This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cochran-Smith, M. Articles by Fries, M. K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Sticks, Stones, and Ideology: The Discourse of Reform in Teacher Education

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; cochrans{at}bc.edu. Her research interests include teacher education policy and practice, practitioner inquiry, and social justice.

Mary Kim Fries, Graduate Research Assistant and doctoral candidate in the Lynch School of Education

Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467; friesma{at}bc.edu. Her research interests include teacher education, conflict resolution, and qualitative research

Many highly politicized debates about reforming teacher education are embedded within two larger national agendas: the agenda to professionalize teaching and teacher education, which is linked to the K–12 standards movement, and the movement to deregulate teacher preparation, which aims to dismantle teacher education institutions and break up the monopoly of the profession. In this article, the authors analyze how these two agendas are publicly constructed, critiqued, and debated, drawing on public documents from each side and using the language and arguments of the advocates themselves. The authors argue that, despite very different agendas, the discourse of both deregulation and professionalization revolves rhetorically around the establishment of three interrelated warrants, which legitimize certain policies and undermine others. Taken together, what Cochran-Smith and Fries label "the evidentiary warrant," "the political warrant," and "the accountability warrant," are intended by advocates of competing agendas to add up to "common sense" about how to improve the quality of the nation’s teachers. The authors conclude that in order to understand the politics of teacher education and the complexities of competing reform agendas, their underlying ideals, ideologies, and values must be debated along with and in relation to "the evidence" about teacher quality.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Cochran-Smith The New Teacher Education: For Better or for Worse? Educational Researcher, October 1, 2005; 34(7): 3 - 17. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Brouwer and F. Korthagen Can Teacher Education Make a Difference? American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2005; 42(1): 153 - 224. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D Fenstermacher Reconsidering the Teacher Education Reform Debate: A Commentary on Cochran-Smith and Fries Educational Researcher, August 1, 2002; 31(6): 20 - 22. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Furlong Ideology and Reform in Teacher Education in England: Some Reflections on Cochran-Smith and Fries Educational Researcher, August 1, 2002; 31(6): 23 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF]