programs would reflect that end. Each state was also required to do the following: • • •

Set standards for grade-level achievement; Develop a system to measure the progress of all students and subgroups of students in meeting those state determined grade-level standards; and Establish a definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) to use each year to determine the achievement of each school district and school. (p. 22)

Teacher Education Policies in the US  23 States held schools accountable for meeting these standards by publically posting an annual report card of their progress (see, e.g., The New York State School Report Card website). Sanctions were imposed on schools and districts if teachers were not HQTs or they failed to make AYP measures of student learning. The majority of schools and districts identified for improvement served students experiencing high poverty. If a school or district identified for improvement failed to make AYP for two consecutive years, children could use their portion of the school’s Title I funds to enroll in a higher-performing school. Although many argued the accountability requirements of NCLB were not reliable or valid (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2006; Selwyn, 2007; Solorzano, 2008), the legislation did “put in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved students and their peers and spurred an important national dialogue on education improvement” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a). These national conversations about the teachers, teaching, and student learning, were also about the common good. Teacher Education Policy Changes: 2009–2014 In 2009, during the global economic downturn, national leaders signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) into law. As an economic stimulus package, ARRA elevated the voices of economists and business leaders who demanded an educational system that would (1) prepare college and career-ready workers to stimulate the nation’s economy and (2) improve the educational standing of the United States. As a result, ARRA included $4.35 billion for Race to the Top (RTT) grants to stimulate “investments in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and school system capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, p. 2). RTT was an important component of ARRA because gridlocked legislators would not address the consequential issues associated with NCLB and reauthorize the ESEA. As a capacity-building policy, RTT required states establish projects to advance teaching and learning in four areas: • Adopt rigorous standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace; • Recruit, develop, retain, and reward effective teachers and principals; • Build data systems that measure student success and inform teachers and principals how they can improve their practices; and • Turn around the lowest-performing schools. (U.S. Department of Education, 2009) States understood the first requirement as adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and assessments produced by the SMARTER

24  Barbara L. Bales Balanced Assessment Consortium. Educator-preparing institutions in each state receiving RTT funds complied with the second component by offering high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals. But this also meant the institutions had to link student achievement and student growth data to the students’ teachers and principals, to link this information to the in-State programs where those teachers and principals were prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the data for each credentialing program in the State. (p. 9–10) RTT also required states develop data systems to inform the continuous improvement of “policy, instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and overall effectiveness” (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, p. 8). These data systems allowed national authorities to monitor and track student learning progress across the 50 states. The last RTT component directed efforts at the lowest-performing schools with interventions that involved “a turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model” (p. 10). Twenty states and the District of Columbia had received funds across three application periods. Other states implemented RTT reforms without funding in exchange for a waiver from NCLB requirements. Policy makers estimate the RTT reforms affect 45% of the children in public schools today (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Even before the RTT program ended, national authority of teaching, learning, and teacher education policy making was clear. The policies also centered new, very specific conceptions of the common good. In late 2014, a turn in the political climate ushered in new lawmakers ready to restore authority for public education back to the states. Teacher Education Policy Changes in 2015: Reauthorization of the ESEA In December 2015, national authorities reauthorized the ESEA, replacing NCLB after 14 years with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA expands the student assessment and educator evaluation components initiated in RTT legislation but alters many of the NCLB mandates. As a systemchanging policy, it shifts some of the responsibility for public education back to the states while still maintaining national oversight. For example, ESSA empowers “state and local decision-makers to develop their own strong systems for school improvement based upon evidence, rather than imposing cookie-cutter federal solutions like the No Child Left Behind Act did” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b, para 2). That said, this compilation of evidence submitted by each state to the U.S. Department of Education highlights clear lines of authority and

Teacher Education Policies in the US  25 accountability. Each state must include five indicators of quality, only one of which is discretionary: • • • • •

Student achievement in English language arts and mathematics; Student learning growth (to close achievement gaps); four-year graduation rates; Progress in English language proficiency; and One other measure of school quality or student success.

With respect to what students learn, ESSA releases states from the curricular mandate of using the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics. Instead, states must have challenging, “college and career ready” academic standards in English language arts and mathematics. With respect to measuring student learning, ESSA reduces “the often onerous burden of testing on students and teachers, making sure that tests don’t crowd out teaching and learning, [but] without sacrificing clear, annual information parents and educators need to make sure our children are learning” (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). So, whereas ESSA replaces the NCLB AYP requirements, each state must still have an accountability system that differentiates schools based on academic data—data currently represented through each state’s school report card system. Similarly, ESSA ends the HQT requirements of NCLB but requires states submit a report to the U.S. Department of Education describing how ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers do not disproportionally serve low-income and minority children. States must publicly report any disproportionality on their RTT-mandated school report card system. In sum, the U.S. Department of Education must approve each state report detailing efforts to ensure every student succeeds.

Findings and Conclusions Local authority of teacher education policy making changed drastically over the last 25 years and, with it, control of the common good. Over time, national authorities altered their choice of policy instrument. Each policy intensified what students were expected to learn, the tools by which it was measured, and the standards of success. Similarly, the new policies directed attention to how teachers were prepared, what they were expected to know, the tools by which their practice was evaluated, and the standards of ‘effectiveness.’ Finding the tipping point in this policy epidemic helps determine when state and local actors lost control. It also sheds light on how teacher education, knowledge, and education, as common goods, became sliding signifiers for the production of college and career-ready workers to build the nation’s economic strength and improve its global standing. Between 1992 and 1994, three national policies targeted teacher ­education—reauthorization of the HEA, the Goals 2000 Educate America

26  Barbara L. Bales Act, and the 1994 Reauthorization of the ESEA. One might say policy activity was contagious. A closer look at each piece of legislation reveals that national policy makers relied primarily on inducements to bring about the targeted changes—the development of academic standards for student learning aligned with standards for teacher learning. Inducements, however, only offer short-term results. More importantly, they rest on the assumptions that funding will elicit performance, capacity exists but varies, and the valued good would not result without additional funds. Yet, responsibility for action and oversight lies with the initiator, allowing for local control and resistance. In 2001, the change in power ushered in punitive neoliberal policies, which for teaching, learning, and teacher education became manifest in the NCLB mandates and its audit-based accountability systems. Mandates, however, establish minimum standards and assume action will occur regardless of capacity. They also assume the directive is good in its own right and that rules force action. Mandates also required the initiator—in this case, national authorities—to supply enforcement. As the targeted body, states had to decide between compliance and avoidance. In this manner, the NCLB mandates created an adversarial relationship between local and national authorities, and implementation of the reforms required coercion. Compliance brought benefits to some, particularly those in well-resourced areas, but the contributions to society at large were diffuse. The destabilizing effects of NCLB to the educational system were particularly punitive on those for whom the policy was initiated—historically underserved children living in poverty. Then, in the middle of an economic downturn, the ARRA used RTT funds to build capacity for the standards-based reform effort initiated in the early 1990s. States, hungry for funds or wanting a waiver from the onerous NCLB policies, complied. Each state initiated changes in four areas: adopting standards and assessments that would prepare students for success in college and the workplace; supporting that learning with effective teachers and principals; building the necessary data systems to measure student success and improve teaching practices; and turning around the lowest-­performing schools. Collectively, all these changes “happened at one dramatic moment” (Gladwell, 2000, p. 8). No other policy lever restructured teacher education, student learning, and how each was measured so drastically. As the tipping point in this 25-year history, RTT also changed education and knowledge as common good to college and career readiness with a public reporting system that “conflate[d] education and education for economic ends” (Murray & Howe, 2017, p. 17, emphasis added). Some argue that the ESSA shifts in control are “an opportunity for state and local stakeholders to escape the limitations of the federal act and move away from existing fragmented and marginalized approaches for dealing with factors interfering with student success” (National Center for Mental Health in Schools-Program and Policy Analysis, 2016, p. 1). But, any

Teacher Education Policies in the US  27 return of authority to local actors is illusionary. Today, teacher-preparing institutions across the nation must have performance-based programs tied to student content standards and are accountable to the U.S. Department of Education through a mandated HEA reporting system and various ESSA requirements. As this review illustrates, there was a shift in power from local, decentralized levels of governance to national, centralized policies over the past 25 years. This new governance structure brought to bear a metricization of performance, increased regulation across the learning-to-teach professional sequence, and fundamentally altered historical conceptions of teaching and learning for the common good. At the local level, these shifts in policy and authority changed schools from sites of democratic learning to state and nationally ranked production facilities, where students readied for the economy are the new ‘common good.’ This governance shift also allows the United States to post more coherent data on an array of international comparative achievements but reduces any notion of the collective good to standardized measures of ‘academic achievement.’ This review also highlights issues of privilege, voice, and power in the shift of policy-making authority. Teacher educators and researchers did not initiate or significantly contribute to these reform efforts, which by their absence, resulted in an ever-expanding system of external oversight. This conclusion affirms the decades-old observation by Freiberg and Waxman (1990), who critiqued, “The popularization of education has expanded the base of interest and support for teaching, but it has also eroded the authority of teacher educators to determine the entry and exit requirements and course of study of teacher education” (p. 623). As such, this policy history illustrates whose knowledge is of most worth and projects a vision of teachers complicit in the advancement of national security and economic competitiveness. In turn, teachers become instruments to further “the spread of global capitalism in its current forms and lend support to elements of the current system such as free markets and trade agreements, economic rationalism, increased surveillance of workers, and greater privatization of public services” (Zeichner, 2010, p. 5). As we look to the future, we must continue to challenge the types of learning now identified in the policies. Recent research suggests the new policies narrow what counts as knowledge, and the metrics generated by their accountability mechanisms are faulty (e.g., Garrett & Steinberg, 2015; Pullin, 2015). Our role then, as teachers, teacher educators, and teacher education researchers is to (re)center our authority and codify policies that help students learn to question whose knowledge is of most worth and challenge the structures that regulate their lives. We can become, as Brunner (1973) suggested, “a provider of alternative views of the world and a strengthener of the will to explore them” (p. 117). In doing so, future generations of learners understand that knowledge and education are for the common good.

28  Barbara L. Bales

References Bales, B. L. (2006). Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(4), 395–407. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.009 Bales, B. L., & Mueller, J. J. (2008). Preparing teachers for a new era: Building bridges in the learning-to-teach professional sequence. The New Educator, 4(2), 152–168. doi:10.1080/15476880802014363 Brunner, J. (1973). Going beyond the information given. New York, NY: Norton. Clark, V., & Creswell, J. (2009). Qualitative research designs: Recognizing the overall plan for a study. In Understanding research: A consumer’s guide (pp. 233– 249). New York, NY: Pearson. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Writing and representation. In Making sense of qualitative data (pp. 108–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 339–347. Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.) (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York, NY: Routledge. Earley, P. M., & Schneider, E. J. (1996). Federal policy and teacher education. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 306– 320). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Elmore, R. F., Abelman, C., & Fuhrman, S. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Freiberg, H. J., & Waxman, H. C. (1990). Changing teacher education. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 617–635). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Garrett, R., & Steinberg, M. (2015). Examining teacher effectiveness using classroom observation scores: Evidence from the randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 224–242. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company. Grodzins, M. (1957). Metropolitan segregation. Scientific American, 197(4), 33–41. Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. Retrieved from https://www.rand. org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2009/RAND_RP1384.pdf Hawley, W. D. (1990). Systematic analysis, public policy-making, and teacher education. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 136–156). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Hodder, I. (2000). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 703–715). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Teacher Education Policies in the US  29 Jordan, K. F. (1988). State professional standards/practices commissions or boards: A policy analysis paper. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Kirst, M., & Young, R. (1991). The utility of a longitudinal approach in assessing implementation: A thirteen-year view of Title I, ESEA. In A. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 39–64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152. Murray, K., & Howe, K. (2017). Neglecting democracy in education policy: A-F school report card accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(109). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.3017 National Center for Mental Health in Schools-Program and Policy Analysis. (2016). ESSA, equity of opportunity, and addressing barriers to learning. Los Angeles, CA: University of California. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author. Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2006). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Does accountability pressure increase student learning? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(1), 1–172. Pullin, D. (2015). Performance measures for teachers and teacher education: Corporate education reform opens the door to new legal issues. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(81). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1980 Royster, P. M., & Chernay, G. J. (1981). Teacher education: The impact of federal policy. Springfield, VA: Banister Press. Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly quantified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 124–137. Solorzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329. doi:10.3102/0034654308317845 U.S. Const. amend. X. (1791). U.S. Department of Education. (2001, May 15). Title II HEA teacher quality programs. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/heatqp U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program—executive summary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/programs/raceto thetop/executive-summary.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Retrieved from www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). FACT SHEET: Congress acts to fix no child left behind. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/12/03/ fact-sheet-congress-acts-fix-no-child-left-behind U.S. Department of Education Office of Policy Planning and Innovation. (2004). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s third annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Education Publications Center. U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education. (2013). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers: The secretary’s ninth report on teacher quality. Washington, DC. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ teachprep/index.html

30  Barbara L. Bales United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good? Paris, France: Author. Weiss, J. (1990). Ideas and inducements in mental health policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 9(2), 178–200. Wolcott, H. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeichner, K. (2010). Preparing globally competent teachers: A US perspective. Paper presented at the 2010 Colloquium on the Internationalization of Teacher Education, Association of International Educators, NAFSA. Retrieved from www.nafsa. org/_/File/_/zeichner_colloquium_paper. pdf

3 Teacher Education, Inc. Attempts at Privatizing Teacher Preparation Systems in Brazil1 Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira2

Introduction The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), a document signed by country members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, defined education as a new commodity to be traded in the global economy. Although GATS started working effectively only from 2005 onward, the signing of this document whetted the appetite of powerful economic groups for lucrative and profitable investments in education worldwide. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze how the current teacher education policies in Brazil have been strongly influenced by the so-called hegemony of corporate and market education in this country and all over the world. As mentioned, after WTO defined education as a new commodity to be traded in the global economy, corporate and market education—that is, education for lucrative and profitable goals—has become more and more powerful as well as it has been searching to be hegemonic—as in Antonio Gramsci’s term—in the educational field. Statistics show that the expansion of higher education in Brazil has been taking place in the last 35 years, especially through private investments. As a consequence, teacher preparation programs in Brazil, which had been hosted almost exclusively by public universities until the 1980s, have been increasingly assumed since then by for-profit private higher education institutions, often called “corporate universities,” through offering mainly evening and online learning programs. Although this trend is evident in many countries, it is quite important to highlight that in Brazil, higher education programs (both undergraduate and graduate programs) at public universities (both federal and state ones) are still totally free—even after many attempts at privatizing the whole higher education system in Brazil during the “neoliberal era” in the 1990s—that is, students pay no tuition at all. Thus, I will start this chapter presenting some official data about the expansion of higher education in Brazil, showing how this expansion has been taking place especially via the exponential growth of the private sector and how it affects the teacher education programs there. In addition, I will discuss a strong tendency for teacher education in Brazil today: for-profit

32  Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira private institutions offering evening and increasingly online learning programs. Finally, I will advocate for the urgent necessity of some important reversals in the current teacher education policy for radical change of the educational scenario in Brazil in the near future.

The Expansion of Higher Education in Brazil Mainly Through “Private Investments” As mentioned, the expansion of higher education in Brazil has been taking place in the last 35 years, especially through private investments. According to data from a higher education census, organized by INEP (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais), an official educational research institute in Brazil, the number of private higher education institutions increased 197.1% between 1995 and 2007. The number of public institutions, however, increased only 18.6% in the same period of time. In 2007, there were 2,032 private higher education institutions in this country and only 249 public ones (BRASIL. INEP, 2009). According to this same census, the number of students enrolled in undergraduate programs in Brazil increased from 1.76 million in 1995 to 4.88 million in 2007, representing a growth of 177% (BRASIL. INEP, 2009). In 2011, the number of enrollments reached 6.74 million (BRASIL. INEP, 2013). This significant increase of enrollments in undergraduate programs in Brazil has been predominantly thanks to investments coming from the private sector, whose total enrollment increased from 60.2% in 1995 to 74.6% in 2007 (BRASIL. INEP, 2009). This increase indicates, of course, a broader access to higher education in Brazil. However, the question is: what is the quality of education that has been provided for those who, historically, have not been able to get access to higher education in Brazil? The quality of higher education in public universities in Brazil is still quite superior to the quality of education in private institutions in this country. It is important to note, however, that despite this impressive growth in recent years in the number of Brazilian students enrolled in undergraduate programs, Brazil is still in an unfavorable position compared to countries that participate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and even relative to other Latin American countries like Argentina, Chile, and Colombia. It is estimated that today in Brazil, less than 20% of the youth have access to higher education. The reason why Brazil is still behind in terms of access of the youth to higher education when one compares to other countries—even to some of its neighbors in South America—is because Brazil’s population is quite young (in comparison to other countries in the world) but mainly because of the historical lack of public investment in the sector as well as the fact that higher education in Brazil has not been for everybody but only for a small elite in the country. For some private entrepreneurs and investors who want to take advantage of this current situation, it means that Brazil still has much room to grow in

Teacher Education, Inc.  33 higher education, and therefore, there are still many clear opportunities for lucrative and profitable investments in this “market.”

University Inc.: The “Market” of Higher Education in Brazil As mentioned, GATS, approved by the WTO in 1995, has defined education as a new commodity to be used in the global economy. As also mentioned, the signing of this document whetted the appetite of economic groups for lucrative and profitable investments in education and more specifically in higher education. According to Oliveira (2009), on a global scale, the international education “industry” makes annually US$ 2.2 trillion. In Brazil, it is estimated that the private education sector makes US $30 billion per year, which amounts to approximately 3% of Brazilian gross domestic product (GDP). Also according to this author, from 2001 to 2008, the private education sector in Brazil increased its capital flows from U$ 3 billion to US$ 90 billion, which makes it the fastest-growing sector in the Brazilian economy. By analyzing these and other data presented in his article, the author responds the following question: Has education become a commodity? Using a definition of goods, presented in Bottomore (1998, p. 266), it can be said that “goods” is all that can be “bought and sold” in a capital accumulation perspective. According to the data presented here, there is little doubt that education has become an important commodity. (Oliveira, 2009, p. 753) Therefore, within the immense and diverse education “market” in Brazil, there is a sector that has received special attention from the entrepreneurs and investors: higher education. Among the 10 largest higher education institutions in Brazil today, in terms of number of students enrolled in undergraduate programs, only three are public. First is Universidade Paulista (UNIP), from the state of São Paulo, with 145,498 registrations. Estácio de Sá, in the state of Rio de Janeiro, with 116,959 undergraduate students, is s in second. Third is Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE), also from São Paulo, with 84,398 registrations. The State University of São Paulo (USP), the best public university in this list, appears only in sixth place with a total of 49,774 students enrolled in its undergraduate programs. UNIP, Estácio, and UNINOVE are some examples of what has been called a corporate university in Brazil. The primary features of a corporate university include: charging students lower tuitions (when one compares to those charged by traditional private higher education institutions, such as the catholic universities throughout the country); enrolling a big number of

34  Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira students whom they also call “customers or clients.” The average student profile in these institutions is that of a young worker who lives in a large urban area, studies in the evening, and is on average older than typical students from public universities or from traditional private higher education institutions. In small and medium-size towns in Brazil, where there are almost no options in terms of public higher education institutions, smaller private higher education institutions, which charge their students even lower tuitions than those charged by the “corporate universities,” try also to compete in this “market.” The participation of foreign groups in the Brazilian higher education “market,” despite being a fairly recent phenomenon, is presented as a possible trend. For example, Laureate Education, a group from the United States, acquired, in 2005, 51% of Anhembi Morumbi, the 27th private higher education institution in number of undergraduate students in Brazil. The reverse movement also happens. Brazilian “corporate universities” have started to make investments in higher education institutions abroad. Estácio de Sá, for example, acquired 100% of Asociación de Estúdios Superiores de Las Américas in Paraguay and 80% of Escuela de Informática SRL in Uruguay, in 2007. These and various other transactions show, in the words of Oliveira (2009), “the pace of the expansion of for-profit institutions, particularly those supported by investment funds and/or shares in the stock market” (p. 751). Another quite important “market” in higher education that has grown exponentially in Brazil in recent years has been online education. I will address this issue through a specific topic, which follows.

Profit Increase Perspective: Online Education Online learning, mainly in higher education, is another “market” that has grown exponentially in Brazil in recent years. The exploding growth of online learning in Brazil, which has been concentrated mainly in private higher education institutions—74% of the total—was an impressive 808% between 2002 and 2007 (BRASIL, 2009, 2013). Enrollment increased from 31,712 in 2002 to 838,125 in 2009, which represents more than a 12,000% increase in online learning enrollment in Brazil (Giolo, 2008). As Giolo (2008) states, from 2002 onward, the private sector has decided “overwhelmingly” for the provision of online education in Brazil. He explains how it happened: The private sector . . . having explored all alternatives in higher education and having already experienced there the limits of its demand knocks the doors of the Secretary of Education in Brazil, requesting accreditation for offering online education programs. (Giolo, 2008, p. 1224)

Teacher Education, Inc.  35 Secca and Leal (2009) explain the business logic behind this great interest of the Brazilian private sector in online education: “Online education is able to provide cost savings and increased capillarity to the higher education institutions, allowing them to achieve a larger number of students by teaching through the use of technological resources” (p. 145). That is, the guarantee of even greater profits for “corporate universities” increases greatly through investments in online education. The newly released data by INEP shows that the “typical student” enrolled in online learning programs in Brazil is a woman pursuing a degree in education who attends a private institution (BRASIL. INEP, 2013). I will continue to discuss the “market” of online education in Brazil with a focus now upon teacher education programs.

Teacher Education in Brazil Today: Through Private, Evening, and Increasingly Online Programs As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the expansion of higher education in Brazil has been taking place in the last 35 years mainly through “private investments.” As a consequence, teacher preparation programs in Brazil, which had been hosted almost exclusively by public universities until 1980s, have been increasingly assumed since then by for-profit, private higher education institutions, called “corporate universities,” through offering mainly evening and online learning programs. As an example, in the state of São Paulo, the richest state in the country, in 2010, 94% of all teacher education programs were hosted by private higher education institutions and only 6% by public ones. Teacher education programs are still quite numerous when one takes a look at the totality of undergraduate programs in Brazil. In 2011, 7,911, or 26.0%, of the total of 30,420 undergraduate programs in Brazil were teacher education programs. However, there has been a decrease in the number of and enrollment in on-site teacher education programs in Brazil in the last years. In contrast to this situation, in terms of enrollment in online learning programs, the growth has been 0.8% for teacher education programs. In absolute terms, in 2011, there were 429,549 enrollments in online teacher education programs—the highest proportion among all undergraduate programs in this country, that is, 43.3% (BRASIL. INEP, 2013). Although still small, this decrease in the number of and enrollment in on-site teacher education programs in Brazil and an increase of online learning ones (0.1%, 0.2%, and 0.8%, respectively) may indicate a worrying tendency in teacher education in this country: the gradual replacement of on-site teacher education programs by online learning ones. Gatti and Barreto (2009), through a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report on Brazilian teachers, already expressed their concern about “the proliferation of online teacher education programs” in the country. The authors asked the following question:

36  Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira “Will teacher education in Brazil be available for the new generations only through online learning programs?” (p. 51). It is not surprising, then, that most of the Brazilian teachers who teach in elementary, middle, and high schools today have been trained3 in private, non-university institutions and through programs offered only in the evening (Gatti & Barreto, 2009; Scheibe, 2010). In other words, “the massive presence of the private sector in teacher education cannot be ignored” in Brazil (Monfredini, Maximiano, & Lotfi, 2013). Thus, privatizing the teacher education system in Brazil has been seen by the neoliberal agenda as “the solution” to deal with the supposed shortage of certified schoolteachers in this country, mainly in public schools. This lack of certified teachers has been critical in some regions of the country as well as in some subject areas such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry (see Gatti & Barreto, 2009; Gatti, 2010). However, recent research has shown that there might be enough certified teachers to satisfy the demand of Brazilian public schools. These certified teachers are not currently teaching in public schools because of the poor working conditions and the low salaries in many state and municipal school districts throughout the country. Instead of choosing to improve teachers’ working conditions and their incomes, making the profession more attractive, the option has been to certify a huge number of new schoolteachers through alternative routes, such as online learning programs, mainly at private higher education institutions. Unfortunately, the quality of these teacher education programs and, as a consequence, the quality of the new teachers, has not been seriously discussed in Brazil.

Teacher Training Program at a For-Profit Private Institution in Brazil: How It Works In Brazil, for-profit private higher education institutions and public universities work following completely different logics. In terms of teacher education, more specifically, there are quite serious allegations about the precariousness of teacher training programs in many of these private institutions where decisions about these programs are in reality “for-profit decisions” and made based upon the discourse of “financial sustainability” (see Monfredini et al., 2013). It means, for example, that teacher training programs in these for-profit private institutions last an average three years (less than the average duration of teacher education programs in Brazilian public universities or even in private institutions with a long tradition of offering such programs— which last an average four years). It means also that part of these programs in for-profit private institutions is fulfilled through online learning ­activities—­usually assumed by specialized outsourcing companies—and that the discourse about “curricular flexibilization” is also used for such “corporate universities” to increase or maintain their profit margins—that is, they

Teacher Education, Inc.  37 can make changes about the curriculum of their teacher training programs choosing more profitable alternatives, for example, offering courses that are less expensive for these institutions. What is even more unbelievable and sad about this current scenario in Brazil is that even these “corporate universities” have been suffering from low demand and a great dropout of students in teacher training programs thanks to the extremely low social status of the teaching profession in Brazil today. It has not been an easy task to convince young Brazilians that it is worth becoming a schoolteacher! There is no doubt that we have been living in Brazil under a quite serious crisis in the teaching profession throughout the country (see, e.g., Gatti & Barreto, 2009; Gatti, 2010; Diniz-Pereira, 2011). Sad evidence of this crisis can be found, for example, in the recently reported news about public school students from the state school district in Rio Grande do Norte who were forced to attend school only two or three days a week because they had to share their teachers with other children thanks to the supposed shortage of these professionals in the region or, as it was actually verified, the almost nonexistence of candidates for public calls for teaching in that state due to the extremely low salaries offered to these professionals (Folha de S. Paulo, 2013). Data provided by the federal government itself indicate an apparently paradoxical situation: on the one hand, they say there is a necessity to train and certify an enormous number of teachers in Brazil; that is, there is a deficit of schoolteachers in the country (especially in some subject areas and, particularly, in some regions of the country). On the other hand, there is a low demand for the existing teacher education programs (and, consequently, there are teacher education programs being closed in several higher education institutions in the country) and a relatively low number of teacher education students when one compares to the seats open. The difficulty of the teacher education students to support themselves during the period of time they are attending their programs, the low income expectations in relation to the future profession, and the decline in the social status of teaching have made the teacher education programs, both in public and private institutions, coexist with very high dropout rates, and consequently, teacher education in Brazil remains in permanent crisis. Because of this quite serious crisis of the teaching profession in Brazil and to prevent diminishing their profit margins, “corporate universities” count on their marketing sectors to try to “sell their products”—according to their own discourse about their undergraduate programs, including the teacher training ones, which are conceived by them as “products” (to be sold). The marketing sector is responsible for making commercial materials about their teacher training programs and, through them, inform potential candidates, also called “customers or clients,” that such programs are “not only for becoming schoolteachers” (which, of course, may seem more attractive in the current context) and that after finishing these programs and receiving their

38  Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira respective diplomas, they can work in professional areas other than “just teaching”—which is not always true. With these materials on their hands, the marketing sectors in the “corporate universities” try to convince their potential students (or “clients”) to attend (or “to buy”) such programs (or “products”). They work following the logic of the “student-client,” according to which “the smallest investment is sought with the greatest possible return.” They say “they sell dreams.” But, in fact, they seem to sell illusions.

Possibilities When I published my first book Formação de professores: pesquisas, representações e poder (Diniz-Pereira, 2000) in 2000, based upon qualitative and quantitative research I developed between 1993 and 1996 about the situation of teacher education programs at Brazilian universities, which have been overwhelmingly shaped by technical rationality models, I thought we had reached “the bottom of the pit” in terms of the reality of teacher education in that country. Now I see I was completely wrong. The situation of our teacher education programs could get even worse as, unfortunately, it seems that has happened. Exactly 24 years ago, when I started developing my research, I was worried about understanding the reasons for the low academic status of teaching in general and, more specifically, the reasons for the low academic status of teacher education at Brazilian universities. I discovered, among other things, that such reality was not always the case and what we lived at that time in relation to the teacher education programs at Brazilian universities was a result of conjectural changes in the country and within the universities themselves. This is a quite complex discussion that I do not have the intention or conditions to reproduce here. However, it is important to note that at that time, the teacher education programs in Brazil were almost exclusively hosted by public universities. In a short period of time, what we have witnessed in Brazil is for-profit, private, non-university institutions, many of them without any tradition in offering teacher education programs, taking over the field of teacher education and responding quantitatively—not qualitatively—to the preparation of schoolteachers in this country. As we have seen from the data presented in this chapter, teacher preparation programs followed a more general expansion of higher education in Brazil, primarily through private investments. If we really want to take seriously the discourse on the improvement of quality in education in Brazil—a discourse present in different administrations from different political parties but hardly translated into practical actions—we urgently need policies, programs, and initiatives in teacher education to reverse the current Brazilian situation (see also Diniz-Pereira, 2013). Thus, I advocate for some reversals in the current Brazilian teacher education policies, hoping this scenario will change radically in the near future. They are summarized in Table 3.1:

Teacher Education, Inc.  39

Final Words In their book, Professor Ivanise Monfredini and other colleagues have decided to use “the metaphor of the desert” to represent the harsh reality of the number of teacher education programs in Brazil today. As the authors have denounced, today, most teacher education programs in Brazil take place in a “hostile environment” where “the financial interests seem more important than the students’ learning.” Despite this harsh reality, Monfredini et al. (2013) also presented in their book experiences of teacher education programs in Brazil that represent for them a true “oasis” amid such hostility of teaching. To be honest, when I came to write the foreword of their book, such experiences did not look “cutting edge” from the point of view of a more advanced discussion about teacher education in Brazil and abroad. However, because of the aridity of teacher training offered in so-called corporate universities in Brazil, which conceive and treat education as a mere commodity, these experiences the Table 3.1  Teacher Education Programs in Brazil From:

To:

High school level* Private institutions Non-university institutions

Higher education level Public institutions University institutions (teaching, research, and extension) On-site learning programs Full-time programs** At least, 3.200 hours

Online learning programs Evening programs Alternative routes—a shortage to certification Teacher education programs along with other professional preparation programs An institutional “dispersion” Focus on subject matters Superficial theoretical preparation Training far away from the schools’ realities

The whole program as a teacher education program The central role of colleges/faculties/schools of education Balance between focus on subject matters and focus on pedagogical knowledge Solid theoretical basis (on pedagogical knowledge, including about the specificities of the subjects of education, the subject matters, etc.) A strong articulation between theory and practice (that means, a strong articulation between universities and schools)

  * Although most of teacher education programs in Brazil are hosted by higher education institutions, the Brazilian educational law still allows teacher education programs at the high school level, called magistério, for those who want to teach in elementary schools. ** Scholarships, mainly for poor students, may be needed for maintaining them attending a full-time program.

40  Julio Emílio Diniz-Pereira authors discuss in their book, in reality, can be seen as a ray of hope amid a Sahara of disappointment.

Notes 1 This chapter was presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. (United States), in April 2016. 2 Professor at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 3 From now on, I will always use the terms “train” and “training” for the types of teacher education offered by for-profit higher education institutions in Brazil because of its strongly technical characteristics.

References Bottomore, T. Dicionário do pensamento marxista. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1998. BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais. (INEP). (2009). Censo da educação superior: 2007—resumo técnico. Brasília: INEP/MEC. BRASIL. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais. (INEP). (2013). Censo da educação superior: 2011—resumo técnico. Brasília: INEP/MEC. Diniz-Pereira, J. E. (2000). Formação de professores: pesquisas, representações e poder. Belo Horizonte: Autêntica. Diniz-Pereira, J. E. (2011, January/April). O ovo ou a galinha: A crise da profissão docente e a aparente falta de perspectiva para a educação brasileira. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagógicos, Brasília, 92(230), 34–51. Diniz-Pereira, J. E. (2013). Prioridades, metas, estratégias e ações para a valorização e a formação do profissional da educação. In I. R. Pino & D. D. P. Zan. (orgs.), Plano Nacional da Educação (PNE): Questões desafiadoras e embates emblemáticos. Brasília: INEP. Folha de S. Paulo. (2013, March 21). Rio Grande do Norte faz “rodízio” de aluno por falta de professor. São Paulo: Educação, p. 2. Gatti, B. A. (2010). Licenciaturas: crise sem mudança? In Encontro Nacional De Didática E Prática De Ensino (Endipe), 15, Belo Horizonte. Anais . . . Belo Horizonte: Autêntica, pp. 485–508. Gatti, B. A., & Barreto, E. S. (2009). Professores do Brasil: impasses e desafios. Brasília: UNESCO. Giolo, J. A. (2008). educação a distância e a formação de professores. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, 29(105), 1211–1234, set./dez. Mönckeberg, M. O. (2005). La privatización de las universidades: una historia de dinero, poder e influencias. Santiago: Copa Rota. Monfredini, I., Maximiano, G. F., & Lotfi, M. C. (2013). O deserto da formação inicial nas licenciaturas e alguns oásis. Jundiaí: Paco Editorial. Oliveira, R. P. (2009). A transformação da educação em mercadoria no Brasil. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, 30(108), 739–760, out. Scheibe, L. (2010, July/September). Valorização e formação dos professores para a educação básica: questões desafiadoras para um novo Plano Nacional de Educação. Educação & Sociedade, Campinas, 31(112), 981–1000. Sécca, R. X., & Leal, R. M. (2009). Análise do setor de ensino superior privado no Brasil. BNDES Setorial, n. 30, p. 103–156.

4 Negotiating Global and Local Encounters 21st-Century Teacher Education Policy Challenges in the Philippines Vicente Reyes The historic Monroe report of 1920 commissioned by the American colonial government, underscored daunting challenges related to an ever-increasing disparity between the capacity of an incipient yet highly centralised education system and the rapidly growing demands of a young Philippine nation (Monroe, 1925). In the 1970s, the capacity constraints of Philippine education deteriorated (Martin, 1968). These challenges worsened despite the landmark national decentralisation efforts implemented in the late 1980s during the Marcos administration. In the decade of the 1990s, the 1991 Education Commission (EDCOM) and the 1999 Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) reports reiterated the very real dangers of capacity failure. At the cusp of the 21st century, severe resource constraints have actually become one of the biggest issues plaguing the Philippine education system (Reyes, 2009b). With the advent of the neo-liberal movement, educational institutions moved towards novel modes of “new public management,” associated with “flexibility; clearly defined objectives and a results orientation” as its distinctive features (Olssen & Peters, 2005, p. 324). Decentralisation once again became the buzzword and was seen as a reform strategy to address the challenges ailing the Philippine education system. One can argue therefore that in viewing the Philippine education system, continuity and change seem to be indelible characteristics of its troubled trajectory. Challenges facing Philippine education in the 21st century can best be described as a predominant theme revolving around a seemingly unending change and continuity in policy and prevailing practices. This chapter intends to critically interrogate this theme. In doing so, a critique of the prevalence of neo-liberalism—particularly its grip on notions of education in a globalised era and how it impacts education stakeholders—will be critically employed.

The Philippine Context Official government reports alongside mainstream media have proclaimed the indisputable fact that the “economy posted solid growth” in 2015,

42  Vicente Reyes indicating a sterling performance for the country (Asian Development Bank, 2016, p. 220). However, a careful scrutiny of data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reveals that “poverty incidence among Filipinos registered at 26.3% as of the first semester of 2015,” indicating that one in four Filipinos languishes below the poverty line (Bersales, 2016, p. 1). It is worth mentioning that in 2006, the poverty incidence was 26.9% (Balboa & Yap, 2010, p. 9). These data point to the paradoxical fact that poverty incidence has actually worsened—alongside a GDP per capita increase—in the last 10 years. The Republic of the Philippines is a socioeconomic anomaly. Notwithstanding its notable macroeconomic record measured by GDP, it portrays “a concrete example of GDP growth that did not reduce poverty” (Schelzig, 2005, p. 85). Analysing the incessant pitfalls troubling the nation reveals that “it operates under conditions of extreme scarcity” (Quah, 1987, p. xiii). The size, scope, and stark differences characterising the geographic and cultural landscape present daunting difficulties in delivering much needed services by the bureaucracy. These debilitating conditions have spawned a government that has “been unable to properly run the country” and “has failed to ensure the efficient delivery of necessary public services” vital to bringing “about the economic development and widespread prosperity the country deserves” (Schelzig, 2005, p. 87). What makes this crisis more severe is that within a situation of extreme scarcity, the Philippines has in the past—and most especially beginning the 1950s till the present—suffered from chronic and debilitating “systemic corruption” (Reyes, 2010, p. 396). International rankings reinforce arguments about corruption’s stranglehold in the Philippines. The country averaged a 2.7 score (on a 10-point ascending scale) from 1995 to 2011 and a score of 35 (on a 100-point ascending scale in the Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index [CPI]) from 1995 to 2013, positioning it as one of the underperforming countries in its fight against corruption. Surveys conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) on the impact of corruption on the business environment in the Philippines revealed an average score “of 8.5 (on a 10 point ascending scale) from 2005–2014,” placing the nation very near the top of worst performers in relation to anti-corruption efforts (Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd., 2014, p. 4). In the 2015 CPI compiled by Transparency International, the country was “ranked 95th among 168 countries,” giving it a “score of 35 out of 100,” signifying a lowering of 10 notches compared to its CPI rank in the previous year (Hegina, 2016, p. 1). The current Ombudsman of the Philippine government has declared that “corruption remains prevalent in the government,” adding that “her office had received thousands of complaints about graft and corrupt practices and other administrative violations” (Quismundo, 2016, p. 2). Despite a perpetuating deterioration of the resource situation in the Philippines, the preference of the government to prioritize investments in education has beneficently continued. From 2000 till 2014, education as a percentage of the gross national income has been at around 2%. Even so,

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  43 the lofty intentions of a centralised educational bureaucracy can be mitigated by inefficiencies caused by its unwieldy size and, more significantly, of opportunities and actual incidences of corruption (Reyes, 2010) that occur due to the bewildering complexity of the organization, effectively hampering genuine transparency. As the Philippines marches on through the 21st century, the challenges it faces—carried over from an entire century of maladministration—remains overwhelming. The EDCOM reports of the 1990s reveal that “by quantitative indicators, the Philippine educational system is an enormous system the administration of which is a daunting task” (Congressional Commission on Education, 1991, p. 60). The EDCOM report accurately diagnosed the extent of the governance challenges facing Philippine education. It identified four main factors: Four fundamental factors that determine the complexity of the governance of the educational system are: (1) scale or size of the system as indicated by such measures as enrolment and participation rates; (2) degree to which the private sector and the state participate in education, as well as the geographic dispersion of the school system; (3) requirements for quality upgrading as called for by modernization and development and (4) impact of external development such as the country’s economic and political situation, physical factors and the rapid pace of technological innovation in the educational system. (Congressional Commission on Education, 1991, p. 13) One particular aspect that was not explicitly identified by the EDCOM report is acute limitations in terms of the teaching force within the entire Philippine education system, represented by the Department of Education (DepEd). The figures describing the manpower complement of the Philippine education system are enormous. The 2014 enrolment data for the entire basic education system (see Table 4.1) reveal a huge 25.8 million enrolled students. The entire 2014 teaching force in the primary (435,385) and secondary (194,373) levels (The World Bank, 2014) confirm observations that the “Philippine Teacher Education System is probably one of the largest in the world” (De Guzman, De la Rosa, & Arcangel, 2005, p. 80). Combining the total student population and the large teaching force means that the educational organisation consisting of the Philippine education system is around 26 million strong.

Role of Stakeholders The Philippine DepEd is the biggest bureaucracy in the nation (Abad, 2005). Its sheer size makes it unwieldy, and complemented by an even bigger demand from a burgeoning population, DepEd becomes highly inefficient and ineffective (Chua, 1999; Reyes, 2009a). Centralized bodies of education systems proven to be ineffective in delivering its mandated services

1,474,644 1,054,200 420,444 13,934,172 12,799,950 1,134,222 6,806,079 5,465,623 1,340,456 22,214,895

1,175,101 746,448

428,653 13,686,643 12,574,506

1,112,137 6,763,858 5,421,562

1,342,296 21,625,602

2010

1,374,710 22,771,244

1,146,921 6,954,946 5,580,236

426,059 14,166,066 13,019,145

1,650,232 1,224,173

2011

Compiled from Department of Education (DepEd; 2014) and Philippine Statistics Authority (2016)

Kindergarten Enrolment Public (with State University and College SUC laboratories) Private Elementary Enrolment Public (DepEd) Public (SUC) Private Secondary Enrolment Public (DepEd) Public (SUC) Private TOTAL

2009

Table 4.1  Basic Education Enrolment Figures

1,414,213 23,597,515

1,195,132 7,049,877 5,635,664

428,064 14,436,345 13,241,213

2,111,293 1,683,229

2012

428,981 14,509,690 13,259,489 13,836 1,236,365 7,110,944 5,641,898 60,699 1,408,347 23,823,120

2,202,486 1,773,505

2013

n/a 16,775,817 15,150,119 n/a 1,625,698 7,171,208 5,773,267 n/a 1,397,941 25,812,832

1,865,807 1,865,807

2014

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  45 have steadily heard the clamour for transforming themselves, devolving and decentralising their power to those who could be most effective (Cuban, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1997). Alongside the need to decentralise would be the equally important question of whether other stakeholders in education who have received devolved and decentralised powers are ready to take on their new responsibilities. To this end, there is a growing body of literature, both local and international, that point towards the promise of empowered stakeholders (Bautista, 2000, 2003). However, in an increasingly neo-liberal environment, education stakeholders face daunting pressures. Consistent with the need to be competitive in a market-driven 21st century, neo-liberal discourse has also placed great premium on the notion of “survival being an individual responsibility” (Davies, 2005, p. 9), giving rise to an education agenda that prioritises student centricity, innovation, and real-life applications. The traditional notion of education as “learning for its own sake” has been displaced by a mindset that prepares the 21st-century learner to have an increased sense of agency, a willingness to try new things, and an aptitude to ground education to pragmatic applications. This type of neo-liberal learner becomes better suited to gain what Giroux (2002) argued as a better foothold in the job market. In this market-dominated context, the identities of learners of the 21st century have shifted from one that viewed education as a meaning-making and humanistic experience borne out of rich social relationships towards one that emphasises one’s individual utility (Davies, 2005). One critical implication of increased neo-liberalism in education is the perceived de-professionalisation of school personnel manifested in two ways: (1) de-professionalisation that occurs within novel, decentralised hierarchies dictated by the market, effectively removing “collegial and democratic governance” and (2) within new versions of autonomy circumscribed by the needs of the market, replacing “traditional conceptions of professional autonomy” (Olssen & Peters, 2005, p. 325, emphasis added) that have been historically shaped by professional communities of educators. The de-professionalisation does not only impinge on teachers and educators; students also find that what constitutes progress has been appropriated by the neo-liberal state with the addition of “competitiveness and individual responsibilisation to student ‘freedom’ ” brought about by neo-liberalism (Davies & Bansel, 2007, p. 256). In general, teacher educators possess “only vague ideas (or no idea) of what neo-liberalism is” (Sleeter, 2008, p. 1955), blissfully unaware of the implications that it has on their profession and on their practice. Notwithstanding, there are others—informed teachers, critical academics, policy advocates, and conscienticised students—who have recognised that within a context of neo-liberalism, education becomes a “site of struggle and compromise” (Apple, 2000, p. 58) where contradictory forces of the ubiquitous market and the individual school stakeholders collide. These collisions are manifested in the constant tension that school stakeholders experience. On

46  Vicente Reyes the one hand, they attempt to make sense of the traditional tasks of education typified by pastoral care and, on the other; the need to learn basic aptitudes driven by incessant reforms fuelled by market forces clamouring for innovations and a seemingly continuous flow of new economy competencies. The most propitious developments that Philippine education should anticipate are those that deal directly with the “frontlines” of this vital national service—the schoolteachers. The unmistakable influence of these stakeholders, not only in the field of Philippine education but of national consciousness in a wider perspective, may even be argued. Historically, the corps of teachers has been the most organised and the ones who have had the most exposure to political experiences. As early as the 1930s, significant numbers of the administration system during the American period were Filipino teachers: “of a total of 25,971 teachers employed by the Bureau of Education, only 294 are Americans, and these are all in the secondary schools or in the educational administrative service” (Martin, 1968, p. 32). This information reveals that the teachers in the “frontlines of education” during the American colonial period in the Philippines were overwhelmingly Filipino. A subsequent description of the role of teachers conducted in the early 1960s is highly-instructive: Excluding principals and supervisors there were 154, 968 teachers in elementary schools in 1963–64, making it easily the biggest professional group in the Philippines. All except the 5 per cent who are working in private schools are paid by the National Government and they are usually called on to assist in any big national undertakings such as a tax-payment drive or the conduct of national elections. (Martin, 1968, p. 213) As already previously argued not only are teachers the “biggest professional group in the Philippines” but—as this chapter further contends—one of the most politically involved. Looking at the history of electoral exercises in the country, one realises that teachers are mobilised to act as election inspectors and that in all the previous elections conducted in the Philippines, the citizenry cast their votes in precincts located in public schools that are supervised and managed by the country’s corps of teachers. It is significant to note the influence that schoolteachers possess not only in the Philippine education system but in Philippine politics as well. Martin’s (1968) observations about teachers are worth re-examining: Despite their questionable salary status, however, public school teachers, as indicated above, enjoy fringe benefits. They also have comparative security and in many places in the Philippines have reasonably presentable homes and mostly are able to send their children to school. The great majority of teachers are multi-lingual. (p. 215)

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  47

Global Reforms, Local Responses The Philippine bureaucracy, particularly its education system, is no stranger to reforms. One of the earliest and wide-ranging efforts at education reform was enunciated in the controversial Monroe Report of the 1920s. This report was lauded because it advocated for education for all and at the same time was lambasted as it pointed out that politicians interfere in Philippine education (Monroe, 1925). The Quezon Educational Survey Committee findings of 1936 recommended that a “moderate education for a greater number is better for the country than a quality education for a selected few” (Martin, 1968, p. 19), which was the opposite of Monroe’s EFA recommendation (Monroe, 1925). Several other reform initiatives followed such as the EDCOM of 1990, the large-scale Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) launched in 1997, which was followed by the Secondary Education Development Improvement Project (SEDIP), and the Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS) of 1998 to name a few. This chapter however, focuses on one of the more promising attempts at education reform. This is Republic Act (RA) 9155, the Governance in Basic Education Act of 2001, more commonly known as Empowering the School Principals Act. Aside from a modification of its institutional identity, this was an invitation to break the cycle of centralised education administration that had crippled effective implementation of education for almost a century. Built upon school-based management (SBM), this initiative has given birth to BESRA, which acknowledges among its key priorities the strengthening of SBM (National Education for All Committee., 2006). Initial results from the reform have been generally inconclusive: some say that significant improvements have occurred (Khattri, Ling, & Jha, 2010; Kimura, 2008) whereas others indicate challenges still persist (Bautista, Bernardo, & Ocampo, 2008; Caoili-Rodriguez, 2007). This chapter assumes that school stakeholders involved in 21st-century, neo-liberal-inspired education changes find themselves facing “fundamental disjunctures” (Appadurai, 1990, p. 6) as they take on reform initiatives over and above their normal professional scope. These disjunctures can also be seen as instances where change and continuity occur. This chapter elaborates on the sense-making experiences of teachers as they find themselves in these disjunctures brought about by global reforms and local responses (Reyes, 2016). Continuity and Change: EFA, BESRA, and SBM In March 1990, the World Conference on Education for All, in Jomtien, Thailand, adopted the World Declaration on Education for All, which stated that ‘everyone has a right to education’, recognized the setbacks suffered by the education systems of many developing countries during the 1980s, and proclaimed a commitment to meeting the basic learning needs of every citizen in every society (UNESCO, 2007, p. 13)

48  Vicente Reyes EFA is the latest reform initiative that the Philippines has embraced. One of the overarching strategies that the country has undertaken to reach its EFA goals was the conceptualisation and eventual implementation of BESRA. Formalised in August 2005, BESRA was seen as the grand narrative of Philippine education reform complete with the prerequisite characteristics of large-scale transformation: systematic, institutional, and sustainable steps to uplift outcomes in basic education. Specifically, BESRA identified five “key reform thrusts: schools, teachers, social support to learning, complementary interventions, and DepEd’s institutional culture” (Maligalig & Albert, 2008, p. 19) to accomplish its goals. Another valid perspective in looking at BESRA is to see it as a “financing strategy” directed at various donors encompassing international and private sectors with the shared goal of supporting “the planned changes in basic education management and service delivery” (Caoili-Rodriguez, 2007, p. 6). Since it was launched in 2005, how has BESRA contributed to the nation’s goals to achieve EFA and at the same time accomplish its commitments to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Has the grand narrative of BESRA, the conduit with which DepEd has chosen to effect its reforms, accomplished its goals? A report from the World Bank provides sobering results: In short, the overall performance of the Philippines’ basic education sector has deteriorated compared to its past position relative to other countries in the region. There are some signs that the declining trends of some key indicators have been reversed since the middle of the 2000s. However, the pace of the turnaround is not sufficient for the Philippines to meet either the EFA or the MDG targets of universal enrollment, let alone more ambitious goals of improving the quality of education to a level comparable to that of more successful economies in the region. (The World Bank, 2012, p. 11) For this chapter, the Leaders and Educators in Asia Programme (LEAP), as a reform initiative with the global push for quality education for all and the local need to strengthen a crisis-plagued system, will be carefully examined as a case study. Stakeholders at the Intersection of Global and Local Reforms: SBM and the Case of LEAP In light of the LEAP reforms carried out in the Philippines, the overarching reform perspective that drives this initiative emanates from SBM. The initial applications of SBM occurred in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand (Caldwell, 2005, p. 3). The results from SBM to student outcomes and school effectiveness seem to vary quite extensively.

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  49 Nonetheless, in the Philippine context, SBM was used as the lynchpin not only for LEAP but for the major education reform efforts in the country. The SBM, for example, was piloted through Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) funded by the World Bank and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). Another ODA project that supports the decentralization of basic education management is the Asian Development Bank (ADB)/ JBIC-funded Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) which is an adaptation of TEEP in secondary education. (Caoili-Rodriguez, 2007, p. 20) LEAP is an example of how an international non-government o ­ rganisation— represented by Singapore’s Temasek Foundation—a world-class institute of higher learning—represented by the National Institute of Education (NIE) in Singapore—and a Philippine-based foundation—the Ateneo Centre for Educational Development (ACED)—worked collaboratively to pursue education reform. Started in 2008, the three-year project that focused on nine schools (i.e., five elementary schools and four high schools)1 located in the Division of Quezon City attempted to make an impact in improving education in the Philippines: The aim is to impact a community of educators who can foster innovative teaching practices within their community and beyond. The transfer of knowledge is expected to benefit more than 30,000 students when these educators return to their home country to teach and share their knowledge with other educators. (Public International and Alumni Relations, 2008, p. 2) LEAP was envisioned to accomplish three key objectives in developing Philippine education for the 21st century. The first was to expose school leaders (i.e., school principals, heads of department [HODs], and subject heads [SHs]) to contemporary developments on leadership and change management. The second was to equip school leaders with the essentials of community engagement. The third objective was to provide an opportunity to undertake interventions—applying leadership and change management as well as engagement—through the implementation of contextualised innovation projects. This would be accomplished by exposing the Philippine educators to customised leadership preparation programmes prepared by NIE. A philosophy that drives the research culture at NIE is consistent with Slavin’s clarion call of undertaking initiatives to “build confidence in educational research among policymakers and educators” (Slavin, 2002, p. 15). NIE also believes that there is no reason why “key features of Singapore’s emergent system of knowledge management and innovation are not

50  Vicente Reyes transposable to other jurisdictions” (Hogan, 2007, p. 140). As such, LEAP was heavily influenced by NIE’s evidence-based reform philosophy. This chapter attempts to carefully explore the contours of education reform in a Philippine context by examining outcomes. Using cross-­tabulations analyses interspersed with narratives, this chapter investigates the paradox of success or failure using data from the LEAP programme. Three specific paradoxes emanating from LEAP as a global and local reform initiative will be investigated: How do education reforms impact (1) the identities, (2) sense of agency and (3) sense of ownership of education stakeholders?

Failure or Success: A Continuing Paradox Success of LEAP To ascertain the impact of LEAP to its participating schools, an objective test was selected. In this case, the National Achievement Test (NAT) was chosen. The NAT is a “Philippine-made standardized test” created to measure achievement levels, strengths and weaknesses of students in five subject areas (Benito, 2010, p. 6). These five areas are: (1) science, (2) mathematics, (3) English, (4) Filipino, and (5) geography-history-civics (for elementary)2 or social studies (for high school)3 (Benito, 2010). The DepEd considers NAT as a timely device for assessing students’ learning: The NAT, which is a system-based assessment, was specifically designed to gauge learning outcomes across target levels in identified periods of basic education. In particular, it spans from mid-assessment of elementary education which falls on the third grade, and then to a terminal exit assessment which falls on the sixth grade. The test results in NAT-Grade Six can likewise serve as measurement of incoming first year students’ readiness for high school. On the other hand, the NAT for Second Year high school serves as mid-assessment of the secondary level. (Benito, 2010, p. 12) LEAP-participating schools at the elementary school level revealed impressive improvement in outcomes. The average NAT growth rates for the five participating elementary schools in LEAP was a hefty 17.57%, way above the NAT national average for elementary schools of 6.59% during the same time period. The average NAT growth rates for the four participating high schools showed modest improvement with 6.62%, which was still much better than the NAT national average for high schools at 0.82% during the same time period.

Cross-Tabulations Complemented by Narratives Cross-tabulations analysis based on a sample of respondents from the entire population of LEAP-participating schools (N=620) was conducted.

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  51 The universal hypothesis tested in the cross-tabulations is that both variables are independent and have no relation with each other. Moreover, these subsequent analyses interrogate “measures of association”—describing the strength of dependence between two variables. In cross-tabulations, one of the most powerful ways of interpreting measures of association is through the proportional reduction of error (PRE), quantifying the extent to which the independent variable helps in predicting the dependent variable (Kvitz, 2009; McNabb, 2004). Essentially the analyses establish “correlation” among variables, and therefore no attempt is made to make definitive causal relationships. The paradoxes unearthed from the quantitative cross-tabulations results are elaborated upon by narratives from specific LEAP participants, who will be referred to henceforth as LEAP Champions.4 The LEAP Champions were purposively selected from critical cases within the LEAP Programme. LEAP Participant Perceptions of Reform: Expectations Mismatch The greatest proportion of “Expectations Mismatch” scores among the LEAP participants controlling for educational qualifications belong to the “Strongly Agree” category, accounting for 35.6%. The category “Neither Agree nor Disagree” has the second-highest proportion, with 29.5%. Scores in the “Agree” category constituted 17.4%. Combining “Agree” with “Strongly Agree,” we arrive at 53% of the LEAP participants acknowledging their awareness that mismatch in expectations occurs among stakeholders. What is more insightful is to add “Type of School” (as a controlling variable) and see how this impacts the “Expectations Mismatch” variable. Examining the absolute values of gamma γ for elementary school (.09 not significant) and high school (.15) signifies approximately a 15% reduction in prediction error of the dependent variable (“Expectations Mismatch”) for high school LEAP participants taking into consideration the controlling effect of “Type of School.” Stakeholder Identity: From Champions to Pariahs What is the explanation for the differences in the LEAP participants’ perceptions of “Expectations Mismatch”? For elementary schools, although there are recorded mismatches of expectations, these were not widespread. Interviews with elementary school participants indicate that “the nature of the innovation projects promoted by the LEAP elementary school Principals as well as for the HODs and SHs require frequent collaboration” among the various elementary schools (Adecuado, Bueno, Bien, & Oportuno, personal communication, June 2010).5 This question can be rephrased as “why do LEAP participants in high schools record higher and statistically significant rankings of expectations mismatch while their elementary school counterparts do not?” This could explain why some respondents

52  Vicente Reyes felt that expectations mismatch “within and among the schools was not too bad” (Adecuado, Bueno, Bien, & Oportuno, personal communication, June 2010). The explanation to this difference can be traced to one possible cause: the discretionary power of LEAP high school principals in their choice of innovation projects. In undertaking the innovation projects for the LEAP school principals, the definition of innovation as “next practice” and not merely the usual compendium of best practices was adopted (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012). A closer examination of the four innovation projects identified by the LEAP school principals is highly informative. Only two of the four proposed innovation projects (LEAP high schools E and F) were directly related to the LEAP technologies of leadership, pedagogy, and content as essential components of the reform initiative. LEAP high school E adopted and utilised inquiry-based teaching approaches for its maths and science classes, as seen from innovative classes that used ICT (Information Communication Technology) and were designed as problem-solving sessions. LEAP high school F also adopted inquiry-based approaches for its maths and science classes. Additionally, LEAP high school F built on social emotional learning (SEL) by emphasising the development of other non-academic skills that the school principal witnessed and experienced while in Singapore. The remaining two proposed innovation projects (LEAP high schools G and H) were remotely related to LEAP technologies. The innovation project of LEAP high school G was about implementing a current DepEd curriculum initiative targeted at Students At-Risk of Dropping Out (SARDOs). Essentially, the innovation project required SARDOs to attend after-hours remedial classes. The innovation project of LEAP high school H focused on content mastery for selected teachers. The project required teachers to undergo diagnostic skills tests and, afterwards master teachers supplemented the identified weaknesses uncovered in the tests. One would not be faulted in thinking that these proposed innovation projects (LEAP high school G and H) are rehashed and passed off as new initiatives. From the interviews and observations of the school principals, an important insight reveals that on some occasions, certain principals “exercised their influence in choosing to re-name current projects under DepEd as their innovations,” despite the constant reminders from LEAP organisers that their projects should be innovations (Duro, Obstinado, Terco, & Tenaz, personal communication, June 2010). During interviews and after it was explicitly pointed out that the innovation project did not employ the required integration of technology, community engagement, and change leadership required for authentic innovation, the school principal stated, “This is really a critical issue for me as school leader of LEAP high school G. The perennial problem of SARDOs needs to be addressed. This is why I have chosen this as my innovation project” (Terco, personal communication, June 2010). LEAP high school principal H provided similar responses when asked about the dissonance

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  53 between his proposed innovation project and the required integration of technology, community engagement, and change leadership. Pressed about the proposed content mastery project as the normal business of schools and not an example of innovation, the principal clarified, “As school leader, this is the area—content mastery—that I think should be the focus of all my efforts and all the energies of my staff. This is what we should all be working on” (Tenaz, personal communication, June 2010). This chapter argues that the LEAP high school principals had to rely on choosing and implementing innovation projects that fit under their span of control. As school principals, they wielded influence over their staffs and their resources— reminiscent of a “benevolent patron,” a form of leadership practice in the Philippines, where there is a concentrated accumulation of power in one person (De Dios, 2007, p. 175). This allows the benevolent patron to pursue innovation projects that are independent and unhampered from other LEAP-participating schools. LEAP champions expressed their frustration with their school leadership: We came back from Singapore as LEAP Champions and we were expected to introduce new ideas through innovative projects. But some of our leaders choose to re-use existing projects and name these as innovations. I feel that it has really tarnished our reputation as champions. I hear that some colleagues describe LEAP champions as recycled goods. It’s sad. (Doloroso, personal communication, June 2010) LEAP Participants Perceptions of Reform: Reverting to Old Practices The greatest proportion of “Revert to Old” scores among the LEAP participants controlling for educational qualifications belong to the “Agree” category, accounting for 66.8%. Scores in the “Strongly Agree” category constituted 17.4%. Combining “Agree” with “Strongly Agree,” we arrive at 84.2% of the LEAP participants acknowledging that under pressure, they do indeed revert to old tried and tested techniques over the new and innovative approaches. “Type of School” has an impact on the “Revert to Old” ranking. Inspecting the results of elementary and high school (particularly the epsilon ε or percentage point change) reveals a moderate impact. The partial scores improved with the controlling variable of “Elementary School”: the combined “Agree and Strongly Agree” ranks rose by 4.4%; whereas the high school combined “Agree and Strongly Agree” ranks decreased by 3.6% (non-significant). In other words, the data suggests that there is a significant difference in how elementary schools revert to the old practices (the high schools registered a non-significant score).

54  Vicente Reyes Stakeholder Agency: From Empowered Experts to Disempowered Subjects (Reverting to Old Practices) Thirty schoolteachers, selected after rigorous testing and then nominated to become LEAP scholars from the LEAP-participating schools, spent around 10 months to complete a customized postgraduate diploma in education (PGDE) at National Institute of Education-Singapore (NIE-Singapore). All of them related how their experience at NIE-Singapore and their exposure to Singapore schools during the required teaching practicum experience exposed them to the intensive use of ICT in education. One specific practice that they learned while in Singapore was preparing lesson plans and providing soft copies in advance to their respective teaching practicum supervisors. In follow-up interviews with the LEAP scholars, frequent mention was made of the efficiency and efficacy of preparing lesson plans using ICT tools, sharing these plans, and obtaining critical and useful feedback from teaching practicum supervisors. Upon completion of their PGDE, all 30 returned to the Philippines to continue their roles as teachers in their respective schools. These 30 were also expected to disseminate what they had learned to their fellow teachers in all the LEAP-participating schools. It was upon their return to the Philippines that the LEAP scholars, particularly those in the primary schools, met with unexpected obstacles in carrying out valuable pedagogy learned in Singapore. One of the earliest signs of trouble for the LEAP scholars was the requirement of preparing handwritten lesson plans for all the classes that they taught. The district supervisor visited us at our LEAP elementary school B. Since I was identified as a LEAP scholar, the supervisor spent much more time with me. I showed her what I had prepared for my class, as evidence of what I had learned from LEAP: the manipulatives I planned to use to develop kinesthetic awareness among my young learners. The supervisor inquired about my lesson plan and I presented to her my detailed plan on a computer print-out. She asked about why my lesson plans were not hand-written. She informed me that all my lesson plans need to be handwritten and that this was the mandated requirement. (Aturdido, personal communication, August 2010) What the LEAP scholars ended up doing was copying the lesson plans they had already completed by using computers and transferring and writing these by hand into pro-forma lesson plans as required by district supervisors. The rationale for this practice comes from the traditional mindset dictating that handwritten lesson plans are evidence of teachers’ careful thought and preparation. Preparing handwritten lesson plans was just the beginning; LEAP scholars also encountered resistance from their superiors located in the district office in relation to new ways of teaching. One specific innovation that the LEAP scholars in primary schools learned while at

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  55 NIE-Singapore was the Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR) approach in teaching language skills. LEAP scholars spoke of opposition from some of their superiors preventing them from practicing these newfound pedagogical techniques. Often, the response of supervisors was that “they were unfamiliar with these new approaches,” and some of the more vocal supervisors even commented on the fact that “they should have also been brought to Singapore in order for them to be exposed to these approaches” (Corrido, Pasmado, & Atontado, personal communication, June 2010). Some of the LEAP scholars related how “some of these supervisors are “lukewarm to the proposals from the LEAP scholars about echoing innovations that they learned in Singapore to fellow teachers” and that these recurring encounters greatly “dishearten them” (Corrido, Pasmado, & Atontado, personal communication, June 2010). These examples of resistance and obstruction from supervisors in the elementary level are just some of the reasons why LEAP participants from the primary schools perceived reverting back to old practices as a disempowering phenomenon. Notwithstanding these challenges, LEAP scholars related how they were greatly encouraged during the rare moments when they were able to share what they learned with their fellow teachers. LEAP Participants Perceptions of Reform: Pace of Innovation The greatest proportion of “Pace of Innovation” scores among the LEAP participants controlling for “School Assignment” belong to the “Agree” category, accounting for 67.1%. The category “Strongly Agree” has the second-highest proportion, with 19%. Combining “Agree” with “Strongly Agree,” we arrive at 86.1% of the LEAP participants acknowledging that the pace of innovation and transformation among their school stakeholders moves at an even and consistent pace. Performing cross-tabulations plus the controlling variable “Type of School” produced statistically significant results. Examining the absolute values of gamma γ for elementary school (.50) and high school (.09, not significant) signifies approximately a 50% reduction in prediction error of the dependent variable “Pace of Innovation” for elementary school LEAP participants, taking into consideration the controlling effect of the additional variable (“Type of School”). The elaborated conditions reveal that LEAP survey respondents—particularly those in elementary schools—report an even and consistent pace of innovation while implementing LEAP. Stakeholder Sense of Ownership: From a Community of Reform Champions to Isolation LEAP high school E with around 3,988 students and 120 teachers is a medium-sized secondary school in the division of Quezon City. Established in 1966, the school has been in existence for almost 50 years. The

56  Vicente Reyes community in which the school is located is a very large barangay encompassing 22,000 hectares comprising a mixture of residential and commercial establishments. The families of those who go to the school come from lower- to middle-class backgrounds. Informal settlers also live illegally in the community. Principal E is a seasoned school leader with vast experience in teaching and administration. He has been tasked by the division of Quezon City to spearhead professional development programmes not only for his division but for other regional offices as well. Staff and teachers of the school describe him as a “collaborative and tireless champion” who ceaselessly “challenges the staff with new ideas” (Colaborador, personal communication, March 2010). Project Esforzar, comprising several innovation projects revolving around teacher-student collaborative activities, typifies that energy that Principal E puts into his commitments. In 2010, two years into the implementation of Project Esforzar, LEAP school E seems to have hit an impasse. Conversations with HODs and SHs of the school reveal a “severe drop in morale” as well as a gnawing “policy uncertainty” regarding the future of the school (personal communication, March 2010). A group of HODs and SHs who had been part of the innovation project from its inception expressed anger and disbelief. The most vocal of the group did not mince words to express her disdain at the situation they face: How can this be possible? How can they do this? One minute we are humming along nicely doing our projects in school and then all of a sudden, just as the deadline for moving personnel in DepEd is about to expire, we hear that our beloved school principal has been yanked from where we are now and that he would be transferred to another school— a non-LEAP school, at that. What will happen to our project? Where is the continuity and sustainability? (Lastimado, personal communication, March 2010) Principal E related the events of the last few months that led to the unexpected transfer to another school. Several months back, Principal E mobilised parent volunteers to form part of the DepEd-mandated School Governing Council (SGC)—comprising parents and community volunteers whose task would be to provide assistance (i.e., organising school cleanups and parent and community volunteers for supplemental activities for students). One of the community personages who volunteered was a charismatic and prominent personality who was eventually voted by peers to lead and become the chairperson of the SGC of the school. This, according to the principal, was when all the troubles started. A powerful elected representative from a political dynasty and who was from the community found out about the election of the SGC chairperson. This politician was not happy with the SGC chairperson’s assumption of office and as a consequence summoned Principal E on several occasions.

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  57 Apparently, the SGC chair had openly declared that she would be challenging the elected representative’s position in the upcoming local elections. The politician, who had no line authority with the principal, expressed displeasure with the way that the school seemed to be favouring the SGC chair. On the final day for deploying DepEd personnel for transfers, the principal found that he would be moved to another non-LEAP school, effective immediately. Senior school staff of the school were explicit in denouncing what they referred to as “influence-peddling” of unwelcome actors in the life of their school. They were all in agreement in condemning how the “politicisation of education” rears its ugly head and actually derails reform processes. One of the HODs empathised with the principal, saying that the school he would be going to “is not the best of places,” which could be described as a “punishment since the target school is known as a hotbed of festering teacher and student issues.” She further claimed that the school leader would be “really isolated” (Encanado, personal communication, March 2010). Reflecting on this trying experience, the school principal expressed surprise at his sudden and unexpected transfer. Asked as to what next steps he would be undertaking, he indicated that after thorough soul-searching, he decided that he would follow official orders and not raise any complaints about the perceived injustice. However, at the same time, he encouraged his staff to persevere with the reforms that he had initiated. He has spoken to his senior teaching staff and reassured them that what was most important was to remain steadfast to the reforms that would improve the conditions of teachers and students and not to be dragged into the debilitating politics of education. He laments that “this experience made him feel that his connection to the community of reform-minded champions has been severed” (Principal E, personal communication, March 2010). This is a sad but very real plight reminiscent of what Sizer describes as the numerous compromises that educators oftentimes encounter in their quest to balance what is the best for their students (and the school) as opposed to conflicting and counterproductive educational policies (Sizer, 2004).

Sense-Making of Stakeholders—Negotiating Global Trends and Local Responses This chapter argues that school stakeholders who find themselves in disjunctures caused by the intersection of global and local policies and practices undergo sense-making experiences that are constantly modified through their social and contextual interactions (Schmidt & Datnow, 2005). In this chapter, the sense-making encounters of school stakeholders in the midst of reform are viewed from the perspectives of identity, agency, and ownership. Identity formation emerges as one of the fundamental reactions to these experiences. School stakeholders who find themselves in education reform campaigns which are within periods of great uncertainty realize that

58  Vicente Reyes the “establishment and maintenance of identity is a core preoccupation in sense-making” (Weick, 1995, p. 20). Furthermore, this chapter posits that as these school stakeholders navigate through various waves of disjunctures, they make choices that either empower them or disempower them. In a word, their sense-making experiences impact on their sense of agency. Aside from identity and sense of agency, this chapter also affirms that while attempting to make sense, school stakeholders also experience decisions that impinge on their sense of ownership. School stakeholders in the midst of sense-making “are able to provide accounts of this activity, which then become the measures by which they are evaluated and made sense of by others” (Koyama, 2011, p. 23). These theoretical assumptions allow this chapter to contribute to current debates on how educational innovations impact education actors who position themselves in relation to ownership, sensemaking, and agency (Ketelaar, Beijaard, Boshuizen, & Den Brok, 2012). Identity—Conflicted LEAP Champions This chapter contends that looking at the perspectives of actors, making sense of their identities, as they negotiate the disjunctures of reform is insightful. Problematising SBM through an interrogation of the LEAP experience is an attempt to shed light and pay careful attention to the relationship between the widespread SBM model to actual practices and events that happen in the midst of reforms. What can we learn from the paradoxical results of LEAP and the experiences of stakeholders as they tried to carry out reforms in their respective contexts? This chapter asserts that in a 21stcentury setting typified by uncertainty and complexity, one can argue that the model of SBM and particularly the powerful mantra of linking it with school effectiveness (Dimmock, 2013) needs to be critically questioned. This chapter argues that perhaps SBM should not be seen strictly as a formula for school effectiveness. An alternative perspective could be to see it as a dynamic space where inter-subjective identities and decisions of school leaders and stakeholders are forged depending greatly on the context. SBM, as expressed through LEAP, reinforces the fluid nature of school-based approaches in which the ensuing results are complex and unpredictable. Scholars and practitioners exploring innovations have staked a claim that “deeper and richer interpretations of innovation in organizations” should be focused not on “shared-meaning systems” but instead on social constructivist approaches that strengthen the identify formation of participants and “influential others” (Coopey, Keegan, & Emler, 1997, p. 313). Agency—Bureaucratic Disempowerment The paradoxical results of LEAP illuminated by narratives of selected respondents shed light on one fundamental disjuncture caused by global reforms and local responses: the empowerment and disempowerment

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  59 of stakeholders. The LEAP experience provides valuable lessons in the attempts of nations to reproduce reform. Technology transfers come in various forms, and these transfers occur with an accompanying list of issues and challenges. Most importantly, fundamental differences between the donor (developed) and recipient (developing) nations and the ensuing technology transfer that occurs give rise to instances of disconnects. These disconnects also come in the form of top-down policy interventions in education that impinge upon the workings of school leaders and teachers. A critical policy ethnography of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) innovation, particularly its specific component of Supplemental Educational Services (SES) provides a stark example of how—despite the disconnect between a patently market-driven policy innovation and local actors—a sense of agency emerges (Koyama, 2011). LEAP scholars described how the resistance from some educational bureaucrats disempowered them while at the same time stating how the opportunity of sharing their newly acquired skills and knowledge to fellow teachers always proved gratifying. Ownership—Education Reform and Patron-Client Ties This chapter contends that stakeholders, and particularly their sense of ownership to the LEAP reform initiative, were a vital element to the progress and eventual completion of the different innovation projects. Elementary school participants report that stakeholders in the LEAP education reform seemed to be working well together. Similar research undertaken on education actors’ sense of ownership in periods of reform support the evidence obtained from LEAP. Scholars undertaking research on teachers’ positionings while experiencing reforms in a Dutch setting complement the findings from LEAP: If teachers’ frames of reference correspond with the frame of reference of the innovation, and they experience enough agency to be able to find their own way in putting the innovation into practice, they can feel a high degree of ownership regarding the innovation. (Ketelaar et al., 2012, p. 281) One of the key results derived after carefully investigating LEAP outcomes was that for participants from the high schools, the impact of patron-client ties increased their perceptions of disparities in the way LEAP stakeholders work together. These instances highlight how power asymmetry between powerful patrons and subordinate clients combine to satisfy narrow and particularistic interests. The persistence of patron-client ties gives rise to a different type of ownership—driven by self-seeking motives. In the literature of organisational psychology, this type of behaviour has been referred to as “dark ownership,” in which “individuals may be unwilling to share the target of ownership with others or they may feel a need to retain exclusive

60  Vicente Reyes control over it. Such behaviors, in turn, will likely impede cooperation” (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2003, p. 99). This chapter attempted to provide a picture of disjunctures that occur at the crossroads of global reforms and local responses. Taking the case of LEAP, these disjunctures produce paradoxical results. Interrogating the narratives of stakeholders reveals that the disjunctures become contested sites where identity, agency, and ownership are forged. In this manner, this inquiry contributes to ongoing debates about the complexities of education reforms particularly those that occur within a neoliberal context, where global trends and local interpretations collide.

Notes 1 The original nine schools of LEAP became 10 with the addition of a fifth high school courtesy of the counterpart contribution towards LEAP by the Quezon City government. 2 This is referred to as Heografiya, Kasaysayan at Sibika or HEKASI in the Philippines. 3 This is referred to as Araling Panlipunan in the Philippines. 4 To protect the identities of the respondents (LEAP Champions) whose narratives are highlighted in this chapter, pseudonyms are used. 5 To preserve the anonymity of all the respondents, pseudonyms have been assigned.

References Abad, F. (2005). Towards decentralization and convergence in education. Education Post, 38(9), Department of Education, Philippines. Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture, 2, 1–24. Apple, M. (2000). Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: Education and conservatism in a global context. In N. Burbules & C. Alberto Torres (Eds.), Globalization and education—critical perspectives (pp. 57–77). New York, NY: Routledge. Asian Development Bank. (2016). Asian development outlook 2016: Asia’s potential growth (pp. 1–317). Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Balboa, J., & Yap, J. (2010). National report Philippines: Global study on child poverty and disparities (pp. 1–200). Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and United Nations International Children’s Emergency Education Fund (UNICEF). Bautista, M. C., Bernardo, A., & Ocampo, D. (2008). When reforms don’t transform: Reflections on institutional reforms in the Department of Education. HDN Discussion Paper Series, 2(2008/2009), 1–64. Bautista, V. (2000). Public-private partnership in poverty alleviation: The case of the CIDSS. Paper presented at the 11th International Society for Third Sector Research Conference Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Bautista, V. (2003). Towards a framework for participatory governance. In V. Bautista, M. Alfiler, D. Reyes, & P. Tapales (Eds.), Public administration in the Philippines: A reader (2nd ed.). Diliman: National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  61 Benito, N. (2010). National achievement test: An overview (pp. 1–44). Pasig City, Philippines: National Education Testing Research Center, Department of Education. Bersales, L. (2016). Poverty incidence among Filipinos registered at 26.3% as of first semester of 2015—PSA. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Statistics Office. Caldwell, B. (2005). School-based management (Vol. 3). Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Caoili-Rodriguez, R. (2007). The Philippines country case study—country profile commissioned for the EFA global monitoring report 2008, education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO. Chua, Y. (1999). Robbed: An Investigation of Corruption in the Philippine Education. Quezon City: Philippine Centre for Investigative Journalism. Congressional Commission on Education. (1991). Governance and management. In Making education work: An Agenda for reform (EDCOM Report 1991). Manila, Philippines: Author. Coopey, J., Keegan, O., & Emler, N. (1997). Managers’ innovations as ‘sense-­ making’. British Journal of Management, 8, 301–315. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13. Davies, B. (2005). The (im)possibility of intellectual work in neoliberal regimes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(1), 1–14. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. De Dios, E. (2007). Local politics and local economy. In A. Balisacan & H. Hill (Eds.), The dynamics of regional development: The Philippines in East Asia (pp. 157–203). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. De Guzman, A., De la Rosa, P., & Arcangel, C. (2005). The impact of globalization on teacher education: The Philippine perspective. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 4, 65–82. Department of Education (DepEd). (2014). Facts, figures and school masterlists. Pasig City, Philippines: DepEd. Dimmock, C. (Ed.) (2013). School-based management and school effectiveness. New York, NY: Routledge. Giroux, H. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture and the promise of higher education: The University as a democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The global fourth way: The quest for educational excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hegina, A. (2016, January 28). PH slips in global corruption index—report. Inquirer. net. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/759557/ph-slips-in-global-corrup tion-index-report Hogan, D. (2007). Policy-driven research and evidence-based educational innovation in Singapore. In T. Burns & T. Schuller (Eds.), Evidence in education—linking research and policy (pp. 131–140). Paris: Center for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Boshuizen, H., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers’ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sensemaking and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 273–282. Khattri, N., Ling, C., & Jha, S. (2010). The effects of school-based management in the Philippines: An initial assessment using administrative data. In Policy research

62  Vicente Reyes working paper (Vol. 5248, pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: The World Bank, Education Sector Unit, East Asia and the Pacific Region. Kimura, I. (2008). Policy-level improvement and institutionalization of field-level trials: Achievement of third elementary education project in the Philippines. Japan: Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Koyama, J. (2011). Principals, power and policy: Enacting “Supplementary Educational Services”. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 42(1), 20–36. Kvitz, F. (2009). Interpreting proportional reduction in error measures as percentage of variation explained. Sociological Quarterly, 22(3), 413–420. Maligalig, D., & Albert, J. R. (2008). Measures for assessing basic education in the Philippines. In Philippine institute for development studies discussion paper (Vol. 2009–2016, pp. 1–31). Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Martin, D. (1968). Education in the Philippines. In T. W. G. Miller (Ed.), Education in Southeast Asia. Sydney: Ian Novak Publishing. McNabb, D. (2004). Research methods for political science quantitative and qualitative methods. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Monroe, P. (1925). A survey of the educational system of the Philippine Islands: Created under Acts 3162 and 3196 of the Philippine legislature. Board of Educational Survey, Manila: Bureau of Printing. National Education for All Committee. (2006). Basic education sector reform Agenda (2005–2010). Manila: Department of Education. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2016). Education statistics. Retrieved from www. nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d_educ.asp Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2003). The state of psychological ownership: Integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 84–107. Political & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd. (2014). Corruption’s impact on the business environment. Asian Intelligence, 895, 1–5. Public International and Alumni Relations. (2008). Leaders & educators in Asia programme news (Vol. 63, pp. 10). Singapore: National Institute of Education. Quah, J. (1987). Public bureaucracy and policy implementation in Asia: An introduction. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 15(2), vii–xvi. Quismundo, T. (2016, February 1). Ombudsman: So many in gov’t are corrupt— voters urged to pick leaders with integrity. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from http:// newsinfo.inquirer.net/760389/ombudsman-so-many-in-govt-are-corrupt Reyes, V. (2009a). Corruption and implementation: Case studies in Philippine public administration. Quezon City: National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines. Reyes, V. (2009b). Corruption and implementation: Case studies in the Philippine public administration. Quezon City: University of the Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance. Reyes, V. (2010). The Philippine department of education: Challenges of policy implementation amidst corruption. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(4), 381–400. Reyes, V. (2016). Mapping the Terrain of education reform: Global trends and local responses in the Philippines. New York, NY: Routledge.

Negotiating Global and Local Encounters  63 Schelzig, K. (2005). Poverty in the Philippines: Income, assets and access. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers’ sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 949–965. Sizer, T. (2004). Horace’s compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company. Slavin, R. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 15–21. Sleeter, C. (2008). Equity, democracy, and neoliberal assaults on teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1947–1957. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. UNESCO. (2007). Education for all by 2015: Will we make it? Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. The World Bank. (2012). Philippines: Basic Education in Public Expenditure Review. In Public Expenditure Review (PER) (pp. 1–152). Washington, DC: World Bank. The World Bank. (2014). World development indicators [Time Series].

5 Changing Modes of Governance in Australian Teacher Education Policy Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard

Introduction The evidence is clear: enhancing the capability of teachers is vital to raising the overall quality of Australia’s school system and lifting student outcomes. Action to improve the quality of teachers in Australian schools must begin when they are first prepared for the profession. Initial teacher education in Australia has been the subject of a large number of reviews, but the outcomes have had limited impact on the policy and practice of developing new teachers. . . . [T]here is significant public concern over the quality of initial teacher education in Australia. This concern is intensified by both media comment and political intervention. The Australian Government has a vital role to play in driving this structural and cultural change. National leadership is needed to bring providers, the government and non-government sectors and schools together to transform initial teacher education, so that every Australian school student has an effective teacher drawn from a highquality, national teaching profession. (Australian Government, 2014, p. viii)

Teacher education is one of the most heavily reviewed and contested domains of Australian public policy, with a large number of federal and state reviews conducted over the past four decades. Contestation over teacher education has been infused with a strong sense of political panic about the quality of the teaching profession, which has been fuelled in no small part by declining student achievement on the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and a converging body of international research that suggests teacher quality is the most important factor in determining student achievement (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 2000; OECD, 2005; Hattie, 2009). Similar trends are reflected internationally, particularly in the United States, where governments have taken steps to reform teacher preparation and the profession. President Obama’s federal funding initiative Race to the Top, for example, introduced new accountabilities for teachers and teacher education, which have had significant consequences for how ‘teacher quality’ is understood.

Changing Modes of Governance  65 In Australia, efforts to reform teaching and teacher education have manifested in a complex range of policy shifts and significant changes in how governments have sought to govern the work of teachers in schools and academics in education faculties. The past decade, in particular, has seen unprecedented changes in the actors and organisations involved in policy development, the scale at which policy decisions are made, the policy instruments used to govern, and the evidence informing policy. Australia has seen powerful new roles emerge for the federal government, which has sought to financially incentivise state governments into pursuing national reforms. Despite being a federal system in which states retain responsibility for schooling, greater federal incentivisation has been possible because of Australia’s high degree of ‘vertical fiscal imbalance’: that is, the federal government has greater revenue-raising capacities, but the states and territories are responsible for expensive social services such as education. This has given the federal government significant power to drive reform. The most significant reform promoted by the federal government in teaching and teacher education has been the development of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, a national set of standards designed to enhance and assess teacher quality by outlining what teachers ‘should know and be able to do’ across four career stages: graduate, proficient, highly accomplished, and lead. The standards were developed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), established by the federal government in 2010. The Graduate level standards have major implications for teacher education, with all teacher education providers across the nation required to demonstrate alignment with this level. The graduate standards represent the first step on a career trajectory that is increasingly aligned with the national standards.1 In this chapter, we analyse developments in Australian teacher education policy, with a focus on policy shifts since the late 1990s that have led to the development of the national standards. Our interest is in changing modes of governance in teacher education that have enabled the progressive nationalisation and standardisation of policies.2 We begin by charting major developments leading to the creation of national standards. We then identify and analyse two dominant and related trends that can be observed over the past three decades. First is a progressive shift towards the ‘re-scaling’ of schooling policies to the national level, which has been strongly supported by standards-based reforms. Second is a significant increase in federal government involvement in steering national schooling reforms. In identifying these trends, we raise concerns about a narrowing body of evidence, influence, and expertise informing understandings of teacher effectiveness and quality and suggest there are emerging democratic and professional deficits to national policy processes due to growing federal dominance and a distancing of the profession from policy design processes. In summary, we argue that changing modes of governance are driving the unprecedented reshaping of the teaching profession by transforming what count as the

66  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard most desirable ‘common attributes’ of an effective and quality teacher. Although these changes are generating new possibilities for teacher education, the potential for diversity and alterity beyond the national standards is also being reduced.3

Teacher Education Policy and the Development of National Standards Until the late 1980s, teacher education in Australia was conducted in both universities and colleges of advanced education (CAEs). The CAEs had previously been teachers’ colleges, which were state mandated and funded, but during the 1970s the CAEs were formed and funded by the federal government (see Brennan & Willis, 2008). Subsequent reforms in the late 1980s and early 1990s created a ‘unified national system’ of federally funded universities, and since then the vast majority of teacher education has been carried out in universities. In the Australian federation, schooling is the constitutional responsibility of states, and there is a complex history of state governments and bureaucracies guarding this ownership. State control remains despite strengthening federal involvement since the early 1970s and a significant intensification of national and intergovernmental reforms, agreements, and initiatives since the 1980s. State governments also oversee teacher registration and the employment of government schoolteachers under state industrial awards and contribute to the professional development of teachers. The result is a peculiar system of governance, whereby the federal government has significant capacity to shape teacher education due to control over universities and broader influence over national reform, whereas state governments technically control all other aspects of teachers’ work. This imbrication of state and federal roles has resulted in many tensions, which Brennan and Willis (2008) describe in terms of ‘a major political tug of war’ (p. 297). Yet while ‘vertical’ power dynamics are central to recent shifts, the strengthening of the federal government vis-à-vis the states has also been achieved via successive federal governments working to bring states together into new, ‘horizontal’ networks and intergovernmental initiatives and through establishing AITSL to drive reform. Indeed, whereas the establishment of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers in 2011 was strongly steered by federal agendas, it is also an outcome of many decades of cross-pollinating reform activity and complex processes of policy co-development among governments at all levels, backed by strong bipartisan support towards achieving national consistency (Savage & Lewis, 2017). Since the 1990s, for example, a series of reviews, agreements, and partnerships have been generated with the view to introducing national teaching standards. These attempts have sought, albeit in different ways, to exert greater control over how teachers teach and are prepared, based on a progressively shared assumption that the implementation

Changing Modes of Governance  67 of national standards would result in improved student achievement and greater equity of provision. Again, these assumptions and trajectories share important similarities with developments in the United States over the same period, where teaching standards gained traction as policy instruments designed to achieve greater quality and equity across diverse school systems (Darling-Hammond, 2013). Until the past decade, however, the development of teaching standards in Australia was highly uneven, with some states developing standards and others not. Although foundations were laid towards developing national standards in the 1990s and 2000s (see next section), it was not until the election of federal Labor governments (2007–2013) that the goal of national standards was realised. Labor came to power promising the nation an ‘education revolution’, central to which was a commitment to national standards-based reforms in multiple areas of schooling. Labor inherited favourable political conditions to pursue a national agenda as at the time of election every Australian state and territory government was Labor. This allowed the federal government to work with states and territories to drive unprecedented national reforms, not only in the area of teaching standards but also in curriculum, testing, and reporting (Savage, 2016). The first major milestone in the development of the current national teaching standards came in December 2008, when all education ministers (federal, state, and territory) signed the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians4 (MCEETYA, 2008). The declaration stated that all governments would ‘work together to support high-quality teaching and school leadership, including by enhancing pre-service teacher education’ (p. 11). Education ministers subsequently signed the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality, which included a commitment to develop ‘professional standards to underpin national reforms’, along with working towards national accreditation of pre-service teacher education courses and consistency in teacher registration (COAG, 2008, p. 7). The agreement positioned ‘teacher quality’ as a central issue facing Australian schooling and finessed states and territories into action by making additional federal funding conditional upon jurisdictions working towards national aims. The next major milestone came in 2010, when the federal government established AITSL and gave it the task of developing the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. AITSL was established as a public company, owned by the federal government and federal minister for education and training. In contrast to AITSL was the establishment, two years earlier, of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), which was given the task of developing the national Australian curriculum, the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), and the My School website to report on the NAPLAN results (and other information) of every school in the nation. Rather than being federally owned, ACARA was established via an act of Parliament and as jointly owned

68  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard and funded by all nine governments (i.e., the federal government plus six state and two territory governments). The creation of AITSL as federally owned, paired with federal funding incentives to adopt national reforms, helped establish the federal government as the major driving force behind the standards and in ways that would have significant impacts upon teacher education. The standards were developed by AITSL over the course of 2010 and released in February 2011, following consultation with a range of stakeholders. The final (and still current) structure of the standards is described by AITSL as follows: The Standards describe what is expected of teachers across three domains: Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional Engagement; and across four career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead. The Standards present a common understanding and language for professional discussions and reflections on teacher preparation, practice and improvement. (AITSL Website, italics added) From the beginning, the graduate-level standards were designed to play a central role in the accreditation of teacher education providers and inform state-level policies on the registration of teachers for entry to the profession. The graduate standards thus quickly became a central force in reshaping teacher education programs across the nation. In April 2011, for example, federal, state, and territory education ministers endorsed the standards and procedures for the accreditation of initial teacher education programs across Australia (AITSL, 2011b). In response, all teacher education providers began mapping and aligning programs against the standards as a requirement for accreditation by state and territory bodies. As part of this, all providers were required to submit documentation, including course outlines as approved by their institution, and further information to demonstrate how the program met the Accreditation Standards and how pre-service teachers would be assessed as achieving the Graduate level of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. (Australian Government, 2014, p. 8) Existing state and territory teacher registration bodies also began reforming the requirements for graduating teachers to qualify to teach to ensure graduates demonstrated competency aligned with the standards. The federal government continued to financially incentivise these processes. For example, in addition to the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality, it provided incentives for states and territories to adopt the standards via the Australian Education Act 2013, which made funding

Changing Modes of Governance  69 increases conditional upon states and territories implementing the teaching standards and other national reforms. When the federal Labor government was defeated in 2013, the Liberal government came to power with an equally strong focus on ‘teacher quality’ as a central pillar of its ‘Students First’ policy platform. In some ways, the new government deepened the standards agenda, framing the national standards as a foundation for lifting the quality and status of the profession. The government, however, expressed concern about the extent to which the new standards were being implemented and constructed the quality of teaching and teacher education as pressing policy dilemmas that needed urgent fixing. As then federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne, put it: There is evidence that our teacher education system is not up to scratch. We are not attracting the top students into teacher courses as we once did, courses are too theoretical, ideological and faddish, not based on evidence of what works in teaching important subjects like literacy. Standards are too low at some education institutions—­ everyone passes. (cited in Gore, 2016, p. 18) In response, the federal government established a ‘Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group’ (TEMAG) in February 2014 to review all teacher education programs in Australia and ‘provide advice to the Commonwealth Minister for Education on how teacher education programmes could be improved to better prepare new teachers with the practical skills needed for the classroom’ (Australian Government, 2014, p. 52). The group was required to use ‘an evidence based approach’ to ‘identify common components regarded as world’s best practice in teacher education’, with a focus on the three areas of pedagogical approaches, subject content, and professional experience (practicum) (p. 57, emphasis added). TEMAG’s final report, titled Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers, was released in December 2014. The report drew attention to ‘a high degree of variability in the quality of practice across initial teacher education in Australia’ (p. xi) and argued that the standards were being ‘weakly applied’ and ‘implementation timeframes are too slow’ (p. xi). The review made a range of recommendations, including the need to more explicitly align teacher education programs and requirements to the graduate-level standards. It also recommended that AITSL should ‘be reconstituted to undertake a stronger role to ensure high standards of initial teacher education in Australia’ (p. xiv). In response, the federal government increased AITSL’s budget by $16.9 million in the 2015–2016 federal budget to implement TEMAG recommendations. In the space of less than a decade, therefore, Australia had witnessed a dramatic shift from having no national standards at all to having national standards driven by a significantly strengthened federal organisation (AITSL), which, following TEMAG, was given the task

70  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard to ‘overhaul and manage the accreditation of initial teacher education programs’ (Australian Government, 2014, p. xiv).

National Rescaling, Standards-Based Reform, and Growing Dominance of the Federal Government Having provided a broad overview of recent reforms, we now unpack in detail two key features that have been central to transforming teacher education policy in Australia. First is a progressive shift towards the ‘rescaling’ of schooling policies to the national level, which has been strongly supported by standards-based reforms. Second is a significant increase in federal government involvement in steering national reforms. Together, these changing modes of governance have generated new conditions of possibility for what it means to be a teacher but have also generated new problems, including: a narrowing body of evidence, influence and expertise informing understandings of teacher effectiveness and quality, and emerging democratic and professional deficits in policy development due to growing federal dominance and a distancing of the profession from policy development processes. 1. Standards-Based Reform and National ‘Rescaling’ Since the 1980s, Australia has witnessed a progressive shift towards the ‘rescaling’ (Brenner, 2004) of schooling policies to the national level. Central to this has been a heightened interest in links between education and work and the extent to which schools are providing young people with knowledge and skills required in times of global economic uncertainty and technological change. This economic imagination of schooling has emerged globally and has seen governments increasingly rationalise education reforms in relation to global economic imperatives. National schooling reforms have also been promoted on equity grounds as a means for ensuring access for ‘all’ young people to a common body of knowledge and skills required in changing economic times and by ensuring teachers adopt common practices based on evidence about what ‘quality teaching’ looks like. Within this context, a powerful trend has been the development of policies designed to achieve greater standardisation in core areas of schooling. Attempts to standardise policies and processes have been accompanied by new accountability measures and data infrastructures, which have significant consequences for how systems are shaped and educators are governed. A proliferation of international benchmarks and assessments are now used to rank and compare education systems and schools and are transforming education into a global commensurate space of measurement. Standardsbased reforms have been strongly promoted by the OECD through its policy work, including PISA and ‘Education at a Glance’ reports and also by a variety of think tanks, research institutes, edu-businesses, and transnational

Changing Modes of Governance  71 policy entrepreneurs, whose work is informed by a converging body of evidence about ‘what works’ as policy solutions. In Australia, steadily declining PISA performance has been repeatedly used by governments as a reason for pursuing national reforms. By framing PISA results as surrogate measures of the quality of Australia’s human capital and thus of future economic competitiveness (Sellar & Lingard, 2014), federal governments have positioned declining performance as a policy problem of national significance that needs federal intervention. For example, the former Labor government set a widely publicised goal of having Australia return to the ‘top five’ nations on PISA by 2025 and went as far as enshrining this goal in legislation through the Australian Education Act 2013. The Labor government used this aim as justification for pursuing its wide-reaching national reform agenda. From the beginning, federal Labor positioned itself at the helm of an historically unprecedented attempt to overhaul schooling systems to ensure greater accountability, transparency, and comparability across the nation. With regard to teacher education specifically, the past decade has seen successive federal governments consistently argue that national teaching standards and teacher education reforms are necessary to address declining PISA performances. As the quote at the beginning of this chapter illustrates, the recent TEMAG review begins its executive summary with the declarative statement that enhancing the capability of teachers is vital to raising the overall quality of Australia’s school system and lifting student outcomes. Following this, the report uses Professor John Hattie’s research to argue that there ‘is strong evidence that high-quality teaching is fundamental to student learning, and the biggest in-school factor determining student outcomes’ (p. 1). Following this, the report frames the PISA achievement problem and its relationship to teacher education reform as follows: The declining performance of Australian students in international testing has recently driven increasing community debate about the quality of teaching. Results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 show . . . our performance has declined in both absolute terms and relative to other countries since PISA began in 2000. Between 2009 and 2012, Australia slipped from 15th to 19th in mathematical literacy, 9th to 14th in reading literacy and 10th to 16th in scientific literacy. . . . Enhancing the capability of the Australian teaching profession is critical to achieving demonstrable improvement in the outcomes of over 3.5 million students. (Australian Government, 2014, p. 2) This line of argument has become increasingly common globally and will be highly familiar to readers. First, PISA performance is framed as a pressing policy problem requiring immediate intervention from governments. Second, declining PISA results are used as the justification for wide-reaching

72  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard reforms. Furthering the standards-based reform agenda is thus seen as the logical policy solution to fix the problem of national underachievement on PISA. The national rescaling of policy is thus strongly informed by policy technologies like PISA, which generate a transnational field of judgement against which national reforms can be referenced and justified. Even though schools remain the responsibility of states in Australia’s federal system, panic created by PISA about national decline drives urgency towards creating national reforms. In addition, a national response is positioned as urgently needed, despite the fact that significant subnational disparities exist between the performance of different Australian states on PISA, with some Australian systems performing at levels similar to so-called top five nations—a fact that makes national ‘average performance scores’ quite misleading (Gorur & Wu, 2015) and casts doubt over the necessity for broadscale national reforms. In addition to being driven by ‘PISA panics’, the creation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and associated teacher education reforms have also been underpinned by convergences within international research about what constitutes teacher quality and effectiveness (e.g., ­ DarlingHammond, 2000; Hattie, 2009; OECD, 2005). A central argument in this literature is that there is a direct causal relationship between teacher effectiveness and student achievement (a finding we see as being in no way remarkable, surprising, or controversial). Based on this, teaching standards have been introduced to both enhance and assess teacher quality, with the view that doing so will lead to improved student achievement on standardised tests (an argument we see as more dubious). Whereas internationally, teaching standards take various forms and serve multiple purposes, the common body of research underpinning their creation has seen certain common traits emerge across diverse systems. For example, teaching standards typically seek to (1) clarify the dimensions of effective teaching practice; (2) detail the competencies of teachers at different stages of career progression; and (3) serve as a foundation for developing rubrics or other methods designed to measure teacher quality (see Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2007). Standards thus seek to generate commonality of practice across diverse systems and hold individuals and organisations accountable in line with common expectations. As AITSL puts it, the Australian standards represent ‘a public statement of what constitutes teacher quality’ and thus ‘what is expected of teachers’.5 However, to govern through standards, standards need to be measurable and comparable across contexts. Teaching standards are thus typically accompanied by evaluation systems for judging the effectiveness of teachers against standards (OECD, 2009). In the United States, large-scale and high-stakes teacher evaluation systems have emerged, due in large part to the Race to the Top federal funding initiative (see Darling-Hammond, 2013). In this context, measurement against standards has become central to governing contemporary educators. In Australia, evaluation systems of

Changing Modes of Governance  73 this scope and nature are not currently systematised, with responsibility for evaluating teachers lying with states and schools (mainly the latter). Indeed, a recent national evaluation of the standards found significant variation in how the standards were being used to evaluate teachers (Clinton et al., 2015). This may change, however, with evidence emerging that governments are seeking to more explicitly align the standards with pay scales (see note 1) and that new evaluation systems are being created. If trends towards a tighter coupling of standards and evaluation systems continue, then this will have a powerful impact on teacher education in terms of how teachers are prepared. In summary, just as NAPLAN, My School, and the Australian Curriculum have been central in the national rescaling of curriculum, assessment, and reporting, AITSL and the professional standards have been central in the national rescaling policies relating to teaching and teacher education. Together, these various reforms have seen Australia witness increased nationalisation and standardisation of what Bernstein (1971) referred to as the three message systems of schooling: namely, curriculum, pedagogy, and evaluation. These evolving policy formations work together through complex interactions to create new national policy assemblages (Savage & Lewis, 2017), which interact closely with transnational policy ideas and practices that are centred on the need for systems to use comparable standardised data to drive system improvement and reform. Processes of national rescaling, therefore, cannot be abstracted from global processes. As we have argued, the federal government has played a central role in driving national rescaling, despite states retaining responsibility for schooling. It is this dominance of the federal government to which we now turn. 2. Growing Dominance of the Federal Government in Steering National Reform It is logical, given that the Commonwealth is the major funder of universities, that this is the area where it has the greatest capacity to effect change. (Christopher Pyne, former Federal Education Minister, 2013–2015)

One of the most dramatic shifts in Australian teacher education reform has been the growing involvement of the federal government in driving national reforms. As discussed earlier, Australian arrangements are peculiar as the federal government controls the universities that provide teacher education, whereas the states technically control all other aspects of schooling. Paired with high levels of vertical fiscal imbalance, this means the federal government has been able to exert significant control over shaping teacher education policies, with major consequences for state governments and teacher education providers in universities.

74  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard While the federal government has played a steadily increasing role in schooling policy since the 1960s, attempts to influence teaching and teacher education significantly increased under former federal Liberal Party Prime Minister, John Howard (1996–2007). Since then, successive federal governments from both major political parties have pushed for national reforms in teacher education. A particularly important development was in 1998, when the Australian Senate produced a report titled ‘A Class Act: Inquiry Into the Status of the Teaching Profession’ (Australian Government, 1998). The report called for ‘national professional teaching standards’ and the establishment of a national body to support the standards and associated reforms (p. 18). In contrast to more recent developments, the report strongly positioned educators (i.e., the profession) as central players in the creation of standards, arguing that national standards should not be imposed on the profession from above. The report argued, for example, that ‘teachers must enjoy a strong sense of ownership of their national professional body, [and] they must exercise a powerful influence over the deliberations and actions of the body’ (p. 18). It also stressed the importance of a cooperative national approach, with reforms to be developed through agreement with federal, state, and territory governments. The following year, all education ministers (federal, state, and territory) signed the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Australian Schooling in the 21st Century (MCEETYA, 1999), which included a commitment to enhancing the ‘status and quality’ of the teaching profession. In the same year, the federal government clarified its intention to lead reform by launching the Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme, designed to fund and support national reform initiatives relating to teacher quality. In subsequent years, the federal government became more interventionist in its approach, and the discourse around teacher quality evolved in terms of how policy problems were framed and the policy solutions advanced in response. The federal government began to promote in stronger terms the importance of addressing teacher quality and preparation as a direct means for improving student achievement. Policy reports released during the early 2000s also began to reflect a shift in focus away from emphasising notions of professional autonomy and the role of teachers in developing, owning, and driving reforms towards language that foregrounded the importance of government intervention and leadership in making national reforms happen. The federal government began to explicitly argue that federal leadership was needed to facilitate teacher voice and to provide the funding and policy architecture to drive reforms. In other words, the importance of the profession was still evident but was seen as requiring strong federal intervention and support to be optimally realised. Another important milestone occurred in 2003, when then federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson announced that the federal government would lead the establishment of a National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL) to be supported with $10 million in federal

Changing Modes of Governance  75 funding. The establishment of NIQTSL ‘was the culmination of a number of Australian Government initiatives arising from concerns about teacher training and professionalism, and the preparedness of the teaching profession for schooling in the twenty-first century’ (Teaching Australia, 2005, p. 4). This included a 2003 federal review into teaching and teacher education in Australia, which recommended ‘a coordinated and collaborative national approach to the advancement of the teaching profession’ (Teaching Australia, 2005, p. 4). Concurrent to the formation of NIQTSL, governments worked together to advance national standards via a Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce, which produced A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003). The national framework (endorsed by all ministers of education in July 2003) did not outline specific teaching standards but instead provided parameters within which standards could be developed, thus providing foundations for developments over the following decade. When the NIQTSL was officially launched in July 2004, Brendan Nelson stated that ‘the Institute’s aim would be to raise the status, quality, and professionalism of teachers and school leaders throughout Australia’, which was ‘seen as vital to improving the learning outcomes of students’ (Teaching Australia, 2005, p. 6). The NIQTSL was given a number of functions, including the development of ‘professional standards and accreditation’ and ‘professional learning and course accreditation’ (Ibid.). Of note, Nelson said that NIQTSL’s governance structure, which comprised an interim board and an interim advisory council, ‘would be such that the institute would be managed by the profession for the profession’ (Ibid, italics added), with members of the interim board to be mainly drawn from professional associations for teachers and school leaders and the interim advisory council comprising a broad group of stakeholders, including ‘representatives from parent groups, teacher unions and universities’ (Ibid.). Again, a tension was apparent because although ‘the profession’ was still positioned as central to driving ‘national’ reforms, such reforms were ultimately to be steered and managed by the federal government. In November 2005, NIQTSL was incorporated into a new body—‘Teaching Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School ­Leadership’—the precursor to AITSL. Teaching Australia was registered as a public company under the Corporations Act 2001. Prior to the establishment of Teaching Australia, in May 2005, the federal government had committed a further $20 million to NIQTSL, which brought total funding for the organisation to $30 million. This significant injection of funds and subsequent formation of Teaching Australia consolidated federal ownership over reform. Tensions remained, however, between federal ownership and professional voice, with a decision made by members of NIQTSL that the formation of Teaching Australia would include a board of directors comprised of ‘a majority of teachers and school leaders’ and that “Teaching Australia would be conducted by teachers and school leaders in order to enhance the status, quality

76  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard and professionalism of teachers and school leaders throughout Australia for the benefit of all Australians” (Teaching Australia, 2005, p. 9). The inaugural board of directors reflected this commitment, comprising four principals (two primary and two secondary) from the primary and secondary principals’ associations, five teachers from the Australian Joint Council of Professional Teaching Associations, one joint from the Australian College of Educators and the Australian Council for Educational Leaders, and one from the Australian Council of Deans of Education. (Teaching Australia, 2005, p. 22) Membership of the board and its chair, however, were directly appointed by the federal minister for education, science, and training. The result, therefore, was a federally selected and managed representation of the profession. Policy developments up to the establishment of Teaching Australia laid crucial foundations for the establishment of AITSL and the current national teaching standards. The establishment of Teaching Australia as a federal organisation meant that when Labor defeated the Liberal government in 2007, it had the policy architecture in place to drive significant change. Under Labor, Teaching Australia was replaced by AITSL, and the development of national teaching standards was finally realised, thus achieving a goal that had been in the making under the Liberals from the 1990s. As outlined earlier, a key strategy used by Labor was to encourage states and territories into adopting national standards through conditional funding grants. These steps were then strengthened (via TEMAG and increased funding to AITSL) when the Liberal party returned to power in 2013 (see previous section). The use of federal funding to secure national reforms, paired with broader shifts towards federal involvement and steering, has given rise to arguments that a coercive form of federalism has emerged in Australian schooling. Brennan and Willis (2008), for example, argue that ‘a centrally driven, authoritarian “Federalism” is likely to pass for a “national” approach while leaving most of “the nation” outside of contribution’ (p. 303)—adding that the establishment of Teaching Australia ‘ignored the role and legislative responsibilities of the States’ (p. 301). Whereas major reforms have certainly been made possible by significant federal investments and strategies, arguments that foreground centralisation and coercion alone overlook the complexity of both vertical and horizontal relations at play in the Australian federation, in which strong intergovernmental and bipartisan commitments to national reform have also been maintained over the past four decades. For example, alongside growing federal dominance, there has also been a significant intensification of intergovernmental relationships through mechanisms such as the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)6 and the Education Council (previously MCEETYA). Through these horizontal channels,

Changing Modes of Governance  77 landmark agreements and partnerships have been developed, which have been clearly influenced by (but cannot be reduced solely to) federal influence. It is also important to note that within such horizontal channels, the nature of state involvement has also varied widely, with some states, such as NSW (New South Wales), being key players in shaping national reforms, and other states playing minor roles (Savage & Lewis, 2017). What we do see as particularly problematic, however, are emerging democratic and professional deficits resulting from growing federal dominance and a progressive distancing of the profession from national policymaking processes. For example, whereas steps towards the development of national standards began with a strong emphasis on the importance of the profession in policy processes, recent changes have seen the profession distanced from policy development. Recent reforms to the governance structure of AITSL are exemplary of this. For example, even though the Board of Experts of Teaching Australia was appointed by the federal minister, it maintained strong representation of stakeholders from the profession. Since AITSL was established, however, the board of directors has progressively moved away from such representation in favour of an ‘independent board’. The inaugural AITSL board, for example, comprised a ‘chair, deputy chair and one director’, each ‘nominated by the Australian Government’, plus 14 additional directors, of which eight were ‘nominated by state and territory governments’ and six ‘by sectors, peak professional and union bodies’ (AITSL, 2011a, p. 11). The federal government, therefore, maintained control over leadership of the board but directly decided only three of 17 directors. Six years later, in 2016 under the federal Liberal government, the AITSL governance structure shifted significantly to include a chair, deputy chair, and only nine additional directors, all of whom are ‘appointed by the Minister for Education and Training’.7 At the time of writing, five of these nine are from New South Wales or Victoria (seven if we include the chair and deputy chair), with no directors from Queensland or the Northern Territory. Moreover, of the total 11 members, nine are academics or senior bureaucrats, one is from a policy think tank, and only one is a school principal. No teachers or union representatives are on the board. The result, therefore, is an arrangement lacking in terms of both fair representation of states and territories and in terms of professional representation. Given the centrality of fair representation of key stakeholders to the maintenance of democratic governance, we thus see evidence of both democratic and professional deficits at play in contemporary policy processes. As AITSL has evolved, therefore, there has been a significant shift away from the initial hopes in the late 1990s and 2000s of creating a national body driven by the profession and for the profession. While AITSL maintains consultative and collaborative relations with key stakeholders across states and territories, and even though major national reforms need the support of education ministers from all jurisdictions to survive (features that ensure a level of democratic representation and input), we nevertheless have

78  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard concerns that as a federal organisation, AITSL’s governance structure has moved away from a representative model and further distanced the profession from decision-making processes about teachers and teacher education.

Conclusion Changing modes of governance in Australian teacher education policy are driving the reshaping of the teaching profession by transforming what count as the most desirable ‘common attributes’ of an effective and quality teacher. National standards now play a key role in steering the practices of teachers in schools, and the graduate-level standards are reshaping teacher education in universities. Although these changes are generating new possibilities for teacher education, the potential for diversity and alterity beyond the bounds of the national standards is being radically reduced. Whereas standards-based reforms rarely produce ‘total’ standardisation (Savage & Lewis, 2017; Scott, 1998), there is little doubt that significant efforts are currently underway to reorient diverse teacher practices and system approaches as well as historically diverse approaches to teacher education in line with the normative bounds of the standards. This is, of course, the exact purpose of the standards: to seek to standardise and ostensibly improve practice in line with common expectations of practice. Such processes of standardisation, however, are informed by a narrowing body of evidence, influence, and expertise. In particular, the range of research used to construct teacher quality is limited, with the OECD playing a particularly powerful role informing what concepts like ‘student achievement’, ‘teacher quality’, and ‘effectiveness’ mean in policy and practice. Linked to this are emerging democratic and professional deficits in processes of policy development, which have seen the teaching profession and some jurisdictional stakeholders distanced from decision-making processes. Power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the federal government and AITSL, which together exert significant roles in shaping teacher education, the work of state teacher registration authorities, and the practices of teachers. AITSL’s shift away from a ‘representative’ to an ‘independent’ board is a key issue as it concentrates significant power in the hands of a small number of individuals appointed directly by the federal minister for education and training. As a federally owned company, AITSL does not have membership and accountability structures akin to other organisations like ACARA, which is jointly owned by all Australian governments. Whereas ACARA is not immune from issues linked to the representation of diverse stakeholders (Savage, 2016), its structure reflects a much stronger commitment to the spirit of collaborative federalism. As we look to the future, Australia appears to face significant challenges in seeking to implement common practices ‘in the national interest’ in schooling, while at the same time ensuring state governments fairly contribute

Changing Modes of Governance  79 to the shaping national agendas, and the profession contributes to its own steering and development. These are not issues reserved for Australia but are shared by other federal systems grappling with the imperative to reform teacher education in response to complex global shifts and pressures.

Notes 1 Teachers in Australian government systems are still employed under state-level industrial acts. As such, salary structures and career progression in different states do not neatly match these national career stages. However, the federal government has recently flagged an interest in pursuing reforms to ensure stronger links between these areas and the standards. 2 When ‘national’ is used in Australian schooling policy, it typically means there has been agreement on a policy among all governments (federal, state, and territory). However, as we will argue, the federal government has been increasingly powerful in shaping national reforms and agreements. 3 In making this point, we are not suggesting that standards-based reform always or necessarily leads to standardisation (see the conclusion). 4 In Australia, the Education Council is the intergovernmental council in education consisting of all the nation’s education ministers. At the time of the declaration, the Education Council was operating under its previous name: the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). 5 See www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/ frequently-asked-questions. 6 COAG is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia, comprised of the prime minister, state premiers, territory chief ministers, and the president of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). The Education Council (see note 3) forms part of COAG. 7 See www.aitsl.edu.au/about-us/directors.

References AITSL. (2011a). Annual report 10/11. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. AITSL. (2011b). Initial teacher education programs in Australia: Standards and procedures. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Australian Government. (1998). A class act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. Canberra: Australian Government. Australian Government. (2014). Action now: Classroom ready teachers. Canberra: Australian Government. Bernstein, B. (1971). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education (pp. 47–69). London: Collier MacMillan. Brennan, M., & Willis, S. (2008). Sites of contestation over teacher education in Australia. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(4), 295–306. Brenner, N. (2004). New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clinton, J., Dinham, S., Savage, G. C., Aston, R., Dabrowski, A., Gullikson, A., Calnin, G., & Arbour, G. (2015). Final report: Evaluation of the implementation of the Australian professional standards for teachers. Melbourne: Centre for Program Evaluation, the University of Melbourne.

80  Glenn C. Savage and Bob Lingard COAG. (2008). National partnership agreement on improving teacher quality. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gore, J. M. (2016). Reform and the reconceptualisation of teacher education in Australia. In R. Brandenburg, S. McDonough, J. Burke, & S. White (Eds.), Teacher education: Innovation, intervention and impact (pp. 15–34). Singapore: Springer. Gorur, R., & Wu, M. (2015). Leaning too far? PISA, policy and Australia’s ‘top five’ ambitions. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 647–664. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2007). Standards for teaching: Theoretical underpinnings and applications. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research. MCEETYA. (1999). Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling. Adelaide: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. MCEETYA. (2003). A national framework for professional standards for teaching. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. MCEETYA. (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2005). Teachers matter: attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2009). Evaluating and rewarding the quality of teachers, International practices: 13. Paris: OECD Publishing. Savage, G. C. (2016). Who’s steering the ship? National curriculum reform and the re-shaping of Australian federalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 833–850. Savage, G. C., & Lewis, S. (2017). The phantom national? Assembling national teaching standards in Australia’s federal system. Journal of Education Policy, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1325518 Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 917–936. Teaching Australia. (2005). Report of establishment and activities of National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL): June 2004–November 2005. Canberra: Teaching Australia.

Part 2

Challenges to the State Local Agency, Local Resistance

6 Complicating the Narrative Teacher Education Policies in Neoliberal Chile Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández

Introduction The faces of teacher education are changing in Chile as educational policies continue to expand their control over the content and outcomes of teacher education programs. In the past 20 years in Chile, as well as in countries such as Norway and the United States, accountability measures that assume that the problem in teacher education is a lack of quality and control have increasingly been used as the answer to improve this field under a neoliberal logic (Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, 2013; Early, 2000; Furlong, 2013; Stephens, Tønnessen, & Kyriacou, 2004). These policies have impacted teacher educators’ actions, possibilities, and experiences (Ball, 1993). Neoliberalism is not new in Chile, but its enactments have changed since its inception in the 1970s. During the military-civic dictatorship (1973–1990) neoliberal policies reshaped health, social security, and education systems in Chile (Inzunza, Assaél, & Sherping, 2011). In teacher education, “normal” schools were closed and teacher education was only offered in universities and “institutos” administered by military authorities (Cornejo & Reyes, 2008). Under this surveillance, critical aspects were removed from the teacher education curriculum because they were considered a threat to the government (Pastrana, 2007, 2010). In addition, the funding for public universities decreased, and strategies like reduction of teacher salaries undermined the status of teachers and their profession (Ávalos, 2010). Research on teacher education policy in Chile is fundamental to understand its implications for teacher education programs. Few studies have examined initial teacher education policies in Chile from critical perspectives (Avalos, 2014; Montecinos, 2014), and an even smaller number have looked at how they have been enacted at the local level by teacher educators (Fernández, 2016). In this chapter, we address this gap by examining the ways in which teacher education policies in Chile construct teaching as a matter of concern (Simons et al., 2009) and how the lived experiences of a specific teacher educator embody, resist, recreate, and/or enact the discourses present in teacher education policies. Specifically, we conduct a critical analysis of contemporary teacher education policies in Chile in the 2006–2016 period. We use frame and embodiment analysis (Rein & Schön,

84  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández 1996; Turner, 1984) to understand policy and its effects in initial teacher education and in the experience of an initial teacher educator in Chile. For this study we interviewed Gabriela (pseudonym), an initial teacher educator with 25 years of experience and the head of the school of social sciences and humanities in a public university in an extreme region of Chile. We interviewed her regarding the ways she thinks about teacher education and the effect of these policies on her work. With this analysis we sought to understand one localized response to policies in a centralized country where education policies are national with little opportunities to consider context. We also took into consideration that a large majority of research is done in the capital (Santiago). With this in mind, we purposefully choose to do research outside of Santiago to contribute to the research of areas that have a lack of local information. Teacher Education Policies in Chile Democratic governments in Chile since 1990 generated important reforms in schools and the national K–12 curriculum. In contrast teacher education remained mostly intact from the dictatorship until the late 2000s. Small changes during this period included a 1997 Ministry of Education initiative to support teacher education. This strategy (FFID) provided funding for a small number of universities to propose and implement changes in their programs in collaboration with others (Ávalos, 2005, 2010). At the same time that this initiative was implemented, the landscape of university education and teacher education in Chile changed dramatically. Between 2000 and 2008, the Ministry of Education granted full autonomy to private universities that enabled them to open programs that, in conjunction with an increasing demand for teachers in the school system as a result of the extension of the school hours, led to a significant increase in the number of teacher education programs and student teacher enrollment (Cox, Meckes, & Bascopé, 2010). The number of teacher preparation programs increased from 249 to 738, and the enrollment of student teachers increased from around 35,000 to around 92,000 (Cox et al., 2010). Four teacher education regulations were implemented as a result between 2008 and 2015. These were: a scholarship for student teachers, competitive grants for teacher preparation programs, the development of standards for teacher education, and an exit test for student teachers. In what follows we briefly describe each regulation. (1) The scholarships address admissions in university teacher education programs by providing funding for student teachers who have high admissions entrance scores as well as by conditioning these scholarships for entrance into teacher education programs that have high cutoff scores for admissions. (2) The competitive grants for teacher preparation programs were first released in 2011, and they provide additional funding to a small number

Complicating the Narrative  85 of teacher preparation programs to improve their work. In 2012, seven grants were provided, four in 2013, zero in 2014, and eight in 2015. The indicators of success of the interventions implemented with the grant were defined by the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC, 2012a, 2012b). (3) The standards for teacher education are the Ministry of Education’s official definition of the minimum knowledge that student teachers need to know before entering the field of teaching. They were developed by two research centers led by two universities with little input from teacher educators (Revista Docencia, 2009, 2011). (4) The national exit test for student teachers has been assessing student teachers at the end of the teacher preparation based on the standards for student teachers. The test measures pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge for teaching and basic skills. Although the purpose of this test is to assess student teachers’ preparation, tests results were (are) publicly released, aggregated by universities, which works as a proxy for evaluation of teacher preparation programs. These regulations were designed to directly control or regulate the composition of the student body in teacher preparation programs, change program admissions and curricular decisions, as well as the practices and lives of teacher educators (Fernández, 2016). As a result they interact to create a frame of intelligibility for understanding initial teacher education as a problem and the parameters from which to solve it.

Theoretical Framework We propose an analysis of how teacher education policies in Chile construct teaching as a matter of concern (Simons et al., 2009) and how they are reproduced, contested, and affect the work of a teacher educator. We assume that policy not only addresses social problems but also that “problems are constructed in policy debates and policy documents in order to promote desired perspectives on how policy problems should be understood and to promote desired strategies intended to address those problems” (Fernández, 2016, p. 33). Policies act as “frames” that strategically include and exclude some aspects (Entman, 1993). We specifically use frame analysis (Oliver & Johnston, 2000; Rein & Schön, 1996; Snow & Benford, 1988) to pay attention to the three functions of frames: (1) defining problems through constructing their causes and identifying who should be accountable; (2) suggesting solutions to remedy the problems constructed in the policy discourse; and (3) making statements that can motivate and persuade others (Rein & Schön, 1996). We add to this frame analysis a focus on how regulations have effects on the bodies of teacher educators and student teachers. This embodiment analysis of these policies focuses on how they seek to control and organize bodies as well as how a teacher educator responds and reacts to them in a

86  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández specific place and time. We follow Pillow (2003), who citing Turner (1984), suggests looking at how policies control and organize bodies through four categories: reproduction, regulation, restraint, and representation (Pillow, 2003, p. 151). In this analysis we consider the last three of these categories and how they function in Chilean teacher education regulations. We consider regulation to be the restriction of bodies in urban space (Turner, 1984). Regulation is the matter of education discourse and takes many forms in its institutional classifications of bodies. One of the main forms that this takes form in teacher education policies is in the how the decisions are made regarding who enters into teacher education as well as who becomes a teacher. We understand restraint as the limits to reproduction imposed by the state through its policies. For Turner (1984) restraint is the ordering of the body that was (and still is) conducted by the church but later also fulfilled by the state. This ordering is a self-policing or internal restraint embedded in dominant discourses. Part of this ordering of bodies is visible in the assumptions regarding human nature and can also be seen in what is considered a good teacher or good teaching in teacher education policies. Representation relates to a hierarchy of bodies that places people in different status categories (Turner, 1984). There are multiple symbols that are used to denote status—some more explicit than others. In education for example some of these explicit categorizations are the rankings constructed on the basis of the aggregated tests scores of the exit test, whereas others are less explicit, for example, by priorities in funding. We use these three categorizations to consider the ways in which discourses on initial teacher education affects bodies both in policies and in how Gabriela discusses them in our interviews. We combine this with frame analysis to examine the overarching state discourses presented in national regulations and the interviews with Gabriela, regarding her experience as a teacher educator. We consider the ways in which Gabriela discusses resistance to policies as well as how policies structure her narration of being a teacher educator. Considering the power that policies have in framing discourse in teacher education, we are specifically interested in how they are resisted or reinterpreted at the local level.

Methods and Data Sources Using frame analysis (Oliver & Johnston, 2000; Rein & Schön, 1996; Snow & Benford, 1988) we reviewed 23 official Ministry of Education documents that explain and promote these policies. These policy documents include two educational reports written by two national educational committees that identified problems and propose solutions for teacher education; 10 dissemination documents that explain the policies analyzed; three normative documents that contain the instructions and standards associated to the analyzed policies; two president’s messages and proposals; the discourses of the president of the Ministry of Education in six congressional

Complicating the Narrative  87 meeting reports; and the official policy documents related to teacher education policies in Chile from 2006 to 2016.

Official National Policy Documents Analyzed (Based on Fernández, 2016, pp. 116–119) Type of Document Committees’ Reports

Dissemination and Explanatory Documents

Normative Documents

Document Author ID 1

Expert Educational Panel (2010)

2 3

Presidential Advisory Council “(2006) Mama, J. (2009)

4

Maud, J. (2010)

5 6 7 8

MINEDUC (2010) MINED UC (2012a) MINEDUC (2013a) CPEIP (2012a)

9

MINEDUC (2011a)

10

CPEIP (2012b)

11

MINEDUC (2012d)

12

MINEDUC (2013b)

13

MINEDUC (2011b)

14

MINEDUC (2012b, April 23)

15

MINEDUC (2012c)

Title Final report: first stage, proposals to strength teaching profession in the Chilean educational system Final report by the presidential advisory council for educational quality INICIA program: foundations and first advances INICIA program: foundations and first advances Teacher initial education Dissemination seminar of initial teacher education policies Background of INICIA tests Informative meeting, INICIA evaluation 2012 Policies for improving initial education quality in Chile INICIA evaluation 2012, dissemination of collection of themes meeting INICIA evaluation, presentation of results 2011 INICIA evaluation, presentation of results 2012 Guidelines standards for teacher graduates in elementary education: pedagogical and content knowledge standards Approves bidding conditions forms (administrative and technical) and agreements for competition of performance agreements (convenios de desempeno) in initial teacher education, academic innovation, and professional strengthening Guidelines for performance agreements and application call 2012 field initial teacher education (Continued)

88  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández Type of Document

Document Author ID

Title

President’s Messages

16

President (2011)

17

President (2013)

18

House of Deputies

President of the republic’s message that start a bill to create the professional excellence examination and the initial pedagogical excellence incentive allocation States substitutional text to the bill that establishes the teacher advancement and professional development system in the public sector (Official Bulletin No SIS9–04) House of deputies 359st legislature, 141st session on Wednesday March7, 2012

Congressional Meetings

We also conducted and co-analyzed two interviews/meetings with a teacher educator with 25 years of experience and analyzed them to see how she responds to how teacher education policies frame teacher education. Based on our review of literature on embodiment (Britzman, 1995; Pilllow, 2003; Turner, 1984), we developed two interview protocols and analysis categories for these interviews. The two in-depth interviews with Gabriela, the teacher educator, focused on a discussion of teacher education policies and how they relate to her work as the dean of a teacher education school. The first interview focused on the participant’s professional history and a general overview of her work. The second interview focused on her daily work and her experiences with teacher education policies over the last 20 years. The two interviews were semi structured, recorded, and analyzed. The data from the interviews as well as the policy documents were entered into Nvivo11 and coded according to codes developed from the theoretical framework. We developed four family codes: context, embodiment, frames, and dominant narratives. We then coded each document and the interviews accordingly.

Findings Policy Documents Student movements, which claimed the right to a quality education, grew with force after the 2000s in Chile. In 2006, student demonstrations and walkouts were numerous; these decreased when the government appointed a “presidential advisory council” for improving education, whose main findings were captured in a document (see, Committees’ reports, Document 1). This document was presented by the government as the symbol of a new era

Complicating the Narrative  89 for Chilean education. This era was meant to represent a consensus among the government, policy makers, scholars, teachers, and students about the main educational problems of the country. Since the beginning of this new era, teaching has been constructed in Ministry of Education discourse as a key aspect to improve the quality and equity of the educational system in Chile. The Ministry of Education stated its concern about the achievement gap between students from low- and highincome backgrounds measured by national and international standardized tests (e.g., Document 9). Additionally, the documents analyzed mentioned concern about the achievement gap between Chilean students and other students from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries members as measured by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test (e.g., Document 5). Using documents from international organizations, mainly OECD and McKinsey and Company, the Ministry of Education claimed that the main factor for improving student achievement was teaching performance (e.g., Documents 4 and 6). The Ministry of Education documents stated several times the claim made by Barber and Mourshed (2008) that “the quality of an educational system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers” (Document 8, p. 42). The Ministry of Education documents also linked students’ achievement on standardized tests to teacher quality and even quantified that effect on student achievement. As a result, in policy documents, teacher quality became a matter of concern for public policy and the key aspect to intervene to fix the quality and equity of the Chilean educational system. The ministry documents also linked teacher quality with teacher education quality. Specifically, the Ministry of Education criticized the low selectiveness and deregulation of teacher preparation programs in Chile. Teacher education, according to policy documents, was not attracting “talented students” into entering the profession and had low admission requirements (e.g., Documents 7 and 23). The policy documents stated that “73% of the graduates from education programs in 2011 either did not take the [national] university admission test or scored less than 500 points on it [median]” (Document 23, p. 157). In this way, prospective student teachers’ knowledge is assumed to be a fixed characteristic and a matter of public concern. Additionally, students who have low scores on the exam were considered not good enough to become teachers, and their test scores were understood as proxies for talent or potential to be a good teacher. Also, teacher education curriculum was portrayed as a problem. It was stated that student teachers and teachers lacked disciplinary knowledge, which for the Ministry of Education, is critical knowledge for teaching. For example, the ministry stated that 60% of the teachers who took the TEDS-M (Teacher Study in Mathematics) did not achieve a minimal level in mathematical knowledge and pointed out that without strengthening teachers’ disciplinary knowledge, the quality and effectiveness of the educational system would not improve (e.g., Document 22).

90  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández Consistent with this framing of teaching and teacher education, the national documents propose strategies that attempt to regulate student teachers, teachers, and teacher educator’s bodies. First, in these policies it is assumed that “talented” high school students will choose teaching over other professions if they have economic incentives for entering teacher education programs, assuming as well and making it self-evident that economic incentives are, if not the primary factor for students in deciding what to study, at least an influential one. Therefore, a tuition scholarship was created for student teachers with high scores on the standardized national test that entered accredited universities. This test measures knowledge of math, language arts, science, and history at the high school level. This scholarship strategy also has requirements for the totality of the students entering a teacher education program. If teacher preparation programs want to enroll student teachers with these scholarships, the programs need to raise their cut-off admissions scores. Therefore admission practices are indirectly regulated by this market incentive. The expectation of this regulation is that teacher educators would feel compelled to compete to attract more students who obtained the scholarship. As result, the cut-off score of teacher preparation programs would increase, and the selectiveness of teacher preparation programs would be indirectly “positively” affected by the Ministry of Education regulations. Additionally, student teachers’ knowledge and performance were controlled through the creation of national standards as well as an exit test for student teachers. As was stated in several documents, the standards defined what student teachers should know at the end of their teacher preparation. The paper-based exit test measured student teachers’ achievement on these standards. The standards and exit test encompassed pedagogical and disciplinary knowledge (content knowledge) for teaching; however, disciplinary aspects were predominant. For example, 49 of the 59 standards for student teachers for elementary education referred to disciplinary knowledge (Document 13). These standards represented the knowledge and skills valued by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education used the exit test as a regulatory mechanism to ensure that the standards would be incorporated and adopted by student teachers. Through the creation of the standards and an exit test for student teachers, there was an attempt to indirectly regulate teacher educators’ curricular practices and decisions. This was evident in the public release of student teachers’ results on the exit test, which were aggregated by universities. The Ministry of Education expected that this public information would prompt improvements in teacher preparation programs. For the ministry, improvements were changes that would lead to better results in the program’s students’ exit tests. In practice, this would mean that teacher educator programs emphasized disciplinary knowledge in their teacher preparation programs, whereas other knowledge, for example, responding to students’ cultural backgrounds and their contexts, were almost absent. In this way,

Complicating the Narrative  91 the constructed problem, by the Ministry of Education, regarding the educational system—equity—was supposed to be fixed by teachers with more disciplinary knowledge and teacher preparation programs that focus on this type of knowledge. The ministry also expected that the public display of student teacher achievements on the test grouped by universities would have an effect on prospective student teachers. They expected that prospective students would choose a university based on the public information about the “quality” of teacher preparation programs based on the achievement of student teachers on the exit test. The public display of results was also expected to have an effect in teacher educators’ decisions, who would try to adapt their programs to the demand of consumers (prospective student teachers). In this way, it was expected that teacher educators would transform their practices to promote in student teachers the knowledge and skills measured by the exit test. The information of aggregated test results per university is one of two indicators used to evaluate the results of the competitive grants provided by the Ministry of Education (the other indicator is the achievement of K–12 students using value-added assessments, but this indicator has never been evaluated). Therefore, the conditions for the teacher preparation programs that received funding to reform their curricula were associated with the promotion of skills and knowledge measured in the standards. In conclusion, the four regulations reviewed assumed that teacher educator practices would be fixed using a combination of market and regulatory approaches. Interviews In this section, we present our analysis of Gabriela’s reflections on these teacher education policies and their impact on her practices based on her work as a teacher educator. Gabriela grew up in the same area where she currently works. As dean of the School of Humanities, she is in charge of making decisions regarding initial teacher education programs and has worked as a teacher educator for more than 20 years. The region is far from the capital, has little connectivity to the rest of the country, and has a population of approximately 160,000 people. Chile is a highly centralized country; more than 30% percent of its population is estimated to live in the capital and its surrounding regions. The teacher education regulations we analyze with Gabriela in this chapter are, as stated previously, national. Complicating the Framing of Teacher Education Regulations in Chile As identified, in our frame analysis, teacher education regulations constructed the problem of education as a problem of quality and equity

92  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández and identified teachers as a significant part of this problem. The policy documents proposed that in part, this problem could be solved through accountability-oriented measures, including measures for initial teacher ­ education. Gabriela in our discussions, although not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the premise that there is a problem of quality that can be addressed by accountability measures, identifies different problems that she sees in the school system as well as in her teacher education candidates. For example, she discusses the difficulties she faces with her students’ lack of motivation, will to learn, and capacity for awe. Furthermore, instead of framing this as a problem of student teachers’ characteristics (as the regulations do), she focuses on how the curriculum of teacher education should change to respond to the new generation of student teachers. She also critiques the lack of contextualization of these regulations and their effects on teacher education programs that are not in the capital. Regulating Who Should Enter Teacher Education A policy of central significance to Gabriela is the scholarship regulation, which according to her, instead of increasing the number of students with high entrance scores in her teacher education program has led to a decrease in the number of students in their programs. Gabriela describes the conundrum they face as faculty having to choose between wanting to increase the number of students or receive funds through the ministry’s scholarships. Gabriela does not present higher entrance scores on the national admission test as a significant aspect for improving teacher education. She does describe a different admission system she would like to implement to test students’ talents and motivations in high school to identify those who have a “talent” to teach. This admission system is part of a study that would affect admissions across her university. She described the work of this study like this: “[W]e see the orientations that the children have, what area they are predisposed to study and be. There are several tests being applied in every school in the region, like an orientation.” Both the scholarship regulations well as her system assume an ideal candidate based on an idea of talent based on test results, but these discourses have nuances and material effects. The national scholarship regulations are based on the idea that only the best students (as measured by standardized test scores) should enter into teacher education without questioning the inequities that this decision could produce, especially in a country like Chile, where the results of these tests are associated to social class (Cavieres, 2011; Torche, 2005; Valenzuela, Bellei, & De los Ríos, 2010). This is different from what Gabriela proposes in terms of identifying natural talents and skills as well as interests that students possess through tests to determine the best fit for them in the university. Although we don’t have information of how the tests that she proposes assess dispositions and orientations, she does present this as an option that is opposed to the current focus on

Complicating the Narrative  93 admission test scores that are heavily correlated with socioeconomic class. Both Gabriela and the Ministry of Education propose a regulation of who studies to be a teacher based on humanistic assumptions. That is to say that there exists an essential quality that each person has that makes him or her an ideal teacher candidate, whether it is the capacity to score well on standardized tests or personal “talents.” Regulating Becoming a Teacher During their final period, teacher education students are faced with the national exit test. Gabriela frames this policy as a method of control rather than as feedback for student teachers and institutions of higher education. The test, that is purportedly in place to provide feedback to schools regarding the quality of their teacher education schools, seems useless to Gabriela because of the format in which the information is presented. She states: It’s like, there are figures that are in quantitative and comparative form, in graphs, you are placed under the medium, over the medium, things like that, nothing more specific. Under what? The top universities? You can say we are over the medium, but that’s all you can say. Another critique she has of this policy is the lack of knowledge of what the test assesses. She doesn’t have access to the questions, and as she states, even more importantly for her, she doesn’t know what kind of ideal teacher the test is assessing. The ministry exit test is purportedly based on the standards that as previously analyzed, are heavily focused on disciplinary knowledge. However, maybe as a result of the lack of participation of teacher educators in the process of standards, despite all the dissemination documents issued by the Ministry of Education, Gabriela does not link the standards with the ideal of teachers that is assessed in the exit test. In regard to the grants for improving teacher education, which are results oriented, she describes them as helpful to her work. She contrasts the grants with the assessment of the exit test in terms of how useful she has found them to be to improve their program. In the grant her program received, she highlights the cooperative nature of the process, the power that they have in deciding which topics to address, and the feedback they receive. The strategies that regulate the process of becoming a teacher before students graduate are the standards and the grants for improving teacher education programs. Gabriela does not appear to question the standards for teacher education even as she acknowledges the need to accommodate the idea of teacher that they strive for as a program so that it fits these standards. For Gabriela the ideal teacher is “never finished, there is always something that can continue to be constructed, but I would like to contribute to a teacher that is passionate about what he does, that has a motor, a passion, that moves him.” This ideal is different than what constitutes

94  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández the ideal teacher for a state that focuses mostly on disciplinary knowledge. This tension, which we see between what Gabriela expresses and what the state proposes, she resolves by looking for spaces to promote and realize her ideal teacher in her program. Even when she acknowledges that for her the ideal teacher would know the content, she mostly focuses on the way her ideal teacher would approach his or her work. She describes the ideal teacher as follows: That he be a researcher, inquirer, innovator, brave enough to break schemes, show children other things, that he feels the responsibility that his students be better than him, that he understand that children are happy studying, learning in different ways. She states that one way she and the rest of the faculty deal with this difference is by adjusting their methodologies and content to somehow fit the standards as well as the ideal teacher. Representation and Prestige We found that the restraint of bodies in terms of hierarchies of status in teacher education is significant for Gabriela. Even though the low prestige of teaching is mentioned in the national regulations, it is not considered a central problem to the improvement of the educational system. In contrast, prestige is a relevant concern in our discussion with Gabriela. She describes having to “go out and fight” for space and consideration for her program with university authorities. She perceives that teacher education as well as other social sciences is undervalued by a university that is more interested in the exact sciences. She sees this in the differences in hiring procedures as well as in how the research from different programs is valued. Gabriela ties this low prestige in her university to a national discourse on teachers and teacher education. She sees teachers in general as undervalued by the government as reflected in how infrequent their participation is in policy design and the way education policies function as control mechanisms on teachers. Gabriela also identifies a clear hierarchy within the field of education. The lowest rung would be the early childhood educators and moves up, according to the age that is taught, to elementary teachers, high school teachers, higher education professors. For her this also has to do with the percentage of women in each field; the higher the percentage of men, the higher the prestige for the field. Restraint Gabriela clearly differentiates between two sets of policies in terms of helpfulness to the work of her program: on the one hand, the grants and standards

Complicating the Narrative  95 that she accepts and is even grateful for, and on the other, the scholarships and exit exams that she views as set in place just to control their work with no benefit for her teacher education program. Even though she discusses the standards as a given part of her work, she also recognizes a tension in the assumption of learning behind them that they have to try to accommodate. In her view the standards combined with the competencies model that the university has adopted as an institution-wide curriculum attempt to control the progression of learning of her students in a step-by-step linear model that does not correspond to how she sees her students learning.

Discussion In this chapter we have examined the ways in which teacher education regulations in Chile construct teacher education as a matter of concern (Simons et al., 2009) and how they create frames of intelligibility for thinking about the process of becoming a teacher. We then looked at how our discussions with Gabriela, an experienced teacher educator, complicate the dominant discourse of national regulations. Our findings show that the Ministry of Education constructs teaching as a focus of concern/intervention to improve student achievement in national and international standardized tests. Effective teachers and teacher educators are constructed as technicians who should master disciplinary knowledge and be subject to external and indirect accountability regulations (Carnoy, Elmore, & Siskin, 2003). Our findings demonstrated how national teacher education policies attempt to control student teachers and teacher educators’ practices using regulation and market-oriented strategies. These strategies have also been reported by other authors as central to teacher education accountability policies in other countries (Cochran-Smith et al., 2013; Conway, 2013), which emphasize choice and competition. Our analysis shows that Gabriela engages in mixed processes of resistance and enactment of the dominant discourses present in teacher education policies combining coercive and counter-narratives as defined by McEwan (1997). Coercive narratives are related to unquestioned assumptions that legitimize conservatism. They prevent reform and persuade us to maintain the status quo. On the other hand, counter-narratives have a subversive function: “they accomplish this work by retelling the story of a tradition” (McEwan, 1997, p. 88). This kind of narrative is present, for example, in stories of agency. Narratives that resist and enact national policies are often interwoven in the discourse of the participant. For example, she sometimes disagrees with the practices proposed in policy documents but agrees with the fundamental assumptions on which they are based. One case of this interweaving happens regarding the assumptions in the way regulations consider a student teacher as having or not having talent. Whereas both the Ministry of Education and Gabriela agreed that a teacher education program should attract

96  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández talented students, they proposed different evaluation processes to capture these students. Even though these assumptions have different consequences for who studies to be a teacher, both reproduce a humanistic assumption of an essential quality that is at the heart of being a good teacher and a prior condition for entering the program. In contrast, an example of Gabriela’s counter-narratives is in her discourse regarding market-oriented assumptions about how people make decisions. Gabriela’s understanding of how people make decisions is different from the assumptions held by the Ministry of Education. One of the main assumptions in the ministry’s policy discourses is that there is an essential human nature and that this nature is what links people’s decisions to financial stimulus. Gabriela, in her discussion regarding her work as a teacher educator, counters this narrative by never referencing monetary resources as a concern for how she makes decisions as a dean or how people decide what makes them better teachers. She does consider that resources work as a mechanism of control as well as a mechanism through which prestige is expressed. As outlined in our findings, she sees the effects of prestige in the university in terms of funding for research and hiring choices and considers that funding is one of the ways in which the ministry attempts to control what happens in teacher education. The difference in these assumptions about how people make decisions, how they are influenced or not by financial concerns, and how these decisions relate to being a better teacher shows that the concern of policy studies should not only be whether a certain policy works or not but also include an analysis of what its assumptions are and how they fit into the assumptions at the local level. Another example of the interweaving coercive and counter-narratives is related to the conception of a good teacher. Whereas our analysis shows the differences between what is considered an ideal teacher according to Gabriela and teacher education regulations, what she describes in her program is the coexistence of both ideals. As Gabriela explains, in her teacher education program, faculty look for ways to include their consideration of what makes a good teacher in their curricula by carving out space between the policies. Hence the interweaving here refuses either the position of coercive or counter-narrative but stands instead in a mixed space that functions between the two discourses. The complexities of Gabriela’s response to teacher education policy and our analysis show the differing ways in which practitioners of teacher education can respond to state discourses. By using frame and embodiment analysis, we have highlighted the ways in which communication between policies and those that enact them is not simply a question of implementation but rather of resistance, acceptance, and coercion. This study also showed how coercive and counter-narratives are not dichotomous or exclusive but rather that they are interwoven in the participant’s narrative. The complex discursive space that emerges in neoliberal contexts between state policy and local

Complicating the Narrative  97 enactments limits possibilities for action in teacher ­education—but it also allows the emergence of critical responses and actions.

References Ávalos, B. (2005). Secondary teacher education in Chile: An assessment in the light of demands of the knowledge society. Santiago, Chile: Ministry of Education. Ávalos, B. (2010). Educational change in Chile: Reform or improvements? (1990– 2007). In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 383–396). New York, NY: Springer. Ávalos, B. (2014). La formación inicial docente en Chile: Tensiones entre políticas de apoyo y control. Estudios Pedagógicos, 49(Special issue 1), 11–28. Ball, S. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2008). Cómo hicieron los sistemas educativos con mejor desempeño del mundo para alcanzar sus objetivos. Retrieved from www. oei.es/pdfs/documento_preal41.pdf Britzman, D. P. (1995). The question of belief: Writing poststructural ethnography. Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(3), 229–238. Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. (Eds.) (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Cavieres, E. (2011). The class and culture-based exclusion of the Chilean neoliberal educational reform. Educational Studies, 47, 111–132. Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (2013). The politics of accountability: Assessing teacher education in the United States. The Educational Forum, 77(1), 6–27, doi:10.1080/00131725.2013.739015 Consejo Asesor Presidencial para la Calidad de la Educación. (2006). Informe final de consejo asesor presidencial para la calidad de la educación [Final report of the presidential committee on educational quality]. Retrieved October 20, 2009 from http://www.consejoeducacion.cl/articulos/Informefinal.pdf. Conway, P. F. (2013). Cultural flashpoint: The politics of teacher education reform in Ireland. Educational Forum, 77(1), 51–72. Cornejo, R., & Reyes, L. (2008). La cuestión docente: Chile, experiencias organizacionales y acción colectiva de profesores. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Foro Latinoamericano de Políticas Educativas—FLAPE. Cox, C., Meckes, L., & Bascopé, M. (2010). La institucionalidad formadora de profesores en Chile en la década del 2000: Velocidad del mercado y parsimonia de las políticas. Pensamiento Educativo, 46(1), 205–245. Earley, P. M. (2000). Finding the culprit: Federal policy and teacher education. Educational Policy, 14(1), 25–40. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. Fernández, M. B. (2016). Framing teacher education in Chile: Negotiating local, national, and international discourses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT). (10109275). Furlong, J. (2013). Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the reform of teacher education in England. Educational Forum, 77(1), 28–50.

98  Andrea Lira and M. Beatriz Fernández Inzunza, J., Assaél, J., & Scherping, G. (2011). Formación docente inicial y en servicio en Chile. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 16(48), 267–292. McEwan, H. (1997). The functions of narrative and research on teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(1), 85–92. MINEDUC. (2011). Estándares orientadores para egresados de carreras de pedagogía en educación básica: Estándares pedagógicos y disciplinarios. Santiago, Chile: MINEDUC. MINEDUC. (2012a, April 23). Aprueba formato de bases tipo administrativas y técnicas y de convenios tipo para concurso de convenios de desempeño en formación inicial de profesores, innovación académica y fortalecimiento técnico profesional (Resolution No.0214). Retrieved from www.contraloria.cl/NewPortal2/ portal2/ShowProperty/BEA%20Repository/Portal/Destacados/Bases_Aprobadas/ Juridica/Res_214.PDF MINEDUC. (2012b). Guía de postulación convocatoria convenios de desempeño 2012 ámbito: formación inicial de profesores. Retrieved from www.mecesup. cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/preguntasCD/Guia_formulario_Postulacion_CD_ FIP.pdf MINEDUC. (2012c). Guía de postulación convocatoria convenios de desempeño 2012 ámbito: formación inicial de profesores. Retrieved from http://www.mecesup. cl/usuarios/MECESUP/File/preguntasCD/Guia_formulario_Postulacion_CD_FIP. pdf MINEDUC. (2012). Seminario difusión de políticas de formación inicial docente. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://www.cpeip.cl/usuarios/cpeip/File/2012% 20ppt%20sandra/VAC%20Seminario%20Antofag.pdf MINEDUC. (2013). Antecedentes de las pruebas inicia. Retrieved from http://www. evaluacioninicia.cl/usuarios/einicia/File/Mas%20antecedentes%20Pruebas%20 Inicia/Mas%20antecedentes%20Prueba%20Inicia.pdf Ministerio DE Educación (2011). Estándares orientadores para egresados de carreras de pedagogía en educación básica: Estándares pedagógicos y disciplinarios. Santiago de Chile: MINEDUC Montecinos, C. (2014). Análisis crítico de las medidas de presión propuestas para mejorar la formación inicial de docentes en Chile por el panel de expertos para una educación de calidad. Estudios Pedagógicos, 49(Special issue 1), 285–301. Oliver, P., & Johnston, H. (2000). What a good idea! Frames and ideologies in social movement research. Retrieved from www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/PROTESTS/ ArticleCopies/Frames.2.29.00.pdf Pastrana, J. P. (2007). Subtle tortures of the neo-liberal age: Teachers, students, and the political economy of schooling in Chile. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2), 25. Pastrana, J. P. (2010). Terminating the teaching profession: Neoliberal reform, resistance and the assault on teachers in Chile. Workplace, 17, 14–31. Pillow, W. (2003). ‘Bodies are dangerous’: Using feminist genealogy as policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 145–159. Rein, M., & Schön, D. (1996). Frame-critical policy analysis and frame-reflective policy practice. Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 9(1), 85–104. Revista Docencia. (2009). Conversación con académicos de formación inicial, Prueba INICIA: Análisis crítico y contrapropuestas de políticas. Docencia, 38, 80–96.

Complicating the Narrative  99 Revista Docencia. (2011). Los estudiantes de pedagogía frente al contexto actual de la formación inicial docente. Docencia, 43, 62–75. Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2009). Re-reading education policies. Re-Reading Education Policies, 36. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1(1), 197–219. Stephens, P., Tønnessen, F. E., & Kyriacou, C. (2004). Teacher training and teacher education in England and Norway: A comparative study of policy goals. Comparative Education, 40(1), 109–130. Stone, D. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: Norton. Torche, F. (2005). Privatization reform and inequality of education opportunity: The case of Chile. Sociology of Education, 78, 316–343. Turner, B. S. (1984). The body and society (Vol. 24). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C., & De los Ríos, D. (2010). Segregación escolar en Chile. In S. Martinic & G. Elacqua (Eds.), ¿Fin de ciclo? Cambios en la gobernanza del sistema educativo (pp. 209–229). Facultad de Educación de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile y la Oficina Regional para América Latina de UNESCO. Santiago, Chile: Ministry of Education.

7 Schoolteachers’ Professionalism and Teacher Training in Japan From “Teaching Specialists” to “Learning Professionals” Yuto Kitamura, Takayo Ogisu, and Eri Yamazaki Introduction School education in Japan has been recognized internationally for its high quality for several decades. Japanese elementary and secondary school students have continued to demonstrate high scores on standardized international test such as IEA’s (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Western countries focused their close attention on school education in Japan from the 1980s to the 1990s, in stark contrast with the critical reexamination that Western governments and specialists made of the quality of the school systems in their countries during the same period (e.g., Stevenson & Stigler, 1994). Japanese schools have, on their part, undergone some politically inclined reforms. In the mid-1980s, the influence of neoliberalism began to manifest itself in Japan, as in many advanced countries, orienting the country’s educational policy and reform. At the same time, neoconservative ideological trends have also persisted. In the mid-2000s, the educational reform that took place under the conservative government brought about, if not to say imposed, some significant changes inspired by conservative ideology. The reform even targeted the core of the country’s educational system, as symbolized by the revision of the Basic Act on Education in 2006. In view of this evolution in Japan’s school education, we will elucidate two matters in this chapter. First, we will try to discern how the teaching profession has been perceived in Japan and what kind of teacher training has been considered necessary as a result. We will do this while reviewing Japan’s history of educational reforms since the mid-1980s and keeping in mind, in particular, the introduction of the postgraduate teacher training system in the mid-2000s for the purpose of upgrading the quality of schoolteachers as professionals. Second, we will look at how Japanese schoolteachers are now exercising their agency in professionalizing teaching by contemplating and

Teacher Training in Japan  101 acting on the notion of manabi no kyodotai (or school as learning community), which necessitates, among other things, the transformation of schoolteachers from “teaching specialists” into “learning professionals.” To examine these points, we will analyze how the government-led educational reform and globalization have influenced the general perception of the teaching profession and teacher training, ideas held by schoolteachers who actually work in real-life classrooms and how they have translated changes in their ideas into their educational practice. In this analysis, we will mainly refer to discussions that have taken place in the field of critical pedagogy.

1. Perception of the Teaching Profession Teachers constitute one of the pillars that support the excellence of Japanese school education, as stated by OECD: “Surely one of the most important keys to the quality of education in Japan is the quality of its teachers” (OECD, 2010, p. 144). In the background to this is the general view that developed in the process of Japan’s modernization from the mid-19th century: the teaching profession has been perceived as a socially prestigious occupation to be engaged in by superior individuals from the upper socioeconomic strata of society, whereas in many advanced countries schoolteachers have been positioned between highly qualified professionals and blue-collar workers (OECD, 2010). This Japanese view of the teaching profession remained unquestioned until the mid-20th century. In the beginning of the 1970s, as Japan achieved high economic growth and diverse, well-paid jobs emerged in society, uncertainties arose as to whether the teaching profession would be able to maintain its social prestige as it had done until then. Consequently, 1974 saw the enactment of the Act on Special Measures Concerning Assurance of Educational Personnel for Compulsory Education Schools for the Purpose of Maintenance and Improvement of School Education Standards. This law raised the initial salaries of elementary and secondary (compulsory) schoolteachers to a level about 15% higher than that of general government employees, thereby stemming the trend of well-qualified people seeking employment in areas other than the teaching profession (Monbusho, 1992). At the same time, demand for more schoolteachers grew in the mid-1970s, as the percentage of junior high school students going on to senior high school surpassed 90%. Up to the present, schoolteachers have continued to enjoy a relatively more stable situations and greater job security than people in other occupations, especially in the private sector, which is more vulnerable to the economic climate. In more recent years, the environment surrounding Japanese schoolteachers has been changing considerably against a backdrop of the country’s longdrawn economic recession, which has deteriorated the nation’s finances and, combined with the influence of neoliberal policy measures, reduced public

102  Yuto Kitamura et al. funds for education. The shrinkage of the school-age population, leading to the closure of schools, has also affected the school teaching environment. Under these circumstances, general ideas about the teaching profession and teacher training have changed, and we will examine this in detail in the subsequent section. In this section, let us take up some essential questions that must be addressed with regard to the teaching profession in the context of the Japanese school education system by looking back on the major events and debates that have significant influence on how the teaching profession is currently perceived in Japanese society. After the end of the war, the General Headquarters/Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP) promoted the democratization of Japan’s school education. The U.S. Education Mission on Japan, which came to Japan twice in 1946 and 1950 at the request of GHQ/SCAP, put together reports that determined the basic orientation of Japan’s postwar educational reform. The first report in particular advocated the establishment of an American-style democratic educational system, leading to the massive reorganization of education-related administrative bodies and curricular contents. The new Constitution of Japan included an article on education, as recommended by the report, setting out the basic national educational policy and resulting in the promulgation of the Basic Act on Education in 1947. As one of the numerous reforms implemented then in the school education system, teacher training was upgraded from teacher training colleges to universities to improve teacher competences. New systems such as the board of education and the parent-teacher association (PTA) were introduced that emphasized the practice and improvement of school education through cooperation between teachers and other stakeholders in and outside school. These institutional reforms were all geared toward the objective of democratizing school education. The democratization of school education has since been sustained as a fundamental characteristic of Japan’s postwar school education. At the same time, it should be noted that it is over the question of democratization that strong antagonism emerged and persisted between teachers as direct actors in the classroom and education-related government authorities. After World War II, the newly formed Japanese government, principally the Ministry of Education, promoted the democratization of school education under the supervision of GHQ/SCAP. However, around the time of the effectuation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which caused Japan to regain its independence in 1952, a conservative backlash occurred in the area of education, as symbolized by the return of the Japanese national flag and national anthem in the school environment and moral education in school curricula. Amid this trend toward conservatism in education, the Japan Teachers Union (JTU), founded in 1947 as a labor union for teachers and school personnel, grew fiercely confrontational toward the Ministry of Education. The confrontation between the JTU and the Ministry of Education was most symbolically illustrated by the incident concerning schoolteachers’

Teacher Training in Japan  103 performance evaluations. In 1956, the Board of Education of Ehime Prefecture (its five members had been appointed by the prefectural governor strongly linked to the Liberal Democratic Party [LDP]) ordered the municipal boards of education within the prefecture to evaluate the work performance of the elementary and junior high school teachers in their jurisdictions. The hidden objective behind this move was suspected to be giving low grades to teachers opposed to the LDP policy and teachers belonging to the JTU, which was closely associated with the Japan Socialist Party and so opposed to the LDP, to make these progressive teachers less influential in schools. In response, the JTU made a clear stand against the performance evaluation system, arguing that it would (1) oppress the teachers’ union activities and reinforce political control over education, (2) conflict with the nature of the teaching profession, and (3) not lead to higher efficacy of education, for which aim educational facilities should be improved before teachers could be evaluated. In 1957, the Ministry of Education noted Ehime Prefecture’s move positively and decided to introduce teacher performance evaluation on a nationwide basis. This further intensified the confrontation between the JTU and the Ministry of Education. In 1958, JTU teachers went on strike nationwide and were later dismissed by the Ministry of Education. Eventually, teachers themselves wanted to bring an end to the confusion that persisted in schools and accepted the performance evaluation system on condition that the evaluation results would not be reflected in the teachers’ remuneration and promotion (Post-war Japan’s Educational Document Compilation and Editing Committee, 1983). The antagonism that emerged between the JTU and the Ministry of Education in the 1950s continued until the mid-1990s. The JTU then adopted a collaborative stance vis-à-vis the Ministry of Education, mainly due to the political situation in which the Japan Socialist Party introduced a change of policy and came to power in a coalition government in 1994. There has since been no clearly ideologically motivated confrontation between schoolteachers and education-related governmental bodies. This absence of any ideological confrontation resulted in an important fact concerning teachers coming to the surface; the fact that in postwar Japanese school education, teachers and educational administrators had not formed any clear consensus on how the nature of teachers’ work should be understood. In fact, in this regard, we believe that there are two questions that should have been thoroughly discussed at the time of the previously described controversy over performance evaluation for schoolteachers in the late 1950s, but this did not happen. (Active debates on the questions did not begin until the mid-1980s, as we will discuss later.) The two questions respectively concern schoolteachers’ union activities, which the opponents of the performance evaluation system cited as the first reason, and the nature of the teaching profession itself, relating to the second reason. The first question asks whether schoolteachers are workers like

104  Yuto Kitamura et al. any others or special persons dedicated to a sacred vocation. This question derives from the sociocultural background in which the perception of teachers has evolved in Japan: as the country’s school education underwent modernization from the second half of the 19th century, schoolteachers came to be viewed as exemplary individuals with high morals who were dedicated to their calling, as mentioned in the beginning of this section. Yet, as education has become increasingly popularized, with universal elementary education almost fully achieved by the beginning of the 20th century and secondary school education practically universal by the mid-1970s, the teaching profession has lost its special place in society, and schoolteachers have begun to be viewed as workers, and the importance of protecting the rights of teachers as workers has come into the spotlight. This new perception of the teaching profession has been further intensified by the postwar democratization of school education and the foundation of the JTU. Along with the question of how to position the teaching profession in society, it is important to examine its specific nature. During the controversy over teacher performance evaluation, teachers raised their voices in opposition, claiming that it was difficult to measure the effects of education, which would only become evident in the long run, and that therefore the quality of teachers’ work could not be adequately evaluated. In addition to this, school principals, who were supposed to evaluate their teachers, could not accurately determine teachers’ actual classroom work because these teachers spent far more time with their pupils. These opinions express some specificities of teachers’ work. At the same time, they also seem to suggest a reluctance on the part of teachers to put their educational activities out in the open, concealing them instead in their closed universe and avoiding objective evaluation of their work. These questions concerning the teaching profession must be answered before answering another question: how teacher training should be conducted. Active debates on this question only began in the mid-1980s. Until then, sufficient attention had not been focused on how teachers should be perceived in society and how they should be trained, sidetracked by other issues such as the increasing demand for teachers and the effects of the 1974 Act on Special Measures Concerning Assurance of Educational Personnel for Compulsory Education Schools. Since the mid-1980s, the Ministry of Education, through its council deliberations, has produced a succession of proposals and reports concerning teacher training and the professional nature of schoolteachers. These were then followed by various reform measures. On the subject of teacher training, six governmental council reports were published between 1997 and 2008,1 indicating a surge of interest in the teaching profession and how it should be. Particularly noteworthy among the reform measures concerning teacher training are the establishment of postgraduate teacher training programs in universities and the introduction of a teacher’s license renewal system.

Teacher Training in Japan  105 A teacher training graduate school is a professional graduate school dedicated to training highly qualified teachers. It is principally designed to produce young teachers with high levels of knowledge and skills, practical teaching ability, and resourcefulness and to upgrade experienced active teachers as “school leaders,” that is, teachers of middle standing capable of serving as leaders in their respective schools (MEXT, 2016). The establishment of teacher training graduate schools was proposed in the 2006 report by the Central Council of Education, “About Teacher Training and the Teacher’s License System in the Future,” as a concrete educational reform measure. In 2007, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) issued a related ministerial ordinance leading to the revision of the national standards for the establishment of professional graduate schools. This in turn determined specific matters regarding postgraduate teacher training programs such as requirements for the acquisition of academic degrees, curricular contents, and conditions for the appointment of experts in various fields as university instructors. In 2008, the first teacher training graduate schools were established. The teacher’s license renewal system was introduced in April 2009, after the revised Teachers License Act came into force. Under this system, every 10 years of teaching in school, all active teachers are required to undergo a total of 30 hours of renewal training2 and pass an examination to have their licenses renewed. The policy measures that eventually led to the license renewal system began in 2003 with the introduction of a required training system for active teachers every 10 years. This system was intended to set a limited period of validity for teacher’s licenses and provide periodic training to teachers and review the legitimacy of their qualification, especially those who had had problems with conduct or whose aptitude for the teaching profession had become questionable, against a background of an increasing number of cases involving problematic teachers.3 In 2006, when the Central Council of Education issued the report titled “About Teacher Training and the Teacher’s License System in the Future,” giving rise anew to discussions on the license renewal system, its objective changed from what had initially been intended. The proponents of measures relating to the renewal of teachers’ licenses then cited the necessity for periodic renewal of teachers’ knowledge and skills, not periodic review of their aptitude as before, reflecting a then growing outcry over the declining academic performance of Japanese pupils. Debate over the teacher’s license renewal system initially began in the 1990s, but the purpose of the system changed over the years from detecting unfit teachers to improving teachers’ expertise. Sakuma (2010) argues that the reform measures relating to teacher training during and after the 1990s have been influenced by the principles of a market economy, pointing to two causal factors. First, the collaborative relationship between universities or university departments offering teacher training and the boards of education has become collusive, emasculating the

106  Yuto Kitamura et al. teacher training curricula and rendering them less academically rigorous. Second, the teacher’s license renewal system, deregulated in some aspects in the 1990s, was re-regulated in the 2000s, advancing the standardization of teacher training curricula. Sakuma criticizes the teacher training programs for their “transformation from institutions developing and training students to become future teachers to organized suppliers of teachers that fulfill the schemes and needs of the national or regional governments” (Sakuma, 2010, p. 98, emphasis added).

2. Debates Over the Nature of the Teaching Profession As stated, it is essential to look back on the debate that took place on the teaching profession to contemplate how teacher training should be conducted today. Throughout Japan’s postwar history of educational reform, one topic has consistently been discussed—that is, how to train excellent teachers—and much effort has been invested to tackle this challenge (Yufu, 2009). Deliberations by the National Council on Education Reform, an ad hoc advisory organization established in 1984 under the Ministry of Education, can be considered as the first series of discussions on the nature of the teaching profession that are on a continuum with the present-day talks. The National Council on Education Reform deliberated on whether schoolteachers should be defined as high-level professionals, failing, however, to arrive at a clear conclusion. Despite the absence of a clear conclusion, discussions have continued in Japan on the nature of teachers’ work, leaning toward the positioning of teachers as high-level professionals with specialized competences. For example, the report presented by the Council for Teacher Training of the Ministry of Education in 1997 emphasized the importance of distinguishing the qualities and abilities that are required of teachers at all times from those that are becoming important now and into the future, particularly from the standpoint of instilling in pupils ‘a zest for living’ in this rapidly changing era The report cites, as the first type of qualities and abilities, a sense of duty as an educator, a deep understanding of human growth and development, educational affection toward pupils and students, specialized knowledge about their school subjects, broad and rich cultural knowledge, and practical teaching ability founded on the above. And, as the second type of qualities and abilities, it is “those for taking action from a global perspective, those required of responsible adults working and living in an ever-changing period, and those inevitably required for the fulfillment of teachers’ duties.” Furthermore, the report casts doubt on

Teacher Training in Japan  107 the standardized image of teachers, stating that they must develop as richly original individuals with diverse strengths: “[i]t is essential for teachers to actively explore their respective strengths and develop their originalities” (Monbusho, 1997). The discourse that advocates the professional standing of teachers became even more vocal in the 2000s. The 2005 report by the Central Council for Education titled “Structural Reform of Compulsory Education” emphasized the importance of the “training of reliable, high-quality teachers.” To this end, the report indicated the necessity for “policy measures to train and retain teachers who excel both in quantitative and qualitative terms,” proposing a range of measures. These concerned (1) the solid improvement and enrichment of undergraduate teacher training, (2) the active use of postgraduate teacher training programs, (3) the introduction of a ­teacher’s license renewal system, (4) improvement and modification of the mode and process of teacher recruitment and improvement in continued training for active teachers, (5) improvement and modification in the evaluation of teachers, including the introduction of a “Super Teacher” status (professional grade given to teachers recognized as having a superior level of expertise), and (6) the appointment of individuals from diverse backgrounds, such as retirees and members of the business community, as teachers and appointment from the private sector to the posts of school principals and vice principals (MEXT, 2005). Some of these measures were inspired by the idea of privatization, suggestive of the influence of neoliberalism, as in the measures promoting the use of private-sector human resources, and the concept of the market economy, as in the measures for the diversification of teachers’ status and performance evaluation (the orientation of the educational reform proposed by the National Council on Education Reform in 1984 as embodied by deregulation, liberalization, and decentralization was consistently maintained up to the 2000s) (Kano, 2010). In the background to this 2005 report was the changing image of teachers in Japanese society, who were then expected to be “specialists in lessons” with more practical teaching ability. This meant that “being a professional” was generally understood to mean “being a specialist” as teachers were charged with the task of instructing pupils in how to learn to fully demonstrate their potential in the increasingly knowledge-oriented society. In other words, of the two aspects of the teaching profession, that is, professionalism and professionality, greater importance was accorded to the latter. It should be noted that in this context the term “professionality” concerns certain levels of knowledge and skills possessed by teacher, and not their competence. The image of teachers defined by their specialized knowledge and skills trivializes the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the teaching profession, enabling the government to control teachers’ professionality. The new image of teachers continued to be intensified in political discourses. In 2012, the ruling LDP’s Operational Headquarters for Rebuilding Education proposed in its interim report the revision of the Special Act

108  Yuto Kitamura et al. for Education Personnel as an “educational reform to secure the quality of school teachers.” More specifically, to clarify the positioning of teachers as “members of public organizations,” the report proposed the following: (1) defining education personnel (teachers as government employees engaged in education) as “education professionals,” (2) establishing clear working regulations for teachers and “Ethical Rules for Education Personnel” (provisional title), (3) punishment for teachers who violate the restrictions on political activities in conformity with the applicable rules and regulations, and (4) the institution of performance evaluation for teachers, which should be conducted appropriately by board of education directors and school principals as a duty. Sato and Katsuno (2013) explain this proposal as “forbidding teachers, who are ‘education professionals,’ to object to instructions and orders from above [higher echelons of education authorities]” (p. 56). The researchers thus criticize the design of the proposal as curtailing teachers’ independence and making them “specialists in lessons” who simply transmit the knowledge and skills that the government want students to acquire. Sato and Katsuno (2013) further point out: Historically, the word “profession” has often been used as a pretext for political control, and not for the establishment of teachers’ ethics centering on their responsibilities vis-à-vis students and their parents, the ownership of high-level specialized knowledge and skills, or the assurance of teachers’ autonomy as professionals. . . . Like the traditional Japanese view of teachers as morally superior persons dedicated to a sacred vocation, the view of teachers as “education professionals” promoted by the Abe administration is the rhetoric used to turn school teachers into agents of state power, rather than professionals in the true sense of the term who fulfill their responsibilities in their interaction with students and parents. (p. 56) Sato and Katsuno criticize in fact the situation in which teachers have been reduced to being service providers, with their responsibility, that is, their responsiveness to students, replaced by accountability for numerical targets. In such a situation, many teachers have lost their professional autonomy, which is quite problematic. We feel compelled to ask whether it is really possible in such a situation to train teachers who are equipped with superior qualities and abilities and who are “richly original individuals with diverse strengths.” Furthermore, the loss of teachers’ professional autonomy manifested in these debates on the subject of the teaching profession is evident also in the environment surrounding schoolteachers in today’s Japan. In schools, in addition to their regular lessons, teachers are increasingly heavily burdened with other peripheral duties such as the supervision of students’ extracurricular activities, student guidance, and administrative tasks

Teacher Training in Japan  109 in and outside school. These duties leave teachers little time or mental and physical leeway to work on themselves as professionals. This environmental change gradually began to be recognized as a problem by the general public around 2000, with images and episodes of “exhausted teachers” appearing in the media (Asahi Shimbun Education Team, 2011; Yufu, 2009). In the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), Japanese teachers’ long working hours stand out as compared to their counterparts in other countries. The survey points out that their severe working conditions have become chronic (OECD, 2014). Sato and Katsuno (2013) evaluate this problematic situation as follows: Teachers’ excessive busyness deprives them of the time needed to work on teaching materials, carry out lesson study, and interact with pupils to better understand them. Consequently, conscientious and enthusiastic teachers who put in long hours lose confidence in their work, which they find less and less rewarding. Teachers feeling anxious over their insufficient lesson study and preparatory work on teaching materials end up resorting to ready-made lesson plans and instruction methods. This means an erosion of the foundation of the practice-based insight and ability that supports reflection and highly intellectual decision making required in the complex situation of actual lessons; in other words, the decay of the foundation of teachers’ professional autonomy. (p. 58) Surveying the debates on the teaching profession, we notice that a series of reforms influenced by neoliberal and neoconservative ideological trends have transformed the role of teachers (Sato, 2012). It can be said that this movement has de-professionalized teachers instead of ensuring them a status as professionals in the true sense of the term (Maruyama, 2006). Furthermore, the numerical targets imposed on teachers from outside do not take into consideration pupils who confront ever diverse problems, such as immigrant children, those from lower-income households—one in every six children in Japan lives below the relative poverty line—those with disabilities, and those with variant sexual orientations or gender identities. Yet, in schools that have large numbers of such pupils, the teachers are expected to play a major role in assuring their well-being, even before teaching subject contents. Inevitably, teachers are obliged to work long hours under extreme physical and mental pressure, which do not leave them enough time for their professional learning. They may receive “assistance” from governmental bodies that are often administrative instructions whose direct effect is further alienation of teachers. Teachers thus must fail not only to guarantee their pupils’ right to learn but also to protect their own autonomy for professional growth. The strain resulting from neoliberal and neoconservative educational reforms has been passed on to teachers working in schools with difficulties.

110  Yuto Kitamura et al.

3.  Manabi No Kyodotai: Resistance From Classrooms As discussed, Japanese schoolteachers have been engulfed in the waves of educational reform against the background of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and globalization with accompanying diversification in society. Teachers have thus far struggled to accommodate themselves to each new national education policy as it replaces the older one, finding themselves in unfamiliar situations. During the 1980s, when Japan’s economy declined and neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies gained in power, more pupils with problems seem to be identified, with increasingly frequent occurrences of violence, aggressive or disruptive conduct, truancy, and other problems keeping pupils away from learning. In more recent years, challenges in school have been diversifying, as attested by an increase in the number of pupils of foreign origin not possessing Japanese as their mother tongue and those diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other developmental disorders. In such a situation, teachers are the first target of society’s criticism, although they are not given sufficient assistance. They are expected to solve all sorts of problems because they are regarded as “teaching specialists”—such opportunistic logic has often been applied without question. Nevertheless, these reforms have “also opened up spaces for the rebirth of critically democratic movements around education” even under strong central control over teachers (Apple, 2010, p. 3). Some are striving to fulfill their responsibilities as professionals to protect their pupils’ right to learn. One example of resistance by such teachers is found in school reform based on the notion of manabi no kyodotai (or school as learning community). A learning community evolves based on the formation of collegiality among teachers who support one another to grow together. Teachers also possess the initiative to professionalize teaching and transform themselves from “teaching specialists” into “learning professionals” by reconstructing a school as a place where teachers can learn and develop together. This is premised on the belief that only when teachers themselves are guaranteed opportunities to grow professionally can they fulfill their professional responsibilities to ensure pupils’ right to learn and thus contribute to preparing a democratic society (Sato, 2006). The vision of a school as a learning community originates from the Laboratory School established and run by John Dewey at the University of Chicago. In Japan, the education researcher Manabu Sato first introduced the concept in 1992 by presenting the case of school reform at Ojiya Elementary School in Ojiya City, Niigata Prefecture. The concept of the learning community then became gradually known in the country. In 1998, Hamanago Elementary School in Chigasaki City, Kanagawa Prefecture, was established as a pilot school based on the concept of a learning community, triggering an explosive spread of school as learning community movement across Japan. By 2012, some 1,500 elementary schools, 2,000 junior high schools,

Teacher Training in Japan  111 and 200 senior high schools in Japan had adopted the notion of the learning community for their school reform. Manabi no kyodotai as advocated by Sato is a comprehensive notion with a vision of a 21st-century-type school, reform principles, and an activity system that enables the reform. The vision aims at redefining a school as a learning community, that is, a place where pupils, teachers as professionals, and parents and local residents learn and grow together, forming a community. Such a school is founded on three philosophical principles: public philosophy, in which school education is defined as an operation to ensure every single pupil’s right to learn and to attain its ultimate purpose of realizing a democratic society; democracy as “a way of associated living” as defined by Dewey; and authentic excellence, in the sense that all community members do their best in pursuit of the highest possible goals. A school as a learning community, founded on the relationship of care in which people carefully listen to each other, has an activity system on three pillars: (1) collaborative learning in classrooms, (2) collegiality in school administration, and (3) participation by parents and local residents in learning. All these factors contribute to realizing the vision of a learning community. To build a learning community, the construction of collegiality among teachers is particularly important in that it makes it possible for teachers to fully develop as professionals. To construct collegiality, teachers, with support from the school principal, and parents, should share the responsibility for pupils’ as well as their own learning, thereby breaking through the walls of classroom and boundaries of subjects that had isolated teachers from one another. By putting learning at the core of all school activities, every teacher, regardless of age and experience, can learn and grow together as professionals. In this manner, teachers’ collaborative learning becomes possible, and their roles shift from teaching specialists to learning professionals. Teachers must be assured their right to learn as professionals for them to play “a positive and dynamic political role” (Giroux, 1988). As discussed so far, school reform through the formation of a learning community has developed as a resistance to neoliberalism (Sato, 2012). This is evident in the way the vision of learning communities has gained strong momentum, particularly among teachers working in schools with large numbers of pupils with diverse difficulties. As the principal advocate of learning communities, Sato (2012) explains these vulnerable teachers see the vision of learning communities as a vision of hope that possibly leads societal reform and even a cultural revolution. In this spontaneous movement, teachers aim to regain their responsibility for pupils’ right to learn and their own status as learning professionals by reconstructing schools from within.

Conclusion: From the Perspective of Critical Pedagogy In this chapter, we have surveyed how the teaching profession has been perceived in Japanese society and how teacher training has evolved, especially

112  Yuto Kitamura et al. through the educational reforms since the 1980s. We have discussed how teacher training has changed along with changes in the institutional positioning of the teaching profession and teachers’ working conditions. We have also examined how teachers are attempting to enhance the professional nature of their work in actual schools through the innovative enterprise of learning community formation. The practice of learning communities mentioned in this chapter reminds us of remarks by Michael W. Apple stating that the goal of “democratic attempts at enhancing people’s rights over the policies and practices of schooling” is “to extend politics” (Apple, 1993, p. 229). Apple explains that the practice of democratic school education makes it possible to minimize inequalities among people and create a more democratic society. What is essential on the way to achieving these goals is not radical reform involving fundamental changes to social institutions, although a critical attitude toward neoliberalism and neoconservatism should not be abandoned. What is essential is promoting attainable democratic reform through active use of resources that are already available in the existing school system. This is what is being done in Japanese schools working on their learning community projects. Apple (1989) once pointed to the trend for some teachers to become mere technicians, spurred on by the spread of prepackaged teaching materials and curricular content, criticizing teachers’ transformation into laborers. It was against such a background that he emphasized the importance of promoting democratic reform in school education. It is important, he says, to ask questions at all times (Apple, 1999): for example, who owns the knowledge contained in school textbooks? Who benefits or suffers a loss when it is taught in school? Apple and Beane (2007) point out that knowledge is closely linked with communities and biographies and that reviewing knowledge can change one’s ability to understand the community in which one lives and take action and work in that community. Teachers are required to become reflective professionals capable of asking these questions to their students and themselves. Therefore, teachers becoming “learning professionals” through the creation of a learning community means that they also become “reflective professionals.” Let us further develop this view with the words of Henry A. Giroux. He argues that teachers have “a positive and dynamic political role to play” in society as intellectuals (Giroux, 1988). He defines school as a place of “cultural struggle” to train citizens with a critical mind, emphasizing that teachers are “transformative public intellectuals.” In their capacity as such, teachers must attentively listen to minority voices and respect diversity. Such teachers’ work allows students to understand the question of power, as in the question about who controls the production of knowledge in society, acquire a sense of social responsibility and social justice, and actively engage in the construction of a more democratic society instead of uncritically resigning themselves to society’s current situation (Giroux, 2011).

Teacher Training in Japan  113 As we have examined in this chapter, how teachers should be and should work is being questioned in Japanese society today, while new images of teachers appear. Through the educational reforms in recent years, Japanese teachers have been required to serve as “teaching specialists” who onesidedly transmit knowledge and skills. Some teachers actually working in school, however, endeavor to be “learning professionals,” reflective professionals, and transformative public intellectuals. Their experiences suggests the essential importance of further examining how teacher training should be conducted in the future so that teachers will be “learning professionals” who learn themselves as they empower pupils to learn, and are not mere transporters of knowledge, and how to secure an environment in schools that enables teachers to continue growing as professionals.

Notes 1 The six reports issued by the Council for Teacher Training of the Ministry of Education are as follows: The First Report “Policy Measures for Improving Teacher Training for a New Era” (1997), The Second Report “Teacher Training Through Active Use of Master’s Programs” (1998), The Third Report “For Smoother Coordination of Teacher Training, Recruitment, and Post-Hire Training” (1999), the 2002 Central Council for Education Reports “About the Teacher’s License System in the Future,” “Creating Compulsory Education for a New Era” (2005), and “About Teacher Training and the Teacher’s License System in the Future” (2008). 2 Training is provided by certified teacher training universities. 3 The establishment of this system was partly triggered by the growing trend in “teacher bashing” in the 1990s. In those days, various problems in schools, such as corporal punishment by teachers and confrontation between teachers and parents, came to receive extensive media coverage, and teachers were often severely criticized. The dominant opinion in society questioned the legitimacy of the lifelong validity of the teachers’ license, especially for teachers whose aptitude for the teaching profession was deemed questionable. Partly due to excessive and often sensational media coverage of problematic teachers who in fact represented a fraction of the total teaching population in all of Japan, social commentators and political leaders pressed for concrete action in response. In 2000, the National Commission on Education Reform stated in its final report that the possible introduction of a license renewal system should be considered, setting in motion a fullfledged review of the teacher’s license system in its entirety (Imazu, 2009).

References Apple, M. W. (1989). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95(2), 222–241. Apple, M. W. (1999). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2010). Global crises, social justice, and education. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

114  Yuto Kitamura et al. Asahi Shimbun Kyoiku Chiimu [Asahi Shimbun Education Team]. (2011). Ima sensei wa [How teachers are doing today]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey Publishers. Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Continuum. Imazu, K. (2009). Kyoin menkyo koshinsei o tou [Questioning the teacher’s license renewal system]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kano, Y. (2010). The advance of neo-liberalism and marketization and the transformation of the teaching profession. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 86, 5–22. Maruyama, K. (2006). Nihon ni okeru kyoshi no ‘datsusenmonshokuka’ katei ni kansuru ichi kosatsu: 80-nendai iko no kyoin seisaku no henyo to kyoinshudan no taio o chushin ni [An observation of the process of ‘de-professionalization’ of school teachers in Japan—mainly on change in the teacher training policy and responses by the teacher community in and after the 1980s]. Annual Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University, 55(1), 181–196. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [MEXT]. (2016). Overview of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. Tokyo: MEXT. Monbukagakusho [Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)]. (2005). Gimu kyoiku no kozo kaikaku: Chuo Kyoiku Shingikai toshin no gaiyo [Structural reform of compulsory education: an outline of the Central Council for Education report]. Tokyo: MEXT. Monbusho [Ministry of Education]. (1992). Gakusei hyakunijunen shi [A 120-year history of the school education system]. Tokyo: Monbusho. Monbusho [Ministry of Education]. (1997). Aratana jidai ni muketa kyoin yosei no kaizen housaku ni tsuite [Policy measures for improving teacher training for a new era] (Council for Teacher Training First Report). Tokyo: Monbusho. OECD. (2010). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2014). New insights from TALIS 2013: Teaching and learning in primary and upper secondary education. Paris: OECD. Sakuma, A. (2010). Reform of teacher preparation programs since 1990 in Japan: Marketization and re-regulation. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 86, 97–112. Sato, M. (2006). Gakko no chosen—manabi no kyodotai o tsukuru [School’s ­challenge—creating a learning community]. Tokyo: Shogakkan. Sato, M. (2012). Gakko kaikaku no tetsugaku [Philosophy of school reform]. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. Sato, M. & Katsuno, M. (2013). Abe seiken de kyoiku wa do kawaru ka. Iwanami booklet 874. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Sengo Nihon Kyoiku Shiryo Shusei-henshu Iinkai [Post-war Japan’s Educational Document Compilation and Editing Committee]. (Ed.) (1983). Sengo nihon kyoiku shiryo shusei (dai 6-kan): kinmu hyotei to kyoshi [A collection of documents on Japan’s post-war history of education (vol. 6): work performance evaluation and teachers]. Tokyo: San-ichi Shobo. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1994). Learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Yufu, S. (Ed.) (2009). Kyoshi toiu shigoto [The teaching profession] (Readings in Japan’s Education and Society Vol. 15). Tokyo: Nihon Tosho Center.

8 The Aseem Community-Based Teacher Training Model A Response to India’s Failed National Teacher Education Policies Rita Verma Within the past 25 years in India there remains a sense of urgency to educate its young citizenry as well as to improve teacher education to meet the needs of the elite as well as urban poor. Attempts at developing national policies to improve teacher education institutions have been met with lackluster implementation and great variance among them. Teacher education in India continues to face disparities in quality, outcomes, and innovation. Cultural attitudes and discrimination against India’s neediest populations can also be understood as factors that lead to social exclusion and the reproduction of oppressive social mores in the classroom. Teacher training tends to be implemented on a theory-based approach to pedagogy, therefore leading to poor outcomes in the classroom and student engagement. Teacher education programs exist in isolated form, and a major problem facing teacher education programs in India is the divorce between theoretical training and practical application in classrooms. The procrustean nature of teaching training programs in India limits the ability of teachers to engage the diversity in their classrooms as teachers remain unresponsive to vast linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic realities. In 2009 the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education was developed with the goal in mind to reorient discourses from behaviorist to constructivist approaches. According to the Sharma (2014), The framework lays out visions of teacher education which calls for preparing teachers for learning society, empowering teachers in learning to learn, and making teacher education liberal, humanistic and responsive to the demands of inclusive education. It has tried to incorporate the changing school contexts and demands in the light of recently implemented Right to Education Act (RTE, 2009), issue of academic burden of students, and universalization of secondary education that have implication for teacher education. The major concerns addressed by this framework include inclusive education, ensuring equitable and sustainable development, utilizing community knowledge in education, and integration of ICT and e-learning in the curriculum of teacher education which is in tune with the thrust of NCF 2005 and the needs of contemporary Indian society.

116  Rita Verma The layout of new policies paints a very robust picture of what India’s teacher training institutes should ideally accomplish—yet India remains stagnated with close to 8 million children out of school or as dropouts from the most disadvantaged areas, and approximately half of the 210 million children in India are illiterate. India is home to one-fifth of the world’s illiterate persons. Marginalized youth are often made to feel “dirty and unwanted” when attending schools alongside children who come from a higher socioeconomic status. The needs of such children differ from mainstream students. Identity “markers” of caste and of belonging to a religious minority make the youth victim to exclusionary practices by teachers that lead to further marginalization, exclusion, and disengagement. Discourse around the “common good,” as defined by systems of exclusion, are further realized when a large segment of the urban poor come to understand that they merely remain at the margins of these conversations. To become a player in the race, alternative avenues are sought out to acquire presumed forms of capital. With the vision to “take matters into their own hands,” the Aseem program (anonymous name given) in the urban poor slums of Mumbai illustrates a counter-narrative to national teacher training policies in India. The Aseem program is a community-based model, sponsored by United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) and multiple partners and describes itself as “a sustainable replicable model of quality child centered teacher programs in partnership with marginalized communities and enables adults from the local community to become ‘Change Makers’.” These “change makers” are local women who are trained as teachers in the Aseem program. This chapter will address the challenges of India’s national policies to implement innovative and effective teacher education programs and further understand the failure of outreach, incorporation, and education of the urban poor in schools. Although the mushrooming of unregulated teacher training programs is cause for alarm, I will illustrate how the community-based Aseem program in Mumbai provides us with an alternative approach to educating historically marginalized and exploited youth.

History of Teacher Education Policies in India On the heels of independence from Great Britain, the goal and vision to educate India’s citizenry was stronger than ever. A country deeply embedded in colonial structures had a long journey as a postcolonial nation to heal societal fractures, divisions, and hierarchies. During colonial rule, normal schools were developed, and teachers were trained in the traditional manner of teaching. The role of the teacher was to accomplish the goal of students relaying learned information on a test. Historically, curriculum development was the responsibility of administrators, and teachers had little input or say in this process. Teacher training was largely based on lesson plan development and execution. Post independence, many features of colonial-era schooling remained with features such as fixed content, an extreme adherence to a prescribed curriculum with little teacher autonomy, and a core

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  117 focus of learning as regurgitation of fixed content to reproduce answers on an examination. Painstakingly, teacher education policies have somewhat evolved, yet a deep disconnect remains between learned theory and actual practice in the classroom. Philosophically, teacher training institutions have refocused on whole child learning concepts, yet cultural biases, lack of professional motivation, and incentive have quickly led back to banking methods and skill-and-drill teaching methodologies. Teacher education institutions have also been historically isolated and have been criticized for their disconnect with the growing needs of diverse students. According to Saroj Pandey (2011), The University Education Commission (1948), Secondary Education Commission (1953), Chattopadhyay Committee Report (1983–1985), Acharya Ramamurthy Committee (1990) and several seminars and study groups that were set up to discuss improvements in elementary and secondary teacher education, from time to time expressed concern over the poor quality of teacher education, and its isolation from, both, the mainstream of university life, and the ground realities of schools. These commissions stressed on the need for flexibility, and local specificity; and strongly felt, that, the whole teacher education program needs to be remodeled to strike more balance between the theory and practice, and assessment of students’ performance. These changes to improve teacher education policies were implemented on paper and in curricular practices. Teacher preparation has largely been mismatched with the realities on the ground in schools, however. In the past 25 years, there have been major attempts to reform teacher education policies by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). Saroj Pandey (2011) again explains, The trend analysis of teacher education curriculum in terms of content, duration, transactional methodology and evaluation systems proposed by these frameworks reveals the efforts of curriculum planners to address the contemporary needs of Indian education system. While the 1978 teacher education curriculum framework stressed an explicit task-oriented approach, and reduction of theoretical component from teacher education curriculum, 1988 framework emphasized the need to incorporate and accommodate technological advances and know how, and indicated towards the changing role of teacher as an effective communicator, a designer, and user of learning resources, a learning facilitator, and an active participant in community life. The 1998 framework provided a futuristic, dynamic and forward looking perspective in teacher education curriculum while reinforcing the indigenous culture and identity of the nation. Teaching professionals struggle with many daily demands in the classroom and can be criticized for high absenteeism and relegating the classroom

118  Rita Verma hours to rote memorization and regurgitation of facts. The existing and changing economic, social, and cultural contexts require reflection and the ability to view diverse learners as capable of strong achievement. Teacher belief systems play a role in student outcomes, and given the strong class and caste segregation in India, it leaves one to ponder if such divisions become barriers to productive student teacher relationships. The social emotional welfare of the student is a key area that is neglected. The passive acceptance of social norms contributes to the further marginalization of exploited populations in public schools. In 2009 the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education emphasized a new, revitalized approach in constructivism and student-centered learning in pedagogy. The impediments remain, however, at every level in this implementation. Saroj Pandey (2011) provides his own analysis: The present teacher education program is inadequate to meet the challenges of diverse Indian socio-cultural contexts and the paradigm shift envisaged in the NCF 2005. The pedagogic reform from this perspective need to invest on building on teachers capacity to act as autonomous reflective groups of professionals who are sensitive to their social mandate and to the professional ethics and to the needs of heterogeneous groups of learners. The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (2009) promises to translate the vision into reality and prepare humanistic and reflective teachers and has the potential to develop more professional teachers and improve the quality of education. To conclude, professionalism needs to be instilled in each and every phase of teacher preparation starting from conceptualization to evaluation and appraisal to prepare professionals and improve the quality of education. Teacher education programs exist in isolated form, and a major problem facing teacher education programs in India is the divorce between theoretical training and practical application in classrooms. In reality, teachers in India need but do not receive preparation for teaching in the situation that two thirds of them have to face: multigrade classrooms with many first-­ generation learners who attend school irregularly. Concerns have been expressed by Raina (1999): “teacher training programs in India have remained procrustean, offering the same menu to all without slightest regard for varying cultural and physical settings. They remained unresponsive to vast cultural, linguistic, regional and geographical diversity.” The NCF 2005 expects a teacher to be the facilitator of students’ learning in a manner that helps them to construct knowledge and meaning utilizing their individual experiences. The whole pedagogical approach of teacher education programs, therefore, needs to be reoriented from traditional behaviorist to constructivist discourses. The National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education (2009) developed by the NCTE tries to ensure that teacher education courses are reoriented to align with the epistemological shift envisaged in the NCF 2005 and develop teachers as facilitators of learning. It includes

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  119 the contexts, concerns, and visions of teacher education that calls for preparing teachers for a learning society, empowering teachers in learning to learn and making teacher education liberal, humanistic, and responsive to the demands of inclusive education. The major concerns addressed by this framework include inclusive education, ensuring equitable and sustainable development, utilizing community knowledge in education, and integration of ICT (Information Communication Technology) and e-learning in the curriculum of teacher education, which is in tune with the thrust of NCF 2005 and the needs of contemporary Indian society. These goals have been largely unmet. Consequently we still find teacher education programs in certain parts of the country that continue to prescribe to a traditional approach of psychological, philosophical, and sociological basis of education instead of focusing on the approach of how the knowledge can be related to understanding how children grow and learn. Given the frameworks of contemporary teacher education policies in India, we can perhaps begin to evaluate where students are underserved on multiple levels in public schools in India. Teachers become the gatekeepers to opportunity as they marginalize and push out students in the classroom due to personal biases that oppress the students and curriculum that may very rarely engage them. On any given day upwards of 25% of teachers across the country are absent due to job security. “The government said let’s get children into school, we’ll worry about quality later, and we’ll worry about content of teaching later,” says Vimala Ramachandran, a professor at New Delhi’s National University of Educational Planning and Administration. “They separated the quantitative goals from what is happening inside the school.” The gaps that exist for marginalized youth have been exploited for profit by the trend of privatization. The social enterprise of unregulated private schools for the poor ultimately gain from this reality and succeed in convincing families to abandon the public school sector and pay fees for a private education.

The Private School Phenomenon There has been a failure to address the key shortcomings of public schools that are a detriment to effective teaching. Key shortcomings are the traditional chalkand-talk banking method approach to teaching, the high disconnect of teachers with students, teacher bias against oppressed populations, high teacher absenteeism, the focus on data display of high enrollments (get students to warm the seats to show high enrollment) with little emphasis on quality of teaching and high outcomes, and the narrow definitions of student success as test scores and social exclusion of large numbers of students to name a few. The unmet goals of teacher training programs to provide a humanistic approach to students in the classroom have consequently exacerbated social divides and social exclusion of the country’s neediest populations. Students who succeed fit a limited profile of a student with good test-taking skills and are rewarded for rote memorization. These frustrations with broken public schools have led to the mushrooming of regulated and unregulated low-cost private schools in India.

120  Rita Verma The overtaking of public schools with low-fee private schools in India can be attributed to various factors related to teacher effectiveness and accountability. Other areas to consider, perhaps, could be the erosion of teacher morale and status as a profession because teachers are viewed as scapegoats to blame for everything that is going wrong. Neoliberal policies can also be viewed as a factor in the development of low-fee private schools due to the push to “show” higher enrollments or perhaps the ability of individuals to open up corner-store schools coupled with lax policies. Low-fee private schools hire unqualified, short-term contract teachers who are paid very low wages. Teacher salaries are only 10 to 20 % of the amount of their public school counterparts. The privatization trend is detrimental to the profession as teachers lose status, hard-won influence, professionalism, and protection as unionized labor. Teaching skills are packaged and streamlined to be easily accessible and attainable for willing candidates. Such de-professionalization sends dangerous signals to the larger society about teaching and clearly deskills the occupation. Public schools continue to lose their student population to private schools and low-fee private schools. Affluent families are able to afford the tuition at elite institutions, whereas lower socioeconomic groups afford unregulated private schools that may focus more on taking in fees. Where does this leave us when understanding the idea of the common good and the role of the state in social inclusion and exclusion? We may find ourselves in the obvious dilemma that the rich move ahead and the poor stay back as vicious cycles of poverty and social reproduction ensue. Socioeconomically able families quickly understand that a private school education will perhaps be their only pathway to upward social mobility for their children and will therefore pay for the entitlement of an education. Poor families and marginalized communities that remain in public schools will face more exploitation and exclusion from teachers who lack the desire to embrace them as learners. Social attitudes may also limit the inclusion of certain outcast student populations due to teacher bias and beliefs that students are dirty or undesirable. The social barriers limit the marginalized students in the classroom setting, and ultimately disengagement and dropout rates are high. One can then ask, is the assumption of “uneducatability” of these student populations a self-fulfilling prophecy in India?

Social Exclusion of Urban Poor and Teacher Attitudes The social phenomenon of untouchability is mirrored in schools and reproduced there despite the assumption that schools are safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments. Teacher attitudes and their participation in racist forms can be attributed to a gap in teacher training that would require a rigorous deconstruction of personal biases and stereotypes. Dalit children in public schools, for example, face segregation from the dominant caste such as separate teaching arrangements, food and water facilities, and allocation of cleaning tasks to them. Teachers perpetuate discrimination in their attitudes and actions toward Dalit children. The air of normalcy attached

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  121 to these attitudes in schools is dangerous and further assists in the reproduction and exclusion of these communities in public schools. Such denial of education due to caste-based discrimination is deplorable and further gives very little meaning to the merits of a democratic society or the idea of a common good. Dalits, along with other social groups such as Adivasis and religious minorities, consist of 30% of the Indian society, who face discrimination in schools (Balagopalan, 2003). A UNICEF study revealed clear lines of segregation on all levels in the schools for Dalit children: subservience in schools to the dominant caste and further a clear fear of interacting or going to places where the dominant caste students play and congregate. The idea of their “untouchable” status and low place in society is engrained in youngsters and creates a psychological and social barrier that is emphasized by physical violence, intimidation, and further the reinforcement of their low caste through attitudes and teacher behaviors. The very presence of untouchable individuals is viewed as dirty and impure. Their presence is viewed as polluting, and any interaction requires purifying. The failure of public schools in India has become a perilous and exploitable social enterprise. Notions of the common good are deeply embedded with social and cultural mores that can be implicated as the source of societal division. Social divides are emphasized in schools as teachers play a key role in perpetrating social exclusion. The common good, when folded into nationalist policies that are influenced by racist nativism, Hindutva, and a clear focus on solely upwardly mobile classes, leaves behind a large segment of the population. When a large portion of the population is not written into the national goals or viewed as worthy of opportunity, you face a deeply divided citizenry that becomes dictated by dangerous ‘common sense” about which lives matter and the lives that don’t. Hegemonic discourse dictates to the population whose lives matter and whose are expendable. The streets are populated by poor, destitute children who have become “normalized” as persons in the backdrop of everyday living. These nameless and faceless children are the least regarded and least viewed as the driving force to bring India as a nation to the forefront of a developed nation. India’s nationhood will be built on the victories of a certain class in society, and the personhood of exploited children will be erased to merely a labor force to get things done. A recent study by the Developmental Leadership Program on the societal attitudes toward poverty in India by Niheer Dasandi (2015) reconfirms the attitudes towards poverty. For example, The interviews demonstrated a strong tendency among middle class Indians is to ‘naturalize’ poverty and inequality in the country. From this perspective, poverty is accepted as an inevitable consequence of the natural order of the world and not something people can control (see Smith, 1989; O’Donnell, 1998). Participants saw poverty as having always been part of life, and something that would always be present. While interviewees disliked the fact that so many Indians struggle below the poverty line, they did not believe that they or the government could change this situation. Hence, the naturalization of poverty

122  Rita Verma is closely linked to a fatalistic and apathetic attitude among the middle class towards poverty in India. (p. 7) Poverty is viewed as natural and not necessarily a result of failed policies or oppressive societal attitudes. Victim blaming is common, and attitudes prevail that determination and hard work are factors that could uplift the poor from poverty. The poor are also stereotyped as lazy criminals and prone to drug addiction and negative social ills. Government assistance to the poor has been viewed as a direct result of the need of the poor votes during election years. Dasandi (2015) further states The analysis of Middle Class Indian (MCI) attitudes to poverty demonstrates the highly politicized nature of poverty and strategies to tackle poverty in developing countries, particularly as MCIs view poverty through the lens of class politics. From this perspective, the poor are not seen as powerless and marginalised, as is typically the view among development researchers and practitioners. Instead, the poor—somewhat ­paradoxically—are seen to have significant influence in society through their close ties to politicians who need their votes to remain in power. This is in sharp contrast to how MCIs perceive the position of the middle class in the country and its lack of political influence. Because of this, initiatives introduced to tackle poverty in the country are seen as populist measures introduced by political leaders seeking votes from the poor. This is particularly the case for initiatives involving direct transfers to the poor, which are perceived as reducing incentives to work. This negative view of redistributive measures is reinforced by the belief that poverty will never fully be eradicated, and that those that manage to move out of poverty do so through their own efforts and not through government assistance. (p. 9) Social exclusion and the negative views about poverty create dire situations for impoverished urban children. According to the 2014 Human Rights Watch, “They Say We’re Dirty” report:1 This report finds that discrimination takes various forms, including teachers asking Dalit children to sit separately, making insulting remarks about Muslim and tribal students, and village authorities not responding when girls are kept from the classroom. Teachers and other students often address these children using derogatory terms for their caste, community, tribe, or religion. In some schools, children from vulnerable communities are not ever considered for leadership roles such as class monitor because of their caste or community. Many are expected to perform unpleasant jobs such as cleaning toilets. Schools in marginalized neighborhoods often have the poorest infrastructure and least well-trained teachers; many have fewer teachers than required. (p. 3)

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  123 Physical and verbal abuse and discrimination have led to high levels of truancy. What are the alternatives for destitute populations? Given the exclusionary nature of public school systems and the high dropout rates of underprivileged children, how does a society embrace them and provide them with an education that is rife with possibility, affirmation, and opportunity? In a nation that has focused its resources and policies on the success of a select portion of society, where and how will millions of destitute children find a chance at breaking the cycle of their oppression and poverty with teachers and a school setting that believes in them? Ideally, the public school would serve as the beacon of reform and opportunity for all citizens, rich or poor. School models for India’s poor would require sustainability, childcentered philosophies, and most importantly educators who understand the unique needs of these children. A unique, community-based school model that I will refer to for confidentiality purposes as Aseem in Mumbai represents a unique model that provides many of these key elements for the students in the local community. These children have unique needs, needs that cannot be met with a one-size-fits-all approach: they have physical mental and emotional trauma.

Aseem Program Schools in urban areas are overcrowded and underresourced, pedagogy and curriculum are slow to react to competition within the global education market, bureaucratic structures constrain all elements of schooling, gender inequality persists, and training programs are failing the teachers they seek to empower. Despite recent attempts to improve the public education system, several core problems persist. The growth of alternative teacher education programs reflects the reality of this disconnect. The Aseem program is one case to illustrate this. The Aseem program has developed sustainable, replicable models of quality, child-centered teacher programs in partnership with marginalized communities. There exists a high level of deprivation in the urban poor sector, and this program is localized to enable adults from local communities to become “change makers.” Research shows a high number of dropouts or push-outs of street children due to the poor teacher-learner process and interaction. Historically nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have been given the charge of providing help to street children. What does this say about national agenda? NGOs that focus on these dropouts focus on job training and vocational skills, with money generated by student products being cycled back into NGO funds. These NGOs have been successful in “taking” back power to turn oppressive forces into workable alternatives that can serve these communities well. Their solutions, however focus on “work” as a solution and not further schooling. The “change maker” model from Aseem, however, positions education as a key solution for these children and illustrates the need to indigenize teacher education and sensitize teacher candidates to diversity.

124  Rita Verma The Aseem Program, funded by UNICEF, has shown incremental success in the Mumbai area squatter areas. The key strengths of this program are to train local women to be educators in these schools despite resistance to women in these traditional families to join the workforce. Given the large debate about teacher training and the importance of professionalism and the acquisition of credentials in teacher training, this model is radical and grassroots. The value of the program can be appreciated when we understand that the majority of the children that these programs serve disengage or drop out from public school systems and that they are taught by women who are their neighbors and community members. The Aseem approach is “education for the community by the community” and provides an in-house teacher preparation program. Marginalized women from the local community are recruited and trained. This model provides a highly sustainable and self-sufficient localized model. Children in schools are no longer subjected to the oppressive and derogatory treatment, and the connection that teachers feel toward the students is strong as they come from the local community. A basic English assessment is required to join the program. The training program is one year long with an eightmonth practical internship in which case studies are conducted and ongoing training occurs while teachers are in practice. Training is conducted by inhouse staff members to ensure the localized characteristic of the program. All students are followed and observed by the teachers, and a written narrative and ongoing subjective assessment are required of all students. The close nature of the relationship between teacher and student ensures that there is success for each student. There is a low teacher-to-student ratio. To date the program has trained 400 teachers, of which 300 remain employed in their roles as teachers. The women trained in the program are contributing up to 40% of their family income, and close to 95% of them are pursuing more academic credentials. The philosophy of the program is to grow together, and multiple indicators demonstrate the realization of this. The program is also currently evolving to require a more intensive and longer teacher preparation timeframe. Recently, the program has developed a formalized three-year teacher training program that has received support from the larger teacher training licensure bodies in India. These developments illuminate the success of these localized models and the effectiveness they are demonstrating with exploited and marginalized children. Based on informal interviews conducted with teachers in the Aseem program, it can be understood that they are finding great success in their work. Two teachers were interviewed from the Aseem program by local activists in the area. Data from these interviews will be presented to support the argument that such programs, as representative of alternative teacher training models, can possibly indicate a solution to the deliberate exclusion by teachers of students from untouchable and destitute classes.

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  125 Chanchal, a 40-year-old mother of three, describes her classroom: The children in our schools are underprivileged and as teachers our goal should be to learn from the children. There is no competition and no uniforms. My classroom has circles on the ground and there are different groups of children in the room with separate teachers. We allow the children to take control and decide what they want to learn. Children are not evaluated only on tests—they apply concepts and teachers have to always be creative in imagining creative lessons. I had no teaching experience but I went through the one year training. The awareness that Chanchal shares in regard to the effectiveness of ­studentcentered classrooms is encouraging. As stated by Chanchal, allowing students to take control of their learning is reflective of the Freiran model of pedagogy, in which students take ownership of their own learning. Sneha also expressed her thoughts on her role as a teacher. I never thought I could be an important person in children’s lives. I feel teaching is a respectful job—I feel I have some status in the community. The children respect me and I enjoy them in the classroom. So many of my students had been insulted or pushed away from their other schools. I want to give them a classroom where they can feel confident, and feel like they belong. They should feel loved and celebrated and most importantly that the teachers truly believe in them. Echoing the many challenges faced by Dalit children in the Human Rights Report cited earlier, Sneha is keenly aware of the sentiments of marginalization felt by her students. As a role model for the children, she seeks to occupy the role of not only teacher but advocate. Her roots in the local community give Sneha an authenticity as an advocate and teacher of these students. Such authenticity oftentimes is feigned in “training” models on diversity, yet these theoretical frameworks seldom provide the necessary bridges to success in practice. Chanchal and Sneha have restored the dignity of learning to their students. This in itself makes the “community teaching the community” model unique and effective. Prior to training as teachers, Chanchal and Sneha would have had limited opportunity to enter the workforce. The program has allowed for an empowerment for women in the community. Chanchal and Sneha both agreed that the Aseem model should be replicated throughout the country. The impact on their lives and the students is positive, and they realize that their community ties make a significant difference in their ability to educate the students. Sneha noted the following: If you were to transplant my students and my classroom into a mainstream setting, the learning, the vibrancy would change. I believe and

126  Rita Verma I know it would change because the children would not be viewed as learners with high potential—they would be immediately labeled as outcast. This is a grave injustice. The teacher would not value their questions, the active learning style. They would only judge them on their test scores. The lowered expectations for the students due to identity and social class have been well documented, and Sneha insightfully observes this reality. Students with potential are never provided the opportunity to demonstrate their mastery of skills. In place of learning, students were given menial work and regarded as lower than other students in the classroom who were of a different caste and class status. Many of my students were made to clean floors and were separated from the rest of the class. They were verbally abused and this was never stopped. In my classroom, here, we embrace them. That is the difference. I understand their struggle and I share their hopes of a better life. I believe they are deserving of a better life—and they trust that I will provide those windows of opportunity for them. The trust that Sneha describes is a key strength of the community program. Students have an intrinsic belief that they are celebrated and that high achievement is the expectation for them. This expectation exists regardless of caste or class identity here. Chanchal provided a similar understanding of these realities. My children were treated so poorly in school. I continued to force them to attend because I knew education was a possible path out of the poor life. They would tell me they were treated poorly and I would say to ignore it. Now as a teacher in the classroom, I realize that it is not so simple or easy to ignore things. If you are told you are a failure every day, you start to believe it. If you cannot smile while learning, you will never learn. I like my students to smile and laugh—I ask them to smile for me—that makes me happy. My own children smile now and are attending Aseem. It is the only way for us. Chanchal reiterates a valuable lesson for us—that the ability for young children to rationalize and overcome daily oppression most often results in failure. To place an expectation that children can succeed in spite of oppression is a circular argument. When children are pulled from that cycle and provided an honest and supportive classroom experience with a caring teacher, the results can supersede barriers and assumptions about marginalized and exploited youth. Nameless, faceless, and forgotten children—who become normalized as petty laborers in the daily landscape—are provided a space to

The Aseem Teacher Training Model  127 define themselves and take ownership of their futures. Taking ownership of their futures in counterintuitive to the normalized cycles of abject poverty and societal norms that dictate a life of servitude and slave-hood for these children and their families. In the face of great adversity, limited opportunity, and rejection, Chanchal and Sneha point out key areas that are critical to effective, localized teaching. Returning to the key question about teacher training policies and the “common good,” we must ask the question about the value of localized, intensive, community-based teacher training as a viable alternative to traditional teacher training frameworks. When underprivileged children are consistently written off and are underserved by traditionally trained teachers in mainstream classrooms, is this an indication about the gatekeepers of who is to be included in the “common good”? How must we respond when teachers in the Aseem program succeed in fostering the learner-teacher bond to further elicit knowledge making and meaning in the classroom? It can be viewed as a small victory when children from these localized, communitybased school models find success and a pathway out of poverty. Although national teacher training programs should ideally be fashioned around the unique needs of urban and poor populations, cultural attitudes prevail and become the ultimate barrier to understanding destitute populations. It is certainly noted that unregulated private schools damage the cohesiveness and transparency of teaching training and school systems in India, yet the Aseem approach deserves notice and a pause for reflection. Teaching for the “common good” should not stop at teaching a certain few.

Note 1 (2014) Human Rights Watch “They Say We’re Dirty” Denying an Education to India’s Marginalized

References Balagopalan, S. (2003). Neither suited for the home nor for the fields: Inclusion, formal schooling and the adivasi child. IDS Bulletin, 34(1), 55–62. Dasandi, N. (2015). What Do Middle Class Attitudes to Poverty Tell Us about the Politics of Poverty Reduction? Birmingham, AL: University of Birmingham. Hadley Dunn, A. (2013). Teachers without borders? The hidden consequences of international teachers in U.S. schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Pandey, S. (2011). Professionalization of teacher education in India: A critique of teacher education curriculum reforms and its effectiveness. NCERT Paper. Raina, V. K. (1995). Teacher Educators in India: In search of an identity. Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 45–52. Raina, V. K. (1999). Indigenizing teacher education in developing countries: The Indian context. Prospects, Xxiv(1), 5–25. Sharma, S. (2014). 2009 the national curriculum framework for teacher education India Saroj Pandey.

9 The Struggles Against Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa Toward the Pedagogy of Common Good1 Bekisizwe S. Ndimande Schooling is remembered by most of us as a mixed bag of experiences. . . . Particularly powerful in the shaping of those experiences were the individual teachers, many whose names we may have forgotten, but whose actions and words still linger on in our thoughts and reflections. —Keith Lewin, Michael Samuel, and Yusef Sayed (2002, p. 9)

The History of Teacher Education When discussing the history of educational inequalities in South Africa, it is common for most contemporary historians and educational scholars to focus only on apartheid and its evils and omit the educational inequities practiced under the British colonial rule in the Cape colony before apartheid. Although the focus in this chapter is teacher education under apartheid and postapartheid, it is significant to also point out that these inequalities did not begin in 1948. They started way before apartheid was institutionalized in South Africa. After the annexation of the Cape colony by the British in 1806, British missionary schools slowly emerged. This is partly because the slave school set up by the Dutch East India Company had failed (Molteno, 1984). The major goal of the British missionary schools in the Cape colony was to “civilize” and Christianize the Africans so that they would abandon the “uncivilized” mode of life and model their lifestyles after European habits (Christie, 1985). Mission education provided basic reading and writing, Bible study and hymn-singing, manual work such as farming at mission stations, and teaching of work ethics (Ibid). Perhaps even more troubling was the statement made by Sir. George Grey, governor of the Cape colony in 1855: If we leave the natives beyond our border ignorant barbarians, they will remain a race of troublesome marauders. We should try to make them a part of ourselves, with a common faith and common interests, useful servants, consumers of our goods, contributors to our revenue. . . . The native races beyond our boundary, influenced by our missionaries,

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  129 instructed in our schools, benefiting by our trade, would not make wars on our frontiers. (Christie, 1985, p. 37) As evident in Grey’s speech, these schools were hegemonic toward the indigenous communities and were far from providing critical learning for the social transformation of their students. Teacher training2 institutions of this colonial period were not distinctly different from the school system in terms of the ethos, goals, and aims of teacher education. According to Hartshorne (1992), the first formal teachertraining institutions began in 1841 at Lovedale. Their purpose was to provide Black teachers with a broader educational base than strictly teacher education. Hartshorne posits that up until 1910, when the Union of South Africa was formed, teacher training institutions were the function of the missionary churches. As he puts it, “The Mission set out to ‘inculcate the Christian religion, and the practical lessons of cleanliness, industry and discipline’ ” (Hartshorne, 1992, p. 220). The implication was that teachers weren’t actually educated and prepared to teach critical curriculum in schools but were mainly expected “to take an active part in church work as pastors, evangelists, preachers and Sunday school teachers” (Ibid). It seems apparent, therefore, that the first teacher education institutions in this colonial era at the Cape were very similar to mission schools in ideology and practice. Although the schools and teacher education programs under missionaries had a far-reaching, negative impact on Black people in South Africa, it was the implementation of Bantu education under apartheid that would have a far more negative impact and culminated in a struggle not only for education but political liberation as well. The institutionalization of apartheid in South Africa in 1948 created a racial hierarchy that privileged the White citizens and marginalized all other citizens, namely, the Coloured, Indians, and Blacks. The apartheid institution was beyond racial segregation. It was a discriminatory government system that advanced the belief in the essential difference of race and the protection of White South African privilege (Biko, 2002; Lodge, 1983; Marks & Trapido, 1987; Motlhabi, 1985; Vestergaard, 2001). The first president of apartheid, D. F. Malan, gave a speech, that posed a question whether the “European race” in South Africa would maintain its purity and civilization or whether it would be overwhelmed by the non-European population of South Africa. Apartheid, therefore, was meant to maintain White supremacy while also subjugating Blacks, Coloureds, and Indians to second-class citizenship. Education came to play a major role in the enforcement of this racial discrimination. Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd, minister of Native Affairs in 1950 and prime minister in 1958, introduced the Bantu Education bill at the White-only parliament. Bantu Education was a system of inferior education offered to Black people through the Department of Native Affairs and later

130  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande the Department of Bantu Education. Verwoerd believed that Black people should be subjugated through education to enforce the apartheid ideology. In analyzing Bantu Education, Christie and Collins (1984) assert that this system of education was by far the most repressive education system South Africa has ever experienced: [It] stipulated that all black schools would have to be registered with the government, and that registration would be at the discretion of the Minister. This measure enabled the government to close any educational programmes which did not support its aims. . . . The Act gave wide powers to the Minister of Bantu Education, including control over teachers, syllabuses [syllabi], and any other matter relating to the establishment, maintenance, management and control over government Bantu schools. (p. 171) Christie and Collins (1984) further explain that by 1959, virtually all Black schools (except for the few Catholic schools) had been brought under the central control of the Native Affairs Department and operated in accordance to the laws of Bantu Education. Peter Kallaway, perhaps one of the most prominent historians of education in South Africa, contended that Bantu Education was aimed at shrinking the minds of African children by denying them intellectual educational challenges: Like the segregated and inferior schooling before it, the new system was intended to prepare Black children for subordinate positions that awaited them in such a way that they were appropriately equipped with limited skills as well as ready to resign themselves to their exploitation. (1984, p. 94) Similarly, Nkomo (1990) argued that Bantu Education’s aim was “to socialize black students so that they can accept the social relations of apartheid as natural. That is, to accept the supposed superiority of Whites and their own ‘inferiority’ ” (p. 2). Not only were the policies of Bantu Education enforced in public schools, but teacher training colleges were subjected to the same discriminatory policies. Like Black schools, teacher training colleges under Bantu Education did not get sufficient funding from the government. The quality of education in these colleges was not good either. For instance, in the late 1980s, the Department of Education sent a large number of Afrikaans-speaking teachers and lecturers to these colleges. Hartshorne (1992, p. 247) says that these individuals brought more Christian National Education (CNE) and Fundamental Pedagogics traditions to the curriculum. Interesting, the curriculum was neither Christian nor national. The discourse of Fundamental

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  131 Pedagogic did much damage to the teachers and students than it did good. According to Penny Enslin (1984): Fundamental Pedagogics is the dominant theoretical discourse in South African teacher education. It provides little illumination of the present social and educational order, of possible alternatives to that order or how teachers might contribute to transformation. By excluding the political as a legitimate dimension of theoretical discourse, Fundamental Pedagogics offers neither a language of critique nor a language of possibility. (p. 78) Fundamental Pedagogics and the CNE as an ideology in curriculum brought turmoil to most teachers and students. The atmosphere of academic freedom did not exist because teacher training colleges were directly under the control of the state, and their curriculum was based on Fundamental Pedagogics and CNE. This led to massive failure among the Black students in school and to unsuccessful completion of Black teacher candidates at Black teacher training colleges. Most of these unsuccessful teacher candidates, however, were authorized and assigned to teach in Black schools as unqualified teachers for the purpose of reproducing social inequalities. Jansen (2001) states that teachers under apartheid were conceived as state functionary, with the sole requirement of bureaucratic and political compliance. Although this is not a comparative analysis, it is worth pointing out that this phenomenon is similar to Arnetha Ball’s description about teacher preparation in the United States. Ball (2006) argues that teacher preparation programs in the Normal School Model in the United States were a disservice to Black teacher candidates. In other words, Black teachers were underprepared by these schools because their programs placed strong emphasis on manual labor rather than critical thinking. Ball shares the same concerns highlighted decades ago by Woodson (1990), who was particularly troubled by the teacher education programs in the United States: Taught from the books of the same bias, trained by Caucasians of the same prejudices or by the Negroes of enslaved minds, one generation of Negro teachers after another have served for no higher purpose than to do what they are told to do. (p. 23) This can be seen, in fact, as a form of state ideology—that is, the ideological state apparatuses (Althusser, 1971) aimed at interpolating the Black teachers and students into apartheid and slave ideologies, respectively, as well as to keep them in poverty. In fact, such comparative analysis is warranted because the ideas behind such a discriminatory system in South African teacher programs were a

132  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande direct influence of the United States. A good example of this influence can be seen in the role played by Charles Loram, a White South African who went to Columbia University in the United States for his graduate studies.3 While at Columbia, Loram conducted a research study on the segregated education system in the U.S. South by visiting Tuskegee University, Hampton Institute, Virginia Union University, and a number of Black schools in Alabama and Virginia. Upon completing his Ph.D., Loram went back to South Africa, where he would later become in charge of Natal Native Education as a chief inspector implementing the very same ideas of teacher education discrimination he learned from studying segregated institutions in the U.S. South. In South Africa the inferior conditions brought a major education crisis in Black schools as early as in the 1970s and throughout the 1980s. These were the struggles of teachers, parents, and students to oppose Bantu Education so that schools and curriculum can be reformed for social transformation.

Teachers’ Struggles Toward Education as a Common Good 1976 Soweto Uprising One of the first major protests that directly involved black schools protesting Bantu Education was the 1976 Soweto uprisings, in which Black students and teachers revolted against the use of Afrikaans language as a mandatory language of instruction for all school subjects. Since Afrikaans was imposed as an official language of apartheid, most Black students and teachers found Afrikaans to be a difficult language that should not be imposed as a mandatory language of instruction in Black schools. But most importantly, it was viewed, and rightly so, as an oppressive language. There are different views about the origins of Afrikaans in South Africa. One of the views is that it originated and developed in the Cape colony as a combination of languages spoken by East Indians, African slaves, and Indigenous KhoiSan (Alexander, 1989). Other views point to Afrikaans as a derivative from Dutch as early as the 18th century. Du Plessis (2003) argues that although Afrikaans has some influences from other languages—for example, French, Khoe, German, English, and African languages—it largely has an influence from Dutch. Like the British who subjugated the Indigenous peoples with English in earlier contact in the Cape, the Dutch also subjected the Khoi-San communities and the Nguni to a foreign language of communication. In fact, Du Plessis documents that because of the language barriers among the Indigenous groups, the enslaved peoples, and the Dutch, two interlanguage forms of Dutch developed with different dialects. This language was later known as Afrikaans. Unlike English during the British colonization of South Africa, Afrikaans proved to have caused havoc under apartheid. This language was one of the critical concerns in the dissatisfaction and protests against Bantu education.

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  133 Protests against this language were inevitable; they started in sporadic forms in the early 1970s, gained momentum, and culminated into the notable June 16, 1976, when Black students burned down schools and demanded the abolition of Afrikaans as a mandatory language of instruction. The state police responded with violence and massacred thousands of unarmed Black students on that day. Although it may have appeared that the 1976 uprising was sparked by language concerns, it was also linked to the broader resistance against Bantu Education and apartheid. As stated by Naidoo (1990), “By 1976 the sociopolitical conjuncture, the structural reorganization of education and changes within the political culture of urban black youth merged to create a violent situation, which was eventually given expression in the uprisings of 1976” (p. 125). When apartheid was abolished in 1994, both English and Afrikaans were included as part of the 11 official languages in an effort to reconcile a nation deeply divided by race. People’s Education for People’s Power To advocate for critical education for the common good, most progressive teachers found a political space in the People’s Education for People’s Power movement. The People’s Education movement was founded in the 1980s and became popular throughout the 1990s. As a movement for social justice and social transformation, People’s Education sought strategies to establish alternative structures for the education of Black children, for example, the creation of a student representative council for student voices (Motala & Vally, 2002). Further, Motala and Vally (2002) argue that the People’s Education movement was not necessarily about drawing out a new policy in education but was precisely designed to maximize resistance to apartheid. To illustrate how vital the struggle against Bantu Education was in ending apartheid, Motala and Vally write: For many, the struggles in the educational terrain during the 1980s dramatically illustrated the nature and extent of the challenge by organisations of civil society to the controls of the apartheid state. During these years, education and schooling could be considered the Achilles heel of the apartheid state. The challenge came in relation to school governance, curricula, and teaching methodology, and had significance implications for the maintenance of government control in the townships. (p. 175) Although parents and students played a crucial role in Peoples Education for People’s Power movement, it was mostly progressive teachers who were influential in this movement. As Harsthorne (1992) points out, because this was a time of education crisis, teachers in the People’s Education movement played the role of establishing strong parent-teacher associations as well as participating in education programs that emphasized the history

134  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande of progressive teachers’ struggles for democracy and their role in the community. Teaching for Common Good in Hard Times Although Black teachers were prohibited by the apartheid law from teaching critical curriculum in classrooms during this era, there were those who contributed individual efforts so they can conscientize their students about who they were and what they should know. This task was performed by individual teachers who were deeply committed to teaching for social transformation in an era that was hostile to such views in the curriculum, especially in the teacher preparation programs. Helen Neville, a professor and researcher at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, conducted a series of interviews with adults who were students in the era of apartheid education to find out about their experiences and how that kind of education shaped their racial identities. One of the participants interviewed by Neville said the following about the role of the informal, yet critical, curriculum he received from his teacher outside the authorized syllabus of the school: These teachers would out of the blue just put the textbook away. When we were doing history they would tell us about what happened from the 50s when Mandela was going in and out of jail; when the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) was formed; when the African National Congress (ANC) was formed; who took over after the former president of the ANC. This was during school time. So the teachers asked us about these things like “do you read the newspaper?” And, you would say “no.” And they would say “why don’t you read the newspaper?” I say “we don’t buy a newspaper at home.” “If you don’t buy a newspaper I am going to buy you a newspaper. You read the newspaper every day and I am going to ask you questions.4 Teaching for the common good meant a deep commitment from teachers to help students understand their socioeconomic and political conditions. As Apple (1995) has reminded us, curriculum is relational. Teaching for the common good requires that students be taught how they relate to these social structures that have largely produced and reproduced inequalities. Teachers introducing different curricula to bring students’ awareness were clearly teaching for the common good in times when the school environment was hostile to such ideas. In the next section I use critical theory as a lens to unpack the purpose of curriculum and the role for teacher if the goal is to teach students for the common good. Critical theory in curriculum is one of the lenses that can help teachers, researchers, and policy makers to conceptualize and

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  135 implement a curriculum framework that can promote social transformation rather than use curriculum to suppress individuals.

Critical Theory and Teaching for Common Good In this discussion I use the term critical theory as situated within the educational field context that gained momentum in the early 1970s and throughout the 1990s in the United States and Europe, which had an influence on educational scholars in other countries as well. In this context of education and teacher education, critical theory is informed by the work of intellectuals and theorists such as Antonio Gramsci, 1971; Antonia Darder, 2012; Paulo Freire, 1970; Louis Althusser, 1971; Michael Apple, 1979; Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, 1976; Michael Young, 1975; Henry Giroux, 1983; Peter McLaren, 2016; Thomas Popkewitz, 1999a; and Ira Shor, 1992, among others. Thomas (2007) argues that defining any kind of theory can be difficult and problematic given the significance and meanings attached to theory (p. 21), especially as it pertains to the contexts in which it is applied and the arguments it invokes. By definition, critical theory is a broad field that includes contributions from the Frankfurt School, Marxist and neo-Marxist traditions, Theories of Democracy, Feminist Tradition, and Postcolonial Theories, among others (Popkewitz, 1999a; Torres, 1999). Whereas critical theory identifies, associates, and traces its original roots to the German Marxist Frankfurt School in the 1920s, its uses and evolution challenged the essentializing and biased positivist framework in the social sciences, but more importantly it challenged the glaring inequality, which positivism would not discuss or address.5 As I have shown in this discussion, education in South Africa was not a neutral phenomenon. This is also common in many other countries where critical curriculum was not readily promoted. For example, in Brazil, Namibia, the United Kingdom, the United States and other countries, curriculum took place in a contested environment. Research shows that for many decades, the history of classroom curriculum has been characterized as a curriculum content that has produced and reproduced social inequalities (Apple, 1979; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Darder, 2012; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1983; Kliebard, 1995; Young, 1971; Zeichner & Dahlstrom, 2001). The school curriculum, in its positivist and behaviorist forms, treated knowledge as something to be managed, adhered to, followed rigidly and uncritically, and consumed unchallenged as if this knowledge represented the universal “truth” for all students in the classroom. Critical theory in curriculum helps us examine knowledge construction in schools. In most nations, the knowledge production itself was problematic, as was the case with school textbook content (Apple, 1993; Loewen, 1995, Zinn, 2005), which created canons of “truths” and historical distortions

136  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande taught and accepted without much debate in the classroom. By and large these have been the dispositions of the mainstream and dominant curriculum, which lacked or failed to recognize the different environmental experiences of children (Dewey, 1938) as well as the different sociopolitical contexts in which public schools exist. The critical analysis by Jansen (1991) and Nkomo (1990) is absolutely crucial in the case of South Africa and a clear example that problematizes a curriculum devoid of real human experiences and their social conditions. In fact, both Jansen and Nkomo show that such curriculum required teachers to promote the ideology of racial segregation, discrimination, and inequalities. As a theoretical lens, critical theory literature that emerged around this time brought a different and radical set of analyses for school curriculum, education policies, and pedagogical practices. Unlike the positivist’s social efficiency discourse, critical theory centered the school and classroom curriculum on human emancipatory discourse and democracy. This new discourse included debates about the impact of categories such as class, race, gender, culture, and ability on educational outcomes. Critical theory would become significant as a theoretical lens in analyzing issues of social diversity and multicultural education. For example, in the United States in the mid-20th century, the scholarship of James Banks, Geneva Gay, Sonia Nieto, Grant and Sleeter, and others was heavily influenced by critical theory. These scholars argued that in a diverse country, curriculum and teacher education programs have to be representative of all students of diverse backgrounds, and all should be encouraged to learn about their identities and cultural backgrounds and as well their relation to the structure of the society. In the Handbook of Multicultural Education, Banks and Banks (1995) argue that to transform the school system, educators must engage in in-depth knowledge about the influence and contributions of all groups and be able to find ways of providing a meaningful integration of this increasing diversity of our classrooms. Geneva Gay (1995), one of the pioneering intellectuals in the field of critical multicultural education, states that critical theory is among the theories of social emancipation that carried the principles of social justice initiatives in the 20th century. As a critical discipline, it aimed at reexamining the sociocultural realities in schools and society, seeking answers to perpetual social inequalities. According to Gay, [c]ritical theory deals with practice and perspective, understanding and control, and the dialectical relationship between theory and practice. Its ultimate value commitment is human emancipation. Its intentions are to exposed contradictions in culture, to explain how curriculum perpetuates the socioeconomic class structures and patterns of exploitation and subjugation present in society at large, and to strive passionately and compassionately for a new social order of egalitarianism in schools and society. (p. 26)

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  137 Similarly, Gordon (1995) views critical theory as an alternative, a dissenting voice from the biases of traditional schooling instituted by positivist and behaviorist research. For Gordon (1995), [c]ritical theory is the critique of domination. It seeks to focus on a world becoming less free, to cast doubt on the claims of technological scientific rationality, and then to imply that present configurations do not have to be as they are—that it is possible to change reality, and that conditions may already exist that can make such change possible. (p. 190) Because critical theory is a critique of domination (Gordon, 1995), and a social theory of social emancipation and for social transformation (Gay, 1995), it is best situated as a theoretical lens to interrupt educational inequalities discussed in this chapter and has a potential to help propose democratic strategies that can help all students succeed in schools irrespective of their race. If such educational inequalities persist, it is unthinkable to believe that methods of instruction alone, albeit important, could simply solve the educational problems without doing a critical evaluation of what is actually taught, how it is taught, and how the school knowledge is created or rather how it has been manipulated and controlled by the dominant group. Hence critical theory seeks to engage a broad collaboration among teachers, parents, and professional educators to interrogate this educational hegemony by conscietizing us to pay more attention to the complicated dynamics of race, culture, class, gender, ability, and sexuality. Paulo Freire (1970), one of the renowned scholars of critical theory, writes about problematic curriculum content and pedagogy that tends to marginalize oppressed groups. He argues that the curriculum of the oppressed is characterized by biased knowledge toward the ruling class, that is, it is biased toward the dominant groups who control the curriculum content, including textbooks. Using critical theory as a lens, Freire argues that a school curriculum devoid of historical or distorted reality has led to the dehumanization of people, people who are “made” to lose a sense of their history and identity. This serves to create a stratified society where power is not shared equally among communities. In this context, argues Freire, the rulers are found, those he called the oppressors, subjugating others, those he called the oppressed. Because of these pervasive inequalities, Freire makes a strong case that students whose races or cultures are not represented in the curriculum content may perceive themselves as less legitimate and undeserving of leadership roles in the classroom. This perpetuates low self-esteem and ignorance of their cultural heritage. On the contrary, Freire proposes liberatory education that engages students to challenge the curriculum content and create critical possibilities to change the world. Liberatory education does not

138  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande interpolate people but helps them support broader struggles for cultural, political, economic, gender, social, and racial recognition. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire states that the pedagogy of the oppressed is the pedagogy of people engaged in the fight for their own liberation. Here is one of Freire’s crucial tenets about education for emancipation: No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption. (1970, p. 39) Public schools and teacher education programs should be places for sociopolitical, economic, and intellectual independence, not for dehumanizing those with less power and treating them as objects. Providing a space that allows teachers to teach for the common good should be a mandatory duty to interrogate the dichotomy of subjects versus objects on curriculum and pedagogy so that educators and students can equally engage in classroom learning. Students in particular should be encouraged to be critical thinkers, thus get involved in what Freire called the processes of “reading the world.” For Freire, and others, no curriculum can serve as a course for social transformation for the common good if the institution treats students as objects who are empty vessels waiting to be filled by knowledge from the teacher. Shor (1992) reminds us that a critical curriculum is the one that encourages students’ questions in the classroom, other than perpetually using a top-down approach where the teacher fills in the empty jugs that students bring to class. According to this approach, the teacher should help students develop their intellectual and emotional powers so they are able to use this knowledge to reflect on their everyday experience and relations with the broader social structures. This is a true critical education that can stimulate a dialogue for discussion and help students to be able to argue from various perspectives given the diversity in which we live. The efforts of the teachers in the struggle against Bantu Education were the struggles for social emancipation through education. But it was also a broader struggle to end a racist system that dehumanized nonWhite communities in this country. The defeat of apartheid in 1994 was a partial victory for teachers and students whose efforts were to demand humanizing education. In the next section I discuss some new challenges that came with the transition from apartheid to democracy. By and large these challenges were related to the reform policies that are influenced by neoliberalism.

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  139

New Challenges Transition to postapartheid was not easy for South Africa. The process of transition has since witnessed several education reforms, including the implementation of the new curriculum (Curriculum 2005), teacher qualifications policies, in-service learning opportunities for teachers, desegregation of teacher preparation programs, and so on. Most of the teacher reform policies appear in the Norms and Standards for Teacher Education. However, these reforms did not come without challenges. For the purpose of this chapter, I mention only two challenges: first, the challenge to make sure that all schools have equitable resources (Jansen & Amsterdam, 2006; Ndimande, 2006), and, second, the problem with the new curriculum, Curriculum 2005 that was modeled on outcomes-based education (OBE). As Jansen (1999) argued that a curriculum modeled on OBE does not bring any positive legacy to postapartheid education. Evidently, the criticism of OBE subsequently put the government under pressure to form a task team called Curriculum 2005 Review Committee for streamlining OBE and its implication (Chisholm, 2000). Even so, argues Chisholm, the focus of the review team was not to evaluate the adverse impact of OBE. The team focused on simplifying the learning outcomes rather than interrogating the philosophy of the policy, especially the curriculum content. I have argued elsewhere that a curriculum modeled on OBE is a form of a neoliberal policy.6 As McChesney (1999) has reminded us, neoliberal policies across the world are antithetical to participatory democracy and help create a society with individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless. Yet teachers in South Africa continue to seek that democratic space in their profession as well as asking for better working conditions. For example, in June, 2007 teachers went on strike over a salary increase after the African National Congress came to power in 1994. They demanded an increase of 12% as opposed to the 6% offered by the state. The strike was eventually called off when the government and the unions reached a compromise; both sides agreed to a 7.5% salary increase. Besides the demand for a pay increase, there were still other unresolved issues about teachers’ working conditions. For instance, in some districts the government has been hiring teachers on a temporary basis to save the salary costs (Ramrathan, 2002). This approach shortchanges qualified teachers by not offering them full salary packages. As Ramrathan (2002) puts it, “These teachers (who are often qualified teachers) are hired on a ‘temporary status’ and therefore contribute to the departmental savings in salary costs. Teachers employed on a ‘temporary basis’ do not enjoy the full salary benefits of ‘permanent teachers’ ” (p. 76). All these problems are a result of education reforms that take place within the neoliberal environment. But there is a glimmer of hope in this transition. The vignettes from teacher and parents who continue to seek solutions toward a truly emancipatory

140  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande education and pedagogy in public schools in postapartheid South Africa is an evidence to such partial victories

Teaching for the Common Good and Forming Alliances With Parents in Postapartheid Apart from the current struggles in the opposition of neoliberal influence in education reform policies, there are also success stories created by the solidarity between teachers and with parents in an effort to provide quality education, especially to those who were historically marginalized. For instance Swadener and Goduka’s (1998) findings on educational reforms in the postapartheid South Africa bear witness to the improvements made in these schools. According to them, educational sites visited were seriously concerned about real educational empowerment that demonstrated cultural inclusion: Several teacher educators encouraged teachers to draw out indigenous perspectives from their learners ‘by making students reflect on their own experiences, and integrating them with that of a particular topic’ . . . [and] one teacher summed up the need for culturally relevant curriculum. (p. 13) This kind of empowerment is very important in classrooms because it not only acknowledges student diversity but also motivates them to establish the lenses to view the world in a critical eye. A few years ago, I interviewed a group of parents who were conflicted about abandoning Black schools simply because of the lack of adequate resources in those schools, suspecting that there might be a larger problem in the system that needed to be interrogated rather than ignored. Those who refused to take their children to schools with adequate resources talked about their sense of solidarity with township teachers and their challenging conditions in these schools. One of the parents who took a solidarity stance with the teachers had this to say: I don’t think it is a good idea to transfer our children to formerly Whiteonly schools [just because our schools lack resources], if we do that, all Black teachers will run out of jobs. Who will they teach if we take our children to the suburbs? The government should put facilities in these township schools, too. That way, our schools will be in good shape and they [township schools] too, will have similar resources as school in the suburban areas. . . . What I like about township schools is that I want my own people to be able to get jobs too. These teachers went to teachers’ college for this job; they deserve to have jobs, too. It is unfair to them to study so hard and afterwards terminate their

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  141 jobs in schools. . . . [T]ransferring our children to formerly white-only schools is not a good idea. We would be taking jobs away from black teachers. Just now people talk about the increasing crime rate. . . . [W]hat’s going to happen, more people will get unemployed thus increase the very same crime rate that people complain about. It is not a good idea to transfer our children to schools in the suburban areas. . . . No! [W]e, too, want township schools to teach computers, sports, etc. We want these things here in township schools. All these things we did not know about ­previously—which are available in white schools, should be accessible in our schools as well.7 What was explicit in parents supporting the working conditions of teachers and the goal for teaching for the common good was how they articulated the hopes and dreams for the future of their children. Most of these parents expressed similar views in this regard. Said one parent, “I want my children to be successful at things they want to do. They should be able to be independent. I wish them success more than anything.” As another parent put it, “I want my children to learn, get educated—I want him to get a good job. You don’t get a job without education.” Similarly, another parent said, “My children shouldn’t be like me. They should have a brighter future. They shouldn’t struggle like me. They should get a better education so they could live well.” For some parents there was the sense of nation building, the spirit of collective work, social activism; that is, despite the poor conditions in their schools, these parents nonetheless hoped that their children would be successful in getting the education they need eventually and would come back to contribute in their communities. As one parent put it, “I hope they get well-educated. But most importantly, they shouldn’t forget the community where they grew up. They should help the black nation.” It is apparent from these vignettes that the parents of these children, who themselves grew up under apartheid and were educated in Bantu Education, knew the consequences of Fundamental Pedagogics, and they refuse to allow this situation to happen again. Rather they have formed alliances with teachers to continue the alliances that were created and guided in the 1980s movement—the People’s Education for People’s Power.

Conclusion In Why We Teach Now, Sonia Nieto (2015) raises similar concerns that underscore the important work and struggles in which teachers in both apartheid and postapartheid engaged to advance the goal of liberatory education. As Nieto puts it, teaching is imagination, and it takes courage. The teachers who were subjected to inferior education had courage to overcome such inferiority, engaging in the movement People’s Education for People’s Power. They were not so much concerned about the “What do I do on

142  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande Monday” question, as Nieto points out. Rather they were concerned about humanizing the children they taught In Success Stories From Failing Schools, Marilyn Parsons and her colleagues (2007) also show how teachers can commit to emancipatory pedagogy in the midst of oppressive standardized testing and the poor conditions of urban schools. Likewise, teachers who participated in Arnetha Ball’s social justice project challenged preconceived notions of “self” and “other” while also exploring their relation to the curricula they teach. Teachers of South Africa assume similar efforts, efforts that serve the common good.

Notes 1 I use the concept Fundamental Pedagogics as discussed by Penny Enslin (1984) to describe the dominant discourse imposed on teachers and teacher education programs to suppress critical curriculum in South African classrooms under apartheid. 2 I am mindful that the term “training” connotes that which is “trained,” not necessarily educated. I use the term on purpose to be consistent with the conceptualization of teachers in South Africa under apartheid. 3 For an elaborate discussion of Charles Loran, see Ball (2006) and Ndimande (2009). 4 See Ndimande and Neville (In Press) for an in-depth analysis of these interviews. 5 See Torres (1999), especially on p. 91. 6 See Ndimande (2016) for an in-depth discussion of neoliberalism and markets in postapartheid education 7 All excerpts were cited from Ndimande (2005).

References Alexander, N. (1989). Language policy and national unity in South Africa/Azania. Cape Town, South Africa: Buchu Books. Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ball, A. (2006). Multicultural strategies for education and social change: Carriers of the torch in the United States and South Africa. New York, NY: Teachers College. Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.) (1995). Handbook of research on multicultural education. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Biko, S. (78/2002). I write what I like: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: BasicBooks. Chisholm, L. (2000, October 26). C2005 and the policy process. Paper presented at the Kenton Education Association, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Christie, P. (1985). The right to learn: The struggle for education in South Africa. Braamfontein, Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  143 Christie, P., & Collins, C. (1984). Bantu education: Apartheid ideology and labour reproduction. In P. Kallaway (Ed.), Apartheid and education: The education of black South Africans (pp. 160–183). Johannesburg, South Africa: Ravan Press. Darder, A. (2012). Culture and power in the classroom: Education foundations for the schooling of bicultural students. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Macmillan. Du Plessis, H. (2003). Afrikaans and Khoe: Languages in contact. In K. K. Prah (Ed.), Silenced voices: Studies of minority languages of Southern Africa (pp. 129– 139). Cape Town, South Africa: Center for Advanced Studies of African Society. Enslin, P. (1984). The role of fundamental pedagogics in formulation of educational policy in South Africa. In P. Kallaway (Ed.), Apartheid and education: The education of Black South Africans. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Gay, G. (1995). Curriculum theory and multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 25–43). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Gordon, B. M. (1995). Knowledge construction, competing critical theories, and education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 184–143). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selection from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York, NY: International Publishers. Hartshorne, K. (1992). Crisis and challenge: Black education 1910–1990. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press. Jansen, J. D. (Ed.) (1991). Knowledge and power in South Africa: Critical perspectives across the disciplines. Johannesburg: Skotaville Publishers. Jansen, J. D. (1999). Why outcomes-based education will fail: An elaboration. In J. D. Jansen & P. Christie (Eds.), Changing curriculum: Studies on outcomes-based education in South Africa (pp. 145–156). Kenwyn, South Africa: Juta & Co. Ltd. Jansen, J. D. (2001). Access and values in education. Indicator, 18(3). Retrieved from www.ukzn.ac.za/indicator/Vol18No3/18.3_feature.htm [Accessed March 10, 2010]. Jansen, J., & Amsterdam, C. (2006). The status of education finance research in South Africa: editorial introduction. Perspectives in Education, 24(2), VII–XVI. Kallaway, P. (Ed.) (1984). Apartheid and education: The education of Black South Africans. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for American curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Lewin, K., Samuel, M., & Sayed, Y. (2002). Introduction. In K. Lewin, M. Samuel, & Y. Sayed (Eds.), Changing patterns of teacher education in South Africa: Policy, practice and prospects (pp. 1–15). Cape Town, South Africa: Heinemann. Lodge, T. (1983). Black politics in South Africa since 1945. London: Longman. Loewen, J. W. (1995). Lies my teacher told me: New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Marks, S., & Trapido, S. (Eds.) (1987). The politics of race, class, and nationalism in the twentieth century South Africa. London: Longman. McChesney, R. W. (1999). Introduction. In N. Chomsky (Ed.), Profit over people: Neoliberalism and the global order (pp. 7–16). New York, NY: Seven Stories Press.

144  Bekisizwe S. Ndimande McLaren, P. (2016). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York, NY: Routledge. Molteno, F. (1984). The historical foundations of the schooling of black South Africans. In P. Kallaway (Ed.), Apartheid and education: The education of Black South Africans. Johannesburg: Ravan Press. Motala, S., & Vally, S. (2002). People’s education: From peoples’ power to Tirisano. In P. Kallway (Ed.), The history of education under apartheid 1948–1994: The doors of learning and culture shall be opened (pp. 174–194). Cape Town, South Africa: Maskew Miller Longman. Motlhabi, M. (1985). The theory and practice of Black resistance to apartheid: A social-ethical analysis. Johannesburg: Skotaville. Naidoo, K. (1990). The politics of student resistance in the 1980s. In M. Nkomo (Ed.), Pedagogy of domination: Toward a democratic education in South Africa (pp. 122–146). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Ndimande, B. S. (2005). Cows and goats no longer count as inheritances: The politics of school “choice” in post-apartheid South Africa (Unpublished doctoral dissertation Ph.D.). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Ndimande, B. (2006). Parental “choice”: the liberty principle in education finance: new scholar section. Perspectives in Education, 24(2), 143–156. Ndimande, B. S. (2009). [Book Review] Multicultural strategies for education and social change: Carriers of the torch in the United States and South Africa by Arnetha F. Ball. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 19(3–4), 261–268. Ndimande, B. S. (2016). School choice and inequalities in post-apartheid South Africa. Global Education Review, 3(2), 33–49. Ndimande, B. S., & Neville, H. A. (In Press). Urban education and Black racial identity in South Africa. Urban Education. Nieto, S. (Ed.) (2015a). Why we teach now. New York, NY: Teacher’s College. Nkomo, M. (1990). Introduction. In M. Nkomo (Ed.), Pedagogy of domination: Toward a democratic education in South Africa (pp. 1–15). Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Popkewitz, T. S. (Ed.) (1999a). Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics. New York, NY: Routledge. Popkewitz, T. S. (1999b). Introduction: Critical traditions, modernism, and the ‘posts.’ In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge. Ramrathan, L. (2002). Teacher supply and demand in KwaZulu-Natal. In K. Lewin, M. Samuel, & Y. Sayed (Eds.), Changing patterns of teacher education in South Africa: Policy, practice, and prospects (pp. 72–83). Sandown: Heinemann. Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Swadener, B. B., & Goduka, I. N. (1998, April). Healing with Ubuntu: Educational reform in post-apartheid South Africa. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association convention (AERA), San Diego, CA. Thomas, G. (2007). Education and theory: Strangers in paradigms. London: Open University Press. Torres, C. A. (1999). Critical theory and political sociology of education: Arguments. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 87–115). New York, NY: Routledge.

Fundamental Pedagogics in South Africa  145 Vestergaard, M. (2001). Who got the map? The negotiation of Afrikaner identities in post-apartheid South Africa. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 130(1), 19–44. Woodson, C. G. 1990. The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press. Young, M. F. D. (1971). Knowledge and control: New direction for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan. Zeichner, K., & Dahlstrom, L. (Eds.) (2001). Democratic teacher education reform in Africa: The case of Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Gamsberg Macmillan. Zinn, H. (2005). A people’s history of the United States. Zinn Education Project, Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools.

Part 3

(Re)affirming State Power?

10 From Professionalism to Proletarianization Teacher Education Policy and the Common Good in Turkey Hüseyin Yolcu Introduction and Historical Background When the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923, education was used as one of the new regime’s most important tools to introduce its conception of a common good so the people of Turkey could adopt its values and lifestyles. In the first years of the republic, teachers were expected to spread the ideals of the republic, shape a modern national education system, and guide the nation. While fulfilling these expected responsibilities, they committed to an idealism (Özdil, 2015; Gümüşlü, 2005). In this process, the teacher, despite some problems, left a significant trace of idealist and nationalist nature, especially in the public eye. This crucial role, played by the state for enlightenment of the nation, was determinative in achievements such as the promotion of literacy and the delivery of co-educational policy to rural areas. It was observed that the enlightened identity of the republic teacher was very strong. For example, at the beginning of the republic, the literacy rate was below 5%, reached up to 51% in 1960, and is almost 100% today (Gümüşlü, 2005). In Turkey, the period between 1923 and 1946 is called Single-Party Era, and the period from 1946 to the present is called the Multiparty Era. Gümüşlü (2005) indicates that the Democratic Party (DP) that came to power in 1950, unlike the 1923–1945 period, focused on strengthening national and spiritual values, which led to some changes in teacher identity. One of the changes was that their identity became more enlightened, had more combative qualities than the one before, and aligned very close to leftist ideas. Those with an enlightened teacher identity took a stance against the DP’s new education policy. The DP was willing to establish a type of teacher identity in line with its conservative educational policies. In the DP’s new teacher identity, secularism, respect for religion, and nationalism combined with spiritualism to create an Islamic tone. Making up the general framework of the DP’s education policy, those elements formed the foundational idea of the Turkish-Islamic synthesis for conservative parties, which would come to power in later years, especially after 1980.

150  Hüseyin Yolcu The development of social struggles in the 1960 and 1970s enabled teachers to adopt a populist, revolutionary, socialist, democratic identity. Teachers were mainly anti-imperialists and took part in the anti-fascist camps of the 1970s. The social perception of teachers was also formed in this regard. It should be mentioned that during this period, their display of social awareness and social perception, in particular, were highly respected (Eğtim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası [Egitim-Sen], 2015). Turkey has a rich history of experience in teacher training. However, teacher training since the early years of the republic, has always been a controversial issue. This controversy is illustrated by the variety of teacher training models that have been tried and the ongoing search for new models. Nevertheless, some models were very accurate and elaborate from the educational-pedagogical view and quite successful in terms of responding to social needs (Can, Gök, & Şimşek, 2013). The most important examples of this were “Village Institutes,” a model whose tenets supported the social and economic development of Turkey. Ünal (2011) also noted that the teacher education system in Turkey does not limit training to education but also includes management and orientation, and fulfilling broader tasks and functions. In this context, teacher education policies focus on training teachers as “good citizens” and “good professionals,” internalizing their role as well as the core values of the system. To this end, this study examines the transformation of teaching from professionalism in the early years of the republic to the proletarianization of it today. First, I analyze how these changes modified the occupational purpose of teachers, altered the nation’s conception of the common good, and teachers’ roles as bastions of the common good in Turkey. Next, I conclude with a discussion of how all these changes brought about an increase in the number of unemployed teachers and the negative impact of job insecurity on teachers. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the “winners” and “losers” in the impact of the policies actually enacted. In addition, this will allow you to explore what might be valuable to the public good of the Turkish people.

Transition of Teaching Profession and New Teacher Education System: From Professional Teacher to Proletarian Teacher A professional job is one that requires higher education and is not standardized, allowing the worker to use initiative and dominate the decisionmaking process. Proletarianization corresponds to a process where the ones above are determinative about work-related decisions instead of employees doing the work and where the workers are deskilled by standardizing the job. Buyruk (2015) notes, teachers, as state personnel, are regarded as proletarian, from the very beginning, on determining their job’s aim. Proletarianization occurs with white-collar workers or learned professionals generally described as public employees, who have experienced a standardization, a

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  151 loss of judicial discretion on work, and deskilling. It can be said that teachers, who have become proletarian in terms of ideology, have also become proletarian in the technical aspect during this most recent transition period. In the reconstruction of public education in Turkey, neoliberal policies proffered as a solution to the crisis in the market encountered in 1970s have a distinct role. In this direction, in 1980, the 24 January Structural Adjustment Decisions and the following 12 September Military Coup are determinative on the reconstruction of markets and state-market relationships by targeting the public aspect of the state. Although neoliberal policies’ effect on public education began to be seen distinctly in 1990s, it needs to be stated that the political infrastructure necessary for this charge was constituted in 1980s. In fact, from the beginning of 1980s, these policies included flexibilization of the labor market, privatization of public services, macroeconomic stability, financial discipline, and increasing public expenditures to fields showing economic productivity apart from social fields. These policies began showing their influence on public education in the 1990s. In Turkey, reconstruction of public education in general, and the transition period of teaching profession in particular, occurred through the National Education Development Project—a World Bank (WB) project. Through the project, Curriculum Laboratory Schools (CLS) practice—a school development project—was introduced, and public schools were reorganized using a business logic. Moreover, CLSs have become places where total quality management (TQM) is applied in practice. Therefore, CLSs introduced a new process that renders schools as businesses and students and families are taken as customers. In Turkey, public education is being recast in the frame of a market-principled neoliberal ideology that is prescribed and affects teachers considerably (Yolcu, 2014). The competitive environment, in turn, creates concern that the schools need to be customer oriented or customer satisfaction-driven, which has come with questioning the quality of a public school education. Today, the problem of fewer resources being allocated to education also adds to this alchemy. Taken together, families now send their children to public schools and share in the schools’ operational expenditures such as cleaning, maintenance costs, and supply course equipment, to provide their children a better education. Studies indicate these families have made a significant contribution to financing these schools. Such practices have helped the school meet many requirements in terms of operation and equipment but have created huge differences directly related to the schools’ educational qualifications. Yolcu (2014) argues two reasons for this differentiation. The first reason is related to the social class of these families. Hereunder, the more one moves from lower to middle and upper social classes, the more support families give toward financing public schools. The second reason addresses the effort and enterprise school principals and teachers exhibit to solve the financial problems of their schools. When school principals are not involved, teachers and families have to contact artisans, merchants, and nongovernmental

152  Hüseyin Yolcu organizations to help fund the school. Some teachers willingly see to this task, whereas others do not feel obligated to support the conditions of their students and do not see it as a direct task to be carried out. These newly required marketing ventures have caused teachers to highlight their communication skills (e.g., speaking, persuasion, and entrepreneurial genius) more than their occupational features like lesson planning, class management, dealing with in-class problems, and time management. Ünal (2005) notes that state and school heads identify and characterize teachers who contribute to school finance as “dedicated” and “student centered” and “the ones who take their requirements into considerations and try to meet” (p. 8). Results from this same survey also indicated that school principals often try to establish a hidden competition among the teachers at school meetings by disclosing how much money each has collected. These marketized values take the place of professional criteria in the evaluation of teachers’ performances, which in turn lowers the prestige and status of the teaching profession. The prominence of families financing Turkey’s education is closely related to democracy and participation. Both are powerful arguments in the localization of its education. Thus, in public schools, which have been dislocated from the position of being a serious alternative to private schools, families have been expected to make the necessary arrangements for their children to study in better conditions, according to their own expectations. This is done by getting their voices heard and participating in either school management or creating pressure on the administration. In this manner, family voice and involvement in their children’s education has increased the pressure and control over teachers, forcing them to modify their own behaviors in accordance with the families’ expectations and requirements—­modifying their behavior, in effect, to improve customer satisfaction (Yolcu, 2011; Yolcu, 2014). In Turkey, the students’ transition from primary to secondary education, and from secondary to higher education if possible, is based on the results of centralized examinations. Primary responsibility for preparing students for these examinations lies with public and private school teachers. Students’ success with these examinations allows them to attend more qualified upper educational institutions and is an indication of both the schools’ and the teachers’ qualifications. As Ünal (2005) states, these centralized examination results are used for pulling more customers/students into private schools. Thus, the families sending their children to public schools are competing for the opportunity to send their children to these “better” schools and teachers. Here, teacher qualifications are seen as equivalent to training students to be successful on the centralized examinations. This equivalency has paved the way for a number of unsound pedagogical practices such as lecturing the students with subjects in the curriculum conditionally if those subjects are included in the tests and dwelling on the ones to be covered widely and in more details. This situation creates family and student expectations that the information to be given is sorted by teachers based

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  153 on “instrumentality” and not on “interest.” This expectation acts as a control and pressure mechanism by causing teachers to question their qualifications, expertness, and professional sufficiency. Therefore, it forces them to be more open, transparent, and competitive. The centralized examinations results create a supply-demand imbalance between primary and secondary education and secondary education and higher education. The results, in turn, have led to both rote learning-based education and a widespread increase in the number of private education institutions (called “course”), which prepare student for the exams. As a result, middle and lower social class parents, who want education and social mobility for their children, think they must send them to these institutions. This understanding and practice has led to the conflation of training, education, and preparation for the examinations. Unfortunately, student achievement is very low despite very busy exam traffic. Kurul (2012) suggests this social context creates a negative impression of teachers and students, that is, that they are manipulative, competitive, lazy, passive, and hedonistic. Furthermore, in this context, children and youth of all ages are legitimized within a frame of “competitive,” “competitor,” and “perfectionist.” Therefore, today the teacher’s task is limited to preparing students for the exam, and successes are discussed in relationship to students’ performance on the examination. In Turkey, one of the processes that makes the students proletarianized is that the educational environment has been equipped with expansive technology through the final stage of the FATIH Project (Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology Operation) in 2010. The MoNE described this project as an “education reform.” Through the project, lectures are given to students using Z Books (rich and interactive e-books) and EBA (a network of education informatics). Every school also has video conference capability as well as SmartBoards, multifunctional network printers, and copiers. As Adams and Tulasiewicz (1995) noted, teachers use different teaching methods to teach their subjects effectively considering course content and educational purposes and do so, as a requirement of their professionalism and as a contribution to their professional skills and specialization. Yet, Aksoy, Almış, Saklan, Ulutaş, and Tunacan (2013) observed that the implementation of each technological tool should have training under the supervision of a teacher in each class. Without this training, teachers become subordinates of these instruments, converting them into technicians and said proletarianizing. In recent years, privatization advocates and conservative politicians have advocated for evaluating the performance of teachers by various stakeholders, including parents, students, and administrators. This case is consistent with market conditions and the result of competition-based management. It is regarded as the business of school, where the teacher contributes to the profit, using a worker’s logic. Evaluation of people working the private sector of education, as in the case of the public administration in Turkey, is

154  Hüseyin Yolcu a “classic evaluation” and falls within the “Performance Evaluation Model and Registry of Teachers Report.” Developed by the MoNE in 2001, the report put forward the idea that teachers’ performance should be evaluated multidimensionally, including input about performance by their training supervisors, school administrators, the teachers themselves, colleagues, and family as well as multiple sources of student data. The evaluation system is articulated in the Performance Management Model in Schools. As noted by Eğitim-Sen (2015), the original intent of the performance evaluation was not to improve the professional development of teachers, unlike teachers, who wanted to simplify the original labor-power relationship. Turkey treating their teachers as the proletariat and “technical people” is also visible in the MoNE’s teacher qualification standards. In 2006, the MoNE developed six broad teacher competency areas: (1) personal and professional values; (2) student recognition; (3) the process of learning and teachers; (4) learning, development, monitoring, and evaluation; (5) family and school-community relations; and (6) program and content information. Thirty-one subareas of competence and 233 measurable performance indicators were also developed. Collectively, these are used to demonstrate the adequacy of realization (Eğitim-Sen, 2015). In general, there were three areas of teacher training—domain knowledge, pedagogical training (PT), and teaching profession. In 1997, a World Bank project, along with the National Education Development Project in Turkey and the Council of Higher Education (CoHE), fully reorganized the teacher training system. Together they replaced the education, philosophy, and psychology sciences, such as economics and history courses, and limited training efforts to teachers’ PT with technical information. These developments eliminated the autonomy of teachers and differentiated the duties and roles within their schools. A closer look at the PT course illustrates the magnitude of these changes. The PT course has a special place in the context of educational philosophy and psychology and addresses the pedagogical aspects of education, the fundamental questions of human life, and the area where thought and praxis probe one’s membership in society. These courses also fostered a teacher’s knowledge of the community and understandings about individual development. Given Turkey’s many cultures and ethnicities, today’s teacher candidates graduate devoid of this understanding (Can et al., 2013; Ünal, 2011). Thus, in 1997, the teacher was defined as intermediate technical manpower. This declining teacher identity went from being known for intellectual identity and skill with social problems to solving daily problems, going about the business of doing well, and investigating ways to increase revenue by way of competition (Ünal, 2011).

Increase in the Number of Unemployed Teachers The mental-cognitive-educated labor supply of skilled professionals, who have come under the threat of cutting structural unemployment, is one of

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  155 the most critical aspects of today’s unemployment in Turkey (Bora, Bora, Erdoğan, & Üstün, 2011). The report “University Graduate Population Labor Situation in Turkey,” by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey Research Center (2015), contains important findings as to draw attention on examining growing number of unemployed university graduates between 2010 and 2014. According to the findings, the unemployment rate of university graduates in Turkey in 2000 was 7%. The proportion of unemployed university graduates was 10% in 2005, in 2010 and 2014 was realized as 11% to 13%. (p. 1) One of the striking findings in the report is that one out of every 10 unemployed persons in 2000 and one out of every four in 2014 were unemployed university graduates. The study indicated that there is a continuous increase in the number of unemployed university graduates in the teaching and education sciences. For example, the number of unemployed teaching and education science graduates in 2009 was 62,000; in 2016, there were 69,000 graduates (Turkish Statistics Institution [TSI], 2016). Eşme (2014) offers three reasons for the increase in unemployed teachers in Turkey. One is closely related to employment policies of the MoNE. For example, two different legal arrangements—one in 1997 and the other in 2012—increased the duration of compulsory education, which created teacher recruitment issues. In 1997, the Eight Years of Compulsory Education Act 4306 expanded compulsory education from five to eight years, significantly increasing enrollment rates in primary education. During the first three years following implementation of the law, a total of 188,554 teachers were employed (MoNE, 2002). Because the number of available teachers who graduated from the faculty of education was not sufficient to meet this need, a number of graduates from different faculties, including vets, engineers, and chemists, were assigned as teachers. None of these graduates participated in PT. In 2012, the 4+4+4 legislation passed, which reduced the five-year primary school to four. This one-year reduction put many teachers out of service. Many transitioned to their second or different subject areas. According to MoNE (2012), there were 23,559 teachers who transferred to other subject areas. Thus, the 4+4+4 policy also increased the number of unemployed new graduates from Turkey’s education faculties. To offset workforce imbalances, the “Regulation on Permanent Staff of School Administrators and Teachers in the MoNE” (Official Gazette No. 1999 23782) required teachers and administrators to be identified on the basis of certain conditions in educational institutions and assignments across the country made accordingly. Although more teachers were assigned to regions with shortages, the policy could not prevent the imbalances that

156  Hüseyin Yolcu arose from these assignments. Temporary paid and contracted teachers were appointed to fill these assignments (Eğitim Reform Girişimi (ERG), 2014). Second, in 1982, control over teacher training institutions was taken from the MoNE and given to universities. Since then, there has been a steady increase in the number of education faculties due to the rising number of universities. In the 2014–2015 academic year, 217,000 students attended 92 education faculties in 74 public and 18 private foundation universities (Hürriyet Gazetesi, 2016a). Like many countries, faculties of education enroll some of the largest numbers of students. These enrollments, however, only benefit higher education rather than meet any teacher requirements (Eşme, 2014). The third explanation Eşme (2014) offers for the teacher shortage is that faculty of arts and sciences and theology were given a role in preparing teachers for secondary education through the PT program. PT is a compulsory, 24-credit education program for people who want to work as ­secondary-level teachers. This change, beyond reducing PT to 24 credits, was also presented as a solution for white-collar unemployment levels. On the other hand, initially limited to arts and sciences and theology faculties, PT has now been opened to almost all university students. Because there are no restrictions on who can take these courses, almost all students enroll. Still, many of these graduates do not become teachers. Applicants to the PT program have assumed it is associated with a higher income rather than the demands of higher education institutions. The education faculties are uneasy about this situation. In 2016, deans of the education faculties stated, “CoHE’s pressure to fit pedagogical training certificate program in a limited period is wrong. They feel disturbed because the programme is carried out only to meet university obligations and not in the name of science and the country’s future” (Hürriyet Gazetesi, 2016b). To avoid an increase in the number of university graduates who finished PT but could not be assigned as teachers, CoHE set a PT enrollment quota of 15,000 for the 2015–2016 academic year. Since then, the education faculties have determined the number of students to admit. Although the decision was right and proper, due to demand, CoHE has taken a step back and allowed the university to determine quotas directly. Some universities, like Gazi University, one of the most established universities in Turkey, decided to increase the quota immediately. Others, like the University Senate, increased the quotas initially set by CoHE from 350 to 4,000, more than tenfold (Hürriyet Gazetesi, 2016b). Students of PT pay nearly 2,000 for a teaching certificate, which includes expenses such as pens, photocopying, and textbooks as well as housing, transport, and food. Many also give up the income from working another job to attend school. These expenses make an economic contribution to the universities as well as an indirect contribution to the city where they attend. Yolcu, Aktas, and Ogün (2012) explain how both universities and CoHE handle the business nature of PT. Within business logic, universities sell

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  157 students the prospect of being teacher. Universities make efforts to ensure a return on their capital resources rather than offering a scientific education. This puts the teaching profession in a situation that can be bought and sold with money and reduces the relationship between the university and students to a customer-merchant position. As İlhan (2008) noted, more than changing the image of teaching, this new relationship puts market values in front of professional values. The demand for being part of the teaching profession is related to the market values of job security versus unemployment and income rather than professional idealism. In the end, it devalues the teaching profession. Certainly, this situation cannot be addressed independent of political power. When the Justice and Development Party (JDP) came to power in 2002, the unemployment rate for university graduates was 7%. In 2014, this rate increased to 13% (Grand National Assembly of Turkey Research Centre, 2015). These data indicate that the JDP failed to solve unemployment problem of university graduates. JDP, therefore, wanted to increase the likelihood of graduates from different faculties being able to earn a PT document and become employed teachers. Doing this allows the JDP to, temporarily, ward off criticism from different sectors of society within the framework of market relations.

Effects of Unemployment and Job Insecurity on Teachers The employment regime in Turkey is known as one of the most rigid worldwide. The employers and organizations representing them have made frequent complaints and emphasize the need to develop flexibility, particularly with respect to the public sector, which is often described as a bastion of secure employment. For instance, the number of employees under contract in the public sector increased 76% between 2007 and 2010 in Turkey (Bora et al., 2011). According to State Personnel Department (2016) data, the proportion of contract staff in the public sector is about 4%. As Bora et al. (2011) suggested, “rationalization” and “privatization of education by removing it from being a public service, in the public sector” makes educational services far from being a haven of security for teachers. MoNE (2016) data indicate that 94 out of every 100 teachers in service are permanent and six are on contract status. Since 2002, public personnel, including teachers, have been recruited through the examination called Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE). Teachers who want to be permanent staff in public schools have been appointed based on the PPSE score and the quota situation of the teaching department to which they want to be assigned. Between the years 2002 and 2012, the PPSE exam included questions on general culture, general skills, and educational sciences, including pedagogical knowledge. In 2013, the Specific Knowledge Test (SKT) was added. Preservice teachers’ SKT scores are often interpreted as an indication of their qualifications as a

158  Hüseyin Yolcu teacher. Yet, in 2014, as in 2013, preservice teachers’ SKT scores in all test areas were alarmingly low. Although teachers are assigned according to their PPSE scores, there is no research that links the exam results to the quality of preservice teachers and, in turn, the quality of students’ education. There is, however, evidence that preservice teachers’ chances of working after their university educations are low. For example, in 2003, of the 127,973 preservice teachers who sat for the PPSE, only 17.82% of them were appointed, and in 2014, only 15.52% of the 283,583 examinees were assigned (Eğitim-Sen, 2016). So although the number of students graduating in education has increased, few are assigned to work in the public schools. Gümüş and Çetin (2012) state that teachers sit for the PPSE exam 1.8 times on average. In this regard, the highest average rate of 2.7 belongs to teachers working on contract or teachers doing another job. These data confirm data previously shared about preservice teachers’ preparation for the PPSE after graduation. It should be noted that the onset of the PPSE has steadily increased the demand for institutions to provide preparation services. Teachers have turned to institutions that offer these courses, which puts an additional financial burden on families. For families of middle and lower socioeconomic status with students in the faculty of education, the situation is even worse. Gümüş and Çetin’s (2012) found that those who spend maximum costs for the PPSE preparation courses are teachers who cannot be assigned. Those who cannot be assigned are known as unemployed teachers. In Turkey, these unemployed teachers have organized under the umbrella of the Unappointed Teachers’ Platform in an effort to defend their rights. They earn a living by tutoring, working in study centers and private courses, or working on contract without any job security. Unable to find permanent employment, these teachers tend to work other market-related jobs, which adds to the proletarianization and exploitation of teachers (Demirer, 2012; Gümüş & Çetin, 2012). Kiraz’s (2014) study shows that although teacher unemployment is widespread among those under 30 years old, the level of unemployment for those over 30 years cannot be underestimated. As they get older, teachers give up being assigned to permanent and secure positions. Unemployment is more common among the graduates of teaching in the social sciences field than those who graduate in natural sciences, who can be added more easily to the market. Unemployed teachers also face intense social pressure. Teachers who are graduates of public schools, sit for the PPSE exam, and are not assigned as permanent staff do not want to return to their families. They also suffer from pressure outside the immediate environment and are often met with questions like, “What happened when you finished the school,” “Were you not be able to be teacher,” and “What will happen now?” (Bayram, 2009; Bora et al., 2011). The public-institutional social security system in Turkey is known to be quite inadequate.

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  159 The middle class in Turkey is defined through education and profession. It means that profession and individual merit based on education are important for the middle class. However, the meaning of being unemployed for middle-class men and women is different than for young unemployed people in the lower class (Bora et al., 2011). Young, unemployed teachers belonging to families in the middle and upper social classes, unlike those in the lower social strata, can wait longer for an employment opportunity that will provide a standard of living according to their intellectual capital. Thus, the boundaries of dependence established within middle and upper social class families mean the young unemployed are more flexible. Indeed, young people with a long period of unemployment tend to extend their education. In this manner, they increase their human capital by staying a student and postpone getting married and starting a family (Bora et al., 2011; Çelik, 2008). The white-collar unemployed, especially those in the middle-class, can be more selective about their opportunities because of family support and the qualifications they possess. Their selectivity may be increased in highly respected professions like engineering (Bora et al., 2011). However, the selectivity for unemployed teachers, who would be mostly employed in public institutions, does not offer as much as the occupational groups that are reputable and highly employed in market. (Kiraz, 2014) observed that unemployed teachers primarily apply for permanent employment in the public sector and, if necessarily, turn to the private sector. They are forced to adapt to temporary, on-contract, low, flexible work styles that do not require qualifications—a move that results in precarisation. As Bora et al. (2011) highlighted, unemployed teachers endure all these adversities “for the sake of income to maintain the minimum level of life,” or “having a real job, “or “because they care about the status of working rather than being unemployed.” Many social and economic rights come with a job, but one’s visibility in the public sphere results primarily through his or her professional role (Bora et al., 2011; İlhan, 2008). There are unique aspects of this case for the middle classes because education and occupation are among the major components of social belonging. For the person who works as a teacher or in a different occupation, this professional and social belonging means much more than working. Hence, being deprived of something once possessed results in a loss of meaning and value beyond not working (Bora et al., 2011). When the subject is approached in terms of unemployed teachers, it is necessary to clarify why they chose to work in these precarious forms of work on a contractual basis. Bayram’s study (2009) revealed that unemployed teachers, who prefer to work as a paid or contract-based teachers, have a particular set of expectations: to gain experience, to earn an income, to maintain their lifestyles, to be able to work in the city, to leave the job whenever they want, to feel less responsibility, and to have health insurance.

160  Hüseyin Yolcu Job insecurity adversely affects both contract teachers and paid teachers’ personalities and psychology. These disadvantages are even more pronounced in paid teachers rather than contract teachers. Contract teachers feel under more stress, and job insecurity increases their future concerns and hinders long-term planning for their future (Bayram, 2009). The presence of a family to give financial support for unemployed teachers determines the effects of unemployment in addition to preventing the emergence of the previously mentioned negative psychological problems (Kiraz, 2014). It is necessary to dwell on the negative impact of the “permanent staff” application on permanent teachers. Researches reveal that the position of paid and contract teachers has a negative impact on their commitment to the teaching profession, self-esteem, and feelings (Bayram, 2009; Güvercin, 2014; Öğülmüş, Yıldırım, & Arslan, 2013). Studies also show that these teachers have perpetual anxiety, particularly if their schools always lack permanent staff. This situation lowers their commitment to the school and has a negative impact on their job satisfaction and productivity (Çelik, 2004; Gülbahar, 2004). Job insecurity in contract and paid teachers may also adversely affect their communication and interactions with school administrators, staff, teachers, parents, and students. School administrators’ attitudes and behaviors toward paid and contract teachers may be different from permanent teachers. For instance, whereas permanent teachers are able to enter into discussions with school administrators to seek their rights and pay, contract teachers may be more timid and passive out of concern that their contracts may not be renewed (Bayram, 2009; Güvercin, 2014; Polat, 2013). The attitudes and behaviors of school permanent teachers are no different from those of school administrators. Permanent teachers regard pay and contract teachers as “temporary” and see them as intern teachers. In fact, in some cases, contract and paid teachers have difficulty communicating with the school’s permanent teachers and may have trouble participating in social activities organized by this group (Bayram, 2009; Güvercin, 2014; Polat, 2013). Parents prefer permanent teachers rather than paid or contract teachers whom they think of as “temporary” (Bayram, 2009; Güvercin, 2014; Canaz, Artun, & Arslan, 2015). When the teacher enters the class, one of the first questions students ask is whether he or she is a “permanent, contract, or paid teacher.” As such, contract teachers do not want their families and students to know their employment type. One of the main reasons is that they are often regarded as “insufficient” by parents and students, who compare them to permanent teachers. Thus, this type of employment becomes decisive in students’ perceptions about the teacher’s role and shapes the patterns of behavior in the classroom. Therefore, contract and paid teachers deal with more problems about classroom management (Yolcu, 2011). Consequently, these teachers, in a sense, are forced to prove that they are “good teachers.” This causes them to enter into an implicit competition

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  161 with permanent teachers in their school, which increases internal tensions (Bayram, 2009; Canaz et al., 2015; Güvercin, 2014; Polat, 2013). Studies in the literature also indicate that paid or contract teachers working without job security, as well as teachers working in private courses, are not satisfied with their working conditions. They have intense weekly working hours, renewal of their contracts is uncertain, and wage levels are low. Furthermore, they have no opportunities to progress in this sector. The intense work hours, extracurricular responsibilities, and flexible and unregulated working conditions, which do not comply with legal functioning, ruin teachers psychologically, socially, and physically (Tümer, 2010; Yel, 2014). The number of suicides among paid and contract teachers is estimated to increase.

Conclusion Since the republic’s early years, teachers have been accepted as professional members of an occupation. In this context, teachers have the identity of enlightened, intellectual, and dedicated professionals who are responsible for the development of society. However, in Turkey, the neoliberal policies of market cycles, which determined a restructuring of public education after the 1980s, have also been decisive in transforming the teaching profession. Today’s teachers are externally manipulated and competitive. Many are unemployed or work as paid or contract teachers with no job security. Teaching is now considered within the framework of market relations rather than professional idealism. In addition, teacher training in Turkey has been reorganized and reduced to a process of training technicians, absent of the professional attributes once valued by society. These market policies have led to the rapid deskilling of teachers and have resulted in them being proletarianized.

References Adams, A., & Tulasiewicz, W. (1995). The crisis in teacher education: A European concern? London: Falmer Press. Aksoy, H. H., Almış, S., Saklan, E., Ulutaş, B., & Tunacan, S. (2013). Eğitimde teknoloji kullanımına ilişkin eleştirel bir değerlendirme. (Derleyenler: Nejla Kurul, Öztürk Tuğba, İhsan Metinnam). İçinde Kamusal Eğitim Eleştirel Yazılar. Ankara: Siyasal kitabevi, pp. 107–127. Bayram, G. (2009). The differences in teachers’ employment types and the problems it caused: A study based on the thoughts of contract and substitute teachers working in Ankara (Master’s thesis). Ankara University Education Sciences Institute, Ankara. Bora, T, Bora, A., Erdoğan, N., & Üstün, I. (2011). Boşuna Mı Okuduk: Türkiye’de Beyaz Yakalı İşsizliği. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Buyruk, H. (2015). Öğretmen emeğinin dönüşümü. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Can, B., Gök, F., & ve Şimşek, S. (2013). Toplumsal barışın inşasında öğretmenlerin rolü: Kürt Meselesi Okula Nasıl Yansıyor? İstanbul: Helsinki Yurttaşlar Derneği.

162  Hüseyin Yolcu Canaz, A. K., & Arslan, G. (2015). An analysis on the neoliberal transformation created by flexible work in public schools. International Review of Social Sciences, 3(1), 1–15. Çelik, D. (2004). Evaluation the norm staff practices by the teachers made redundant due to these practices (Master’s Thesis). Hacettepe University Social Sciences Enstitute, Ankara. Çelik, K. (2008, August). My state is my father’: Youth unemployment experiences under the weakstate welfare provisions of Turkey. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(4), 429–444. Demirer, D. (2012). Eğitimde piyasalaşma ve öğretmen emeğinde dönüşüm. Çalışma ve Toplum, 32, 167–186. Eğitim Reform Girişimi (ERG). (2014). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2013. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayını. Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası (Eğitim-Sen). (2015). 5. Demokratik Eğitim Kurultayı 3–7 Şubat 2014. Ankara: Eğitim-Sen Yayınları. Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası (Eğitim-Sen). (2016). Ataması Yapılmayan Öğretmenlerin Sesine Kulak Verin. Retrieved from http://egitimsen.org.tr/atamasiyapilmayan-ogretmenlerin-sesine-kulak-verin/ [Accessed June 15, 2016]. Eşme, İ. (2014). Türkiye’de eğitimci istihdamı ve ‘atanamayan öğretmenler’. Retrieved from www.aljazeera.com.tr/gorus/turkiyede-egitimci-istihdami-veatanamayan-ogretmenler [Accessed June 25, 2016]. Grand National Assembly of Turkey Research Center. (2015). The report university graduate population labor situation in Turkey. Retrieved from http://Spm. Ku.Edu.Tr/Wp-Content/Uploads/2015/01/Turkiye_De_Universite_Mezunu_ Nufusun_Isgucu_Durumu-1.Pdf Adresinden [Accessed June 15, 2016]. Gülbahar, B. (2004). The problems of norm cadre application in national education and solution proposals about the topic (Master’s thesis). Gazi University Education Sciences Enstitute, Ankara. Gümüş, A. ve Çetin, İ. (2012). Öğretmen işsizliği ve dershane öğretmenliği: atanan ve atanmayan öğretmenlerin uyarlanma biçimleri. Eleştirel Pedagoji. KasımAralık S 4. Ankara. Gümüşlü, B. (2005). Cumhuriyet ve öğretmen: aydınlanma politikası ve öğretmen kimliği, yayınlanmamış (Doctoral thesis). Hacettepe University Social Sciences Institute. Güvercin, G. (2014). Informal workplace practices and learning experiences of permanent and hourly-paid teachers: A comparative study (Doctoral thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul. Hürriyet Gazetesi. (2016a, Mart 24). Eğitim fakültelerinin dört önemli sorunu. Retrieved from www.hurriyet.com.tr/egitim-fakultelerinin-en-onemli-dort-sorunu40074796. Adresinden 20 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde alınmıştır. Hürriyet Gazetesi. (2016b, Şubat 26). Retrieved from www.hurriyet.com.tr/ yerel-haberler/malatya-haberleri/egitim-fakultesi-dekanlari-konseyi-malatya-dat_249345/ [Accessed July 12, 2016]. İlhan, S. (2008). Yeni Kapitalizm ve Meslek Olgusunun Değişen Anlamları Üzerine. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21, 313–328. Kiraz, Z. (2014). End of welfare professions: Unemployment of teachers in turkey and critical analysis of unassigned teachers’ act (Doctoral thesis). Ankara University Education Sciences Institute, Ankara. Kurul, N. (2012). Geleceğin eğitimi ve ‘yeni’ zorunlu eğitim modeline ilişkin çıkarımlar. Eğitim Bilim ve Toplum, 10(39), 42–77.

From Professionalism to Proletarianization  163 Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2001). Öğretmenlerin Performans Değerlendirme ve Sicil Raporları. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2002, March 4). Aksaray Milletvekili Ramazan Toprak’ın 13430/31957 Esas Numaralı Soru Önergesine İlişkin Bilgi. Retrieved from www.tbmm.gov.tr/tutanak/donem21/yil2/bas/b055m.htm [Accessed June 21, 2016]. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2012, 28 f). Hasan Hüseyin Türkoğlu’nun 7/11609 Esas Numaralı Yazılı Soru Önergesine İlişkin Bilgi. Soru Önergesi. Retrieved from www.memurlar.net/haber/327598/ [Accessed June 21, 2012]. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2016, April 22). Tokat Millet Vekili Kadım Durmaz’ın 7/1885 Esas Numaralı Yazılı Soru Önergesine İlişkin Bilgi. Retrieved from www2.tbmm.gov.tr/d26/7/7-1901sgc.pdf [Accessed June 21, 2016]. Öğülmüş, K., Yıldırım, N., & Arslan, G. (2013). Analysis of the issues faced by the substitute teachers and an evaluation of the practice of substitute teaching from the perspective of school administrators. Elementary Education Online, 12(4), 1086–1099. Özdil, Nazlı G. (2015). Teacher identity formation in the early era of the republic of Turkey (Master’s Thesis). The Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University, Ankara. Polat, S. (2013). Ücretli öğretmenlik istihdamının yarattığı sorunlar üzerine nitel bir araştırma. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Aralık 2013, Sayı 28, 67–88. State Personnel Department. (2016). Public personnel statistics. Retrieved from www.dpb.gov.tr/tr-tr/istatistikler/kamu-personeli-istatistikleriadresinden [Accessed June 16, 2016]. Tümer, N. (2010). Dershane öğretmenlerinde iş tatmini: Adapazarı dershanelerinde bir araştırma. Yüksek lisans tezi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sakarya. Turkish Statistics Institution (TSI). (2016). Labor statistics (2000–2015). Retrieved from www.tuik.gov.tr/pretablo.do?alt_id=1007 [Accessed June 2016]. Ünal, Leyla I. (2005). Öğretmen imgesinde neoliberal dönüşüm. Eğitim Bilim Toplum, 3(11), 4–15. Ünal, Leyla I. (2011). Öğretmenliğe ve öğretmen yetiştirmeye ilişkin ekonomi politik bir çözümleme. Edit. Songül Aynal Kilimci. İçinde Türkiye’de Öğretmen Yetiştirme. Ankara: PEGEM A Yayıncılık, pp. 3–23. Yel, Ş. (2014). The transformation of white-collar workers in the frame of globalization and neo-liberalism: A study on teachers that working in private university preparation courses in Nazilli (Master’s thesis). Adnan Menderes University Institute of Social Sciences, Aydın. Yolcu, H. (2011). Decentralization of education and strengthening the participation of parents in school administration in Turkey: What has changed? Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(3), 1229–1251. Yolcu, H. (2014). Education Agenda of Turkey: Marketing within context of neoliberal policies. In D. Turner & H. Yolcu (Eds.), Neo-liberal educational reforms: A critical analysis (pp. 50–72). New York, NY: Routledge. Yolcu, H., Aktaş, Y., & Güney, O. (2012). The economic contributions of the University of Kastamonu to Kastamonu Province. European Journal of Social Sciences, 33(4), 573–587.

11 Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms A Search for Holistic Individual and National Development Peter Otiato Ojiambo Introduction Kenya’s educational policy reforms that encompass teacher education have a long history. Their address and effects on the ideas of the common good have varied across Kenya’s colonial and postcolonial period. In this chapter, a critical examination is made of Kenya’s educational policy reforms in both the colonial and postcolonial periods and their search for both holistic individual and national development. Specifically, the chapter examines the framework that has undergirded Kenya’s educational policy reforms; Kenya’s educational policy reforms in the colonial and postcolonial periods; teacher preparation programs in Kenya and their nexus to holistic individual and national development; and a narrative of my lived experience as an educator with regard to the role of Kenyan schools in fostering holistic individual and national development. Additionally, the chapter provides a critique of Kenya’s educational policy reforms, their challenges, and future prospects. Although there have been numerous educational policy reforms in Kenya over the years, they have had minimal impact on Kenya’s social, political, and economic spheres. A glance at education in Kenya in the last 50 years indicates that economic, career, and examination concerns have shaped its focus. This approach has led to several challenges in the education sector, namely, declining quality, low student enrolments and transition rates, gender, class, as well as regional disparities. Much political interference marks Kenya’s educational policy reform process. To address these challenges, this chapter contends that it is important for the reforms to be in tandem with Kenya’s educational goals, depoliticized and anchored in law, protected from political manipulation, handled by educational experts, and adequately financed and implemented.

Theoretical Framework An examination of Kenya’s educational policy reforms show that they have drawn their objectives from neo-Marxist scholars such as Schultz (1981),

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  165 Harbison (1973), Pscharopolous (1988), and Nwomonoh (1998), who focus on the human capital developmental aspects of education. These scholars view investment in education as investment in human capital that has great potential to accelerate economic growth, production of skilled human power, technological innovations, wealth creation and income distribution, equality, longevity, national unity, political stability, better health outcomes, and declines in population growth and crime. In many of his works on this subject, Schultz (1981) postulates that population quality and knowledge constitute the principal determinants of the future welfare of humankind. Expounding on this further, Harbison (1973) argues that the wealth of nations depends on their capacity to develop their human resources. He argues that “a country which is unable to develop the skills and knowledge of its people and to utilize them effectively in the national economy will be unable to develop anything else” (p. 3). According to Pscharopolous (1988), education is considered the route to economic prosperity; the key to scientific and technological advancement; the means to combat unemployment; the foundation of social equality, justice, and equal wealth distribution; and the spearhead of political socialization and cultural diversity. Education is seen by Sen (1999) as defining and guiding citizenship, national unity, and cultural, economic, and political development. According to Nwomonoh (1998), education is expected to improve the economic and social conditions of the masses. This involves reduction of poverty, ignorance, disease, hunger, unemployment, oppression, injustice, and corruption. Greater optimism regarding human capital theory flourished in the 1960s and 1970s both in the developed and less developed countries. During this period, various researchers, major international donors, private foundations, and governments sponsored conferences, seminars, research, and publications underscoring that investment in education was a vital development investment. Education was seen as leading to higher production of human capital, which in turn, would accelerate economic growth, overall societal growth, and modernization. Over the years, hundreds of studies have been conducted to estimate educational returns. Most of these studies show that schooling is a crucial factor in explaining variation in productivity, wages, and individual and national development. A 2010 report that reviewed Kenya’s educational progress noted that education is one of the most promising pathways to national development in all spheres (Sifuna & Sawamura, 2010). As evidenced from this literature, the benefits emanating from educational opportunities are explicit, and when such opportunities are opened to women and other minorities, the benefits are even greater. During the pre-independence period in the 1950s, Kenyan leaders joined the international community to pursue this logic. At independence in 1963, leaders promised to decolonize education, invest in the sector, and use it as a vehicle to promote equity, economic growth, and social progress. It is against this backdrop that education policy reforms and the need for them to foster holistic individual and national development have been

166  Peter Otiato Ojiambo long-standing objectives of the Kenyan government. Although the causal relationship between schooling and national development in Kenya is less extensive, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the provision of quality education leads to development in all societal areas. It is for this reason that the Kenyan government, communities, development partners, and parents have invested heavily in the sector. In the last five decades, Kenya’s education sector has experienced both positive and negative results. Some of the positive results include the establishment of responsive policy and legal frameworks; heavy investment in the sector by the government, international donors, and private sector; rapid increase in the number of learning institutions; high student enrolments; and the production of professionals. On the other hand, the system has been accused of being examination centred, materialistic, less focused on a collective effort and social responsibility, rigid in its objectives and curricula, and riddled with economic, regional, and gender disparities. In a nutshell, according to Abagi and Ogachi (2014), Kenya has managed to install “hardware” in the education sector. What has eluded it is the development of the “software” that entails creating equal access to schooling, instilling and promoting national development and transformative norms and values. It is in the light of these challenges that this chapter critically examines Kenya’s educational policy reforms in both colonial and postcolonial periods and their search for holistic individual and national development.

Kenya’s Educational Policy Reforms in the Colonial Period After the First World War, the Kenyan colonial government took a number of measures with regard to African1 education. First, it ended its hitherto spectator status in education and initiated a system of grants in aid immediately after establishing the Department of Education in 1911. Prior to that time, development of education policy was mainly provided by Christian missions. Second, it appointed the East Africa Protectorate Education Commission in 1919 to review education. According to Achola and Pillai (2000), the commission was mandated to look into the unsatisfactory status of education for all races in the protectorate. The commission recommended the need for the colonial government to increase its provision of education to all races. It underscored that a sound African education could be built only on a body of well-trained teachers. It was clear during this period that the Department of Education sought to address inequalities that were prevalent in the education system. Several other commissions were also undertaken in subsequent years to review education: Phelps-Stokes Commission (1924), a Ten Year Plan (1948), the Beecher report (1949), and the Binns Commission (1952). The Phelps-Stokes Commission advocated for both quantitative and qualitative improvement of African education. One objective of this qualitative improvement was to give Africans equal opportunities to access

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  167 education and to receive an academic education similar to that which was offered to Europeans and Asians. The commission advocated for an education policy that provided equal education opportunities to all races and fuller cooperation between the government and missions in achieving this. It explored ways of how teachers could be trained in the shortest time possible to achieve this. Its report formed the backbone on which Kenyan education was cemented during this period. Although the commission was expected to create avenues for Africans to have quality and equal access to education, this was not achieved and between 1924 and 1949, education remained largely racially divided. Europeans and Asians had an education that emphasized academics, preparing them for white-collar jobs, whereas Africans received a labor-centered, vocational education. Although the commission made some important gains in providing quantity and quality education to all races than it had in the preceding years, the improvement in these areas for Africans was minimal. Education reforms during this period failed to meet African needs and paid little attention to affective domains. The Ten-Year Plan of 1948 envisaged offering a full primary course for underqualified teachers who could teach 50% of the student population, irrespective of race. In addition, a satisfactory number of students of both sexes and all races was expected to receive education up to the certificate level (Bogonko, 1992; Sifuna, 1990). The plan recommended the establishment of 24 elementary teacher training centers and 16 lower primary teacher training centers. An examination of the plan shows that it endeavoured to provide quality education to all Kenyans irrespective of their race and gender. In addition, it attempted to provide adequate African teachers to achieve these aims. The plan, although noble, was not implemented due to lack of funds. The 1949 Beecher Committee was mandated to examine the scope, content, methods, administration, and financing of African education. It reinforced the educational concerns and arguments of Phelps-Stokes Commission and the Ten Year Development Plan on the provision of equal and practical education to Africans. Although its recommendations formed the basis of the government policy on African education until the last year of colonial rule, Africans strongly opposed its recommendations because it did not address their utilitarian and cultural needs. The general African view of the report was that it was to lead to Europeanization rather than Africanization of education; it sought to offer them marginal education and to keep them in low status. Moreover, Africans did not find its recommendations on the provision of universal primary and higher education, learning facilities, and adequate training of African teachers (Bogonko, 1992). The Binns Commission (1952) was set up to examine the status of education policy, practice, and teacher training. It expressed its concerns regarding the poor internal efficiency of African education and its inability to address their various needs. Its far-reaching recommendations influenced the development of teacher education policy in the later colonial and postcolonial

168  Peter Otiato Ojiambo periods. The commission expressed concern about the lack of quality and professionalism caused by the structure of teacher institutions. It recommended the setting up of large, well-equipped and staffed teacher training institutions. Like the previous commissions, it met fierce criticism from Africans because of its advocacy for neocolonial education and inability to address their social-cultural needs. In the end, the State of Emergency of 1952 hampered the implementation of its recommendations. In addition to several educational commissions that were undertaken during this period, the colonial government passed three major education ordinances in 1924, 1931, and 1934 that were aimed at improving the quality of teacher education and educational inequalities. The three ordinances sought to provide equal education, strengthen quality curricula, and rectify deficiencies in the financing and allocation of grants to all races. It is vital to note that despite the enactment of these ordinances, most African schools received poor, minimal education and financing. The ordinances were not responsive to Africans’ societal concerns. Colonial education policies, even after the 1950s, did not address the salient needs of Africans. Sifuna (1990) and Bogonko (1992) observe that many of them continued to favor Europeans and Asians in terms of quality, finance, curricula, and structure. Bogonko (1992) asserts that during this period, only a small number of African children went to school, and their rate of attrition was very high. Openings for post-primary education for Africans were limited, and those Africans who qualified were restricted by the many examinations they had to pass at each level. Overall, a look at educational policy reforms during this period shows that they did not address African needs in all domains. The findings indicate that the quality of education that was offered to Africans was racially oppressive, minimal, poor, and meant to keep them in low positions.

Kenya’s Educational Policy Reforms in the Postcolonial Period In the postcolonial period, Kenya’s struggle for political independence served as a major impetus for education policy reforms. During the struggle for independence, the nationalists’ main educational aim was to provide Africans with an education that would decolonize schooling and hasten national development. In 1961, when independence was imminent in most African countries, conferences on the development of education in Africa were held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and at Antananarire in Madagascar in 1962. At these two conferences, representatives from African countries set educational priorities that sought to promote their countries’ socioeconomic needs. It was upon this framework that Kenya formulated its modern educational policy. The expansion and reform of the education system during this period was also motivated by political leaders who sought to address critical societal

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  169 needs. Sifuna (1990) observes that during this period “almost every election manifesto called for more educational opportunities that could promote development in all spheres” (p. 55). The education system was expected to fulfill two main objectives: technical and social. The technical objective was to provide future human capital with necessary skills and knowledge, and the social purpose was to inculcate values that could enrich people’s lives and maintain cohesive political and societal sensibilities. In line with this thinking the Kenyan nation devoted its early educational policies to training personnel that could manage its burgeoning socioeconomic and administrative systems. The first undertaking by the government to achieve this was the drafting of the Sessional Paper Number 10 in 1965. The paper saw education as a key means of creating equal socioeconomic opportunities, skilled manpower, and national growth. During this period, the government established several commissions and task forces to examine the role of education in national development. The key ones include the Kenya Education Commission (The Ominde Commission); The National Committee on Educational Objectives and Policy (Gacathi Report); The Presidential Working Party on the Second University (Mackay Report); The Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya (Koech Commission); and Taskforce on the Realignment of the Education Sector to Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Republic of Kenya, 1964, 1965a, 1965b, 1969, 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1981, 1999, 2007). The Ominde Commission of 1964 provided the blueprint for postindependence Kenyan education policy. It was mandated to rectify the anomalies created by the colonial education structure, survey educational resources, and advise the government on the formation and implementation of the required education policy. The commission was influenced by the international opinion on education at the time, the Kenyan socioeconomic and political forces, and available literature on the vitality of education in national development. It recommended a system of education that would decolonize the sector and produce the required national progress. The organization of education policy during this period was closely linked with the management of human resources, labor market demands, and critical societal needs. This link led to the growth of enrolments in secondary schools, a growth that continued into the 1980s and 1990s. It is vital to note that although education was expanding during this period, it was not accompanied by appropriate societal growth. Thus, most school dropouts were left with neither training nor jobs. The social, political, and economic progress that had been envisaged by the commission were not achieved. Due to increased demand for higher education and qualified manpower, the government created more acts in the 1980s and 1990s to remedy the situation. A critical examination of the Ominde Commission demonstrates the government’s commitment of using education to develop the nation. It is important to note that despite their noble objectives, the commission’s recommendations were not implemented in full, a blunder that has had

170  Peter Otiato Ojiambo significant negative effects on Kenyan education for decades. Affirming this, Amutabi (2003) observes, “if the recommendations had been implemented in full Kenya would not have been experimenting with the current education system that is not holistic” (p. 141). In 1975, the government realized that education was not doing much to achieve its stated developmental objectives as had been stipulated in the Ominde Commission. Education curriculum was viewed as being too academic, narrow, and examination centered. The rate of unemployment was growing as increasing numbers of school leavers headed to urban centers in search of nonexistent white-collar jobs. The Gacathi report reiterated the objectives of the Ominde Commission, seeking to enhance the use of education to shape national development and solve pressing societal challenges. It recommended an education policy that could develop vocational, technical, practical, and value-based skills. In the 1980s, the Kenyan government changed its education policy because of the difficulties that were being faced by the graduates of its education system at both the primary and secondary levels. Most graduates who were matriculating from these levels could not be absorbed into the shrinking labor market. The 1981 Mackay Report sought to investigate ways in which the education system could enable students acquire technical, agricultural, commercial, scientific, and practical knowledge essential for self- and salaried employment, lifelong skills, and nation building. Additionally, the commission was mandated to investigate the feasibility of establishing a second university that could assist in this endeavour. The commission advocated for a practical curriculum that would offer a wide range of employment opportunities and equitable distribution of educational resources. Although the commission’s recommendations were broad, they were “more political in nature than in discussing the role of education in nation building” (Amutabi, 2003, p. 137). The education system has faced numerous financial, structural, and pedagogical challenges since its inception in 1988. It was based on these shortfalls that the 1999 Koech Commission was appointed. The Koech Commission, according to Sifuna (2000), strived to address the expansion of basic education, elimination of disparities in education, increased access to education through alternative and continuing education, and promotion of inclusion, unity, social responsibility, and development. To achieve this, the report called for the abolition of the 8–4–4 education system and its replacement with a 7-4-2-3 education system. The proposed education system was seen as a ticket to better development of the individual, community, and nation. The report’s recommendations, according to Amutabi (2003), were pertinent. He writes, “[T]hese were avant-garde recommendations that would have enabled Kenyan education to achieve its developmental needs in all spheres” (p. 141). Despite its comprehensive and rich recommendations, the report was never implemented due to the government’s political position. This is because the commission was appointed due to popular and

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  171 professional uproar over the shortfalls of the 8–4–4 system and not because there was a genuine commitment from the government to reform the education system. The Taskforce on the Realignment of the Education Sector to the Constitution of Kenya (2010) and Vision 2030 recommended improvement in the management, access, quality, and partnership in education. Based on the report, the Ministry of Education developed the Sessional Paper No.14 of 2012 with the theme “Reforming Education and Training Sectors in Kenya.” The report indicated philosophy, vision, mission, goals, objectives of all subsectors of education, policy issues on resource mobilization, governance, management, and institutional structures of each subsector. It underscored the centrality of education in national development. In the postcolonial period, one critical step that the Kenyan government has undertaken to create equality and more access to education has been its offering of universal free primary education (UPE). The government has argued that providing equal opportunities to all its citizens to access education will advance individual and national development. Additionally, there have been attempts since 2013 to provide free secondary education (FSE). Despite the many challenges that have been experienced in these efforts, such as high financial costs, lack of teachers and learning materials among others, it can be argued that Kenya’s efforts to offer UPE and FSE as vehicles of social, economic, and political developments are pertinent. Within this broad education policy framework, the expansion of learning institutions and literacy to all its citizens has been one of Kenya’s greatest achievements in the last 50 years. This has resulted in increased involvement in education and national development by many marginalized groups.

Teacher Preparation Programs in Kenya Teacher preparation institutions in Kenya were started by missionaries and supported by the British colonial government (Sheffield, 1973; Ssekamwa & Lugumba, 2001; Sifuna & Otiende, 2006). The missionaries funded most of the early teacher training colleges and were mainly concerned with primary teacher preparation. The missionaries dominated the training of teachers up to the eve of Kenya’s independence in 1963. As reflected in the Binns Commission (1952) report, teacher training throughout the colonial period was not unified, of low quality, and uncoordinated. By the time the colonial government started taking part in teacher education in 1925, highcaliber teachers were lacking, although these steadily improved as more government colleges were built and missionary colleges amalgamated and strengthened. It is important to note that secondary school teachers were not produced in Kenya until early 1950s. Only Makerere College trained secondary school teachers for the whole of East Africa. It awarded postgraduate teaching certificates and degrees. For many years, Furley and Watson (1978) note its output was small. This was the reason why expatriate

172  Peter Otiato Ojiambo teachers came to dominate secondary schools in Kenya during its first two decades of independence. After independence, the Kenyan government was committed to the development of teacher education in the country. With the increase in enrolments in both primary and secondary schools, it embarked on training programs for teachers to make the education system more effective. A lot of money was invested in the sector, which also consolidated several teacher training centers. The number of primary colleges was reduced and centralized to 17, largely run by the government. After 1960, the primary teachers’ training colleges developed more in size, curriculum, and the number of teacher trainees. For the last five decades, teacher preparation has mostly been managed by governmentfunded teacher training colleges (TTCs), diploma colleges, and universities. Relatively few private institutions, usually affiliated with religious organizations and individuals, provide teacher preparation programs. Kenya has 21 public and nine private TTCs (Republic of Kenya, 1999). Teacher preparation in Kenya has a three-tier structure. The first tier involves the training of preprimary (0–5 years) teachers. The second and third tiers focus on the preparation of primary (1–8 grades) and secondary (9–12 grades) school teachers. Training for special, vocational, technical, agricultural, industrial, and commercial education exists, but different tiers (primary and secondary) determine pertinent teacher preparation, curricular needs, and examinations. Before independence the availability and training of teachers in these areas was nonexistent. Over the decades, the government has initiated elaborate teacher training institutions in these areas. This undertaking has been critical because of Kenya’s efforts to be an industrialized, middleincome country by 2030 (Republic of Kenya, 2007). According to Vision 2030 policy, education is key to societal development. Teacher preparation in Kenya is guided by different philosophies and practices. For example, unlike in the United States, where colleges of education prepare educators for pre-K–12 education, preservice teachers in Kenya are educated at different institutions depending on the scores they obtain from their final secondary education examinations. For instance, a grade of C at the secondary school level permits admission into a primary school (1–8 grade) training college. Scoring a B and above grade at the secondary school in most instances leads to university admission to study high school teaching. Training for preprimary education in Kenya has been influenced by British colonial education. Prior to independence and two decades thereafter, minimal teacher preparation existed in this area. In 1984, the National Center for Early Childhood Education (NACECE) developed curricula for preprimary teachers tailored after the British educational practices. Training for preprimary teachers is a two-year program. Kenya has nearly 44% trained preschool teachers and 56% untrained preschool teachers (as cited in Ukpokodu & Ukpokodu, 2012). Teacher development in this area has been slow.

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  173 Training for primary school teaching requires two years of preparation at a junior teacher training college. In addition to receiving training in extracurricular courses, all preservice teachers preparing to teach at the primary level are trained to instruct seven academic subjects. A certificate in teaching is required to teach at the primary level. At independence, teachers for primary schools were trained in a tier system (P1, P2, and P3). Grade P1 was secondary school (O-level) graduates, Grade P2 was 10th-grade graduates, and Grade P3 was primary school graduates. All attended an additional two years at TTC (Sheffield, 1973; Sifuna, 1990). Even though training for Grade P2 and P3 has been phased out, training for Grade P1 continues. In addition, colleges that offer diplomas have emerged. To gain entry into a diploma college, one needs a minimum of four years of secondary education with grade C+ or above performance. In the last 50 years, Kenyan secondary teacher preparation has witnessed colossal growth. At independence in 1963, the proportion of African teachers with a university degree was small. It declined rapidly as many of them left to replace expatriates in the public and private sector. During this period most schools were taught by expatriates who came through the American Teachers for East Africa program, British Commonwealth Teacher Recruitment Scheme, and Peace Corps. These expatriates made the expansion of secondary education possible during this period. With the explosion in secondary school enrolments in the last five decades, the Kenyan universities have made great strides to train local graduate teachers. The Kenyan government requires all secondary education teachers to have a teaching degree and specialization in two teaching subjects. The latter are chosen from the subjects teachers excel in during their final secondary school examinations. At the secondary level, a diploma is required, and a university degree is preferred. A one-year postgraduate diploma (PGDE) in education is also available at most universities for those holding bachelor’s degrees in various fields with two content areas who wish to be trained as secondary school teachers. Curricula and examinations for both certificate and diploma programs are prepared centrally. In Kenya, the curriculum is prepared through the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD). The role of KICD entails planning, organizing, and implementing the primary and secondary teacher training programs. It offers facilities for enhancing educational research and professional quality of teachers. Universities control their own curricula and examinations. Whereas primary school preparation program and PGDE focus is on professional preparation (pedagogy rather than content), secondary school teacher preparation focuses more on content areas. The emphasis on the pedagogy for primary school teachers is based on the fact that teachers are required to teach all the seven subjects offered in the school curriculum, namely, mathematics, English, Kiswahili, social studies, religious education, science, and physical education. This emphasis on either subject content or pedagogy has created concerns about teacher

174  Peter Otiato Ojiambo effectiveness. Commenting on this, Wasonga (2012) observes that “two years of primary teacher preparation is not adequate to be proficient in both pedagogy and content of all the seven subjects. Besides, the majority of primary school teacher trainees do not do well in these subjects at secondary education” (as cited in Ukpokodu & Ukpokodu, 2012, p. 134). As the demand for schools to improve student achievement has increased, the need for more qualified and effective teachers has become a concern for the government. In response, alternative routes to higher education for primary school teachers have emerged. Currently, standards for admission to TTCs have been revised to C from the initial D+. Primary school teachers now also have opportunities to upgrade their certificates by obtaining a diploma or a degree. It is expected that because more teachers both at the primary and secondary level are getting advanced degrees and more professional training, the quality of teaching and learner outcomes in K–12 will improve. It is vital to note that teacher preparation in Kenya includes both preservice and in-service. Preservice is a full-time undertaking, whereas in-service is part time, leading to certification for untrained practicing teachers.

Teacher Preparation Programs in Kenya and Their Nexus to Holistic Individual and National Development Although teacher preparation programs in Kenya are content and pedagogy centered, the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) and the KICD emphasize to teachers the vitality of incorporating Kenya’s educational goals in their teaching. To comprehend the relationship between teacher preparation programs and their address of the ideas of the common good, it is essential to discuss Kenya’s educational goals. According to Eshiwani (1992), Kenyan education is expected to promote nationalism, patriotism, and national unity; socioeconomic, technological, and industrial skills; individual development and self-fulfillment; sound moral religious values; social equality and responsibility; respect for and development of varied Kenyan cultures; international consciousness; and positive attitudes toward other nations, good health, and environmental protection. These goals of education are highlighted in all Kenya’s educational policy reforms. During the first decade after independence, the educational policies endeavored to decolonize the education system and to produce the required manpower for national development. During the last four decades, education was expected to develop the individual and nation and to promote self-reliance, to inculcate practical, technical, and societal values. A critical examination of Kenya’s education policy reforms illustrate that they are wide-ranging and they address central areas of individual and national development. What is missing is lack of their incorporation in the education process. The Kenyan teaching and learner outcomes are mostly examination centered. What matters to schools and parents is how children excel in examinations and not their holistic development.

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  175

A Narrative of Lived Experience as an Educator I trained as a secondary school teacher between 1989 and 1992 at Moi University, Kenya. The requirements for one to be a secondary school teacher then, and still is the case, is that one was required undertake a bachelor of education degree in either the arts or the sciences. The training entailed studying two teaching subjects that one had excelled in at secondary school and taking professional courses in educational psychology, foundations, administration, finance, technology, and communication. To qualify as a teacher, all teacher trainees were expected to do well in their teaching, professional, and practicum courses. All teacher trainees after their training were employed by the TSC, but currently this depends on available vacancies. After the training, I was posted to St. Theresa Girls School. I taught at the school for eight months and then went back to Moi University for graduate school. The training took two years, and afterward, I got a job at a private school called Makini School, where I taught for six years until 2002, when I left for my doctoral studies. Although the two schools were varied, my teaching experiences at both of them were similar. Even though my teacher preparation had stipulated clearly the need to provide learners with a holistic education, my teaching expectations at both schools did not reflect this. In both schools, as it is still in many Kenyan schools, there was heavy emphasis on training students to pass their end-of-secondary-school examinations. In both schools, the Kenyan educational goals I discussed were neglected. Over the years, the Kenyan education examination centeredness has led to rising cases of examination cheating. Priscilla Were, a respected educator commenting on this, notes “for the last three decades there have been increased levels of examination malpractices. Unless Kenya moves its education system from the examination-centeredness, it will be difficult to achieve holistic development.”2 Priscilla Were’s comments affirm Counts’s (1932) thoughts on the role of schools in societal reconstruction. Counts observes that “few things tell us about a country as its schools. In them we see important processes of any nation—yesterday’s traditions and today’s policies molding and developing the citizens of tomorrow” (p. 1). It was because of this void in Kenyan education that Priscilla Were began her own school, Butere Girls High School, which is centered on values and holistic education. Because of its focus on the latter, the school has become a center of academic excellence. The example of Butere Girls High School demonstrates that it is possible for the Kenyan nation to foster holistic education. What is required is to ensure that its educational goals are incorporated in its schooling process, and as the maxim goes, education is the main spring of all national action. Unless its goals are right and well implemented, the people either crawl or limp along. And

176  Peter Otiato Ojiambo as is the state, so is the school and what you want in the state, you must put in the school. (as cited in Mungazi, 1993, p. 7)

A Critique of Kenya’s Educational Policy Reforms Since independence, the emphasis in Kenya’s educational expansion has been complimented by the increasing priority accorded to programs of quality improvement in education and its correlation to Kenya’s social, political, and economic issues. In the first two decades of independence, according to Eshiwani (1992) and Court and Ghai (1974), curriculum reforms played a pivotal role in addressing these issues. However, these efforts did not bring about the desired improvement in these areas. It is in this vein that despite numerous educational reforms that have been undertaken in Kenya, there have been minimal social, political, and economic outcomes. A close examination of Kenya’s education policy reforms that have been undertaken in the postcolonial period indicates that they seem to have operated under the framework of the country’s educational goals. However, one wonders why they have failed to address Kenya’s individual and national developmental needs. There is—I contend—a chasm between Kenya’s educational policy reforms and actual practice. A cursory glance at Kenyan education today shows that it suffers from what Dore (1976) calls the “diploma disease.” This is a situation in which both the formal curriculum and its objectives are intentionally subverted to give way to an informal curriculum that is meant to guarantee success in examinations at the expense of achieving holistic education. The educational goals that underscore the importance of holistic development of the individual and the nation are conveniently forgotten and replaced by an opportunistic educational approach and practice. In this system, schools are used “as chief means of sifting each generation into those who pass examinations and those who don’t, those who go to college and those who don’t, those who succeed in life and those who don’t” (Dore, 1976, p. 9). This selective function of education tends to dominate and obliterate the school’s holistic core goals of education. It is important to note that in postindependent Kenya, there has been a lot of political interference in the education policy reform process (Sifuna, 1980, 2000; Sifuna & Otiende, 2006). Many educational initiatives have been introduced with little or no input from the relevant stakeholders. This, over the years, has had a negative impact on educational policy.

Conclusion This chapter attests that Kenyan educational policy reforms are central to its holistic individual and national development despite the theoretical, technical, and practical mismatch that has been evidenced. For unity to occur among the three, it is imperative that the Kenyan education policy reform

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  177 process is clearly defined, collective, planned, depoliticized, legislatively protected, relevant, equitable, adequately financed, and implemented. This will require the government to reconceptualize its educational philosophy and theory and to correlate them in practice to its national and global needs. The process will necessitate the education sector transcending its current economic, career, and examination centeredness to offer a holistic education. According to Nyerere (1979), this kind of education entails transmitting knowledge, skills, and values that are liberating in as far as they create new horizons essential for societal development. This will require a paradigm shift in the conceptualization, vision, management, implementation, and evaluation of Kenya’s educational outcomes. For this to be effective, the process will need to be multidimensional, cognitive, and normative. On the latter, it will be imperative for the process to embrace an ethic of care that “pledges to use intellect to fight all social-cultural, political, and economic struggles and one that can turn struggles into the spheres of common knowledge and experience and justice, societal liberation, and development into a passion” (as cited in Thiong’o, 1986, p. 106; Noddings, 2005). It has to produce a creative, responsive, reflective, empowering, and transformative education that will make its recipients “part of those millions whom Martin Carter once saw sleeping not to dream but dreaming to change the world” (Thiong’o, 1986, p. 108). The chapter accentuates that the search for a holistic education policy in Kenya is a complex and elusive undertaking that requires a collective effort for it to succeed. This chapter by its eclectic approach does not provide a definitive answer of navigating the process; it only starts a dialogue that requires heeding Phillip Coomb’s advice that “an educational enterprise cannot be rationally planned unless one takes into account the major forces in the world that strongly impinge on education and are already shaping the future. Some of these forces have only domestic roots” (as cited in Abagi & Ogachi, 2014). Successful navigation of the process will thus require the Kenyan educational reform process to take into account its 2010 Constitution, new political dispensation, and governance; globalization and communication technology; demographic changes; economic changes; and new phenomena of work and studies. Further, the new directions in the Kenyan educational policy reform process in the next decade and beyond will entail radically transforming and professionalizing the education sector. National examinations must be changed. Monitoring learning outcomes and evaluating education programs innovatively while addressing the cost of education; enhancing governance, transparency, and accountability; improving relevance, equity, and quality of education; actualizing basic education for all; and revitalizing university education must all take place for positive change to occur (Abagi & Ogachi, 2014). The chances of achieving this are high if Kenya takes advantage of its 2010 Constitution, Vision 2030, and the laws governing educational subsectors like the Basic Education Act 2012, the Technical and Vocational

178  Peter Otiato Ojiambo Education and Training Act 2013, the University Act 2012, and the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development Act 2013.

Notes 1 During the colonial period, the term African was used to refer to black people belonging to ethnic groups in Kenya. 2 See www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9QwbFTShDo, January 30, 2015.

References Abagi, O., & Ogachi, I. O. (2014). Fifty years of education development in Kenya: Mapping out the gains, challenges and prospects for the future. Nairobi: The Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. Achola, P., & Pillai, V. (2000). Challenges of primary education in developing countries: Insights from Kenya. Aldershot: Ashgate. Amutabi, M. (2003). Political interference in the running of education in post-­ independence Kenya: A critical retrospection. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 127–144. Binns, A. L. (1952). A study of the educational policy and practice in British Tropical Africa. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Bogonko, S. (1992). A history of modern education in Kenya, 1895–1992. Nairobi: Evans Brothers. Counts, G. S. (1932). Dare the school build a new order? New York, NY: The John Day Company. Court, D., & Ghai, D. (1974). Education, society, and development: New perspectives from Kenya. Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Dore, R. (1976). The diploma disease. London: Allen and Unwin. Eshiwani, G. (1992). Education in Kenya since independence. Nairobi: East African Publishers. Furley, O. W., & Watson, T. (1978). A history of education in East Africa. New York, NY: NOK. Harbison, F. (1973). Human resources as the wealth of nations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Mungazi, D. (1993). Education policy and national character: Africa, Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union. West Port, CT: Praeger. Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Nwomonoh, J. (1998). Education and development in Africa: A contemporary survey. New York, NY: International Scholars. Nyerere, J. (1979). Adult education and development: The Tanzanian experience. Hamburg: UNESCO Publication. Psacharopolous, G. (1988). Education and development: A review. Washington, DC: World Bank. Republic of Kenya. (1964). Kenya education commission report part I. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1965a). Commission Report Part I1. Nairobi: Government printer. Republic of Kenya. (1965b). Sessional paper No: 10: African socialism and its application to planning in Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer.

Kenyan Teacher Education Policy Reforms  179 Republic of Kenya. (1969). Development plan, 1970–1974. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1979a). Development plan, 1979–1983. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1979b). KANU manifesto. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1979c). Ministry of education annual reports, 1970–1979. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1981). Second university in Kenya: Report of the working party (Mackay Report). Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (1999). Report of the commission of inquiry into the education system of Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer. Republic of Kenya. (2007). Ministry of planning and manpower development, Vision 2030. Nairobi: Government Printer. Schultz, T. (1981). Investing in people. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sheffield, J. (1973). Education in Kenya: A historical study. New York, NY: Teachers College. Sifuna, D. (1980). Short essays on education in Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau. Sifuna, D. (1990). Development of education in Africa: The Kenyan experience. Nairobi: Initiatives Publishers. Sifuna, D. (2000). Implementing the Koech report: Realities, challenges and prospects. Nairobi: Lectern Publications. Sifuna, D., & Otiende, J. E. (2006). An introductory history of education. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press. Sifuna, D., & Sawamura, N. (2010). Challenge of quality education in sub-Saharan African countries. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Ssekamwa J. C., & Lugumba, S. M. E. (2001). A history of education in East Africa. Kampala: Fountain Publishers. Thiong’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African literature. Oxford: James Currey Ltd. Ukpokodu, N., & Ukpokodu, P. (2012). Contemporary voices from the margin: African educators on African and American education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Wasonga, T. A. (2012). Perspectives on K-12 learning and teacher preparation in East Africa. In O. N. Ukpokodu and P. Ukpokodu (Eds.), Contemporary voices from the margin: African educators on African and American education (pp. 129– 148). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc.

12 EuroVisions in School Policy and the Knowledge Economy A Genealogy of the Transnational Turn in European School and Teacher Education Policy John Benedicto Krejsler Introduction This chapter takes as its point of departure that the single most important factor determining how teacher education can be constructed is how school policy discourse evolves. This policy discourse is, so to speak, the negotiation of imaginaries regarding the purpose and priorities concerning what teachers should do and, by implication, what teacher education should be about (Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009; Popkewitz, 2008). This chapter explores how these imaginaries related to European school and education are produced in a web of increasingly interconnected global Knowledge Economies, and how the format for conceiving of teacher quality and teacher education is, by implication, transformed across the European Union (EU). The chapter maps the genealogy of how a truth regime was gradually produced which discursively linked school and education to the performance of the national economy by means of discursive imaginaries—the Knowledge Economy and human capital discourse, in particular—whereby discourses concerning the purpose of school and what counts as public good, and—by implication—teacher education, were fundamentally transformed. The driving discursive force in producing the new regime is motivated by telling the story about fierce global competition in which a nation will fall behind if it does not optimize its human capital, that is, produce ‘employable’ subjects for the economy (Bridges & McLaughlin, 1994; Gibbons et al., 1994; Meyer & Benavot, 2013; OECD, 1996; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). The genealogy of European education policy is largely a narrative about rapid and epochal transformations since the 1990s, when commitment to voluntary but nonetheless compelling elements have eventually combined in strengthened collaborative endeavors as European national education policy formats are increasingly negotiated in transnational forums such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), EU, and the Bologna Process, whose aim is to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) (e.g., Hopmann, 2008; Krejsler, Olsson, & Petersson,

EuroVisions in School Policy  181 2014; Lawn & Grek, 2012; Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002). Understanding how this relatively sudden and recent takeoff of a European education policy dimension became possible requires an identification of how post-World War II European collaborations concerning economic development and growth were gradually transformed in ways that catapulted education high up on the transnational policy agenda to produce the imaginaries that became the school and education regimes we take for granted today. Today, OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Bologna Process have become so defining for formatting how we can talk about and organize European national school and teacher education in the form of a regime of comparability that nation-state school and teacher education discourse and systems feel obliged to comply if they do not want to exclude themselves from mainstream policy agendas. Remaining included becomes the insurance policy that keeps at bay the fear of falling behind in public and policy imaginaries!

Discourse, Truth Regimes, and Political Technologies In terms of theory, this chapter draws on the work of Michel Foucault and post-Foucauldian traditions (Dean, 2007; Foucault, 1971; Pereyra & Franklin, 2014; Popkewitz & Brennan, 1998). The point of departure is the issue that Foucault called a problematic, that is, a way of making the present in its taken-for-granted status problematic by asking questions such as this: How has it come about that researchers, policy makers, and practitioners today make school and education problematic in terms of ‘comparability’, ‘lifelong learning’, ’employability’, ‘evidence’, and so forth? In this way, Foucault wanted to state that any history will always be a history of the present, in the sense that it more or less explicitly looks to the past from the mess of current problems to make sense of this mess. What we do when we create genealogies is trying to map the threads of development to their particular beginnings to make sense of how they were woven together from each of their disconnected and contingent locations. We do this to produce the current situation as something that emerges as self-evident. A Foucauldian approach thus assists us in problematizing the taken-forgranted character of dominant regimes of knowledge by demonstrating how they were turned into discursive truth regimes by making some ways of speaking and acting possible while excluding others. A discursive regime is constituted as a pattern of interconnected statements that reciprocally refer to one another, thereby continually reinforcing the totality of the discourse (Foucault, 1971). The immanent logic thus construed forms a strategic space wherein a number of different subject positions emerge to be occupied by willing individuals. Here, one must subject one’s self to the discursive regime in question to be included as a legitimate subject within this regime. Foucault argued that a truth regime—a discourse—must be measured by

182  John Benedicto Krejsler the extent to which it matches and mirrors the dominant configuration of dominant and less dominant discourses that set the boundaries for how individuals can think and act at a given time and in a given space in history (Foucault, 1997). Foucault thus considered it his task to chart, via a genealogical method, the topological contours of the battlefields within different discursive fields, which in our case includes the fields of education, the economy, globalization, and subjectivation practices—among others. My focus in this chapter is to identify, at a policy level, how the fields of school and, by implication, teacher education were made visible as particular truth regimes. I shall demonstrate how endless policy processes have produced a proliferating canopy of truths and political technologies serving to frame the conduct of subjects involved in school and teacher education. Within a Foucauldian framework, political technologies signify procedures that “advance by taking what is essentially a political problem, removing it from the realm of political discourse, and recasting it in the neutral language of science” (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 196).

The Formation of Arenas for European Collaboration The transnational turn in national European policy making gradually acquired its long-lasting momentum from the late 1940s through the 1950s and 1960s, with a focus upon economic development and growth in the wake of the thorough and widespread destruction of World War II. The creation of institutions like the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the World Bank), the Marshall Plan, and the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC)/OECD set a precedent for the development of a new transnational order. With the exception of the United Nations, all these bodies constituted themselves around economic development and associated discourses. From bitter experience, a guiding idea among European countries and their American allies was that raising Europe from the ruins of war required interlocking their economies in frameworks that would—in mutual selfinterest—motivate them to cooperate to ensure prosperity as well as longlasting peace (e.g., Brunn, 2004; Henry, Lingard, Rizvi, & Taylor, 2001; Telhaug, Mediås, & Aasen, 2006). However, school and education at all levels, including teacher education, remained, with a few exceptions, an exclusively national matter up until around 2000. Like culture and various social and welfare issues, they were considered sensitive areas that were closely linked to national identity issues and nation building and sustaining efforts. Nonetheless, from the late 1960s, and even more so from the 1980s and onward, school, education, and research gained increasing significance in national and transnational policy discourse. Future economic growth was increasingly understood within the frame of the so-called Knowledge Economy discourse. Education and research are given top priority even in organizations such as the OECD,

EuroVisions in School Policy  183 whose main concern is the economy and markets (Cerny & Evans, 1999; Henry et al., 2001; OECD, 1996). Only from around 2000 did transnational Knowledge Economy and lifelong learning discourses finally and resoundingly enter national education policy discourse and practice. This happened by means of political technologies such as the OECD and International Association for Evaluation of Achievement in Education (IEA) comparative surveys of students’ literacy, numeracy, and science performance (e.g., PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMSS], and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study [PIRLS]) and comprehensive truth regimes such as the Bologna Process attempt to establish an EHEA (including teacher education) and the EU Lisbon Agenda, aimed at ensuring European success among competitive global Knowledge Economies (Hopmann, 2008; Krejsler et al., 2014; Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002). The only transnational organization until then to have had any durable and measurable interest in education was the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which dealt more with development in third world countries than among industrialized countries. However, IEA did start developing international comparative surveys in the 1950s and gradually developed—among other achievements—what would from 2001 become PIRLS and from 1995 TIMSS to measure literacy, numeracy, and science knowledge and skills among fourth- and eighth-grade students in an increasing number of industrialized countries. From 1961, the OECD has been a key player in producing dominant discourse and policy advice to member states concerning economic development. To understand today’s dominant regime of truth regarding attitudes toward education, the OECD is a key case as the locus where the discursive link between economy and education was established on a larger scale. OECD’s interest in human capital and its impact on the economic wellbeing and development of member states gained impetus in the 1960s and led to the 1969 establishment of the Center for Educational Research and Innovation with support from the Ford and Shell foundations (Henry et al., 2001). The OECD, however, did not succeed in thoroughly spreading this discourse to national member states until the 1980s. In the end, however, the cocktail of economic crisis and the fear that nations would not succeed in supplying sufficiently skilled manpower to national economies spurred an increasingly firm interest in education. This took place, furthermore, at a time when market-oriented, neoliberal economic discourse was on the rise with the republican Reagan administration in the United States (1981–1989) and the conservative Margaret Thatcher government in the United Kingdom (1979–1991), which impacted OECD discourse as well. New Public Management reforms of the public sectors in member states flourished, praising public solutions that drew inspiration from the private sector (Bridges & McLaughlin, 1994; Hood, 1995; Sahlin-Andersson, 2001). These reforms discursively staged public services in terms of quasi-market conditions as organizations that would

184  John Benedicto Krejsler benefit from mutually competing against each other and hereby be forced to become ever more efficient in their use of limited public resources under strict accountability to consumers, as defined by the state. Ideas like giving parents vouchers in the hope that they would use them to choose the best schools for their children and hereby intensify competition gained ground. However, that would only be possible if schools and their students’ achievement were made comparable, so parents would have an overview from which to choose. The idea gained ground that even national economies would prosper if comparative surveys could show whose education systems had the most quality and were most efficient. All these factors and many more coincided to increase, in particular, American pressure on the OECD to develop a comparative survey to determine which nations succeed or fail to be able to identify where to look for inspiration to enhance one’s national education system and create better results (e.g., Lawn, 2013, p. 22). This demand met resistance among European collaboration partners within the OECD, but eventually prevailed, and in 2000 the PISA was launched to measure ninth-grade students’ literacy, numeracy, and science competences in managing 21st-century challenges. PISA was, subsequently and ironically, to become the most agenda-setting transnational discursive technology for national European education policies but not for U.S. policies (Hopmann, 2008; Meyer & Benavot, 2013). In 1996, the OECD published a report on Knowledge Economies, and in 2001 it finally established an independent Directorate of Education, which iconically underlined how much education had risen on the agenda for securing successful economies among global Knowledge Economies (Henry et al., 2001; OECD, 1996). In an EU context, education falls under the discursive principle of subsidiarity, that is, the principle that competence is delegated to the level closest to actual practice, which typically means the nation-state level or in some cases—like that of Germany—at the level of the Bundesländer. This applies in particular to primary and secondary school—and, by implication, to teacher education—which are typically closely associated with nation building and national identity discourses that easily stir up strong sensitivities in European nation-states. It was not until the EU Maastricht Treaty of 1992 that a breakthrough was achieved by means of a particular discursive maneuver that opened up for the European Commission to maintain a coordinating role between member states concerning national education policy issues, especially those that were deemed key issues in supporting economic growth in the form of qualifying labor and similar issues (EC, 1992). Linking education to economic concerns thus opened up for making education a transnational matter, which makes it the predecessor to the EU Lisbon Declaration of 2000 and the ensuing Lisbon Agenda that extolled a discourse “to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive among global knowledge economies by 2010” (EC, 2000). After the turn of the millennium, the European Commission was thus to become the key discursive operator, in

EuroVisions in School Policy  185 collaboration with the OECD and the Bologna Process, in merging policy discourse about economic growth and education by means of knowledge economy, human capital, and lifelong learning discourse (Antunes, 2006; Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002).

The Millennium Turn in European School and Education Policy Agendas Around the turn of the millennium, education had risen considerably on the policy agenda and was increasingly negotiated in transnational forums where political technologies, in the form of comparative surveys and standards, were established to make national systems comparable. This, in turn, demands increased mutual compliance by participating nation-states to the templates produced in consensus-making policy processes (Krejsler et al., 2014; Meyer & Benavot, 2013; Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002). In primary and lower secondary school policy discourse, PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS have increasingly become the political technologies by which educational success is measured and ranked. They set the discursive criteria for what counts as the truth when it comes to establishing whether a European nation-state’s primary and lower secondary school system is successful or not, with considerable policy consequences in their wake, including recurring pressure demanding teacher education reforms. The creation of a comprehensive European truth regime on education has furthermore been accelerated by the growing volumes of additional political technologies, including regularly published statistics and comparative overviews from the EU (e.g., Eurostat and Eurydice) and the OECD (e.g., publications such as Education at a Glance, OECD country reports, Teaching and Learning International Survey [TALIS], etc.) (e.g., Antunes, 2006; Henry et al., 2001; Lawn, 2013; Lawn & Grek, 2012). One of these OECD country reports, commissioned by the Danish government in 2003, serves as an illustrative example of a political technology employed to ensure compliance with a new regime. It was commissioned to assess the evaluation culture in Danish comprehensive school (Grades 1 through 9). The OECD group, led by prominent school effectiveness representatives, issued its report, which incorporated comments from the Danish government, with the main conclusion that Danish school lacked a systematic evaluation culture, with probable drawbacks in student performance as a likely consequence. In the wake of this country report and a simultaneous one from the Danish Evaluation Institute, a number of sweeping reforms of comprehensive school were undertaken: Mandatory student plans were introduced, 10 ten national tests were introduced in a school where testing had hitherto been a taboo; municipalities were required to work out annual quality reports in response to the OECD critique of having been to lax in their monitoring of Danish schools; and inevitably, a reform of an allegedly insufficient teacher education was announced (Ekholm, Mortimore, Maria,

186  John Benedicto Krejsler Laukkanen, & Valijarvi, 2004; Krejsler, Olsson, & Petersson, 2017). The proliferation of such technologies and the multitude of measures and policy advice would eventually ensure that national school and teacher education regimes became increasingly integrated under the umbrella of transnational truth regimes. The 2000 EU Lisbon declaration stands as a key discursive document and event in turning around relations between economy and education. Here, heads of member states’ national governments pledged to make Europe the most competitive and dynamic region among global Knowledge Economies by 2010. The solemn inauguration of this truth regime was forcefully followed up by the accompanying Lisbon Agenda, defining EU policy guidelines, and portfolios imposing an increased focus on the importance of education for ensuring economic growth have followed among many other initiatives (Colignon et al., 2005; EC, 2000, 2010; Lawn & Lingard, 2002). ‘Competences’, ‘lifelong learning’, and ‘employability’ became dominant discursive signifiers to permeate national strategies for successful economies, all the way down to reformed descriptions of education courses at all levels. Parallel to this development, the Bologna Process was put on track as another formidable truth regime in 2000—a more comprehensive European process that would eventually comprise 48 countries. The Bologna Process solemnly pledged to establish an EHEA by 2010 (Keeling, 2006). It would comprise higher education, including teacher education, aiming at making European higher education systems comparable and establishing common standards that would enable student and teacher mobility across borders and different education systems. Formally, and abiding by dominant discourses of democracy, freedom, and diversity, the Bologna process would claim to be all voluntary. Nonetheless, it had grown by 2009 to become a formidable discursive giant administering a truth regime with an increasingly compelling set of political technologies. This included 10 performance indicators and a scorecard system ranking the compliance of participating countries, including the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), mutual recognition of diplomas, a bachelor-master-PhD format (3+2+3), quality assurance formats concerning higher education, including teacher education, across borders, and so forth (Krejsler, Olsson, & Petersson, 2012). Further integration took place as the two dominant truth regimes of the EU and the Bologna Process increasingly integrated their truth production and political technologies to optimize education in what was called a lifelong learning perspective (Keeling, 2006). As the EU developed its political technology of the European Qualification Framework (EQF), which was later duplicated into National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) in all member nation-states, lifelong learning from pre-K up to PhD was divided into eight levels, in which the Bologna Process bachelor-master-PhD cycles were integrated as Levels 6, 7, and 8 (EQF, 2008). This all served to make participating countries and the education systems ever more comparable and knowledge, skills, and competences ever more transferable.

EuroVisions in School Policy  187

The Master Template of European Policy Making: The Open Method of Coordination This newly created governmental space for exercising policy making and advancing consensus among often fiercely self-conscious national member states has produced some remarkable forms of governance and influence. The EU, the OECD, and the Bologna Process are thus permeated by ‘softer’ political technologies that have proven remarkably efficient in creating, implementing and enforcing agreed-upon policies among participating nations, local entities, groups, and individuals. Maybe the most pervasive of these softer technologies is the so-called open method of coordination (OMC), which has arguably emerged as the master template by which an almost all-embracing truth regime is operationalized into comprehensive subsets of political technologies in the EU, the OECD, and the Bologna Process (Krejsler et al., 2012; Moutsios, 2010). Here, I employ the term OMC in a broad sense, that is, covering the EU, the OECD, and the Bologna Process. Strictly speaking, OMC was announced as a voluntary and process-oriented governance instrument to build consensus among EU member states at the Lisbon summit in March 2000. It was meant to replace the so-called community method, which relied on qualified majority voting and binding decisions. The EU adopted OMC as the official method of cooperation in the EU after realizing that progress in European cooperation did not advance well by decision-making, votes, veto rights, and so forth. Too often, progress was stalled when a decision required one or two nations to have a national referendum or when one small nation of a few million people could block what nations representing hundreds of millions of people had agreed upon through long and painstaking negotiations. Employing the OMC seemed to do the trick and make the impossible possible while at the same time giving considerable agenda-setting powers to the European Commission. However, as the Bologna Process increasingly converges with EU policy on education, the term OMC is increasingly employed here as well. And even though the OECD does not officially use OMC as the term for its method of collaboration, the literature demonstrates, nonetheless, so many similarities between OECD’s multilateral surveillance procedures and the OMC that many—including myself—argue that it makes sense to use the term in connection with the OECD as well (Gornitzka, 2006; Krejsler et al., 2014, 2017; Schäfer, 2004). The OMC is a procedural, consensus-advancing technology: Initially, ministers or heads of state meet at a summit and formulate a vision or some broad goals, for instance, that Europe should by 2010 be the most dynamic and successful region among global Knowledge Economies, as stated by the Lisbon Declaration in 2000. Subsequently, politicians, administrators, researchers, organizations, and so forth start meeting at formal, informal, and virtual levels to discuss and coordinate with one another in extended consensus-advancing processes as was the case with the ensuing Lisbon

188  John Benedicto Krejsler Agenda. But, above all, the OMC produces during these collaborative processes a growing number of political technologies that enable measurement and comparison (indicators, benchmarking, standards and guidelines, etc.): Most often, these political technologies are not forced upon the individual member states. Nevertheless, they appear quasi-inevitable if a member state does not want to exclude itself from the mainstream policy-making processes. So, in practice, the OMC comes to function by means of an opaque network of peer pressure. Here, no particular persons or officeholders can be made accountable as such, given that it is through endless voluntary processes among a variety of stakeholders that recommendations gradually emerge as appropriate. The logic of OMC comparisons is based on the idea of unity in diversity; that is, the sovereignty of each member state is confirmed whereas, nevertheless, consensus is continuously produced in negotiations “leading . . . to similar solutions” among participating nations (Nóvoa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003). The reasoning of comparability as a political technology is not primarily a way of knowing or justifying but rather a mode of governance, regardless of its conclusions or recommendations (Pereyra & Franklin, 2014).

How OMC Unfolds in School, Teacher Education, and Educational Research A comprehensive truth regime and an array of political technologies have been consolidated and expanded in the increasingly frequent and ­commitmentbased relations between transnational fora and European nation-state subjects. Horizon 2020 is the latest version of the political technology of the EU’s so-called seven-years framework programs that together with a number of other political technologies, is aimed at ensuring that research, including educational research, will be integrated into the overarching dominant truth regime of the Lisbon Agenda and its latest formulation in Europe 2020 (Colignon et al., 2005; EC, 2010, 2014; Keeling, 2006). This truth regime mainly operates through a discourse about EU and Europe becoming a dynamic and competitive region among global Knowledge Economies, driven by the fear of falling behind. Consequently, EU political technologies like Horizon 2020 and the EQF are increasingly copied by member states, including research councils, government school and teacher education policy, and so forth (EQF, 2008; Krejsler et al., 2014, 2017; Olsson, Petersson, & Krejsler, 2011). EU research and education policy discourse is developed in terms of key words such as ‘competitiveness’, ‘excellence’, and ‘employability’, in which science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) areas increasingly outclass social sciences and humanities, including educational research (Moos & Wubbels, 2014; Moos, Wubbels, Holm, & Zgaga, 2015). When it comes to policy discourse concerning primary and lower secondary school in Europe, transnational discourse has not yet transformed

EuroVisions in School Policy  189 into an institutionalized truth regime comparable to the No Child Left Behind regime in the United States, with its compelling high-stakes testing and accountability technologies or even the Bologna Process concerning the EHEA, including teacher education. The discursive alignments that do take place, and the political technologies that have been adopted, have come about in more indirect processes. This has happened in terms of policy making and national debates whose discourse has increasingly been shaped by transnational technologies, including the PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS comparative surveys; OECD country reports; and policy advice. Further, it has manifested itself as effects upon policy makers, researchers, and professionals, in that the subject positions they inhabit in a new truth regime have been increasingly shaped by their participation in transnational networks and events (Hopmann, 2008; Meyer & Benavot, 2013; Nóvoa & Lawn, 2002). This kind of commitment has mainly thrived on the motivating effects of nations aligning with their partners in the dominant regional transnational collaborations (the OECD, EU, and the Bologna Process) to ensure that they would remain comparable and thus eliminate the risk of being excluded—or excluding themselves—from the mainstream processes. As elaborated in the former section, the truth regime of OMC has increasingly come to serve as the driving impetus to advance consensus by producing peer pressure to show success in comparisons among nations, according to agreed templates and standards; the naming and shaming of not being successful according to those measures; and—not least—the fear of being left behind, or—even more so—being left outside (Colignon et al., 2005; Gornitzka, 2006; Krejsler et al., 2014; Schäfer, 2004). The acceleration concerning reform of school policy took off in particular upon the launches in 2000 of PISA, the EU Lisbon Agenda, and the Bologna Process, continuously aided by the similar, albeit not so publicly well-known, IEA surveys of TIMSS (from 1995) and PIRLS (from 2001). Here, PISA may serve as a particularly illustrative case of mutual adaptation. Becoming part of the PISA regime is no insignificant issue. Since the first PISA survey was launched in 2000, the discursive effects of so-called PISA shocks have been regularly administered to different member nations and with resounding effects on their self-perceptions and policy agendas. Germany has suffered PISA shocks that have changed the agenda for conceiving of school and teacher education policy (Hopmann, 2008; Waldow, 2009b). Among the Nordic countries, Sweden and Denmark used to believe that they had world-class progressive school systems and that it was Finland that was traditionally somewhat behind (Hopmann, 2008; Sahlberg, 2011; Telhaug et al., 2006). Having become dominant political technologies, PISA, as well as TIMSS and PIRLS, have reversed such perceptions thoroughly, notwithstanding the often forgotten caveats that PISA, TIMSS, and PIRLS represent a narrow set of subjects (literacy, numeracy, and science) and the inherent limitations of measuring with an emphasis on testing and numbers (Hopmann, 2008; Meyer & Benavot, 2013). These transnational

190  John Benedicto Krejsler technologies tend to produce incessant criticism of teachers and teacher education for not being sufficiently fit to produce the next generation of highly skilled lifelong learners, which is then followed up by further teacher education reforms (Furlong et al., 2009).

Conclusion: The Transnational Turn and the Volatile Dream of Harnessing European Diversity in Nations, Schools, and Teacher Imaginaries The genealogy of European school and education policy discourse represents a specific evolution that refers to a number of different nation-states with particular histories, identities, and animosities toward each other, including their attempts at increasing mutual integration by way of transnational bodies whose legitimacy and authority are opaque at best. It is a narrative about how collaboration among independent nation-states gradually institutionalized transnational bodies such as the OECD, EU, and the Bologna Process (Brunn, 2004; Henry et al., 2001; Telhaug et al., 2006). It started out as economic collaboration between war-torn countries after World War II but gradually spread to cover more portfolios, including school and education. It was always an uneasy process with continuous backlashes. The OMC has come to signify the master template for how a truth regime is run according to a consensus-advancing mode in which mutual peer pressure and the demand to become comparable ensure that different nation-states gradually learn to integrate even their school and education systems more and more. The transnational turn in European school and education policy becomes manifest in discursive processes and political technologies that integrate nation-states according to the demands of the global Knowledge Economy discourse. This is emphasized in the proliferation of key words like ‘employability’, ‘competences’, and ‘lifelong learning’. This European genealogy represents a narrative about moving ahead in struggles between transnational and national power, toward shared truth regimes, by engaging in voluntary but nonetheless compelling elements that over time, sediment in the form of increasing collaboration and, by consequence, transform schools, teacher education, and educational research regimes. It is important to emphasize that there are commonalities but also considerable differences to be seen in how school and, by implication, teacher education policy discourse has developed across the EU and its extensive variety of different national school and education systems. Much of what appears as differences can, nonetheless, be accounted for by the contextually conditioned variations in response to the challenges of globalization and Knowledge Economy discourse, which run in similar directions and, to some extent, mutually influence each other, even though it is not always directly visible in nation-state debates. What is by many perceived as transnational intrusion on national sovereignty, rather than collaboration in

EuroVisions in School Policy  191 mutual interest, is often unpopular and triggers deeply rooted sensitivities in national public debate and political response at the surface level. Nonetheless, adaptation to transnational consensus at a national level is usually the outcome, albeit often transformed into language and orchestration that suits national sensibilities. This opacity tends to create a lack of transparency and what some term a ‘democratic deficit’ (Krejsler et al., 2017; Nordin, 2012; Waldow, 2009a). In summary, this overarching and pervasive transnational turn in European school and education policy brings with it many advantages: It brings debate and decisions about school and its purpose and organization beyond narrow national perspectives. The critical mass of ideas, other perspectives, and awareness of the world beyond one’s own narrow national discourse and practices bring inspiration and new ideas and foster proliferating networks across Europe. Unsurprisingly, however, this transformative transnational turn does not unfold without contestation in more or less fruitful forms in policy in general as well as in school and education policy—the latter being particularly liable to arouse national sensibilities due to its centrality in nation building narratives. Consequently, many reactions can be observed from the nationstates to the EU and what is perceived as encroachment upon national sovereignty and identity, ranging from British Brexit over Hungarian and Polish discourse about non-liberal democracy to Greek—and to a lesser extent— French resentment over austerity policy. We also witness counter-discourses and reactions from professionals, from educational researchers, and in public debate against school and teacher education policy that is perceived to become too aligned with economy discourse at the expense of broader educational purpose. In the same vein, it is questioned whether aligning with comparable templates like PISA and TIMSS, or the Bologna Process, and the ‘evidence’ and ‘what works’ templates that accompany them, may unduly narrow the purpose of school and education (Biesta, 2010; Hopmann, 2008; Krejsler, 2017). This supposedly challenges the diversity of school systems that correspond to the diversity of, and among, European nation states for better and worse. Proponents of some discourses have even argued that a major part of the competitive advantage of Europe and the EU may be jeopardized by the political technology of aligning all to the same comparative templates. PISA and IEA researchers have often responded with exasperation when policy makers and the public misuse their surveys for ranking. They have claimed that surveys are meant to highlight possible problems and subsequently inspire to learn from one another, taking into consideration that any inspiration from apparently successful countries must always be considered according to criteria for whether they are compatible or even desirable in terms of what a given nation aims at with its particular school system. School serves many purposes that go well beyond basic literacy, numeracy, and science skills or competences.

192  John Benedicto Krejsler As can be expected, changes and transformations on the scale that European national school and education discourse and practice have experienced since the 1990s, with the transnational turn in education policy, is a process that arouses both commitment and resistance. We are dealing with gargantuan cultural struggles about the purpose of school and the meaning of public good, and teacher education, including its purpose and direction, is deeply embedded in that struggle!

References Antunes, F. (2006). Globalisation and Europeification of education policies: Routes, processes and metamorphoses. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 38–55. Biesta, G. (2010). Why ‘What Works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 491–503. Bridges, D., & McLaughlin, T. H. (Eds.) (1994). Education and the market place. London & Washington, DC: The Palmer Press. Brunn, G. (2004). Die Europäische Einigung: Von 1945 is heute. Bonn: Reclam. Cerny, P. G., & Evans, M. (1999). New labour, globalization and the competition state. Cambridge, MA: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University Press. Colignon, S., Dehousse, R., Gabolde, J., Jouen, M., Pochet, P., Salais, R., . . . Zsolt de Sousa, H. (2005). The Lisbon strategy and the open method co-ordination: 12 recommendations for an effective multi-level strategy. Brussels: Notre Europe. Retrieved from www.institutdelors.eu/media/policypaper12_01.pdf?pdf=ok Dean, M. (2007). Governing societies: Political perspectives on domestic and international rule. Issues in Society, 228. Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester Press. EC. (1992). The Maastricht treaty. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from www.eurotreaties.com/maastrichtec.pdf [Accessed April 30, 2015]. EC. (2000). Presidency conclusion, March 23–24. Lisbon: European Commission. EC. (2010). Europe 2020: A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels: European Commission. EC. (2014). Horizon 2020—in brief: The EU framework programme for research & innovation. Brussels: European Commission Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/H2020_inBrief_EN_FinalBAT.pdf Ekholm, M., Mortimore, P., Maria, D-E., Laukkanen, R., & Valijarvi, J. (2004). OECD-rapport om grundskolen i Danmark [OECD Report on Danish School]. Copenhagen: Danish Department of Education. EQF. (2008). The European qualification framework for lifelong learning. Luxembourg: European Commission, Education and training. Retrieved from www.ond. vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/news/EQF_EN.pdf Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours: leçon inaugurale au Collège de France prononcée le 2 décembre 1970. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1997). On the genealogy of ethics—an overview of work in progress. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), Foucault—ethics, subjectivity and truth (Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984) (Vol. 1, pp. 253–280). New York, NY: The New Press. Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.) (2009). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

EuroVisions in School Policy  193 Gibbons, M. T., Limoges, C., Martin, T., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., & Scott, P. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage. Gornitzka, Å. (2006). The open method of coordination as Practice: A watershed in European education policy? ARENA Working Paper 16. Oslo University. Henry, M., Lingard, B., Rizvi, F., & Taylor, S. (2001). The OECD, globalisation and education policy. Oxford: IAU Press & Elsevier Science Ltd. Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations & Society, 20, 93–109. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 417–456. Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna process and the Lisbon research Agenda: The European commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 203–223. Krejsler, J. B. (2017). Capturing the ‘Evidence’ and ‘What Works’ Agenda in Education: A truth regime and the art of manoeuvring floating signifiers. In M. Y. Eryaman & B. Schneider (Eds.), Evidence and public good in educational policy, research and practice (pp. 21–41). Cham, CH: Springer. Krejsler, J. B., Olsson, U., & Petersson, K. (2012). Governing Europe by comparison, peer pressure & self-interest: On the Bologna Stocktaking Process as operator of national education policy. Bulletin of Institute of Technology and Vocational Education (Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University, Japan), 2012(9), 35–47. Krejsler, J. B., Olsson, U., & Petersson, K. (2014). The transnational grip on Scandinavian education reforms: The open method of coordination challenging national policy-making. Nordic Studies in Education, 34(3), 172–186. Krejsler, J. B., Olsson, U., & Petersson, K. (2017). Becoming fit for transnational comparability: Exploring challenges in Danish and Swedish teacher education. In E. Hultqvist, S. Lindblad, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Critical analyses of educational reform in an era of transnational governance. Dordrecht, NL: Springer Publishing House. Lawn, M. (2013). The internationalisation of education data: Exhibitions, tests, standards, and associations. In M. Lawn (Ed.), The rise of data in education: Collection, visualisation and uses (pp. 11–26). Oxford: Symposium Books. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: Governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium Books. Lawn, M., & Lingard, B. (2002). Constructing a European policy space in educational governance: The role of transnational policy actors. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 290–307. Meyer, H-D., & Benavot, A. E. (Eds.) (2013). PISA, Power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Oxford: Symposium Books. Moos, L., & Wubbels, T. (2014). EERA: A participant or an agent in European research policy? A governance perspective European Educational Research Journal, 13(4), 451–463. Moos, L., Wubbels, T., Holm, P., & Zgaga, P. (2015). A panel discussion: The European educational research association’s role in Europe—now and in the near future. European Educational Research Journal, 14(1), 35–43. Moutsios, S. (2010). Power, politics and transnational policy-making in education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8, 22.

194  John Benedicto Krejsler Nordin, A. (2012). Kunskapens politik: en studie av kunskapsdiskurser i svensk och europeisk utbildningspolicy. [A Politics of Knowledge]. (Ph.D.). Linneaus University, Växjö, Sweden. (97/2012). Nóvoa, A., & Lawn, M. (2002). Fabricating Europe: The formation of an education space. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Nóvoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: A mode of governance or a historical journey? Comparative Education, 39, 423–438. doi:1360–0486 OECD. (1996). The knowledge based economy. Paris: OECD. Olsson, U., Petersson, K., & Krejsler, J. B. (2011). ‘Youth’ making us fit—on Europe as operator of political technologies. European Educational Research Journal, 10, 1–10. Pereyra, M. A., & Franklin, B. M. (Eds.) (2014). Systems of reason and the politics of schooling: School reform and the sciences of education in the tradition of Thomas S. Popkewitz. New York & London: Routledge. Popkewitz, T. S. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and the age of school reform—science, education, and making society by making the child. New York, NY & London: Routledge. Popkewitz, T. S., & Brennan, M. (Eds.) (1998). Foucault’s challenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London & New York, NY: Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Lessons from Finland. American Educator, 35(2), 32–36. Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2001). National, international and transnational constructions of new public management. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), New public management—the transformation of ideas and practice (pp. 43–72). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Schäfer, A. (2004). A new form of governance? Comparing the open method of coordination to multilateral surveillance by the IMF and the OECD. Retrieved from MPIfG Working Paper www.mpifg.de/pu/workpap/wp04-5/wp04-5.html Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283. Waldow, F. (2009a). Undeclared imports: Silent borrowing in educational policymaking and research in Sweden. Comparative Education, 45(4), 477–494. Waldow, F. (2009b). What PISA did and did not do: Germany after the ‘PISA-shock. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 476–483.

13 Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Israel From the Perspective of Those Outside the “Common Good” Ismael Abu-Saad Introduction As an indigenous, ethnic minority researcher, the theoretical basis for my analysis draws upon a number of sources, beginning with the standpoint theory of feminist thinkers in terms of challenging the dominant hegemonic discourse from the perspective of subordinated groups who have been silenced by, and are largely invisible to, the dominant group (Collins, 2000; Hartsock, 1983; Hekman, 1997). I offer the standpoint of a Palestinian Arab researcher as a counterpoint and a completer to the dominant, IsraeliJewish discourse on teacher education policy and practice in Israel. This is particularly salient because the research and policy materials about teacher training in Israel tend to completely ignore the existence of the Palestinian Arab minority (Hoffman & Niederland, 2012; Volansky, 2010), although their children make up more than 26% of the total K–12 student population and also make up 25% of the student body in the academic teachers’ colleges in Israel (CBS, 2015; Weisblai & Vinegar, 2015). In addition, I will draw upon the approaches of indigenous scholars in other colonial settler states who challenge the colonial representations of their people with their own self-representations (Rains, Archibald, & Deyhle, 2000; Smith, 1999; McMaster & Martin, 1992). One of the most accurate representations of the place of Palestinian Arabs in the Israeli education system, and multiple layers of society, comes from the early period of Israeli rule, when it developed the legal categorization of “present absentees” for the indigenous Palestinian Arab remnant that remained within its borders (Abu-Saad, 2006; Piterberg, 2001; Wakim, 2001). Although this categorization is no longer of practical legal significance, it continues to be a very accurate metaphor for the status of the Palestinian Arab minority in Israel. Although we are present as students on the school registration rolls, and as teachers on the Ministry of Education payroll, in this chapter, I review the ways in which we are absent from historic descriptions and current debates of teacher education policy and the general policy discussions and operationalization of how public education should be shaped to best serve the “common good.” I also explore the ways in which, for Palestinian Arab teachers, the absence of their agency as educators of their students and society is a policy success

196  Ismael Abu-Saad of utmost importance for the state. The ongoing lived experience of Palestinians as “present absentees” is a critical vantage point from which to view the issues of justice and social inclusion and exclusion in the Israeli education system and the society at large.

Theoretical Framework Selective Construction of the “Common Good” in Colonial Contexts Israel shares a number of characteristics with countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia with immigrant settler populations that acquire majority status in a territory and differ in culture, language, religion, and so on from the preexisting, indigenous population of the territory. These settler societies have invariably viewed the indigenous populations as irreconcilably “other” and excluded them from their conceptualizations of the “common good.” In each of these cases, the governments that were established gave priority to ensure the success of the immigrant project and furthering the interests of the immigrant community; whereas the needs and interests of the indigenous populations were either given second priority, not taken into consideration at all, or actively opposed insofar as they were in competition for resources needed for the development of the immigrant community (Anderson, 1991; Anderson, 2000; Anderson & Gale, 1992; Kellerman, 1993; Sibley, 1996; Stasiulis & Yuval-Davis, 1995; Yiftachel, 2006). As such, state institutions, infrastructure, and policies are designed to support the selective colonial construction of the common good. Public/ state education, although projected as neutral, objective, and authoritative, serves, in actually, as a tool for establishing the hegemony of the selective definition of the common good and protecting it from being questioned or challenged. Teacher education, in turn, prepares teachers to become witting or unwitting agents of this process (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In the case of Israel, as a self-defined “Jewish and democratic” state, its selective construction of the common good included world Jewry while excluding the non-Jewish citizens of the state. It formally granted citizenship to the Palestinian Arabs within its borders while simultaneously developing a three-pronged strategy of segmentation, dependence, and co-option to control and marginalize it (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011; Lustick, 1980; McDowall, 1989; Seliktar, 1984). This dynamic has been a key factor in shaping all Israeli institutions, including the public education system and teacher training and practice.

Teacher Education Practice and Policy in Israel: Overview Written material that relates teacher education policy and practice in Israel to issues of the “common good” is very difficult to find. Academic studies

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  197 of the subject tend to focus on theoretical issues such as the tension between the “academization” of teacher training, in which teachers are to—first and foremost—academically master the subject they teach and should be evaluated on the basis of the results (e.g., the test scores of their students), and the “humanization” of teacher training, in which teachers are to be educators of their students rather than just teachers of a subject and to pass on social values and the ethical significance of the subjects taught (Hoffman & Niederland, 2012; Volansky, 2010). The debate on such theoretical issues is carried on generally without consideration of the impact beyond the classroom. On the other end of the spectrum, the documents produced by those who actually oversee and carry out teacher training (e.g., Ministry of Education and teachers’ colleges) are very technical and/or apolitical/neutral and avoid any discussion of the broader social implications of their policy and practices. Despite the lack of written material directly relating teacher education policy to the changing relationship between the Israeli state and the “common good,” much can be learned about these issues by describing and the examining the implications of (1) the overall aims and goals of the education system, (2) the state-set curriculum, and (3) administrative policies and practices governing teachers. After providing some historical context, each of these domains will be explored.

Historical Context: The Challenged History of “Belonging” Education is one of the most ordinary aspects of modern life and one that is crucial to shaping the culture, individual and communal development, social stratification, economy, and politics of any society. It cannot be effectively analyzed in isolation from the historical and current sociopolitical context in which it is situated, so a short review of the conflict-ridden history of Palestine/Israel is presented before delving into the core educational issues of the chapter. In the late 1800s, the Zionist nationalist movement was developed by a group of Jewish intelligentsia in Europe, with the goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, which was then under the control of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire. Zionism was based on the premise that Palestine was a territory that belonged exclusively to the Jewish people due to their presence on the land during biblical times, regardless of the Arab population that had lived there for centuries (Masalha, 1997). From its inception, the Zionist movement adopted a colonial approach and sought the support of the era’s major European (and British, in particular) colonial powers. In 1917, when it secured a commitment from Great Britain to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine and facilitate Jewish immigration from Europe, Palestinian Arabs numbered 670,000 as compared to a Jewish population of 60,000 (Lustick, 1980; Masalha, 1997; Prior, 1999). As the Zionist project progressed, resistance grew among the indigenous Palestinian Arabs. However, the broad international support that the Zionist

198  Ismael Abu-Saad movement had garnered led to a 1947 UN decision to partition Palestine into a Jewish state in 56% of the territory (in which Jews comprised 51% of the population and owned only 10% of the land) and an Arab state in 42% of the territory, despite the fact that they represented more than 67% of the total population of Palestine at that time (Hadawi, 1991; Lustick, 1980). The indigenous Palestinian Arabs, along with the other Arab countries in the region (all of which were also European colonies at the time) were opposed to the partition plan. When the British withdrew in 1948, turning the unresolved conflict over to the United Nations (UN), the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared Israel’s independence as a “Jewish” and “democratic” state (Hadawi, 1991). This sparked a war, for which Zionist forces were much better prepared than the Arab opposition. By its conclusion, the Zionist forces had taken control of 78% of the land of Palestine (Abu-Lughod, 1971; Lustick, 1980) and turned more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs into refugees. The leadership of the newly established State of Israel refused to allow these refugees to return, and thus they were left with a remnant of only 160,000 Palestinian Arabs within Israeli boundaries (Abu-Lughod, 1971; Jiryis, 1976; Lustick, 1980; Piterberg, 2001). As the fulfillment of the Zionist project, the state polity and infrastructure were set up, first and foremost, to serve the selective “common good” of the Jewish people, both within and beyond its borders. The new state continued to actively promote Jewish immigration and, during its first decade, had a very large influx of Jewish immigrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries (Lustick, 1980; Yiftachel, 2006). The Palestinian Arabs who remained in the territory that became the Israeli state had to cope with the multifaceted challenges imposed by their new reality, which included the imposition of an 18-year-long military administration and an array of legal measures that further dispossessed and impoverished them (Abu-Saad, 2006; Lustick, 1980). Most had family, relatives, and community members who ended up outside the borders of the state, from whom they were suddenly cut off. The dispersion of their population left them without a leadership, or social and cultural institutions, and their status changed abruptly from that of a majority with national aspirations to that of a dominated minority. Finally, they had to deal with an Israeli policy of domination and control over all aspects of life, including education, planning, economic development, health, and so on (Mar’i, 1978; Lustick, 1980). After the establishment of the state of Israel, the Zionist, Hebrew-­ language school system became the public school system. The education system had separate departments for Jewish education (which also had secular and religious subsystems) and Arab education (Al-Haj, 1995; Mar’i, 1978; Volansky, 2010). As such, the public education system both reflected and reinforced the division between Jews and Arabs in society. The school systems have remained separate, even in towns that have a mixed Jewish/Arab

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  199 population (e.g., Haifa, Acre, Lod, Ramle, and Jaffa) and differ in language of instruction, curriculum (particularly in the humanities and social sciences), and budget allocations (Al-Haj, 1995; Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011; Mari, 1978; Swirski, 1999). This public education system has had an important role in developing and defending the construction of the selective “common good” in Israel.

Aims and Goals of Public Education in Israel Educational policies in the Israeli state were designed to produce unquestioning loyalty to the Zionist project and to Israel as a Jewish state as well as to determine the nature of the state’s “Jewishness” (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011, 2004; Al-Haj, 1995; Peres, Ehrlich, & Yuval-Davis, 1970; Swirski, 1999). The 1953 Law of State Education specified the following aims for public education in Israel: to base education on the values of Jewish culture and the achievements of science, on love of the homeland and loyalty to the state and the Jewish people, on practice in agricultural work and handicraft, on pioneer training and on striving for a society built on freedom, equality, tolerance, mutual assistance, and love of mankind. (quoted in Mar’i, 1978, p. 50) Although more than 60 years have passed since the enactment of this law, the aims it specified have survived subsequent amendments and revisions and remain central to Israeli state educational policy (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011). For example, since 2015, the appointee to the position of Minister of Education has been from the far-right “Jewish Home” party, which pledges to promote “love for the land and [Jewish] people” throughout state schools through the introduction of a new “Jewish-Zionist education” unit in public schools (Roth, 2015). The party website describes its vision for public education as follows: We will act to strengthen the Jewish-Zionist identity of Israel’s youth and instill values of loving others, the nation, and the state. Every child in the country must be familiar with our past and the exceptional figures of the Jewish people; Abraham, Moses, the prophets, the people of the Second Temple era, Maimonides, Herzl and the fathers of Zionism, David Ben-Gurion and the heads of the nation, as well as Israeli heroes like Yoni Netanyahu, Hannah Senesh and Judah the Maccabee. Our education system is in crisis. In recent years, the hours dedicated to the study of Jewish history, literature, and Torah instruction have decreased by approximately 50%. Many children do not study the Second Temple era, nor are they familiar with Israeli heritage. We need to fix this. (https://en.idi.org.il/media/7063/baityehudi_19platform.pdf)

200  Ismael Abu-Saad The Education Minister, Naftali Bennet, has actively pursued this vision. In response to criticisms he has received about putting a stronger curricular emphasis on the state’s Jewish identity and values, at the expense of more inclusive democratic values, he explicitly stated that in his view: there was no reason to apologize for instilling the country’s youths with what he considers to be Jewish values. . . . “The question is if Israel is a Jewish and democratic state or if it is a state like all other states. . . . I, as the Minister of Education, definitely intend to strengthen the Jewish element.” (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/jj-israelieducators-battle-government-over-textbook-content-20160216-story.html) Through the ongoing affirmation of these aims for public education in Israel, educational policy and practice has clearly confirmed and actively served the founding fathers’ construction of a selective Jewish “common good.” Education policy and practices have, furthermore, been instrumental in defining the nature of the Jewishness of the state in terms intended to secure and privilege a Euro-Jewish cultural hegemony. The veteran, ­European-background Zionist immigrants, who dominated all governing structures of the new state, including the education system, were determined to promote the development of a single, unified, “Europeanized” Jewish people and society. They therefore actively suppressed the culture and ethnic identity of Jewish immigrant groups from the “primitive, uncultured” Middle East, who made up a substantial proportion of the population and the student body in Jewish schools (Chetrit, 2014, 2009; Swirski, 1999). The veteran Zionist leadership viewed the Middle East (including not only the indigenous Palestinian Arab population but also the Jewish immigrants from Middle Eastern and North African countries) through an orientalist lens and portrayed them and their culture in a negative light. As explained by Edward Said (1978), orientalism refers the Western economic and political powers’ development of a dichotomized discourse in which an inherently superior West was juxtaposed with a non-Western “other,” according to terms and definitions unilaterally determined by the West. Orientalism created an image of the Orient as separate, backward, irrational, passive, and always, as judged in terms of and in comparison to the West, inferior. To implement its Europeanizing mission, the Zionist leadership set a uniform curriculum for the entire Jewish pupil population, and schools and teachers became agents of the ideological mission to forge a cohesive society (Volansky, 2010). This early insistence upon uniformity and centralized control of the curriculum relegated the teaching profession to the conservative task of implementing policy from above rather than encouraging creativity or initiative taking. The imposed uniformity also impaired teachers’ abilities to address the tremendous differences that actually existed among different student groups (Dror, 2006; Volansky, 2010) because it was, indeed, instead

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  201 their role to suppress and eliminate characteristics of an un-European nature (Chetrit, 2014, 2009; Swirski, 1999). The aims of the Israeli education system, either as set forth in the 1953 law, or as repeatedly reiterated by successive educational policy makers, have served to operationalize the status of the Palestinian Arab students as “present absentees.” Although they are present in the public school system, their history, culture, and identity are disappeared by a policy that educates them to be loyal to a state that does not acknowledge them and to adopt the values and culture of a people they don’t belong to (Abu-Saad, 2011, 2004; Al-Haj, 1995; Human Rights Watch, 2001; Mar’i, 1978; Peres et al., 1970; Swirski, 1999). There was some recognition of the misfit of the general aims of the Israeli education system for Palestinian Arab students, and during the 1970s and 1980s, and a number of committees were created for the purpose of setting parallel aims for the Arab education system. However, none of these committees (which were all directed by Jewish educators) succeeded in recommending meaningful changes from the perspective of the Palestinian community. Furthermore, even the circumspect changes they did recommend failed to gain the Education Ministry’s approval, so no parallel aims were ever established for the education of Palestinian students (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011; Al-Haj, 1995; Cook, 2015). The consequence of an educational vision of Palestinian children’s non-belonging, if not even nonbeing, has been to foster and perpetuate the underdevelopment and marginalization of the indigenous Palestinian minority (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011, 2004; Al-Haj, 1995; Human Rights Watch, 2001; Mar’i, 1978; Peres et al., 1970; Swirski, 1999).

State-Mandated Curriculum Education policy in Israel is translated into educational practice and implemented by teachers via the curriculum set by the Ministry of Education. Through its list of approved and required textbooks, the curriculum normalizes and promotes the state’s general construction of “the common good.” In most societies, textbooks are “responsible for conveying to youth what adults believe they should know about their own culture as well as that of other societies” and have served as one of the most powerful instruments of socialization “in their capacity to convey a uniform, approved, even official version of what youth should believe” (Mehlinger, 1985, p. 287). This is particularly true in Israel, according to Bar-Tal and Teichman (2005), because the educational system in Israel is highly centralized, with the Ministry of Education setting the guidelines for curricula development and allowing the use only of approved textbooks in the schools, whose “contents reflect the knowledge that the dominant group of society is trying to impart to its members” (p. 159). The extent to which the approved/required textbooks are expected to be used was recently made clear by the Minister of Education, ironically, when he was discussing a novel that was banned from the

202  Ismael Abu-Saad curriculum for Jewish high school students. He acknowledged that including it in the curriculum would be tantamount to “forc[ing] Israeli children to read” it (The Guardian, 2016, para. 14). There are several comprehensive studies of the content of textbooks in the Israeli Jewish and Arab school systems and their pedagogical and social implications (Abu-Saad, 2006; Bar-Tal, 1998; Bar-Tal & Teichman, 2005; Cohen, 1985; Meehan, 1999; Peled-Alhanan, 2012; Podeh, 2000). For the purposes of this chapter, therefore, I will provide an example of how state educational policy priorities shaped the most recent revision of the civics textbook. I will also give a brief overview of the “Zionization” of the curriculum for Arab schools. Civics studies are the part of the curriculum that most clearly expresses how the state defines the common good and national identity and determines the view of society and values of future generations. In contrast to most other subjects, in civics, Jews and Arabs study from the same textbooks (Cook, 2016). The recently revised civics textbook (the 2016 edition) strongly emphasized the centrality of the Jewish identity of the state of Israel while downplaying alternative configurations of a more inclusive civic identity (HaAretz, 2016). As a result, it was critiqued by numerous Jewish educators, including some of the contributors to the textbook, who removed their names from the final version (Cheslow, 2016). The text relies extensively on Jewish philosophers like Moses Maimonides and the Talmud in its sections about values that are as much universal and secular as they are Jewish, causing the book’s Jewish copy editor (who later resigned) to question whether it aimed to teach civics, or oral Jewish law, to the diverse student population in Israel’s schools (Cheslow, 2016). Palestinian Arabs were largely absent both from the process of the book’s revision and from its final content. They were not invited to participate in the writing of the text, as confirmed by the absence of any Arab names in the extensive list of contributors (Cook, 2016; Newman, 2016). The text itself does not acknowledge the existence of an indigenous Palestinian Arab minority. Instead Arabs are presented through an orientalist lens as a collection of sectarian subgroups (e.g., Muslims, Druze, Christians, and Circassians) who are to varying extents hospitable, tribal, clannish, and oppressive of women (Cook, 2016; Skop, 2016). In reaction to the new textbook, Mohammed Barakeh, the head of the High Follow-Up Committee (a coalition of the main Palestinian political factions in Israel) said, “Our teachers are now being required to present us as immigrants in our own country. And our students are being taught that the Jewish identity of the state is far more important than its democratic identity” (Cook, 2016, para. 7). The release of this textbook sparked an initiative by Palestinian educators to write an alternative civics textbook for Palestinian students. Despite Palestinian and Jewish critiques, the textbook was deemed to be “excellent and professional” by the education minister, and it will serve as the source for the mandatory civics matriculation exam (Cheslow, 2016,

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  203 para. 5). Students who do not pass the exam are disqualified from continuing on to any form of higher education (including teachers training) in Israel. Even prior to the adoption of this new civics textbook, half of Palestinian students were failing the civics matriculation exam. The introduction of an alternative civics textbook, even in the most unlikely scenario that its use would be allowed by the Ministry of Education, would leave them even more unprepared to pass the exam, with grave consequences for the future of an even higher proportion of Palestinian youth (Cook, 2016). This example demonstrates the extent to which the state-approved curriculum is designed to support educational and broader societal policy goals. Insights from Peled-Alhanan (2012) that are based on her long-term experience of university and in-service instruction of schoolteachers, demonstrate the extent to which the highly value-laden curriculum determines teacher practices in the Jewish school system. She found that even experienced teachers were not trained to treat textbooks as anything other than neutral, objective information and had never received any instruction or tools for reading texts in a critical manner. Given the sociopolitical milieu, in which questioning the official narrative is still considered unpatriotic and unacceptable, Peled-Elhanan (2012) claimed that this was not unintentional but rather the outcome of Israeli state policies designed to suppress the teaching of any counter-narratives or encourage questioning of the state’s official narrative. In contrast, the Ministry of Education has shown a much greater readiness to hear and act upon educator critiques of textbooks for not following the official narrative closely enough. For example, a history instructor in Tel-Hay teachers’ college complained about a history textbook because it included a quote from the Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, stating that ethnic cleansing was carried out in Palestine in 1948. In response, the education minister had the book removed from the approved curriculum. It was only reauthorized for use in the schools after the reference to “ethnic cleansing” was removed. The presence of a Palestinian historian in the text as a source was also considered offensive, and in its reauthorized form, all references to Khalidi were removed and replaced instead by an Israeli historian (Peled-Elhanan, 2012). Peled-Elhanan concluded that Israeli textbooks, as taught by intentionally uncritical teachers, served vital functions that were deeply rooted in the political and military discourse of the state: the representation of Palestinians in Israeli [Jewish] school books enhances ignorance, both of the real social and geopolitical situations and of the geographical and historical discourse. . . . With such distorted pictures and skewed maps firmly fixed in their minds, Israeli Jewish students are drafted into the army, to carry out Israeli policy visà-vis the Palestinians, whose life-world is unknown to them and whose very existence they have been taught to resent and fear. (2012, p. 232)

204  Ismael Abu-Saad Turning to the curriculum for the Arab school system, there are multiple examples of how the Zionist emphasis of the general educational goals is concretely operationalized through the state-approved curriculum. Although both the Arab school system and Arab teacher training programs have their own curricula, it is designed and supervised by the Ministry of Education, where virtually no Arab educators or administrators have decision-making powers (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011; Swirski, 1999). The school curriculum requires Palestinian Arab students to spend many class hours in the study of Jewish culture and history and the Hebrew ­language—in total, more than they spend on Arabic literature and history (Abu-Saad, 2011; Al-Haj, 1995; Mar’i, 1978, 1985; Peres et al., 1970). The basic goal of Jewish studies in the Arab schools is not the development of cultural competence in Jewish Israeli society as much as it is to make Palestinians understand and sympathize with Jewish/Zionist causes and suppress their own national identity (Abu-Saad, 2011; Al-Haj, 1995; Mar’i, 1978, 1985; Swirski, 1999). In the 1970s, a team of Jewish Israeli researchers criticized the curriculum imposed upon Arab schools for attempting to instill patriotic sentiments in Palestinian Arab students through the study of Jewish history and pointed out the absurdity of the expectation that the “Arab pupil . . . serve the state not because the latter is important to him and fulfills his needs, but because it is important to the Jewish people” (Peres et al., 1970, p. 151, emphasis added) and serves a “common good” from which the Palestinian Arab student is excluded. Whereas Palestinian students are required to read the literature and poetry of the Zionist movement celebrating the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, their curriculum does not include the Palestinian Arab literary classics studied throughout the Arab world (AbuSaad, 2015, 2011, 2004; Al-Haj, 1995; Brown, 1986; Ma’ri, 1978).The following quote from a Palestinian Arab student demonstrates both that the state-approved curriculum is actually followed by the teachers and that it results in an extremely alienating educational experience for the students: Everything we study is about the Jews. Everything is Jewish culture. We study Bialik and Rachel [Jewish Zionist poets]. Why do I have to study them? Why don’t they teach me Mahmud Darwish [Palestinian nationalist poet]? . . . Why don’t they teach me Edward Said? Why don’t they teach me about Arab philosophers and Palestinian poets? . . . Schools, not individually, but the educational system as a whole has a very negative impact on our identity. . . . They don’t want us, Palestinian Arabs, to develop an awareness of our national identity. (quoted in Makkawi, 2002, p. 50)

Administrative Mechanisms Governing Teacher Training Policy and Practice Teacher education and training, and the hiring of teachers, principals, and supervisory staff, are controlled by the central Ministry of Education office

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  205 and have, particularly for Arab schools, been determined, first and foremost, by political considerations (Abu-Saad, 2015, 2011; Al-Haj, 1995; Ettinger, 2004; Lustick, 1980). In the early years of the Israeli state, the military administration’s security concerns took priority over educational and professional concerns in training teachers and staffing Arab schools (Abu-Saad, 2015). The military government was interested both in promoting the most “favorably minded” teachers and in keeping tight control over the emerging new Palestinian Arab intelligentsia (Swirski, 1999). In 1949, the Arab Education Administration opened intensive, eight-month teacher training courses in Jaffa, for which all of the instructors were Jews who spoke Arabic fluently. The students, who came from across the country, were cut off from the larger world and their home communities. They were very tightly controlled and expelled at the first signs of politicization (Murkus, 1999). There were no teacher training college for Palestinian Arabs until 10 years after the establishment of the state, despite the fact that the 1948 war had dispersed the vast majority of Palestinian Arab teachers and administrators. Although there was an extreme shortage of educational and administrative staff for the Arab school system, no one could be hired without the approval of the General Security Services (GSS). Once appointed, teachers and administrators were forbidden from engaging in any political activities, and those who did not observe this were summarily fired. They had no professional organization to protect their rights or address the specific problems they faced (Cohen, 1951). Murkus, an Arab teacher from this era, wrote about his involvement in political and community organizing activities to improve the situation of Arab teachers and the Arab educational system. As a result of these activities, he and his colleagues were summoned before a joint committee of the Arab Education Administration and the General Teachers Union. They were charged with insulting their employer (e.g., Arab Education Administration) based upon statements printed in their publications criticizing the conditions in the Arab schools and certain Arab Education Administration officials and were summarily fired and denied compensation (Murkus, 1999). Although the Military Administration over Palestinian Arabs in Israel ended in 1966, little has changed with regard to mechanisms of control over teacher training and hiring. In Israeli teacher training colleges and programs, unlike other higher educational programs, Arabs and Jews continue to study separately. Furthermore, Arab teacher training programs are designed to serve the purpose of co-opting Arab academicians and producing teachers who have internalized of the state ideology of control. They learn to consciously and unconsciously suppress of their national identity and to reproduce that suppression in their classrooms (Abu-Saad, 2015; Agbaria, 2013). Teacher training programs mask the agenda of control and oppression under the guise of “professionalism” that requires teachers to function in an apolitical and nonsocial manner. The role they are trained to fulfill is focused on technical and subject-matter mastery and largely devoid

206  Ismael Abu-Saad of personal and political content, whereas attributes of critical thinking, creativity, initiative, and social and civil involvement are not inculcated or encouraged (Agbaria, 2013). Instead, teacher training programs for Arabs in Israel aim to produce self-policing teachers who are physically present in the classroom and can convey a detached body of knowledge to their students but who are absent as educators who embody and convey a sense of connectedness and social values as well social responsibility for the development and well-being of the Palestinian community. Even upon completion of this control-internalizing training, Palestinian Arab teaching candidates holding all requisite qualifications must undergo a security check and get the approval of a GSS representative (who is the chair of the appointments committee for the Arab educational system) before they can be hired. This is a process from which they are completely excluded and have no means to appeal (Abu-Saad, 2011; Agbaria, 2013; Al-Haj, 1995; Ettinger, 2004; Lustick, 1980; Sa’ar, 2001). This security check is utilized to eliminate Palestinian Arab educators who openly express a Palestinian national identity from the school system. In the mid-2000s, the Education Ministry director general, Ronit Tirosh, publicly justified the ongoing necessity of the GSS security check in the hiring process of staff in the Palestinian Arab schools (Ettinger, 2004), and this practice continues unaltered (AbuSaad, 2015). This has served to make the school an even more alienating place for indigenous Palestinian Arab teachers and students alike. As one teacher stated: I belong to the state of Israel only in the geographical sense. According to an agreement they imposed on me. I am an employee of the Ministry of Education. Receive a salary. Live here. But in the spirit, in the soul, I belong to the Palestinian people. So you tell me how I can educate children in these circumstances? A simple example—I’ve run into a lot of students here who draw, let’s say, a Palestinian flag. Now I’ve got to tell the student that this is forbidden. But the student will consider me a traitor. And maybe I’ll also feel that I’m a traitor. But if I show any approval of his drawing maybe they’ll fire me, or summon me for an investigation. So what do I do? I don’t tell him anything. I pretend that I don’t notice. (Grossman, 1992, p. 50) Another example that demonstrates the awareness among both Palestinian Arab teachers and students of the ongoing control of the Ministry of Education and GSS was given by a high school history teacher: I was teaching about Napoleon’s military campaigns to conquer Egypt, and the textbook said that Napoleon was coming to bring ‘progress’ and “enlightenment” to the Arab world. I told the students that they should view this rationale the same way that they view the . . . rationale

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  207 of America for coming to Iraq to bring “freedom” and “democracy.” The students, who immediately understood the point I was trying to convey, laughed at this analogy. But then one of them said, “you had better be careful, or you’ll lose your job.” (Abu-Saad, 2015) In the recent controversy over the new civics textbook, Palestinian educators who were involved in the process of creating an alternative civics textbook for their students acknowledged that “some teachers were ‘very afraid’ of retaliation by the Education Ministry if they adopted the alternative [civics] curriculum. ‘We can’t put them in the front line alone. . . . We have to support them’ ” (Cook, 2016). Outcomes of Control-Oriented Education Research has demonstrated that the quality of teacher education and training is critical to the advancement of the socioeconomic status of the minority groups and is one of the most significant factors influencing the level of academic achievement in education systems. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that students who are not well served by the education system are heavily disadvantaged later in life in terms of their earning and employment potential and their health and well-being (American Psychological Association, 2012; Boliver, 2016; D’lima & Winsler, 2014). This research would suggest that the truncated training that Palestinian teachers receive and the restrictive environment in which they teach contributes to ensuring that the level of educational achievement among Palestinian students remains lower than that of their Jewish counterparts. As such, this represents another way in which teacher education policy and practice in Israel supports and maintains a construction of the “common good” that privileges the Jews and consigns indigenous Palestinians to the social, economic, and political margins of society. Approximately a third of Palestinian Arab children drop out before graduating from high school, as compared to 16% in the Jewish sector (Ministry of Education, 2015). To compound the problem of high dropout rates in the Palestinian Arab schools, the success rates of the children who do stay in school and complete the 12th grade are very low. Arab students who stay in school perform less well on national examinations, especially the matriculation examinations (bagrut)—the prerequisite for a high school diploma and university application. In the 2013–2014 academic year, only 46.9% of Arab high school students passed the matriculation exams, compared to 72.2% in the Jewish schools (Ministry of Education, 2015). Many Arab students who might otherwise have academic or professional aspirations are barred from higher education by a required “psychometric” ­examination—an aptitude test that Arab educators describe as a culturally weighted, direct translation of the test given to students of the Jewish school system. A consequence is

208  Ismael Abu-Saad that Arabs seeking admission to the university are rejected at a far higher rate than are Jewish applicants (Abu-Saad, 2016; CBS, 2015).

Conclusion This overview provides insights into how teacher education policy and practice in Israel are at the same time shaped by a selective, Eurocentric Jewish construction of the “common good” and designed to support and defend that construction. This has had dire educational and socioeconomic consequences for the indigenous Palestinian Arab minority as well as for other non-European-origin sectors of Israeli society. In response to the question of how a more inclusive vision of the common good might be constructed and supported by the education system, I would like to draw upon the work of indigenous scholars. Facing very similar issues, they have suggested initiatives that include changing who the educational leaders are through indigenous teacher training initiatives (Bishop & Berryman, 2010; Lipka with Mohatt and the Ciukustet Group, 1998); altering school decision-making structures (Bishop, O’Sullivan, & Berryman, 2010); infusing cultural content into classrooms (Demmert & Towner, 2003); strengthening teacher and student relationships by enabling culturally responsive classroom pedagogies (Bishop, 2008); and making the school more affirming of indigenous cultures through community engagement efforts (Sarra, 2011) that include a strong focus on issues of “sovereignty and self-determination, racism, and Indigenous epistemologies” (Castagno & Brayboy, 2008, p. 941). General education policies and specific curricula that have fostered and maintained the exclusivist colonial ideology and negated indigenous views of history and society, both within mainstream and indigenous schools (Smith, 1999), must be reversed. Education policy in Israel, including teacher education policy, appears to be diametrically opposed to the ideals expressed by indigenous educators. The broad goals, curricula, and administration of the public schools for the Palestinians have been designed to achieve social and political control over the young generation, with the intention of creating a submissive minority ready to accept a selective Jewish construction of the “common good” and a position of inferiority vis-à-vis the Jewish majority. As long as the Israeli national ethos and state apparatus continue to exclude the Palestinian Arab minority from equal membership and full legitimacy as citizens, teacher education policy and practice will just as surely continue to serve as a tool for maintaining these conditions. In summary, teacher education policy and practice in Israel are both determined by and used to support a selective construction of the “common good” that aims to maintain an unbridgeable divide between the Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority. Until this exclusive construction of the common good is challenged and revised, the material consequences of teacher education policy for mainstream society are the privileging of the

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  209 Jewish majority, in the hands of a Euro-centric leadership, at the cost of perpetuating the suppression and social, economic, and political exclusion and disadvantage of the indigenous Palestinian minority.

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, I. (1971). The transformation of Palestine. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. Abu-Saad, I. (2004). Separate and unequal: The consequences of racism and discrimination against Palestinian Arabs in the educational system in Israel. Social Identities, 10(2), 101–127. Abu-Saad, I. (2006). Palestinian education in Israel: The legacy of the military government. Holy Land Studies: Interdisciplinary Journal, 5(1), 21–56. Abu-Saad, I. (2011). Arab education in Israel and the policy of control: The case of education in the Negev. Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. (Arabic). Abu-Saad, I. (2015). Arab society in Israel Vol. 4: Controversial issues: Education. Raanana, Israel: The Open University Press. (Hebrew). Abu-Saad, I. (2016). Access to higher education and its socio-economic impact among Bedouin Arabs in Southern Israel. International Journal of Educational Research, 76, 96–103. Agbaria, A. (2013). Teacher education in the Palestinian society in Israel: Institutional practices and education policy. Tel-Aviv: Resling Publishing. (Hebrew). Al-Haj, M. (1995). Education, empowerment and control: The case of the Arabs in Israel. Albany, NY: State University of New York. American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on Educational Disparities. (2012). Ethnic and racial disparities in education: Psychology’s contributions to understanding and reducing disparities. Retrieved from www.apa.org/ed/ resources/racial-disparities.pdf Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins of nationalism. New York, NY: Verso. Anderson, K. (2000). Thinking “Postnationally”: Dialogue across multicultural, indigenous, and settler spaces. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), 381–391. Anderson, K., & Gale, F. (1992). Inventing places: Studies in cultural geography. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Bar-Tal, Daniel. (1998). Societal Beliefs in Times of Intractable Conflict: The Israeli Case. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(1): 22–50. ProQuest. Web. 30 Mar. 2018. Bar-Tal, Daniel, & Teichman, Yona. (2005). Stereotypes and prejudice in conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish society. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press. Bishop, R. (2008). Te Kotahitanga: Kaupapa Maori in mainstream classrooms. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 439–458). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Bishop, R., O’Sullivan, D., & Berryman, M. (2010). Scaling up education reform: Addressing the politics of disparity. Wellington: NZCER Press. Boliver, V. (2016). Exploring ethnic inequalities in admission to Russell Group Universities. Sociology, 50(2), 247–266.

210  Ismael Abu-Saad Brown, S. (1986). Two systems of education. Index on Censorship, 15, 36–37. Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78, 941–993. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2015). Statistical abstract of Israel. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Cheslow (2016). Available at: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/jjisraeli-educators-battle-government-over-textbook-content-20160216-story.html Chetrit, S. (2009). Intra-Jewish conflict in Israel: White Jews, Black Jews. New York, NY: Routledge. Chetrit, S. (2014). Jewish and democratic: A Quiz in education an essay on education, nationalism: Ethnicity and democracy. Kedem Publisher: Tel Aviv. (Hebrew). Cohen, A. (1951). Problems of education for Arab children in Israel. Magamot, 2(2), 126–137. (Hebrew). Cohen, A. (1985). An Ugly Face in the Mirror: National Stereotypes in Hebrew Children’s Literature. Reshafim: Tel Aviv. Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Cook, J. (2015, September 27). Israel’s army and schools work hand in hand, say teachers. Middle East Eye. Retrieved from www.middleeasteye.net/news/ israel-s-army-and-schools-work-hand-hand-say-teachers-201601890 Cook, J. (2016, March 11). Israeli textbooks for Arab schools: ‘Bad for Arabs, Bad for Jews’. Global Research. Retrieved from www.globalresearch.ca/israelitextbooks-for-arab-schools-bad-for-arabs-bad-for-jews/5513362 Demmert, W., & Towner, J. (2003). A review of the research literature on the influences of culturally based education on the academic performance of native American students. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Lab. D’lima, G., & Winsler, A. (2014). Ethnic and gender differences in first-year college students’ goal orientation, self-efficacy, and extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research, 107, 341–356. Dror, Y. (2006). Past reforms in the Israeli education system: What history can teach us about the Dovrat report. In D. Inbar (Ed.), Toward educational revolution? (pp. 35–59). Bnei Brak: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew). Ettinger, Y. (2004, August 25). Tirosh admits: The General Security Service Checks Arab Principals. HaAretz (Hebrew). Grossman, D. (1992, December 13). The guests can be shown the door, The New York Times Magazine, 40–50. The Guardian. (2016, January 1). Novel about Jewish-Palestinian love affair is barred from Israeli curriculum. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/01/ novel-about-jewish-palestinian-love-affair-is-barred-from-israeli-curriculum HaAretz. (2016, May 13). Israel new civics textbook was born in sin and must be opposed. Editorial. Retrieved from www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.719396 Hadawi, S. (1991). Bitter harvest: A modern history of Palestine (4th ed.). New York, NY: Olive Branch Press. Hartsock, N. (1983). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding & M. Hintikka (Eds.), Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology and the philosophy of science (pp. 283–310). Dordrecht & The Netherlands: Reidel.

Teacher Education Policy in Israel  211 Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs, 22(2), 341–365. Hoffman, A., & Niederland, D. (2012). Is teacher education higher education? The politics of teacher education in Israel, 1970–2010. Higher Education Policy, 25, 87–106. Human Rights Watch. (2001). Second class: Discrimination against Palestinian Arab children in Israel’s schools. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch. Jiryis, S. (1976). The Arabs in Israel. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Kellerman, A. (1993). Society and settlement: Jewish land of Israel in the twentieth century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Lipka, J., Mohatt, G., & The Ciulistet Group. (1998). Transforming the culture of schools: Yup’ik Eskimo examples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lustick, I. (1980). Arabs in the Jewish state: Israel’s control of a national minority. Austin: University of Texas Press. Makkawi, I. (2002). Role conflict and the Dilemma of Palestinian teachers in Israel. Comparative Education, 38(1), 39–52. Mar’i, S. (1978). Arab education in Israel. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Masalha, N. (1997). A land without a people: Israel, transfer and the Palestinians. London: Faber and Faber. McDowall, D. (1989). Palestine and Israel: The uprising and beyond. London: I.B. Tauris and Co. McMaster, G., & Martin, L. (1992). Indigena. Vancouver, BC: Douglas & McIntyre. Meehan, M. (1999, September). Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, 19–20. Mehlinger, H. (1985). International textbook revision: Example from the United States. Internationale Schulbuchforschung, 7, 285–296. Mendel, Y. (2014). The creation of Israeli Arabic: Political and security consideration in the making of Arabic studies in Israel. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Ministry of Education. (2015). Statistics of the matriculation examinations data for 2014. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education. (Hebrew). Murkus, N. (1999). Unforgettable, Kufr Yassif: Self Published. (Arabic). Newman, M. (2016, May 26). Israel’s Contentious New Civics Textbooks Illuminates Country’s Divisions. The Times of Israel. Retrieved from www.timesofisrael. com/israels-contentious-new-civics-textbook-illuminates-countrys-divisions/ Peled-Elhanan, N. (2012). Palestine in Israeli school books: Ideology and propaganda in education. London: Tauris Academic Studies. Peres, Y., Ehrlich, A., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1970). National education for Arab youth in Israel: A comparison of curricula. Race, 12(1), 151–161. Piterberg, G. (2001, July–August). Erasures. New Left Review, 10, 31–46. Podeh, E. (2000). History and Memory in the Israeli Educational System: The Portrayal of the Arab-Israeli Conflict in History Textbooks (1948–2000). History & Memory 12(1), 65–100. Indiana University Press. Prior, M. (1999). Zionism and the state of Israel: A moral inquiry. London: Routledge. Rains, F. V., Archibald, J., & Deyhle, D. (2000). Introduction: Through our eyes and in our own words. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(4), 337–342.

212  Ismael Abu-Saad Roth, N. (2015, May 27). Bennett as education minister: Less science, more Judaism. Retrieved from http://972mag.com/bennett-as-education-minister-less-sciencemore-judaism/106519/ Sa’ar, R. (2001, December 6). A Yitzhak Cohen by any other name. Ha’Aretz. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Sarra, C. (2011). Strong and smart: Towards a pedagogy for emancipation: Education for first peoples. London: Routledge. Seliktar, O. (1984). The Arabs in Israel: Some observations on the psychology of the system of controls. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 28(2), 247–269. Sibley, D. (1996). Geographies of exclusion. London: Routledge. Skop, Y. (2016, May 9). Israel’s new civics text highlights god’s role in state’s creation, dismissive of Arabs middle east news. HaAretz. Smith L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. Stasiulis, D., & Yuval-Davis, N. (1995). Introduction: Beyond dichotomies: Gender, race, ethnicity and class in settler societies. In D. Stasiulis & N. Yuval-Davis (Eds.), Unsettling settler societies (pp. 1–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swirski, S. (1999). Politics and education in Israel: Comparisons with the United States. New York, NY: Falmer Press. Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32. Volansky, A. (2010). The Israeli education system. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education, Vol. 5 (pp. 618–626). Oxford: Elsevier. Wakim,W. (2001). The ‘internally displaced’: seeking return within one’s own land. An interview with Wakim Wakim. Journal of Palestine Studies, 31(1), 32–38. Weisblai, A., & Vinegar, A. (2015). The educational system in Israel. Jerusalem: Knesset, Research and Information Center. (Hebrew). Yiftachel, O. (2006). Ethnocracy: Land and identity politics in Israel/Palestine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

14 Canada’s Trojan Horse Labor Mobility Legislation Concealing Deregulation and an Attack on Teacher Professionalism and the Common Good Peter P. Grimmett Specifically, the chapter will show how, over the last 20 years, economic rationalism has begun to trump professional judgment in education, subjugating the more democratic notion of the common good. Under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and particularly the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), the impact of economic rationalism on teacher certification and the professional status of teaching plays out in different ways in the varied contexts of the United States and Canada. In the United States, it has led to open debates over professionalization versus deregulation. This intense, public debate has provoked, on the part of the advocates of professionalization, a preoccupation with appropriate forms of accreditation of teacher preparation programs. On the part of the advocates of deregulation, it has led to an emphasis on alternative routes to certification and an education reform in the schools framed as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) that ostensibly addressed the alleged deficiencies in schooling that arose from conventional teacher preparation and its subsequent teaching.1 The response from the voices of professionalization has been flawed (Bales, 2006).2 In Canada, the debate has also been about professionalization but not versus deregulation as such: rather, it is about professionalization versus full labor mobility across all provinces and territories. Moreover, it has been a closed affair in that no public debate or consultation has occurred. That is, decisions have been taken by policy makers at the highest level to ensure that the provisions of the Agreement for Internal Trade (AIT) guarantee full labor mobility across the country. My general thesis is that neoliberalist economic rationalist policy initiatives, while rhetorically voicing sentiments of professionalization, are essentially reframing teachers’ work in North America as an occupational relationship. My specific thesis is that the Canadian issue of full labor mobility under AIT is a concealed form of deregulation (a Trojan horse [Virgil, 2002], if you wish) that in its push for the harmonization of certification and entry requirements across the country, is undermining the professional

214  Peter P. Grimmett status of teaching. In this chapter, I characterize the macro-political context in which I examine the more closed (relative to the open public debate around professionalization versus deregulation in the United States) political decisions made about labor mobility as they affect professionalization and a concern for the public good in the Canadian context to illustrate what happens to the professional status of teaching when economic rationalism and professionalization forces meet. My claim is that, if the former always ends up trumping the latter, then a consequence will be that teaching loses its hold on professional status. That is, the qualities that distinguish professions from occupations—education, late entry, autonomy in decisionmaking, responsibility to clients, self-governance, a concern for the common good, and so on—would all but disappear.

Introduction The focus of the following discussion of labor mobility and the teaching profession in Canada is the Labour Mobility chapter of the AIT and specifically an amendment to the agreement agreed upon by the premiers of all of the country’s provinces and territories in July 2008. This amendment set April 1, 2009, as the deadline for each jurisdiction to ensure that [a]ny worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one province or territory shall be recognized as qualified to practice that occupation by all other provinces and territories; and that such recognition shall be granted expeditiously without further material training, examination or assessment requirements . . . and exceptions to full mobility . . . be clearly identified and justified as required to meet a legitimate objective such as the protection of health or public safety. (The Council of the Confederation, 2008) This multi-sector, omnibus agreement represents an extension of a twopronged desire of successive federal governments: first, to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to establish Canada as an economic unity and, second, to extend their commitment to a neoliberal, international free-trade agenda. Of particular importance to the focus of this chapter, it also draws services, and specifically the professions and education, into the domain of a trade agreement. In documenting the playing out of these negotiations over labor mobility, Doern and MacDonald (1999, pp. 105–110) noted that it was the federal government that was the main advocate for ensuring that the AIT Chapter on Labour Mobility was as broad in scope as possible and would include the professions. The federal government’s initial position was that of promoting harmonized, national standards based on objective competencies. Many of the provinces, on the other hand, saw harmonization as too much of a federal intrusion into provincial matters and pushed instead for a strategy of working toward mutual recognition of credentials—whereby

Canada’s Trojan Horse  215 provinces simply accept and recognize (with or without conditions) the qualifications as certified by another province. Like the international trade agreements upon which it is modeled, AIT was negotiated behind closed doors and became a reality with little public input or scrutiny. The agreement itself functions not as law because it was not brought about through statute but rather as a political accord (Swinton, 1995).3 It is Chapter 7 of the AIT that deals with labor mobility. The purpose of that chapter, as described in Article 701 of the agreement, is “[t]o enable any worker qualified for an occupation in the territory of a Party to be granted access to employment opportunities in that occupation in the territory of any other Party” (Agreement on Internal Trade, 1999, Article 701, p. 89). Applying to measures related to occupational standards, licensing, certification, registration, and residency requirements of workers (Article 702), the chapter requires each province and territory to seek compliance with the chapter by its municipal governments and its other governmental and nongovernmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law (e.g., the provincial teacher certification bodies across Canada, in Ontario the College of Teachers, and in the most western province, the former British Columbia College of Teachers) and, where they are unable to secure voluntary compliance within a reasonable period of time, to “adopt and maintain measures to ensure such compliance” (Article 703). Ontario represented an anomaly to the rest of Canada for initial certification requirements. Most other provinces had taken steps to bring their certification requirements into line with those of other provinces but not Ontario. At the same time, it is important to remember that Ontario’s approach includes currency requirements that require their teachers to take some sort of continuous education to maintain certification. The net effect of these currency requirements is that experienced teachers in that province are more likely to meet the requirements of other provinces than are their beginning teachers. The difficulty facing professional teacher certification bodies across the country during the summer of 2008 was that unless the registrars of the provincial teacher certification bodies could forge a national understanding, the AIT appeared de facto to make Ontario’s requirements for beginning certification the new requirement for full certification across Canada—unless Ontario could be convinced that their entry requirements needed to be changed—a race to the bottom, as it were!

The Split Between the Ontario and British Columbia College of Teachers In a strange twist, Canada’s two professional self-regulatory bodies at that time, the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) and the British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT)4 ended up on opposite sides of the ensuing disagreement about common professional certification requirements. The debate over Ontario’s beginning requirements for entry to the teaching profession

216  Peter P. Grimmett was not new. The 1995 Ontario Royal Commission had cited three major criticisms of teacher education programs in Ontario: There were three major criticisms of the existing pre-service teacherpreparation programs: first, there was a pervasive sense that the current programs are not long enough to cover the necessary range of topics and to ensure the development of the practical skills that starting teachers require; second, the content of several existing programs was judged to lack relevance; and third, the classroom time that student teachers spend in schools was criticized as too short. (https://archive.org/details/forloveoflearnin04onta) The recent review of teacher education program accreditation in Ontario (Grimmett & Echols, 2006) had found that these three major criticisms still persisted and were widely known. It was hardly surprising, then, that the chair of the BCCT noted the following in his October 2008 report: Changing our [British Columbia’s] new certification requirements to match Ontario’s would make a mockery of the TILMA process [negotiations between Alberta and British Columbia to obtain harmonized high professional standards between the two neighboring provinces] and send a rather negative message to the many BC educational partner groups that supported many of the TILMA changes. (Walker, October 2008) The BCCT’s grappling with this issue made news. The local Vancouver Sun newspaper’s (Steffenhagen, February, 2009) striking and inflammatory headline “Watch out for Ontario Teachers!” caught the attention of the national media (http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/watch-out-forontario-teachers). The story cited the concerns raised by the BCCT and the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation that the AIT would result in a general lowering of standards because of Ontario’s low professional entrance requirements (only eight months of teacher preparation). At this point in time, there was a decided push for jurisdictions to write legitimate objectives (legal language for exceptions to full labor mobility) for dealing with the differences in the three areas of language proficiency, acceptable degree, and acceptable teacher education programs to facilitate the use of accommodation mechanisms. What became clear at subsequent meetings of the registrars was that the information being shared within and across different groups was not consistent and was being interpreted differently in various jurisdictions. Nowhere was this difference more noteworthy than in the two provinces that had professional self-regulation bodies, Ontario and British Columbia. Whereas Ontario had few objections to the AIT, in British Columbia it was seen as

Canada’s Trojan Horse  217 something that could entirely undermine the ability of the BCCT to establish and/or maintain their own standards of certification. At the 2008 meeting of provincial registrars in Vancouver (Registrars of Teacher Certification in Canada, November 2008), all this work appeared to be in vain because of the premiers’ decision in the meantime to agree to amendments that mandated full mobility for anyone holding a valid teaching certificate in any province or territory. This was interpreted by British Columbia, but not Ontario, as compromising the professional body’s responsibility to set requirements for entry to the profession. The (2006) Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) negotiations between the two westernmost provinces, Alberta and British Columbia (The Government of Alberta, 2018), had become the forerunner to the provincial registrars’ creation of a set of common qualifications (Frampton, 2008) that closely matched those of all provinces in Canada except Ontario, the province that had about 40% of the teaching force in Canada and the lowest initial certification requirements of any province (Grimmett, 2008). But these long-standing and painstaking negotiations toward a national mutual recognition agreement (MRA) had now been encumbered, if not erased. The signal was clear: negotiated agreements were dead. Politics driven by trade and occupational mobility concerns had trumped professional jurisdiction. This was happening in a Canadian context that had been influenced considerably by the 1996 report, What Matters Most, released by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). The focus of that report was on what it would take to enable every child in America to reach the new high standards of learning being enacted by states across the nation. The report essentially concluded that curriculum reforms, testing, and accountability schemes were unlikely to succeed without major investments in teaching and teacher education. This represented the beginning of a trend toward professionalization in North America. The NCTAF report had its critics, most of whom were of a neoliberalist market persuasion. They argued that attempting to propose professional self-regulation in teaching based on the model of medicine was wrongheaded because it changed preparation programs and licensing procedures into impediments that prevented strong candidates from entering teaching. These critics favored deregulation over professionalization. Thus, the battle lines were drawn in teaching between those supporting professionalization and those favoring deregulation, which in Canada became instantiated as professionalization versus full labor mobility. Given this context in North America, what are the discourses that were invoked in the battle over teacher certification? Here I briefly characterize the discourses of “public interest” theory and “capture” theory to show how the current policy context has begun to undermine public interest discourse with its lionizing of “capture” theorizing. “Public interest” theory Posner (1974) holds that minimum standards are a function of the technical

218  Peter P. Grimmett expectations of the profession and that regulation seeks the protection and benefit of the public at large; that is, regulation protects clients from unqualified practitioners. “Capture” theory (Stigler, 1971) holds that regulatory bodies come to be captured (usually, but not always, for economic and political purposes) by the professions they regulate, leading to attempts to increase economic benefits by restricting supply. Hence, regulation does not protect the public at large but only the interests of the groups it regulates. My argument in this chapter is that the neoliberalist policy context permits a form of postmodern doublespeak or progressio ad contrarium, that is, the rhetorical mouthing of public interest discourse while simultaneously establishing the dominance (through hidden political initiatives) of the capture view of regulation. The dominance of the latter over the former paves the way, I argue, for the political reframing in Canada (via labor mobility agreements) of professional regulation according to occupational standards (Grimmett, 2009). What has brought about the abjuration of public interest discourse in favor of capture theory, leading to a denigration of a virtuous sense of the common good? My contention is that it has a lot to do with the Zeitgeist of the last 30 years or so that has deeply affected the macro-policy context. The Macro-Policy Context in 2016 The macro-political setting of the early 21st century is neoliberalism, which has led to the decline of the nation-state. Neoliberal thought has been able to extend its hegemonic socioeconomic reach into the public sphere to redefine roles and responsibilities in education, health care, and social welfare in terms of their economic utility (Davies & Bansel, 2007; Fitzsimmons, 2000). Public goods and services have been redefined as commodities that could more effectively be delivered through private sector competition. But what hegemonic neoliberalism represents more than anything else is the extension of the globalization of capital and commodities into the realm of high-skill human labor. Under globalization, it has come to represent a theory dedicated to making trade among nations easier. It aims for the freer movement of goods, resources, and enterprises, always in a bid to find cheaper resources to maximize profits and efficiency. To accomplish this, neoliberalism works to remove any controls (such as tariffs, regulation, and restrictions on capital flow and investment) that are deemed barriers to free trade. The goal is to allow the free market to be the arbiter of balance among the pressures of economic demand. Now, in the early part of the 21st century, the macro-policy context sets out to liberalize the movement of human labor—individuals who are highly skilled and educated—not just jobs, capital, and goods. Reich’s (1991) model emphasizing the global movement of capital and commodities but keeping national borders for people no longer appears to hold. Brown and Tannock (2009) characterize this hegemonic period of neoliberalism as a

Canada’s Trojan Horse  219 “global war for talent [that] undermines conventional ways of judging fairness in educational opportunity, by attacking the ideology of meritocratic nationalism, while offering in its place the (equally) problematic ideology of global meritocracy” (p. 385). In other words, as priorities shift from national to global markets, companies have rejected any restricted practices placed on them by nation-states. Free trade has eventually led to freedom of labor mobility to such an extent that nationality or local jurisdiction no longer plays a determinative role in the recruitment of talent. Harvey’s (2007) recent examination of the history of neoliberalism suggested that the nation-state’s role is now to support the free market: Neo-liberalism is in the first instance a theory of economic practices that proposes that human wellbeing can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. The state has to guarantee, for example, the quality and integrity of money. It must also set up those military, defence, police, and legal structures and functions required to secure property rights and to guarantee, by force if need be, the proper functioning of markets. Furthermore, if markets do not exist (in areas such as land, water, education, health care, social security, or environmental pollution) then they must be created, by state action if necessary. Beyond these tasks, the state should not venture. (Harvey, 2007, p. 2, emphasis added) In this citation, I have added emphasis to draw attention to the fact that neoliberalism, in reframing the state’s responsibility as creating and preserving the requisite institutional framework to maintain the proper functioning of markets, has a particular proclivity toward expanding free markets to education by eliminating the concept of the “public good.” It is this tendency that has brought about the emergence of what Plant (2009) has characterized as “the neoliberal state” where the state’s role is limited to safeguarding the free market and providing a minimum level of security against poverty. In other words, the centrality of the nation-state of liberalism has been replaced under neoliberalism by the distorted myth of a minimalist state that in reality has overseen the mushrooming of the apparatus of regulation through which it seeks to exercise a continuing control over its divested functions. In reality, however, neoliberalism has created a market state, not a minimalist state. Reducing the state has proved politically difficult, if not impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions along market lines and using state regulation machinery to ensure that the market model is dominant. Hence, Plant argues, an increase in state power has always been the inner logic of neoliberalism because, to

220  Peter P. Grimmett inject markets into every corner of social life, governments have to be intrusive. Thus, the state now controls health, education, and the arts more than they ever did even during the modernist postwar era of economic reconstruction and collectivism. Even universities, as once-autonomous institutions, have become entangled in an apparatus of government targets and incentives. And the consequence of reshaping society along market lines has not been one of state diminution but of increased and increasingly insidious state presence. This positioning of public interest discourse as a subsection of welfare economics has undermined both its power as a theory and increased the potency of capture theory as a viable explanation of professional regulation. Thus, despite its use in the fields of law and politics to support regulation on philosophical and political grounds—where the concept of public interest, because it is perceived as having to do with the enactment of political and moral values, provides the judiciary with a base upon which it can decide disputes within society—public interest discourse with its concern for the common good appears to have lost out to capture theory. At a time when Canada’s two professional regulatory bodies needed to be together in facing a neoliberalist intrusion into professional jurisdiction, they were engaged in an intriguing contest. Relative to the overpowering AIT purpose of reconfiguring the profession according to occupational standards, however, it was but a sideshow, a distraction of conflict that worked toward furthering the purposes of the AIT.

A Trojan Horse It reminds me of a similar distraction (but one steeped in celebration of victory—a Pyrrhic one, no less) that engrossed the citizens of Troy during the Trojan War, as told in the Aeneid by Virgil and mentioned in the Odyssey by Homer. According to the legend, after a fruitless 10-year siege of Troy, Odysseus came up with the idea of building a great wooden horse (the horse being the emblem of Troy), hiding a select force inside and fooling the Trojans into wheeling the horse into the city as a trophy of victory. Odysseus’s plan called for one man to remain outside the horse; he would act as if the Greeks had abandoned him in leaving the horse as a gift for the Trojans. The Greek soldier Sinon volunteered for the role. When the Trojans came to marvel at the magnificent structure, Sinon acted as if angry with the Greeks, maintaining that they had deserted him but assuring the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe and would bring good fortune to the Trojans. In the Aeneid, Virgil described the encounter between Sinon and the Trojans: Sinon successfully convinces the Trojans that he has been left behind and that the Greeks have set sail. He also tells the Trojans that the horse is an offering to the goddess Athena to atone for the previous desecration of her temple at Troy by the Greeks and to ensure a safe journey home for the Greek fleet. When questioning Sinon, however, the Trojan priest Laocoön

Canada’s Trojan Horse  221 becomes suspicious and tries to warn the Trojans in Virgil’s famous line “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes” (I fear Greeks even those bearing gifts) (Poetry in Translation, n.d.). However, the god Poseidon sends two sea serpents to strangle him and his sons, Antiphantes and Thymbraeus, before any Trojan could hear his warning. Virgil also depicts how the daughter of the Trojan king, Cassandra, who was also the soothsayer of Troy, suddenly started insisting that the horse would be the downfall of the city, but she too is ignored. The Trojans are so busy celebrating what they thought was their victory and dragging their prize, the horse, into the city that they have no time for skeptics. That night, Sinon lets the Greek warriors out of the horse, and they open the gates for the rest of the Greek army that has sailed back under the cover of night. The Greek army enters and destroys the city of Troy, thus decisively ending the war. The Trojan horse, then, was a strategy that allowed the Greeks finally to enter the city of Troy and end the conflict. It has become a symbol for distracting schemes that on the surface, appear harmless, if not beneficial, but that flatter to deceive as they conceal their sinister intent. It is a strategy that lures people to invite an enemy or danger into a securely protected bastion or sacrosanct place. They are particularly prevalent in computer technology, where a Trojan horse is a program in which malicious or harmful code is contained inside apparently harmless programming in such a way that it can get control and do its chosen form of damage, such as ruining the file allocation table on the hard disk. In one celebrated case, a Trojan horse was a program that was supposed to find and destroy viruses and ended up implanting viruses, thereby ruining multiple computers. I am concerned with the apparently harmless but sinister schemes that are also prevalent in politics. Specifically, I am concerned that the AIT has the potential to be one such scheme. Under the guise of increasing labor mobility, it has lulled some officials in charge of professional teacher certification across the country into thinking that this politically imposed national agreement will only have consequences for the easing of teacher movement from province to province. They do not see it as possibly affecting the sacrosanct domain of professional jurisdiction over standards and entry requirements. Nor do they envisage how the occupationally based changes embedded in the AIT could potentially alter the standing of teaching as a profession in itself. I do not see myself as analogous to Laocoön and Cassandra, but I do wonder what might be concealed within the agreement itself—an agreement that strangely involved no public consultation—that might somehow negatively affect or even damage the professional status of teaching, the education of teachers, and the long-term integrity of provincial public school systems.

Conclusion I have used the metaphor of a Trojan horse in this chapter to suggest that whereas there are, and always have been, substantial differences between

222  Peter P. Grimmett and among the different provinces, generally direct efforts over the last two decades to rapidly advance a neoliberal agenda for public schooling in Canada have consistently met with public resistance and achieved only limited success. However, couched in the language of increased mobility—a putative “gift” to teachers and the school boards that recruit them—I argue that the Labour Mobility Agreement has opened a “deregulatory breach” in the fabric of teacher professionalism that unless challenged, has the potential to dismantle the gains in professional recognition and service attained over the last half century and revert teaching back to the status of an occupation.

Notes 1 Apple (2007) characterized NCLB as representing what he previously referred to as the politics of “conservative modernization”—the complicated alliance behind wave after wave of education reforms that have centered on neoliberal commitments to the market and a supposedly weak state, neoconservative emphases on stronger control over curricula and values, and “new managerial” proposals to install rigorous forms of accountability in schooling at all levels (Apple, 2001). This situation has given rise to what Apple (2007) has characterized as an audit culture. Leys (2003) described the widespread nature of such practices that typically submerge other approaches to effectiveness, democracy, and the common good: In place of a society of citizens with the democratic power to ensure effectiveness and proper use of collective resources, and relying in large measure on trust in the public sector, there emerged a society of “auditees,” anxiously preparing for audits and inspections. A punitive culture of “league tables” developed (purporting to show the relative efficiency and inefficiency of universities or schools or hospitals). Inspection agencies were charged with “naming and shaming” “failing” individual teachers, schools, social work departments, and so on; private firms were invited to take over and run “failing” institutions. (Leys, 2003, p. 70) The ultimate result of an auditing culture of this kind is not the promised decentralization that plays such an important role rhetorically in most neoliberal selfunderstandings but also what seems to be a massive recentralization and what is best seen as a process of de-democratization (Apple, 2007). 2 Bales (2006) suggested that because of NCLB and its national role, individual states had no option but to respond by making changes in their teacher education and licensing policies. To maintain their historical role as arbiter of local educational quality, the states forced higher education institutions to alter program arrangements to meet licensing requirements based on NCLB dictates. Even though teacher educators have always mediated policy and micro-politics have mediated policy implementation, teacher education programs in the United States found themselves under NCLB in contested terrain, struggling to address the policies and accountability mechanisms generated by both state and national authorities, a situation that undermined their ability to exercise professional judgment. How did this come about? Bales (2006) traced a fundamental shift in the locus of control and accountability in American teacher education policies for the period between 1985 and 2005. Inducements had become mandates backed by accountability systems that had moved from the local to state and now national level, with the effect that the stakes for noncompliance had suddenly become exceedingly

Canada’s Trojan Horse  223 high. She lamented the fact that the voice of professionalization had not offered viable alternatives and that it had indeed acted on flawed assumptions: NCATE’s professionalization voice is on the playing field but not offering structural alternatives in how teachers are currently recruited, prepared, or licensed. This is because NCATE’s teacher education standards, including its sister organizations—INTASC and NBPTS, rely on the assumption that ‘‘best practice’’ in rural Indiana is similar to ‘‘best practice’’ in Southern California. (p. 404) Consequently, the standards-based discourse that had begun saturating the entire U.S. educational policy represented a single “fix” and minimized the variations in school context that we know contribute to inequities in students’ opportunities to learn. In Bales’s view, NCATE and, to a lesser extent, TEAC (Teacher Education Accreditation Council), had merely tinkered with the existing standards-based preparation and licensing system. 3 However, with the implementation of the Labour Mobility Agreement of AIT provincial legislation, such as Manitoba’s Labour Mobility Act (2009), the Ontario Labour Mobility Act (Ontario, 2009), and British Columbia’s Bill 11: The Labour Mobility Act (2009) does represent legislation that requires compliance with the agreement. 4 Whereas the OCT still remains in existence, the BCCT was dissolved by the provincial government in 2011 to be replaced by the BC Teacher Regulation Branch of the Ministry of Education.

References Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). (1999). Retrieved August 6, 2009, from www. ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ait-aci.nsf/en/home Apple, M. (2001). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. London: Routledge. Apple, M. (2007). Ideological success, educational failure? On the politics of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 108–116. Bales, B. L. (2006). Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 395–407. British Columbia. (2009). Bill 11, the labour mobility act. Victoria, BC: Queen’s Printer. Brown, P., & Tannock, S. (2009). Education, meritocracy and the global war for talent. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 377–392. Council of the Federation. (2008). Trade: Building on our strength in Canada and abroad. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from www.councilofthefederation.ca/ newsroom/newsroom.html Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. Doern, G. B., & MacDonald, M. (1999). Free-trade federalism: Negotiating the Canadian agreement on internal trade. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Fitzsimmons, P. (2000). Changing conceptions of globalization: Changing conceptions of education. Educational Theory, 50(4), 505–520. Frampton, C. (2008). TILMA: The impact of domestic trade pacts on learning environments. Education Canada, 48(4), 66–69. The Government of Alberta. (2018). Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. Retrieved December 6, 2009, from www.tilma.ca/the_agreement.asp

224  Peter P. Grimmett Grimmett, P. P. (2008). Canada. In T. O’Donoghue & C. Whitehead (Eds.), Teacher education in the English-speaking world: Past, present and future (pp. 23–44). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers. Grimmett, P. P. (2009, October 15). Changing a profession back to an occupation: Implications of the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) policy framework on teaching at teacher education. Paper presented at the EDGE conference on Teaching and Teacher Education, St. Johns, Newfoundland. Grimmett, P. P., & Echols, F. H. (2006, September). What say we dance but this time with music: Review of the provisions of regulation 347/02, accreditation of teacher education programs in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Teachers. Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leys, C. (2003). Market-driven politics: Neo-liberal democracy and the public interest. New York, NY: Verso. Manitoba. (2009). The Labour Mobility Act. Retrieved December 6, 2009, from http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-3/b021e.php National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: NCTAF. Ontario. (1995). For the love of learning. The Ontario Royal Commission on Learning. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/general/abcs/rcom/full/index.html Ontario. (2009). The Ontario labour mobility act. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer. Plant, R. (2009). The neoliberal state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poetry in Translation. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/ Latin/VirgilAeneidII.htm#_Toc536009311 Posner, R. A. (1974). Theories of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 5(2), 335–358. Registrars of Teacher Certification in Canada. (2008, November). A mutual recognition agreement for the teaching profession in Canada. Retrieved from www. gov.pe.ca/forms/pdf/1776.pdf Personal correspondence with Marie Crowther, the British Columbia registrar of teacher certification in 2008. Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations. New York, NY: Vintage. Steffenhagen, J. (2009, February). Watch out for Ontario teachers! Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/watch-out-for-ontarioteachers Stigler, G. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2(1), 3–21. Swinton, K. (1995). Law, politics, and the enforcement of the agreement on internal trade. In M. Trebilcock & D. Schwanen (Eds.), Getting there: An assessment of the agreement on internal trade (pp. 196–210). Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute. TILMA: The trade Investment and labour mobility agreement. (2006). Retrieved from www.tilma.ca/the_agreement.asp A partnership between the Governments of Alberta and British Columbia Virgil. (2002). The Aeneid, book II. Trans. by A. S. Kline. Retrieved January 9, 2010, from www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/VirgilAeneidII.htm#_Toc 536009311 Walker, R. (2008, October). Report of BCCT chair to BCTF representative assembly. Vancouver: BC College of Teachers.

Afterword Interactions of the Local and Global in Teacher Education Policy and Reforms Kenneth M. Zeichner

Over the last two decades, teachers, teaching, and teacher education have become central emphases in educational policy throughout the world (Akiba & Le Tendre, 2018). One of the key findings from this rapidly expanding international literature has been that the locus of power in governing education has shifted from a national to a more global level through the growing influence of organizations and agencies such as the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), global consulting firms such as McKinsey & Co and the Boston Consulting group, and individual and corporate philanthropy (Robertson, 2012). These general trends in educational policy making and reform have affected teacher education policy and practice throughout the world (Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009; Moon, 2016; Trippestad, Sweenen, & Walker, 2017). In addition to the growing evidence of a more global rather than national governance of educational policy and reforms, there are certain emphases in the educational reforms and policies that have traveled the globe. For example, many scholars have analyzed the market-oriented, neoliberal reforms that have been promoted that have emphasized the furthering of individual and entrepreneurial skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. This neoliberal approach to reform pressures has asserted that “social good will be maximized by maximizing the reach and frequency of market transactions, and it seeks to bring all human action into the domain of the market” (Harvey, 2005, p. 3). Thus there has been a growing push to deregulate and privatize both schooling and teacher education in many parts of the world (Klees, 2008; Moon, 2016; Zeichner, 2010). Within this broad market-oriented direction in educational reforms, Sahlberg (2012) has identified some more specific trends that are promoted in many countries that he identifies as part of a “Global Educational Reform Movement” (GERM). According to Sahlberg (2012), the spread of the GERM has meant an emphasis on greater standardization in education, a greater emphasis on mathematics, science, and literacy as core subjects in the curriculum and de-emphasis of other subjects, a greater emphasis on a

226  Kenneth M. Zeichner prescribed curriculum to teach predetermined learning goals, the transfer or practices from the corporate world as the main logic for educational leadership, and the increased adoption of high stakes accountability and standardized testing as the measure of educational success. Finally, Tatto and Plank (2007) analyze two tensions that have existed in policies and reforms internationally concerning teaching and teacher education: (1) the tension between teachers as professionals who are reflective and exercise their judgment in the classroom and teachers as bureaucrats who obediently and effectively follow teaching scripts and (2) the tension between a professional teacher preparation that prepares teachers for adaptive expertise and a technical preparation that equips teachers to effectively follow teaching scripts and a standardized curriculum. Tatto and Plank argue that there is both convergence and divergence in policies among different educational systems with regard to these two tensions, and they show how a group of countries have moved over time on these two dimensions. In recent years with regard to teacher education policies, we have seen such traveling reforms such as the proliferation of standards-based reforms, the rapid expansion of Teach for All, an organization founded in 2007 by the UK’s Teach First, and Teach for America in the United States from two to 46 programs around the world and the spread of market competition in teacher education through the establishment of independent teacher education institutions not connected to colleges and universities to prepare teachers to work with students living in poverty (Ellis et al., 2016; Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009).1 However, whereas there clearly has been some evidence of convergence across the world in structures, practices, and policies related to teaching and teacher education, there has also been substantial evidence that both national and local historical and cultural practices, traditions, and institutions mediate these globally informed policies and reforms (Paine & Zeichner, 2012). Tatto (2007) presents a variety of case studies from countries like China, Germany, Mexico, Japan, and Guinea that show how local cultural factors and structures mediate teaching and teacher education reforms and often result in a hybridization of policy directions and reforms (e.g., Blomeke, 2007; Paine & Fang, 2006). Many of the chapters in this book show similar processes of mediation between circulating global influences and local and national traditions and structures. In some countries like Australia and Canada, where there has historically been greater control of education at the state and provincial level, national governments have moved to try and exert greater power over educational policies in the states and provinces to bring them into greater alignment with the GERM. In Grimmett’s chapter, we learn that in Canada, these pressures to de-professionalize teaching have been exerted under the guise of professionalization. The lesson here is to pay attention to what is actually being done and its consequences rather than only to how policies and reforms are packaged and marketed (Zeichner, 2018).

Afterword  227 In the chapter by Savage and Lingard, we see a strong effort to nationalize elements of education including teacher education through standards-based governance to bring it into greater alignment with international economic imperatives. In both of these instances of Australia and Canada, there is evidence in a recently completed international study of policies and practices in teaching and teacher education of strong resistance to these national efforts in certain states and provinces both in schooling and teacher education (Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012). In other countries discussed in this book, such as in Diniz-Pereira’s chapter on Brazil, although there is resistance to the GERM, there appears to be a stronger impact by global forces on schooling and teacher education. The same can be said of the UK and United States, where there have been significant transformations of both teaching and teacher education toward deregulation and market competition and toward the central elements of a GERM approach (Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009; Zeichner, 2018). Moon (2013) documents how the countries in some parts of the world are not able to meet the tremendous need for new teachers through brick-andmortar teacher education programs, whether public or private, and explores the use of new technologies and a more school-based preparation to help meet the need for teacher education in areas where the capacity of governments to invest in it are very limited. The governments in some parts of the world are burdened by paying back their national debt and by the lack of economic growth, and they do not have the resources to meet the demand for teachers in a state system even if they wanted to do so. In many parts of the Global South, despite resistance and critique (e.g., Tabualwa, 2003), the influence of the World Bank has been a powerful in installing neoliberal approaches and elements of the GERM in both schooling and teacher education (Klees, Samoff, & Stromquist, 2012). Although there has been strong pressure to implement market-oriented reforms in teaching and teacher education in many countries, not all countries and educational systems within countries have moved in this direction. Darling-Hammond et.al. (2017) summarizes the findings of an international study of policies and practices related to teaching and teacher education in seven education systems in five countries (Australia, Canada, Finland, Singapore, and China)2 where the national or provincial/state governments have largely rejected the deregulation and privatization of teacher education and have invested in building and sustaining a strong college and university system of teacher education and in building teaching as a profession, starting with subsidizing the preparation of teachers by lowering the cost to individuals and providing resources to schools that participate in the task of preparing teachers (e.g., Campbell, Zeichner, Lieberman, & OsmondJohnson, 2017). These seven education systems offer fairly coherent policies and practices across teacher education and K–12 education that focus on the preparation

228  Kenneth M. Zeichner of professional teachers who have the disposition and ability to exercise their judgment in the classroom, learn from one another, and continue to learn over the course of their careers. And as Darling-Hammond et al. (2018) point out, [t]hese countries not only recruit and train individual educators well, they also deliberately organize the sharing of experience among teachers and administrators within and across schools so that the system as a whole is more effective. (p. 336) Within many education systems there is great variation in how teaching and teacher education reforms have been mediated depending on a variety of factors including geographical location, the social class composition of the schools in different areas, and the strength of investment in public education. Many parts of the world, for example, support college and university systems of teacher education for some students but have relied more and more on fast-track and online programs for preparing teachers to staff remote, rural schools serving students living in poverty, where there are often teacher shortages (Zeichner, 2018). This designation of “the common good” as limited to the dominant groups in a society is illustrated by the chapter by Abu-Saad on Israel earlier in this book that discusses how the perspectives and interests of Palestinians have been marginalized in teaching and teacher education policies and practices. In summary, the influence of global educational and economic factors on teacher education in particular countries and in particular places within countries is very complicated and cannot be understood by overly simplistic assertions about the hegemony of neoliberal policies and reforms. In this book, we have seen countries and education systems trying to deal with the tensions between global influences and the historical, cultural, and institutional traditions and practices in different ways and examples of contestation and resistance. We also know from the work of Tatto and Plank (2007) that the ways of mediating the tensions by countries change over time. The chapters in this book offer important commentaries about these negotiations in a particular set of countries at this moment in time.

Notes 1 For example, Instill Education, inspired by Relay and Sposato Graduate Schools of Education in the United States and founded by a former staff member at McKinsey & Co, has brought the idea of privately run graduate schools of education not connected to a college or university to South Africa. The first Instill Education campus is being run by a dean who is a Teach for America graduate and former administrator at Relay Graduate School of Education in Newark, New Jersey (see www.instill.education). 2 These education systems are Alberta, Finland, New South Wales, Ontario, Shanghai, Singapore, and Victoria.

Afterword  229

References Akiba, M., & Le Tendre, G. K. (Eds.) (2018). International handbook of teacher quality and policy. New York, NY: Routledge. Blomeke, S. (2007). The impact of global tendencies on the German teacher education system. In M. T. Tatto (Ed.), Reforming teaching globally (pp. 55–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, C., Zeichner, K., Lieberman, A., & Osmond-Johnson, P. (Eds.) (2017). Empowered educators in Canada: How high performing systems shape teaching quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, L., Hamerness, K., McIntyre, A., Sato, M., & Zeichner, K. (2017). Empowering educators: How high performing systems shape teaching quality around the world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Burns, D., Campbell, C., Goodwin, L., & Low, E. L. (2018). International lessons in teacher education. In M. Akiba & G. K. LeTendre (Eds.), International handbook of teacher quality and policy (pp. 336–349). New York, NY: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (Eds.) (2012). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Ellis, V., Maguire, M., Trippestad, T., Liu, Y., Yang, X., & Zeichner, K. (2016). Teaching other people’s children, elsewhere, for a while: the rhetoric of a travelling educational reform. Journal of Educational Policy, 31(1), 60–80. Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (Eds.) (2009). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. London: Routledge. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Klees, S. (2008). A quarter century of neoliberal thinking in education: Misleading analyses and failed policies. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 6(4), 311–348. Klees, S., Samoff, J., & Stromquist, N. (Eds.) (2012). The World Bank and education: Critiques and alternatives (pp. 209–226). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Moon, B. (Ed.) (2013). Teacher education and the challenge of development: A global analysis. London: Routledge. Moon, B. (Ed.) (2016). Do universities have a role in the education and training of teachers: An international analysis of policy and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ontario. (1995). For the Love of Learning. The Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer. Retrieved May 10, 2006 from: https://archive. org/details/forloveoflearnin04onta. Paine, L., & Fang, Y. (2006). Dilemmas in reforming China’s teaching: Assuring quality in professional development. In M. T. Tatto (Ed.), Reforming teaching globally (pp. 21–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paine, L., & Zeichner, K. (2012). The local and global in reforming teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 569–583. Robertson, S. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584–607. Sahlberg, P. (2012). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

230  Kenneth M. Zeichner Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centered pedagogy and political democratization: A critique. Comparative Education, 39(1), 7–26. Tatto, M. T. (Ed.) (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tatto, M. T., & Plank, D. (2007). The dynamics of global teaching reform. In M. T. Tatto (Ed.), Reforming teaching globally (pp. 267–276). Oxford: Symposium Books. Trippestad, T., Swennen, A., & Walker, T. (Eds.) (2017). The struggle for teacher education: International perspectives on governance and reforms. London: Bloomsbury. 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. Zeichner, K. (2018). The struggle for the soul of teacher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Index

Note: Italicized page numbers indicate a figure on the corresponding page. Page numbers in bold indicate a table on the corresponding page. accountability in education 8, 17, 92 Acharya Ramamurthy Committee (1990) 117 Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers report 69 Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Australian Schooling in the 21st Century 74 adequate yearly progress (AYP) 22 – 23 administrative mechanisms governing teacher education 204 – 208 admission practices of universities 90 Aeneid (Virgil) 220 African National Congress (ANC) 134, 139 Agreement for Internal Trade (AIT) 213 – 215 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) 23, 26 American Teachers for East Africa program 173 apartheid in South Africa 129 Apple, Michael W. 112 Arab Education Administration 205 Argentina 32 Aseem program 123 – 127 Asian Development Bank (ADB) 49 Asociación de Estúdios Superiores de Las Américas in Paraguay 34 Ateneo Centre for Educational Development (ACED) 49 Australia see teacher education policy in Australia Australian Council for Educational Leaders 76

Australian Council of Deans of Education 76 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) 67, 78 Australian Education Act (2013) 68 – 69 Australian Government Quality Teacher Programme 74 Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) 65, 67 – 68, 69, 73, 77 – 78 Australian Joint Council of Professional Teaching Associations 76 Australian Professional Standards for Teachers 66 authentic excellence 111 autonomy in education 74, 84 Bantu Education 129 – 134, 138 Basic Act on Education (2006) 100 Beecher report (1949) 166, 167 belief systems of teachers 118 Bennet, Naftali 200 BESRA 47, 48 Binns Commission (1952) 166, 167 – 168, 171 black teachers in South Africa 129 Bologna Process 180, 181, 183, 185 – 187, 191 Brazil see privatization of teacher preparation in Brazil British colonization of South Africa 132 – 133 British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT) 215 – 218

232 Index British Commonwealth Teacher Recruitment Scheme 173 British educational practices 172 bureaucratic disempowerment 58 – 59 Canada see labor mobility and teaching in Canada capacity-building policy 17, 23 Cape colony 128 Central Council of Education 105, 107 centralized examinations 153 change makers 116 Chattopadhyay Committee Report (1983–1985) 117 Chile see teacher education policy in Chile Christian National Education (CNE) 130 – 131 classical liberalism 7 classroom management 160 co-educational policy 149 collective societal endeavour 14 colleges of advanced education (CAEs) 66 Colombia 32 Columbia University 132 Commission of Inquiry into the Education System of Kenya (Koech Commission) 169, 170 – 171 Common Core State Standards (CCSS) 23, 25 common good: defined 7 – 8; imagining the good teacher 8 – 9; introduction to 1, 7; knowledge and education as 14; selective construction of 196; students as 27; teacher education policy 9 – 10; see also pedagogy of common good in South Africa community-based teacher training 127 compulsory education 15 constitutional responsibility of states 66 Constitution of Japan 102 control-oriented education 207 – 208 corporate universities in Brazil 34, 36 – 37, 39 Council for Teacher Training of the Ministry of Education 106 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) 76 Council of Higher Education (CoHE) 154 critical theory for teaching the common good 135 – 138 cross-tabulations analysis 50 – 57

cultural considerations 115, 118 cultural diversity 165 cultural struggle 112 curricular flexibilization 36 curriculum development 116 Curriculum Laboratory Schools (CLS) practice 151 Dalit children, educational exclusion 120–121, 125 dark ownership 59 – 60 Dasandi, Niheer 121–122 decentralisation 41, 107 democratic deficit 191 Democratic Party (DP) 149 democratic society 112 de-professionalization 2, 120 descriptive codes 20 Developmental Leadership Program 121 Dewey, John 110, 111 Dutch East India Company 128 East Africa Protectorate Education Commission 166 economic growth in Brazil 33 economic growth in Philippines 41 – 42 Educate America Act 20, 21 education as common good 14 Education at a Glance reports 70 Education Commission (EDCOM) 41, 43 Education Consolidation and Improvement Act 16 Education Council 76 Education for All (EFA) movement 4 Education Professions Development Act (EPDA) 16 education revolution in Australia 67 egalitarianism 7 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 15, 20, 21 – 25, 26 Empowering the School Principals Act 47 English assessment 124 Escuela de Informática SRL in Uruguay 34 Euro-Jewish cultural hegemony 200 European Commission 184 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) 186 European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 180 – 181

Index  233 European Qualification Framework (EQF) 186 European school teacher education policy: arenas of collaboration 182 – 185; introduction to 180 – 181; millennium turn in 185 – 186; open method of coordination 187 – 190; overview of 181 – 182; summary of 190 – 192 European Union (EU) 6, 180 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 24 – 25, 27 exit tests 90 Expectations Mismatch in LEAP 51 external accountability system 17 FATIH Project (Enhancing Opportunities and Improving Technology Operation) 153 federalism 9, 76 financial sustainability 36 Formação de professores: pesquisas, representações e poder (DinizPereira) 38 for-profit private higher education institutions 36 Foucault, Michel 181 – 182 free secondary education (FSE) 171 Freire, Paulo 137 – 138 Fundamental Pedagogics 130 – 131 Gay, Geneva 136 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) 31, 33, 213 General Headquarters/Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (GHQ/SCAP) 102 General Security Services (GSS) 205, 206 Giroux, Henry A. 112 Gladwell, Malcolm 17 Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM) 225 – 227 globalization 101, 218 globalized economy 13 global reforms in teacher education 47 – 50 Goals 2000: Educate America Act 21, 22, 25 – 26 good teacher, imagining 8 – 9 governance in Australian teacher education policy see teacher education policy in Australia Governance in Basic Education Act 47

Gramsci, Antonio 31 Grey, George 128 – 129 gross domestic product (GDP) 33 Hamanago Elementary School in Chigasaki City 110 Handbook of Multicultural Education (Banks, Banks) 136 Hattie, John 71 heads of department (HODs) 49, 51, 56 Hebrew-language school system 198 Higher Education Act (HEA) 15 – 16, 20 – 21 higher education programs, Brazil 31, 32 – 33 highly qualified teacher (HQT) 22 Hindutva 121 Howard, John 74 human capital theory 165, 183 Human Rights Report 125 Human Rights Watch 122, 201 ICT (Information Communication Technology) 52, 119 identity formation 57, 58 identity of imagined communities 10 ideological approach to relationships 1 – 2 Imagined Community (Anderson) 7, 8 imperialist enterprise 5 India see teacher education policy in India individualism 7, 9 INEP (Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais) 32 in-service learning opportunities 139 institutionalization of apartheid in South Africa 129 International Association for Evaluation of Achievement in Education (IEA) 183 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement 100 international comparative achievements 13 international education “industry” 33 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 182 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) 21 Israel see teacher education policy in Israel

234 Index Japan see school education in Japan Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) 49 Japan Teachers Union (JTU) 102 Jewish school system 207 Jewish-Zionist education 199 job insecurity impact on teachers 157 – 161 Kallaway, Peter 130 Kenya see teacher education policy in Kenya Kenya Education Commission 169 Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) 173, 178 knowledge as common good 14 Knowledge Economy discourse 182, 190 labor mobility and teaching in Canada: introduction to 214 – 215; macropolitical setting 218 – 220; overview of 213 – 214; split between OCT and BCCT 215 – 218; summary of 221 – 222; Trojan Horse analogy 220 – 221 Labor Party in Australia 67 Labour Mobility Agreement 222 Law of State Education (1953) 199 Leaders and Educators in Asia Programme (LEAP): bureaucratic disempowerment 58 – 59; crosstabulations analysis 50 – 57; disempowered subjects 54 – 55; Expectations Mismatch 51; identity formation 57, 58; Pace of Innovation 55; patron-client ties 59 – 60; perceptions of reform 53; SBM and 48 – 50; stakeholder identity 51 – 53; stakeholder sense of ownership 55 – 57, 59 – 60; success of 50 learning-to-teach 14 Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 103 liberalization 107 Liberal Party in Australia 74 Lisbon Agenda 183, 184, 186, 188 Loram, Charles 132 low social status 37 Maastricht Treaty 184 Mackay Report 169, 170 Makerere College 171 Malan, D.F. 129

manabi no kyodotai (school as a learning community) 5, 101, 110 – 111 marginalized women 124 marginalized youth 116 market-dominated context 45 market ideologies 5 Marshall Plan 182 matriculation examinations (bagrut) 207 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA) 67 meliorism 7 Middle Class Indian (MCI) 121–122 Military Administration over Palestinian Arabs in Israel 205 military-civic dictatorship in Chile 83 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 48 Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) 105 Monfredini, Ivanise 39 Monroe Report 47 mutual recognition agreement (MRA) 217 mutual recognition of credentials 214 – 215 Natal Native Education 132 National Achievement Test (NAT) 50 National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) 67 National Board Certified Teachers 21 National Center for Early Childhood Education (NACECE) 172 National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) 217 National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) 117 National Council on Education Reform 106, 107 National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education 115 – 116, 118 National Defense Education Act (NDEA) 15 National Education Development Project 151, 154 national exit test for student teachers 85 National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching 75

Index  235 National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL) 74 – 75 National Institute of Education (NIE) 49 – 50 National Institute of EducationSingapore (NIE-Singapore) 54 nationalization 4 National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality 67, 68 National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) 186 national rescaling 70 – 78 national standards development 66 – 70, 214 National University of Educational Planning and Administration 119 Native Affairs Department 129 – 130 Nelson, Brendan 74 neoconservative ideological trends 109 neoliberalism: Brazil 31; Canada 218 – 219; India 119–120; introduction to 2, 5; Japan 109, 111; Philippines 46; Turkey 151; see also teacher education policy in Chile Neville, Helen 134 New Public Management reforms 183 Nieto, Sonia 141 – 142 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 22, 23, 24 – 25, 26, 59, 213 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 123 non-Western Jews in Israeli 6 Normal School Model 131 Norms and Standards for Teacher Education 139 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 213 Obama, Barack 64 Odyssey (Homer) 220 Ojiya Elementary School in Ojiya City 110 Ominde Commission 169 – 170 online education 34 – 36 Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) 215 – 218 Ontario Royal Commission 216 open method of coordination (OMC) 187 – 190 Operational Headquarters for Rebuilding Education 107 – 108

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): Australian school education 64, 70; Brazilian school education 32; Chilean school education 32, 89; European school education 180, 182 – 185, 187; Japanese school education 100, 101, 109; power in governing education 225 orientalism 200 outcomes-based education (OBE) 139 Pace of Innovation 55 Palestinian Arabs in the Israeli education system see teacher education policy in Israel Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) 134 Pandey, Saroj 117 – 118 parent-teacher association (PTA) 102, 133 Parsons, Marilyn 142 patron-client ties 59 – 60 Peace Corps. 173 pedagogical training (PT) 154 pedagogy of common good in South Africa: critical theory and 135 – 138; during hard times 134 – 135; history of teacher education 128 – 132; new challenges 139 – 140; People’s Education for People’s Power movement 133 – 134; postaparteid alliances with parents 140 – 141; Soweto Uprising 132 – 133; summary of 141 – 142; teacher struggles toward 132 – 135 Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire) 138 People’s Education for People’s Power movement 133 – 134 Performance Management Model in Schools 154 Phelps-Stokes Commission (1924) 166 – 167 Philippine Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) 4 Philippine Education Sector Study (PESS) 47 Philippines see teacher education policy in Philippines Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) 42 policy co-development 66 policy design processes 65 policy instruments 16 – 17, 18 – 19, 88 – 91

236 Index Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) 42 political approach to relationships 1 – 2 political socialization 165 postaparteid alliances with parents 140 – 141 postapartheid, South Africa 128 postgraduate diploma in education (PGDE) 54, 173 postgraduate teacher training 107 poverty concerns 42 preparation institutions in Kenya 171 – 174 Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) 41 Presidential Working Party on the Second University (Mackay Report) 169, 170 private school in India 119 – 120 privatization of education in Turkey 153, 157 privatization of teacher preparation in Brazil: expansion of higher education programs 31, 32 – 33; higher education “market” 33 – 34; introduction to 31 – 32; online education 34 – 36; possibilities of 38; summary of 39, 39 – 40; teacher training program for-profit 36 – 38 professional autonomy 45 professionalization 213 – 214, 217, 226 professional to proletarian teacher 150 – 154 profit increases in online education 34 – 35 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 64, 70 – 72, 89, 100, 181, 189 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 183, 189 progressio ad contrarium 218 Project Esforzar 56 proletarian teacher 150 – 154 proportional reduction of error (PRE) 51 psychometric examination 207 public good, defined 7 public-institutional social security system 158 Public Personnel Selection Examination (PPSE) 157 – 158 Pyne, Christopher 69, 73 Quezon Educational Survey Committee 47

Race to the Top (RTT) 23 – 24, 26, 64, 72 racist nativism 121 Ramachandran, Vimala 119 rationality in education 9 rationalization 157 reductionary ideology 6 Republic Act (RA) 47 Republic of the Philippines see teacher education policy in Philippines Republic of Turkey see teacher education policy in Turkey Right to Education Act (RTE) 115 Said, Edward 200 Sandel, Michael J. 10 Saskatchewan Teachers’ Federation 216 Sato, Manabu 110 scholarship for student teachers 84 – 85 school-based management (SBM) 47, 48 – 49, 58 school education in Japan: debates over 106 – 109; introduction to 100 – 101; perception of teaching profession 101 – 106; resistance from classrooms 110 – 111; summary of 111 – 113 School Governing Council (SGC) 56 – 57 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 188 Secondary Education Commission (1953) 117 Secondary Education Development Improvement Project (SEDIP) 47, 49 selective construction of common good 196 sense-making of stakeholders 57 – 60 Single-Party Era 149 SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium 23 – 24 social emotional learning (SEL) 52 social exclusion of urban poor 120 – 123 social justice/responsibility 112 social responsibility 166 social security system 158 social values 10 socioeconomic considerations 115, 118, 120, 207 Soweto Uprising (1976) 132 – 133 Special Act for Education Personnel 107 – 108

Index  237 Specific Knowledge Test (SKT) 157 – 158 stakeholder identity and LEAP 51 – 53 stakeholder roles in teacher education policy 43 – 46, 44 standardized national tests 90 standards-based reforms 65, 70 – 78 state-mandated curriculum 201 – 204 Strategies for English Language Learning and Reading (STELLAR) 55 Structural Adjustment Decisions 151 students as common good 27 Students At-Risk of Dropping Out (SARDOs) 52 subject heads (SHs) 49, 51, 56 Success Stories From Failing Schools (Parsons) 142 “Super Teacher” status 107 Supplemental Educational Services (SES) 59 system-changing instruments 17 systemic corruption 42 Taskforce on the Realignment of the Education Sector to Constitution of Kenya 169, 171 Teacher Corps Program 15 – 16 teacher education, defined 2 – 3 Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group (TEMAG) 69, 71 teacher education online 35 – 36 teacher education policy: challenges to 4 – 5; common good and 9 – 10; context of tensions 3 – 4; defined 3; history of in South Africa 128 – 132; introduction to 1; overview of 1 – 2, 3 – 6; state power and 5 – 6; summary of 225 – 228 teacher education policy in Australia: introduction to 64 – 66; national rescaling 70 – 78; national standards development 66 – 70; standards-based reform 70 – 78; summary of 78 – 79 teacher education policy in Chile: findings 88 – 95; interviews 91 – 92; introduction to 83 – 84; methods and data sources 86 – 88, 87 – 88; overview of 84 – 85; policy documents 88 – 91; regulating becoming a teacher 93 – 94; regulating who should enter 92 – 93; representation and prestige 94; restraint 94 – 95; summary of 95 – 97; theoretical framework 85 – 86

teacher education policy in India: Aseem program 123 – 127; history of 116 – 119; introduction to 115 – 116; private school in India 119 – 120; social exclusion of urban poor 120 – 123 teacher education policy in Israel: administrative mechanisms governing 204 – 208; aims and goals of 199 – 201; control-oriented education 207 – 208; historical context 197 – 199; introduction to 195 – 196; overview of 196 – 197; state-mandated curriculum 201 – 204; summary of 208 – 209; theoretical framework 196 teacher education policy in Kenya: in colonial period 166 – 168; critique of reforms 176; holistic individual/ national development 174; introduction to 164; lived experience narrative 175 – 176; in postcolonial period 168 – 171; preparation institutions 171 – 174; summary of 176 – 178; theoretical framework 164 – 166 teacher education policy in Philippines: context of 41 – 43; cross-tabulations analysis 50 – 57; global reforms 47 – 50; introduction to 41; sensemaking of stakeholders 57 – 60; stakeholder roles 43 – 46, 44; see also Leaders and Educators in Asia Programme (LEAP) teacher education policy in Turkey: introduction to 149 – 150; job insecurity impact 157 – 161; from professional to proletarian teacher 150 – 154; summary of 161; unemployed teachers 154 – 157 teacher education policy in United States: findings and conclusions 25 – 27; historical context 15 – 16; introduction to 13 – 14; policy changes 20 – 25; research design 20; theoretical framework 16 – 17, 18 – 19 Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce 75 Teachers License Act (2009) 105 Teachers Service Commission (TSC) 174 Teacher Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) 89

238 Index teacher-to-student ratios 124 teacher training colleges (TTCs) 172 – 174 teacher training program for-profit 36 – 38 Teach First 226 Teach for All 226 Teach for America 226 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 109 Teaching Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 75 Technical and Vocational Education and Training Act (2013) 177 – 178 technology transfers 59 Temasek Foundation 49 Tenth Amendment (US Constitution) 15 Ten Year Plan (1948) 166, 167 Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) 47, 49 tipping points 17 Tirosh, Ronit 206 Title I funds 23 tool selection for accountability 17 top-down approach to teaching 138 total quality management (TQM) 151 Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) 216 – 217 transformative public intellectuals 112 transnational field of judgement 72 Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 42 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 100, 183, 189 Turkey see teacher education policy in Turkey Turkish-Islamic synthesis 149 Unappointed Teachers’ Platform 158 undergraduate teacher training 107 unemployed teachers 154 – 157 United Nations (UN) 198

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 13 – 14, 35, 183 United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) 116, 121, 124 United States (US) see teacher education policy in United States United States (US) Constitution 15 unity in diversity 188 universal free primary education (UPE) 171 universalism 8 Universidade Nove de Julho (UNINOVE) 33 Universidade Paulista (UNIP) 33 University Act (2012) 178 University Education Commission (1948) 117 University of Chicago 110 University of São Paulo (USP) 33 U.S. Department of Education 21, 22, 24 – 25 U.S. Education Mission on Japan 102 Vancouver Sun 216 vertical fiscal imbalance 65 Verwoerd, Hendrik Frensch 129 victim blaming 122 Village Institutes model 150 Virginia Union University 132 Were, Priscilla 175 Western Enlightenment philosophy 7 What Matters Most report 217 White South African privilege 129 Why We Teach Now (Nieto) 141 – 142 World Bank (WB) 49, 151, 225 World Conference on Education for All 47 – 48 World Trade Organization (WTO) 31, 33 Z Books 153 Zionist nationalist movement 197 – 200