691243
editorial2017
JTEXXX10.1177/0022487117691243Journal of Teacher EducationCarter Andrews et al.
Editorial
Teacher Education and Teaching in the Present Political Landscape: Promoting Educational Equity Through Critical Inquiry and Research
Journal of Teacher Education 2017, Vol. 68(2) 121–124 © 2017 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117691243 DOI: 10.1177/0022487117691243 journals.sagepub.com/home/jte
Dorinda J. Carter Andrews1, Gail Richmond1, and David Stroupe1 The U.S. educational enterprise lacks no shortage of debate around divisive issues. Two recent events remind us of this. In October of 2016, the U.S. Department of Education released its revised regulations for teacher preparation programs, which have a heavy emphasis on using P-12 student success as a measure of quality for teacher education programs.1 While some individuals and organizations have praised the federal government for pushing increased accountability on teacher preparation programs, many others have expressed strong opposition to the suggested ways to do so. For example, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) joined approximately 35 groups (including P-12, higher education, state governments, among others) in expressing formal concerns about the new regulations via a formal written statement.2 In addition, the national climate has been negatively affected by the aftermath of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and illuminates a heightened sense of vulnerability and alienation for members of certain social groups; these sentiments are realized for many individuals in our nation’s teacher education programs and P-12 schools. The campaign season brought rhetoric that perpetuated racism, sexism, misogyny, xenophobia, religious discrimination, homophobia, and ableism, and the aftermath permeates every formal institution in the nation. Continual discourse and behavior promoting bigotry has been evidenced in various forms most prominently in schools postelection. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), K-12 schools across the United States have been fertile ground for hate crimes and acts of violence against people of historically and traditionally marginalized groups (e.g., people identifying as immigrants, Muslims, African Americans, or lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender [LGBT]). In the first five weeks following the election, approximately 1,100 incidents were documented by the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016). The introduction of the new federal regulations for teacher preparation programs and the national divide caused by the presidential election are two major recent events that highlight the potentially costly ramifications of a new sociopolitical climate for teacher education and public education, and challenge each of us to consider what will be required to effectively prepare and
support teachers and achieve educational equity for all children in the coming years. Regardless of one’s political affiliation, this is a national sociopolitical climate in which we all must exist; however, our existence does not have to be defined by this climate. In our field of teacher education, the emerging educational landscape could have dramatic impacts on professional learning, research, and advocacy as we prepare current and future educators to help P-12 students learn and participate in an increasingly divisive society and help these students develop the ability to make informed decisions about issues that affect their lives and the lives of others in their local community and perhaps globally. The current and emerging sociopolitical climate compels us as teacher educators and teacher education researchers to more closely link our roles and identities as researchers and activists; our activism can be grounded in research, and our research occurs in sociopolitical contexts. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to consider how we prepare teachers in ways that reflect what we already know from research about high-quality preparation and which also prepares them to be advocates and activists for their preparation and subsequent work in P-12 schools. This sociopolitical climate presents an equity imperative that is focused on active resistance against policy directives at all levels (e.g., federal, state, local) that result in exacerbated gaps in access to opportunities to pursue a teaching career, teach with adequate support in a variety of schools, and learn in affirming and supportive environments. In this editorial, we highlight two major issues that we believe will require equity-oriented leadership, critical inquiry, and in-depth research in the current sociopolitical educational climate from a variety of stakeholders concerned with teacher education, teaching, and student learning. We challenge teacher educators, teachers, educational researchers, and educational policy makers to consider organized and strategic 1
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA
Corresponding Author: Dorinda J. Carter Andrews, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane, Room 352, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034, USA. Email:
[email protected]
122 forms of activism for dismantling structural and institutional moves/initiatives designed to limit educational equity for all students and high-quality preparation and support for teachers who enact antibiased, asset-oriented, equitable, and social justice pedagogies and practices for a culturally diverse student population (Cochran-Smith, 2009; hooks, 1994; Kumashiro, 2000). While critical inquiry and research are important, we suggest that they need to be the foundation for educational activism in this climate. We view critical inquiry as related to, yet distinct from, research in that critical inquiry requires a mind set for and active engagement in regularly posing questions that consider how our personal and professional lives and educational experiences are mediated by systems of inequity (e.g., heterosexism, racism, classism); it also includes a consideration of how power imbalance is evidenced in society and schools and ways to remedy such imbalances.3 Research is the active investigation of focused questions and can have a goal of identifying strategies that ultimately inform teacher education policy and practice in transformative ways. Our view is that both critical inquiry and research should challenge the status quo about societal and educational topics that undermine teachers’ and P-12 students’ abilities to live their full humanity in educational settings and maximize their learning potential and life outcomes. Two critical issues that can potentially exacerbate inequality in teacher preparation, teacher practice, and student learning include (a) the increase in alternative pathways to teacher certification, and (b) the increase in P-12 school choice options.
The Perpetuation of Free Market Ideology: The Increase in Alternative Pathways to Teacher Certification In similar ways that P-12 public education has become a marketplace, teacher education is moving in the same direction. One in five new teachers becomes a teacher through a nontraditional program (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). An increase in alternative pathways to teacher certification can threaten teacher educators’ existence in university-based programs and the positive impact of their work. Here we refer to fast-track programs as those that provide short periods of intensive initial training and, in some cases, subsequent on-the-job mentoring and support. Other alternative pathways to teacher certification require more in-depth and longer periods of coursework combined with classroom experiences prior to initial certification. Many fast-track programs bypass traditional colleges of education and offer very little in-depth subject area knowledge for individuals or knowledge and skills for embodying an equity-oriented or asset-based pedagogy. In addition, many send new teachers into schools and communities that have experienced decades and even generations of structural and systemic oppression and discrimination. Fast-track program teachers are often placed in charter schools that serve families living in poverty.
Journal of Teacher Education 68(2) Given that charter schools often market themselves to highneed students and their families, and that the attrition rate of teachers certified through fast-track programs is high (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Redding & Smith, 2016), it is likely that students who need the most academic support will continue to be taught by the least qualified teachers year after year. This will amplify inequity in schools. An example of a certification program that potentially perpetuates such inequity is Teach for America (TFA). TFA corps members initially receive only five weeks of formal preparation before entering a 2-year commitment in some of the nation’s highest poverty schools in urban and rural communities. Donaldson and Johnson (2011) conducted a large-scale, nationwide analysis of TFA teacher turnover that revealed that approximately 56% of TFA teachers leave their initial placement in a high-poverty school after two years, and by their fifth year, about 15% continue to teach in the same high-poverty school to which they were originally assigned. While teacher attrition is an issue for the profession broadly, the high attrition rate among TFA teachers in high-poverty schools underscores fast-track programs’ inability to solve “achievement gap” problems by placing underprepared teachers in the nation’s neediest schools (schools that educate many students of color, nonnative English speakers, and/or students living in poverty). Relay Graduate School of Education, the brainchild of three charter school networks (Uncommon Schools, Knowledge Is Power Program [KIPP], Achievement First), offers another example of how market-based reform in teacher education is inequitable for not only students but also teachers. A different type of alternative certification pathway, Relay offers master’s degree programs with a 2-year curriculum for full-time teachers as well as certifications and is not affiliated with a university. Approximately, 40% of students’ coursework is online (Mader, 2015). In many instances, the instructors in the programs are not professionally trained teacher educators and have not attended graduate degree programs themselves. This type of alternative teacher training for practicing teachers deprofessionalizes teaching and undermines the research- and practice-based pedagogy and instruction of university-based teacher educators. Online teacher education is perhaps the fastest growing sector of teacher preparation (Sawchuk, 2013). More incentives for these types of programs can thwart the public’s commitment to teacher preparation that provides opportunities for indepth content-knowledge acquisition and mind-set development for teaching a culturally diverse national student population. In Texas, for example, where a significant number of for-profit entities offer alternative teacher training, every year since 2007, two for-profit entities (A+ Texas Teachers and iteachTEXAS) have produced more teachers for the state than any other traditional or alternative teacher certification program (Smith & Pandolfo, 2011). While these type of fast-track pathways might be funneling more teachers into the classroom, what is still unknown is how effective
Carter Andrews et al. these teachers are in meeting the academic, social, and emotional needs of the many students they serve. Existing research highlights that while many of these teachers find the programs satisfactory, they desired more preparation in content-based pedagogy and higher quality student-teaching placements (in programs where student teaching is offered). In addition, states are challenged with how to ensure quality of participants in these programs (Johnson, Birkland, & Peske, 2005), and recent research suggests that contentbased pedagogy is a critical factor contributing to teacher retention (Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2014). If alternative pathway programs become incentivized at a national level, we must be prepared to challenge their negative impact using research on teacher preparation, teacher quality, and student learning. It is incumbent upon teacher educators and teacher education scholars to continue conducting in-depth research that helps us better understand how fast-track and other alternative pathway programs affect teacher quality, may undermine goals of public education, and may further marginalize students who are already being taught by underprepared teachers and/or are learning in underresourced schools. Finally, we also know from research that ongoing professional support of teachers, whether they have been certified through traditional or alternative programs and especially during the early years of their careers, is critical in reducing the number who leave the profession (e.g., DeAngelis, Wall, & Che, 2013). Thus, a related issue of concern is the extent to which the charter school and alternative certification track movements will lead to an even more unbalanced emphasis on teacher production, in contrast to teacher support. And if this is the case, then the problem of teacher attrition will only continue to grow.
The Perpetuation of Free Market Ideology: Increased P-12 School Choice Options and (Un)Intended Opportunity Gap Consequences The new presidential administration has proposed a US$20 billion school choice plan that would supposedly give parents more control over the kinds of education their children receive, resulting in an increase in private school vouchers, charter schools, and magnet schools. This continued use of the market “reform” of education in the United States perpetuates marketplace ideology and supports continued moves toward the privatization of education at the expense of the goals and ideals of public education. Betsy DeVos, who, at the time of this writing, has been nominated as U.S. Secretary of Education, has proposed to break apart the “government monopoly” on education by advocating that vouchers be used for private (including religious) and home schools. This presents potential for money to flow freely out of public education. As teacher educators and teacher education researchers, we must continue to articulate the equity imperative that
123 the privatization of education presents. Voucher programs have become an increasingly popular school choice option over the last decade, allowing more than 100,000 students to attend private schools by using vouchers. While on the surface this seems like a viable option for individual families, the use of vouchers has become a specific response to failing schools in urban centers (Epple, Romano, & Urquiola, 2015). From a collective good (as opposed to individual good) perspective, an unintended consequence of expanding such programs is that urban schools that are already underresourced are depleted of nearly all of the per-pupil allotment for each child who leaves a school, which can have a negative ripple effect on the academic experiences of students who remain in the school. Earlier, we referred to the connections between alternative teacher certification pathways and school choice options, specifically highlighting the connection between these pathways and teacher placement in charter schools. Currently, the most common school choice option is charter schools, and most charter schools are located in urban communities and serve primarily students of color (Dorsey & Plucker, 2016). Yet the bulk of research on charter schools indicates that the majority of students in these schools do not significantly outperform their traditional school peers on measures of academic performance (see, for example, Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, & Silverberg, 2015). And students in charter schools do not have comparable schooling experiences to their middleclass, White peers in urban and suburban schools (Chapman & Donnor, 2015). Additional research by Daniel Losen and his colleagues indicates racial and ability differences in suspension rates in charter schools serving primarily Black students and those serving White students (Losen, Keith, Hodson, & Martinez, 2016). Thus, the proliferation of charter schools as a school choice option raises critical questions for teacher education researchers about racial equity (Chapman & Donnor, 2015), (dis)ability rights, and (un) intended opportunity gap consequences. In the coming years, teacher education researchers will need to continue to utilize research to advocate for equitable teaching and learning in a marketplace sociopolitical educational climate. We want to underscore that it is not enough to simply increase families’ school choice options. Of equal importance is assuring access to those options and the quality of school choice options. For example, will resources be provided for parents to transport their children to out-of-district or out-of-neighborhood schools? Do schools have the adequate resources for students with special needs? Furthermore, are parents able to see and assess the potential environmental factors (e.g., lack of teacher cultural competency, challenges with peer relationships, social identity markers that are minoritized in majority contexts) that might affect their child’s overall educational experience once they leave the neighborhood school? While parents have to consider these types of factors, teachers should also be trained to anticipate and respond to challenges when there are cultural shifts in
124 the student population of a school. Regarding the quality of school choice options, if, for example, a federal law is passed recognizing charter schools as local education authorities (LEAs), there could be little to no oversight of how these schools educate children. We must consider the implications of such decisions and their long-term effects on teacher education and P-12 schooling. Expanding school choice options nationally requires consideration of the implications for training future teachers and supporting in-service teachers for being effective in their roles. Education is, as Shelby Foote has said, “. . . at a crossroad of our being” (Ward, Burns, & Burns, 1990), and we are faced with fundamental questions about its future: What will public education become? Will it even be public? Who should teach students, particularly the most vulnerable, disadvantaged, and oppressed? Teachers and teacher educators have certain ideas about these questions, but policy makers and the new administration may have significantly different ideas. It is irresponsible for us to merely observe what happens; we need to be actively involved in preserving strong and responsive public education in the coming years. The present political landscape requires teacher educators and educational researchers to continue to promote educational equity through critical inquiry and research. Our children are watching, the nation is watching, and perhaps the world is watching. Understanding our roles and identities as researchers and activists is arguably more critical now than ever before. We hope our readers continue to view the pages of this journal as reflective of critical inquiry through rigorous research and as an outlet that offers research innovations and practical strategies to resist the perpetuation of educational inequity. We encourage readers to utilize our blog as one outlet for sharing ideas related to addressing the issues that we raise here. Notes 1. To review the full rule document, visit https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/11/17/C1-2016-24856/ teacher-preparation-issues 2. To read the full statement, go to https://secure.aacte.org/apps/ rl/res_get.php?fid=3123&ref=rl 3. See also the work of Patti Lather (2014) for how critical inquiry is considered in educational research, specifically qualitative research.
References Chapman, T. K., & Donnor, J. K. (2015). Critical race theory and the proliferation of U.S. charter schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48, 137-157. Clark, M. A., Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., & Silverberg, M. K. (2015). Do charter schools improve student achievement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 419-436. Cochran-Smith, M. (2009). Toward a theory of teacher education for social justice. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 445-467). New York, NY: Springer.
Journal of Teacher Education 68(2) DeAngelis, K. J., Wall, A. F., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 338-355. Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M. (2011). Teach for America teachers: How long do they teach? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 47-51. Dorsey, D. N. T., & Plucker, J. A. (2016). Deregulation and the American education marketplace. Peabody Journal of Education, 91, 424-440. Epple, D., Romano, R. E., & Urquiola, M. (2015). School vouchers: A survey of the economics literature (NBER Working Paper 21523). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? (Research Report No. RR-82). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. Johnson, S. M., Birkland, S. E., & Peske, H. G. (2005). Life in the fast track: How states seek to balance incentives and quality in alternative teacher certification programs. Educational Policy, 19, 63-89. Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70, 25-53. Lather, P. (2014). Critical inquiry in qualitative research: Feminist and poststructural perspectives: Science “after truth.” In K. deMarrais & S. D. Lappan (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 203-216). New York, NY: Routledge. Losen, D. J., Keith, M. A., Hodson, C. L., & Martinez, T. E. (2016). Charter schools, civil rights and school discipline: A comprehensive review. Retrieved from https://www.civilrightsproject. ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/ school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/charter-schools-civilrights-and-school-discipline-a-comprehensive-review Mader, J. (2015, November 5). Once aimed at charter school teachers, a teacher prep program expands—and calls for more accountability. Retrieved from http://hechingerreport. org/once-aimed-at-charter-school-teachers-a-teacher-prepprogram-expands-and-calls-for-more-accountability/ Redding, C., & Smith, T. M. (2016). Easy in, easy out: Are alternatively certified teachers turning over at increased rates? American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1086-1125. Sawchuk, S. (2013, October 8). For-profits dominate market for online teacher preparation. Retrieved from http://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/10/09/07online_ep.h33.html Smith, M., & Pandolfo, N. (2011, November 27). For-profit, alternative teaching programs are booming. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2011/11/27/profit-alternative-teaching-programs-grow-texas/ Southern Poverty Law Center. (2016, December 16). Update: 1,094 bias-related incidents in the month following the election. Retrieved from https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/12/16/update-1094-bias-related-incidents-monthfollowing-election U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Preparing and credentialing the nation’s teachers: The Secretary’s ninth report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Office of Postsecondary Education. Ward, G. C., Burns, R., & Burns, K. (1990). The Civil War. In K. Burns & R. Burns (Producers). Walphole, NH: Florentine Films.
