1 00:00:00,920 --> 00:00:05,810 Colleagues, thank you very much for setting up this space numbers this evening. 2 00:00:05,810 --> 00:00:10,940 I think as it stands just in between Oxford and more time, 3 00:00:10,940 --> 00:00:19,130 so we we kind of conversation might rely upon how strange it is that sometimes we think of it like five o'clock, 4 00:00:19,130 --> 00:00:26,150 it's fine, but we don't actually keep going up to try to pass these days before the show. 5 00:00:26,150 --> 00:00:30,530 So I'm delighted to see me so well for my country. 6 00:00:30,530 --> 00:00:37,730 One thing we've done in the this week, so there is a great pleasure to welcome you here. 7 00:00:37,730 --> 00:00:43,620 This is the first of a series of spending cuts that we are going to go through. 8 00:00:43,620 --> 00:00:48,680 The embarrassment, of course, teacher education and the serious. 9 00:00:48,680 --> 00:00:55,580 This is the opening and sending out a series of continuing to the June 29 with. 10 00:00:55,580 --> 00:01:05,600 Who will be the first one, so everything going into them, as well as an additional funding to do that, so please watch this space. 11 00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:11,900 So what is causing professor of teacher education for urban schools at the New School of Education, 12 00:01:11,900 --> 00:01:17,780 Boston College, where she has been for a while and has achieved wonderful things? 13 00:01:17,780 --> 00:01:22,580 I think some people are fully aware of my resource. 14 00:01:22,580 --> 00:01:31,580 She's an ex president of the very early next member of the National Academy of Education, 15 00:01:31,580 --> 00:01:39,740 and we've had just, I think, a couple of the many achievement awards that are associated with my life. 16 00:01:39,740 --> 00:01:54,110 She's written her books, hundreds of articles, reports, the range of other publications that I think are quite familiar to the rest of us. 17 00:01:54,110 --> 00:02:01,430 And she is currently looking for a research project which is about teacher funded by the Spencer Foundation, 18 00:02:01,430 --> 00:02:06,890 which is about teacher preparation for the new Graduate School of Education. 19 00:02:06,890 --> 00:02:12,020 And you've just completed a research project which has become the book The Classroom, 20 00:02:12,020 --> 00:02:19,310 which I think you would find on your on your chest about what insights from which you are going to draw in your talk today. 21 00:02:19,310 --> 00:02:31,440 So without further ado, this is what we want to hear for Liverpool. 22 00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:41,450 Good evening. I guess this evening, I'm really happy to be here for the Department of Education's Public Speaker Seminar series 23 00:02:41,450 --> 00:02:47,930 and especially for this sub series that Alison and Diane are convening on teacher education. 24 00:02:47,930 --> 00:02:52,460 Obviously, I think that's a really important topic and they do as well. 25 00:02:52,460 --> 00:03:03,110 It's also great to see some old friends and longtime colleagues who had such an enormous impact on education and teacher education in the UK. 26 00:03:03,110 --> 00:03:11,300 So thanks to some of my old friends for being here, and then I'm going to launch right in because I have a lot to say. 27 00:03:11,300 --> 00:03:18,890 So as you can see, my brother John title for the evening is rethinking teacher education. 28 00:03:18,890 --> 00:03:26,810 The trouble with accountability and Alice and I were talking about this picture so you can see why I chose this particular. 29 00:03:26,810 --> 00:03:33,890 It's actually a painting, a drift keeping score. So before I begin, I want to make two short caveats. 30 00:03:33,890 --> 00:03:42,260 The first one is about the source of this work, and Alice just mentioned this one I'm going to talk about tonight draws on the work of Project Chair, 31 00:03:42,260 --> 00:03:51,980 Teacher Education and Education Reform, which is a group of nine teacher educators who have worked together to work together about five years. 32 00:03:51,980 --> 00:04:00,720 We produce many products, policy briefs, chapters, presentations, etc. and which culminated in this book, 33 00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:08,480 and as Alice mentioned, there's free advertising for you, and if you find it after tonight, you get a 20 percent discount. 34 00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:14,300 I am told to tell you. So that's my first caveat about the sources. 35 00:04:14,300 --> 00:04:18,620 The second is about the context, and it's not like for long. 36 00:04:18,620 --> 00:04:26,690 I do want to make the point, though, that the examples and the conclusions that I'm going to talk about come from the U.S. context. 37 00:04:26,690 --> 00:04:38,420 I am not assuming, however, that the U.S. context is the same as England's context or as the context of the U.K. There are many differences. 38 00:04:38,420 --> 00:04:48,650 But I do think we can safely say that we're all living in the wake of a shift to the so-called knowledge economy, 39 00:04:48,650 --> 00:04:58,100 unprecedented attention to teacher quality, and lots of new expectations about teacher preparation and workforce preparation. 40 00:04:58,100 --> 00:05:05,180 We also share across many countries increasing income inequality and disparities, 41 00:05:05,180 --> 00:05:12,170 or persistent disparities in opportunity and outcomes for minorities and disadvantaged groups. 42 00:05:12,170 --> 00:05:19,730 So I think some of what I'm going to say is relevant just given some aspects of the larger context. 43 00:05:19,730 --> 00:05:26,090 So I invite you to hear what I'm going to say with about the U.S. as kind of a 44 00:05:26,090 --> 00:05:32,840 provocation and perhaps a point of comparison that will lead us to premature perception. 45 00:05:32,840 --> 00:05:44,040 I think we will have. So I've organised this talk around three questions that are straightforward sounding. 46 00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:48,630 And seemingly simple, but of course, they are not simple at all. 47 00:05:48,630 --> 00:05:53,730 So I'm going to talk about these three questions in terms of teacher education accountability. 48 00:05:53,730 --> 00:05:59,190 Where are we? How do we get here and where do we need to be? 49 00:05:59,190 --> 00:06:05,030 And again, I am talking about the U.S. context, but you'll see that there are broader implications in some way. 50 00:06:05,030 --> 00:06:11,670 So just a note. The first question is empirical. Here we use of policy studies of. 51 00:06:11,670 --> 00:06:17,220 Particularly when used frame analysis to analyse major national level 52 00:06:17,220 --> 00:06:23,340 accountability policies and initiatives in terms of their history and discourses, 53 00:06:23,340 --> 00:06:32,910 their underlying assumptions and very importantly, the presence or absence of evidence to support these various policy initiatives in 54 00:06:32,910 --> 00:06:37,470 terms of whether they actually have the capacity to do what they set out to do. 55 00:06:37,470 --> 00:06:44,550 The second question is also empirical. Here we used primarily a historical approach, 56 00:06:44,550 --> 00:06:52,980 and we focussed on professional policy and political discourse is about future education and education reform. 57 00:06:52,980 --> 00:06:54,090 And to do that, 58 00:06:54,090 --> 00:07:04,050 we drew on a very large repository of reform and accountability documents that I started collecting in the late 1980s and into the 90s. 59 00:07:04,050 --> 00:07:09,240 And then the group continued with me towards the latter part of that period. 60 00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:16,350 The third question is very different. It's a normative question and very explicitly and intentionally. 61 00:07:16,350 --> 00:07:20,640 It begins with values and ideals and goals. 62 00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:27,090 So this question, I think, allows us to get at some of the questions about the politics of Panopto. 63 00:07:27,090 --> 00:07:36,660 And I hope the promise of democratic education. So let me go right to the first one in terms of teacher education accountability. 64 00:07:36,660 --> 00:07:42,000 Where are we in the U.S. for at least the last two decades? 65 00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:46,470 Accountability has been pretty much not on. 66 00:07:46,470 --> 00:07:53,400 It's not questionably the major policy approach to improving teacher education quality. 67 00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:58,260 That doesn't mean everybody agrees with that, but that is the approach that policy has taken. 68 00:07:58,260 --> 00:08:06,810 But holding teacher education accountable is not one thing, so it's not a single concept study unitary concept. 69 00:08:06,810 --> 00:08:17,580 Rather, there are multiple coexisting accountability initiatives and multiple, sometimes competing accountability demands and expectations. 70 00:08:17,580 --> 00:08:25,290 These playoffs differently when different regulatory, professional and advocacy organisations are involved. 71 00:08:25,290 --> 00:08:33,840 So I'm going to focus just on major or national level accountability policies and initiatives. 72 00:08:33,840 --> 00:08:39,660 And I want to say this once, and I won't keep saying I'm only going to be able to talk about the highlights. 73 00:08:39,660 --> 00:08:45,060 So practically with everything I say, I want to and each little tiny section by saying, 74 00:08:45,060 --> 00:08:48,750 of course, there's much more I could say and should say, but I don't have time. 75 00:08:48,750 --> 00:08:52,340 I won't keep saying that. That applies to every point, I think. 76 00:08:52,340 --> 00:09:02,510 I'm going to make so in terms of this, multiple competing accountability initiatives, multiple competing agendas. 77 00:09:02,510 --> 00:09:14,990 Each of the 50 states has its own Department of Education with accountability, procedures and policies for evaluating teacher education institutions. 78 00:09:14,990 --> 00:09:23,810 Over the last two decades, there's also been a strong and up until very recently growing federal role. 79 00:09:23,810 --> 00:09:25,640 That's changing somewhat now. 80 00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:35,870 But the interplay between the states and the federal government for control of teacher education has been described by some people as a tug of war. 81 00:09:35,870 --> 00:09:42,650 In addition, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation for Paper, 82 00:09:42,650 --> 00:09:48,620 which is the sole national a creditor of teacher education as of 2013. 83 00:09:48,620 --> 00:09:52,700 And some of you will be familiar with its current successor and Kate. 84 00:09:52,700 --> 00:09:55,880 So this is the next generation of engaged. 85 00:09:55,880 --> 00:10:03,920 So they also have a set of standards to which all provinces want national accreditation have to be accountable. 86 00:10:03,920 --> 00:10:16,970 One important note here is national professional accreditation is voluntary in 36 states and compulsory in 14 states. 87 00:10:16,970 --> 00:10:27,890 But in the states where it's voluntary. Many teacher education institutions seek national accreditation, including my own, for a variety of reasons. 88 00:10:27,890 --> 00:10:35,360 In addition, for the last five years, an organisation called the National Council for Teacher Quality, 89 00:10:35,360 --> 00:10:46,400 which is a private advocacy organisation with no regulatory power and a historically attired university teacher education agenda, 90 00:10:46,400 --> 00:10:59,630 has been grading teacher education programmes across the country, a to have a lot of these monographs and disseminating the results in very slick, 91 00:10:59,630 --> 00:11:08,180 smoothly packaged ways, often delivering alarming news straight to the desks of university presidents. 92 00:11:08,180 --> 00:11:11,570 But you can imagine such a market. 93 00:11:11,570 --> 00:11:20,360 And then finally, many states now require teacher candidates to pass a teacher performance assessment for licensure. 94 00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:33,500 The biggest of these is called at GPA, and it's now required in some states and used in at least one programme in 40 of the 50 states. 95 00:11:33,500 --> 00:11:37,760 So this is widely used. But some states have their own. 96 00:11:37,760 --> 00:11:42,140 Some states have multiple ones that institutions can choose from. 97 00:11:42,140 --> 00:11:47,570 In short, though, what I've been trying to show here is that the teacher education accountability 98 00:11:47,570 --> 00:11:54,920 system is a thick web of multiple overlapping accountability relationships, 99 00:11:54,920 --> 00:12:03,950 which Ramsey tells us is common in Western democracies, and it's common not just in education, but also in the public sector. 100 00:12:03,950 --> 00:12:15,290 So to sort all this out, my colleagues and I and project here developed a framework for accountability in teacher education, 101 00:12:15,290 --> 00:12:24,380 and we drew on the cross disciplinary accountability literature, our own analysis of teacher education policies over many years. 102 00:12:24,380 --> 00:12:29,630 So we developed this eight dimensional accountability framework. 103 00:12:29,630 --> 00:12:38,300 So these are the dimensions we label them values, purpose concepts, the diagnostic dimension. 104 00:12:38,300 --> 00:12:45,710 The prognostic dimension. Control the content and consent. 105 00:12:45,710 --> 00:12:50,780 But then we've clustered these eight dimensions into three themes. 106 00:12:50,780 --> 00:12:56,150 So the first three dimensions we call the foundations of accountability. 107 00:12:56,150 --> 00:13:07,610 So this has to do with underlying values, ideals, purposes and ideologies of any given accountability agenda or policy or initiatives. 108 00:13:07,610 --> 00:13:16,910 The next two dimensions prognostic and diagnostic form a cluster that we call the problem education. 109 00:13:16,910 --> 00:13:26,420 What we mean by that is how the advocates or the architects of a particular accountability scheme diagnose and 110 00:13:26,420 --> 00:13:36,350 frame teacher education as a problem and then how they construct the prognosis or the solution to that problem. 111 00:13:36,350 --> 00:13:43,610 And then the last three dimensions form a cluster that we have called power, relationships and accountability. 112 00:13:43,610 --> 00:13:53,120 And this gets at the politics of accountability, including who has the authority to stipulate and enforce expectations. 113 00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:59,960 Who gets to participate in decisions about those expectations or about standards. 114 00:13:59,960 --> 00:14:10,710 What counts as evidence that the expectations are or are not being met and what the intended and unintended consequences are? 115 00:14:10,710 --> 00:14:22,080 We found that using these eight dimensions organised in these three clusters helped us uncover the theory of change behind 116 00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:32,480 any accountability initiative and also helped us think about its consistency or not with the larger democratic project. 117 00:14:32,480 --> 00:14:41,300 And I'm going to come back to that idea quite a few times, but to give you an idea of what we did based on hundreds of policy documents, 118 00:14:41,300 --> 00:14:48,290 policy tools, position statements, editorials, media postings, critiques and research studies, 119 00:14:48,290 --> 00:14:54,260 we analysed the four major national accountability initiatives which are here on the left going 120 00:14:54,260 --> 00:15:03,230 down in terms of the eight dimensions of accountability that are going across the top here, 121 00:15:03,230 --> 00:15:11,300 then working at the level of our clusters. We analysed across the board. 122 00:15:11,300 --> 00:15:18,410 So this is the kind of analysis that we did to try to get a handle on accountability in the U.S. 123 00:15:18,410 --> 00:15:24,260 We found that although there are differences to measure, 124 00:15:24,260 --> 00:15:37,310 accountability initiatives have clear similarities and some cross-cutting themes that constitute what we've called a dominant accountability package. 125 00:15:37,310 --> 00:15:45,680 And we refer to the period of the dominance of this paradigm as teacher education accountability era, 126 00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:54,440 and we market and I can talk later about why if anybody wants to know, but we market as the period beginning in 1998 until the present. 127 00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:58,100 And as I alluded to a moment ago, things may be changing somewhat now. 128 00:15:58,100 --> 00:16:06,200 It's kind of hard to tell yet. But for many purposes, we're still in the accountability era. 129 00:16:06,200 --> 00:16:15,080 So this paradigm, as you can see in the last part of this context, has dramatically reshaped the field. 130 00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:23,600 So what I want to do is look at the dominant accountability paradigm in terms of our three clusters of dimensions. 131 00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:26,370 To give you a little bit more detail about this. 132 00:16:26,370 --> 00:16:39,200 So the core foundations of the dominant accountability paradigm are market ideology and thin equity market ideology is pretty familiar. 133 00:16:39,200 --> 00:16:44,600 I think applied to teacher quality and teacher education. 134 00:16:44,600 --> 00:16:53,030 It can be summarised in three words teachers matter most when it comes to students achievement, 135 00:16:53,030 --> 00:17:00,170 individuals success and international economic competitiveness. 136 00:17:00,170 --> 00:17:11,390 This idea, and again, I think this is very familiar. This idea was echoed relentlessly in the U.S. and a lot of other places for years. 137 00:17:11,390 --> 00:17:18,500 In fact, it became what I think of as a kind of global mantra that a country's economic health 138 00:17:18,500 --> 00:17:23,720 depended on its education system and that the quality of its education system. 139 00:17:23,720 --> 00:17:35,030 We all remember those words are many because some of outcomes could not exceed the quality of its teachers arguments and assumptions that are, 140 00:17:35,030 --> 00:17:39,770 of course, problematic, arguable and not been argued in a variety of ways. 141 00:17:39,770 --> 00:17:44,630 But this was still what was underlying the dominant accountability for parents. 142 00:17:44,630 --> 00:17:54,560 Second, we found that every one of the accountability initiatives we looked at had explicitly stated equity goals. 143 00:17:54,560 --> 00:18:02,630 But beneath the surface, we found what we came to refer to as thin equity, 144 00:18:02,630 --> 00:18:11,990 which assumes that the unequal distribution of good teachers, good schools, good curriculum is the cause of inequity. 145 00:18:11,990 --> 00:18:21,200 And thus, if we can ensure that everybody gets equal or the same access to these, these good teachers, 146 00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:28,460 good curriculum and so on, then this will create equity without necessarily challenging. 147 00:18:28,460 --> 00:18:33,570 The structures and systems that produce and reproduce inequity in the first place 148 00:18:33,570 --> 00:18:39,410 and in equity is a really powerful concept because it's not called thin equity, 149 00:18:39,410 --> 00:18:50,450 it's called equity. And so the impression that is given is that all of these accountability agendas have as a very important goal of achieving equity. 150 00:18:50,450 --> 00:18:54,680 But what they are really doing, and I'll say a little bit more about that in a moment, 151 00:18:54,680 --> 00:19:01,860 what they are really doing is actually preserving much of the status quo. 152 00:19:01,860 --> 00:19:06,570 But let me move on for the moment to the second cluster. 153 00:19:06,570 --> 00:19:17,130 We found that was the dominant accountability paradigm. The problem of teacher education was consistently framed as its failure to earn public 154 00:19:17,130 --> 00:19:23,670 confidence and trust and its failure to be thought of as a bona fide profession. 155 00:19:23,670 --> 00:19:26,370 But the next part is as important. 156 00:19:26,370 --> 00:19:36,650 The failure was constructed as the result of the lack of systems of continuous improvement based on the collection of. 157 00:19:36,650 --> 00:19:45,740 Dramatic data about impact, outcomes and performance, and the other part of the cause was that teacher education, 158 00:19:45,740 --> 00:19:53,450 as well as improved teacher education programmes as a group, did not use systematic data to improve practise. 159 00:19:53,450 --> 00:20:00,920 So we looked at these documents and we used frame analysis to figure out how they framed the problem and how they framed the solution. 160 00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:07,070 We found the word data and data systems used over and over and over again. 161 00:20:07,070 --> 00:20:16,790 Now, if this is the problem, then you can pretty easily get to what is going to be the solution. 162 00:20:16,790 --> 00:20:24,260 So the solution, of course, with the dominant accountability paradigm is data and data systems. 163 00:20:24,260 --> 00:20:32,510 So more data, better data, the creation of national data using uniform indicators, 164 00:20:32,510 --> 00:20:41,330 cutting edge new assessment tools and sophisticated data analytics, hopefully using larger and larger databases. 165 00:20:41,330 --> 00:20:51,290 Many of these reassigned test scores as the central indicator of teacher effectiveness, some of them zero in on market forces. 166 00:20:51,290 --> 00:20:59,780 But the assumption is that holding teacher education accountable for impact and outcomes will let good programmes rise 167 00:20:59,780 --> 00:21:09,350 to the top and force bad ones to either get better to either remediate or close up shop and get out of the business. 168 00:21:09,350 --> 00:21:14,840 Finally, let me say something about how our relationships with the dominant accountability paradigm. 169 00:21:14,840 --> 00:21:24,860 This has to do with the professional organisations, government agencies or other entities that have control and jurisdiction over teacher 170 00:21:24,860 --> 00:21:31,880 education and how they define what teacher education should be accountable for. 171 00:21:31,880 --> 00:21:37,220 So given the deep mistrust of teacher education in the U.S., 172 00:21:37,220 --> 00:21:50,540 it's not surprising that we found that control with all of these initiatives tends to be external to the programmes and institutions being evaluated 173 00:21:50,540 --> 00:21:56,060 with few opportunities for the participants in actual programmes and institutions 174 00:21:56,060 --> 00:22:03,140 to help develop the expectations or to opt out of the accountability. 175 00:22:03,140 --> 00:22:14,660 This was particularly interesting to us. What we found was that even with accountability initiatives purportedly developed by and for the profession, 176 00:22:14,660 --> 00:22:17,210 that language was used over and over again. 177 00:22:17,210 --> 00:22:25,490 And that would include and TPA, and that would include Case, which is intended to be a professional organisation. 178 00:22:25,490 --> 00:22:38,450 We found that even with those given multiple implementation problems, multiple management issues, original intentions were really quite transformed. 179 00:22:38,450 --> 00:22:44,930 And now there is mounting case study and survey research and some other emerging 180 00:22:44,930 --> 00:22:51,170 research that indicates that these accountability initiatives also are, 181 00:22:51,170 --> 00:22:54,140 even though they're labelled by and for the profession, 182 00:22:54,140 --> 00:23:03,170 they're increasingly experienced by programmes and institutions as extraordinarily imposed without regard for local knowledge, 183 00:23:03,170 --> 00:23:10,370 local commitments or the professional judgement and agency of teachers and teacher educators. 184 00:23:10,370 --> 00:23:19,610 So this has given you a very, very quick overview of the kind of conceptual and frame analysis we did to identify the 185 00:23:19,610 --> 00:23:27,200 dominant accountability paradigm and to unpack at the moment in terms of our dimensions. 186 00:23:27,200 --> 00:23:35,090 But in addition to this conceptual analysis, we also wanted to delve deeper to answer the question. 187 00:23:35,090 --> 00:23:37,730 Still on this first question where are we? 188 00:23:37,730 --> 00:23:48,620 So another thing we did was to analyse the evidence of each of these four major accountability initiatives, and these are the same four. 189 00:23:48,620 --> 00:23:52,430 And we did that by asking two questions for each one of them. 190 00:23:52,430 --> 00:23:59,120 What claims do the proponents of the initiative make about how it's going to actually 191 00:23:59,120 --> 00:24:05,870 improve teacher preparation and thus help solve the teacher quality problem in the U.S.? 192 00:24:05,870 --> 00:24:12,470 Once we unpack those claims. Then we ask what evidence supports these claims? 193 00:24:12,470 --> 00:24:19,160 So the first question is is intended to get further out the theory of change behind the initiative in the 194 00:24:19,160 --> 00:24:26,120 sense of people's assumptions about how particular mechanisms will actually operate to create change. 195 00:24:26,120 --> 00:24:32,840 And the second one has to do with validity and reliability about the initiative as a policy instrument. 196 00:24:32,840 --> 00:24:38,720 So we were really looking for whether or not there was evidence that the initiatives actually had the 197 00:24:38,720 --> 00:24:45,890 capacity to meet its stated events and bring about the kind of change that it wanted to bring about. 198 00:24:45,890 --> 00:24:53,000 We presented a detailed analysis of the evidence we found in the form of the policy brief. 199 00:24:53,000 --> 00:25:00,360 And if anybody's interested, this was published by any policy the National Education Policy Centre in 2016. 200 00:25:00,360 --> 00:25:05,780 You can easily find it under any say they have all of their policy briefs available. 201 00:25:05,780 --> 00:25:13,880 I can't give you the details here, but I want to make it very clear that we looked carefully at this evidence, in short. 202 00:25:13,880 --> 00:25:19,850 So we found that three with three of the four initiatives, 203 00:25:19,850 --> 00:25:30,740 there was very little evidence to support the claims about how the policy mechanisms would actually operate to improve programmes. 204 00:25:30,740 --> 00:25:38,810 The irony, of course, is that these policies call for teacher education programmes to make decisions based on evidence, 205 00:25:38,810 --> 00:25:46,240 but they're not based on evidence themselves. With the fourth initiative, and you're probably wondering. 206 00:25:46,240 --> 00:25:51,580 Papa, where's the fourth one with the fourth initiative and that's at TPPA? 207 00:25:51,580 --> 00:25:58,600 There is some evidentiary support as a policy initiative, but as I alluded a minute ago, 208 00:25:58,600 --> 00:26:06,040 there is also mounting concern within the teacher preparation community about this set of standards 209 00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:14,110 that was imposed by some few elite members of the teacher education community on everybody else. 210 00:26:14,110 --> 00:26:21,910 And there have been implementation problems in the states where they require a GPA. 211 00:26:21,910 --> 00:26:33,880 With those two things happening, it seems highly unlikely that there will be the kind of widespread implementation and professional acceptance of 212 00:26:33,880 --> 00:26:43,190 TPA that they depend on in terms of their rationale for how this is really going to change change in the field. 213 00:26:43,190 --> 00:26:51,520 So that's my whirlwind tour of where we are. And I want to go to the second question, how did we get here? 214 00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:57,280 So to answer this question again, very briefly, without being able to really go into detail, 215 00:26:57,280 --> 00:27:04,990 I want to talk about five policy political and professional coaching challenges 216 00:27:04,990 --> 00:27:09,490 that contributed to the emergence of the dominant accountability paradigm. 217 00:27:09,490 --> 00:27:15,070 And also to its staying power. I think so. This is the list I'm going to take up. 218 00:27:15,070 --> 00:27:21,610 Each one of these individually, I'm going to read it to now, but you'll see them as I talked about this. 219 00:27:21,610 --> 00:27:30,670 So first, I've already alluded to, this is unprecedented global attention to teacher quality tied to neoliberal economics. 220 00:27:30,670 --> 00:27:42,430 As we all know, the emphasis on it in accountability emerged as part of the Decades-Long shift to a knowledge economy in the U.S. and other places. 221 00:27:42,430 --> 00:27:53,950 This was also a shift to neoliberal economics and to a conceptualisation of human beings as rational individual economic actors. 222 00:27:53,950 --> 00:28:04,780 The connexion of these big ideas to teacher education accountability is not very hard to find, and it's been crystal clear in the work of a person. 223 00:28:04,780 --> 00:28:13,900 Some of you may be familiar with Eric Kanishka, who is a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institute and arguably one of the most 224 00:28:13,900 --> 00:28:20,140 influential U.S. economists in the area of public education policy for two decades. 225 00:28:20,140 --> 00:28:24,520 And a chef has defined teacher quality very simple. 226 00:28:24,520 --> 00:28:32,170 He sets teacher quality. His teachers who produce large gains in student achievement. 227 00:28:32,170 --> 00:28:38,890 And if we don't see large gains in achievement, that indicates the absence of teacher quality. 228 00:28:38,890 --> 00:28:48,310 And he says it's just that wildly so for Hanukkah, the key to effective education policy is pretty obvious. 229 00:28:48,310 --> 00:28:53,650 Accountability in the form of performance, incentives for teachers, teacher educators, 230 00:28:53,650 --> 00:29:01,210 schools and not policies that try to change school conditions is that we don't know enough about that. 231 00:29:01,210 --> 00:29:05,520 But we do know that we want gains in achievement. That's what we. 232 00:29:05,520 --> 00:29:15,920 Rewarded with that money. This is where I say again, there's a lot more to say here, but I want to move to the second idea. 233 00:29:15,920 --> 00:29:19,730 So the second point in my answer to how did we get it? 234 00:29:19,730 --> 00:29:29,360 Second point is a continuous public narrative about the failure of university based teacher education. 235 00:29:29,360 --> 00:29:32,780 And I want to share some themes from that narrative. 236 00:29:32,780 --> 00:29:39,110 There are many, and I'm only going to share a few, and I should note very carefully on reporting these things. 237 00:29:39,110 --> 00:29:44,600 I'm not endorsing them. So some things in this public narrative are first, 238 00:29:44,600 --> 00:29:53,330 teachers having completed university teacher preparation makes no difference in the achievement of students 239 00:29:53,330 --> 00:30:01,500 compared to the achievement of students who have teachers who have not completed university teaching. 240 00:30:01,500 --> 00:30:08,880 And second thing, teacher education programmes have a liberal, progressive bias, 241 00:30:08,880 --> 00:30:17,700 and they focus a on on touchy feely self-awareness rather than objective or scientific knowledge. 242 00:30:17,700 --> 00:30:29,040 Another theme alternate routes into teaching that bypass or drastically streamline university programmes are superior to university programmes, 243 00:30:29,040 --> 00:30:34,200 and they provide a policy model for improving teacher quality. 244 00:30:34,200 --> 00:30:41,130 And the final one I'm going to mention teacher education hasn't changed despite years of reform. 245 00:30:41,130 --> 00:30:48,060 Reform should focus on what really matters. Accountability for student outcomes and teacher effectiveness. 246 00:30:48,060 --> 00:31:00,360 And there are many others. Now, I hope it's clear that this failure narrative is a potent concoction of contested empirical assertions, 247 00:31:00,360 --> 00:31:09,480 normative claims, hyperbole and politics, and some just plain mean spirited, meaningful work. 248 00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:17,280 But despite that description, and you might even if you only agree with part of the way, I just characterised it well enough. 249 00:31:17,280 --> 00:31:30,720 Despite that, those things together became the rationale underlying many new accountability schemes designed to produce compliance and uniformity. 250 00:31:30,720 --> 00:31:36,660 This narrative also paved the way for the proliferation of alternative pathways with 251 00:31:36,660 --> 00:31:44,340 new non-profit and for profit providers and test only entry routes into teaching. 252 00:31:44,340 --> 00:31:52,650 Now, here's the interesting thing about the failure narrative that built on the international consensus I mentioned a minute ago that teachers, 253 00:31:52,650 --> 00:31:59,880 not teachers, matter most, which is a really highly seductive idea. 254 00:31:59,880 --> 00:32:07,440 Of course, teachers matter. Probably most of the people in this room are committed to that idea that teachers matter. 255 00:32:07,440 --> 00:32:16,530 But the assertion that teachers matter most that they are the most important factor in students' achievement is really a double edged sword. 256 00:32:16,530 --> 00:32:17,460 In the US, 257 00:32:17,460 --> 00:32:30,630 this assertion lived alongside the received wisdom since at least the publication of the Nation at Risk report in 1983 that the schools were failing. 258 00:32:30,630 --> 00:32:33,240 Now, it doesn't take too much to figure out what the logic is. 259 00:32:33,240 --> 00:32:39,930 It's really quite clear if teachers are the most important factor in students' achievement, 260 00:32:39,930 --> 00:32:49,490 and if U.S. student achievement is substandard, then teachers and the people who prepared them are to blame. 261 00:32:49,490 --> 00:32:54,350 Third point in terms of how we get here. 262 00:32:54,350 --> 00:33:04,460 So the third point is the emergence is teacher education to find as a public policy problem focussed on outcomes. 263 00:33:04,460 --> 00:33:10,250 I've been writing about this for years, including in a special journal issue in the book, 264 00:33:10,250 --> 00:33:19,220 which ran for a long whatever year that was 2008 £90million in which we talked about this idea of teacher 265 00:33:19,220 --> 00:33:27,680 education defined as a policy problem across countries when teacher education is seen as a public policy problem. 266 00:33:27,680 --> 00:33:33,530 The goal is to figure out which of the parameters broad policy parameters that 267 00:33:33,530 --> 00:33:40,940 policymakers can actually control will have a positive impact on outcomes in the US. 268 00:33:40,940 --> 00:33:46,890 The Bush administration's no child left behind. Which everybody has at least heard of. 269 00:33:46,890 --> 00:33:56,520 Went into effect in 2001 intensified this whole policy approach to improving teacher and teacher education. 270 00:33:56,520 --> 00:34:05,820 But the wording of the Obama administration's race to the top guidelines, which determines states eligibility for federal funds. 271 00:34:05,820 --> 00:34:14,880 So there were really, really important cemented the idea that effective teachers were those who raise test scores. 272 00:34:14,880 --> 00:34:23,040 This was a shift then, in how we thought about teacher quality away from what we referred to as inputs, 273 00:34:23,040 --> 00:34:27,120 including teachers, qualifications, their credentials, their backgrounds, 274 00:34:27,120 --> 00:34:36,720 their dispositions and toward a definition of teacher quality in terms of outcomes which focussed on teacher's classroom performance, 275 00:34:36,720 --> 00:34:41,550 career retention and most controversial in the U.S. 276 00:34:41,550 --> 00:34:51,660 Evaluating teacher preparation programmes based on the achievement of the eventual students programme graduates. 277 00:34:51,660 --> 00:35:03,060 So it's this long chain of logic that is problematic at every turn, but nevertheless it's in operation again in keeping with time limits. 278 00:35:03,060 --> 00:35:09,060 The fourth factor in the emergence of the dominant accountability paradigm is teacher. 279 00:35:09,060 --> 00:35:15,700 The teacher education establishments only turn toward accountability. 280 00:35:15,700 --> 00:35:19,330 Now that U.S. teacher education scene is pretty complex, 281 00:35:19,330 --> 00:35:26,030 but there are two national organisations that I think have generally been regarded as the established. 282 00:35:26,030 --> 00:35:29,450 The National Council for the Accreditation of Teachers or anything, which, 283 00:35:29,450 --> 00:35:35,540 as I said now is key and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 284 00:35:35,540 --> 00:35:47,240 ACTU, this is a membership organisation for teacher education institutions, deans and a lot of individual teacher educators attend as well. 285 00:35:47,240 --> 00:35:52,430 So in 2000 and Kate announced new accreditation standards, 286 00:35:52,430 --> 00:36:04,790 they were described by NASA itself as a paradigm shift from input staff comes because they required performance evidence about teacher candidates. 287 00:36:04,790 --> 00:36:09,530 In 2013, Kate announced its new standards, 288 00:36:09,530 --> 00:36:17,240 which demanded higher selectivity requirements for candidates and also demanded of every programme that they 289 00:36:17,240 --> 00:36:26,210 show evidence of programme impact and of graduates effectiveness defined in terms of students achievement case. 290 00:36:26,210 --> 00:36:33,320 New standards were very intentionally organised to signal that they were getting tough on standards. 291 00:36:33,320 --> 00:36:39,740 That's how they described it and that they were raising the bar regarding the preparation of teachers. 292 00:36:39,740 --> 00:36:42,530 Now we think slightly more cynically, 293 00:36:42,530 --> 00:36:53,120 they were also intended to demonstrate that the audience in this nation still had a relevant role in the very crowded field of teacher preparation, 294 00:36:53,120 --> 00:37:02,530 which was going in all kinds of. Actions say something about actually the dean's institutional organisation, AICTE, 295 00:37:02,530 --> 00:37:11,980 also moved to support standards and accountability in the early 2000s, in part given the threat of privatisation. 296 00:37:11,980 --> 00:37:16,660 On the one hand and the withdrawal of government funding. On the other hand, 297 00:37:16,660 --> 00:37:29,440 they city also was trying to walk a fine line between carrying the torch for the new accountability and questioning in keeping with members concerns. 298 00:37:29,440 --> 00:37:38,380 Finally, the this factor in how we got to the government accountability paradigm is that over time, 299 00:37:38,380 --> 00:37:45,400 U.S. policymakers and others came to assume the Congress that the income inequality 300 00:37:45,400 --> 00:37:52,930 could be remedied by education reform without reforms addressing other social, 301 00:37:52,930 --> 00:37:56,530 economic and political conditions along these lines. 302 00:37:56,530 --> 00:38:02,290 I really liked the work of policy historians Harvey Carter and Robert Lowe. 303 00:38:02,290 --> 00:38:08,230 Some of you may be familiar with them. They do an extremely thoughtful, and I would say, 304 00:38:08,230 --> 00:38:13,900 the chinchillas analysis of the evolution of U.S. social policy and is that 305 00:38:13,900 --> 00:38:20,530 they argue that ever since the Lyndon Johnson presidential era in the 1960s. 306 00:38:20,530 --> 00:38:29,770 Education reform, rather than a robust welfare state, was the favoured solution to poverty and inequality. 307 00:38:29,770 --> 00:38:42,190 The belief that education reform can ameliorate inequality relieves policymakers of the burden for developing social policies. 308 00:38:42,190 --> 00:38:48,190 That, coupled with education reform, actually maybe could reduce inequality. 309 00:38:48,190 --> 00:38:54,670 This belief in the U.S. exacerbated additional disillusionment with public education, 310 00:38:54,670 --> 00:39:00,940 and it also supported the turn away from public schools for teacher education. 311 00:39:00,940 --> 00:39:09,190 This belief ratcheted up when policymakers and the public expected from teachers and teacher education. 312 00:39:09,190 --> 00:39:15,220 So increasingly teachers were expected not only to produce a competitive workforce, 313 00:39:15,220 --> 00:39:21,130 but also to meet rising social expectations and help achieve social equity. 314 00:39:21,130 --> 00:39:29,680 The belief that education reform could eradicate inequality also led some people to the conclusion that anybody who 315 00:39:29,680 --> 00:39:40,240 said teachers and schools couldn't solve the nation's social problems were insiders who supported the status quo, 316 00:39:40,240 --> 00:39:52,260 wanted mostly to lighten their own workloads, and we're simply making excuses about the ineffectiveness of schools, teachers and teacher. 317 00:39:52,260 --> 00:40:00,210 So these five highly interrelated policy, political and professional developments, 318 00:40:00,210 --> 00:40:07,310 I think, help explain some of the context and conditions within which this dominant. 319 00:40:07,310 --> 00:40:16,130 Accountability paradigm in the U.S. emerged, and this really became in a way with commonsense about teacher education. 320 00:40:16,130 --> 00:40:25,510 So when I say that, what I mean is that the language and logic of accountability became so deeply embedded in the everyday discourse 321 00:40:25,510 --> 00:40:37,310 and practise of teacher education that they became very difficult to discern as policy and practise alternative. 322 00:40:37,310 --> 00:40:45,110 Third question that I want to address. Where do we need to be before I turn directly to this search question? 323 00:40:45,110 --> 00:40:54,920 I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting either in the book or here that we should reject teacher education accountability, 324 00:40:54,920 --> 00:41:01,200 but rather that we should reinvent this as a lever for reconstructing teacher education 325 00:41:01,200 --> 00:41:07,790 is targeted for its purposes and its consequences to reclaim the profession. 326 00:41:07,790 --> 00:41:16,180 And that's really the central art. And I just want to say a word about the word reclaiming, which I'm using very deliberately here. 327 00:41:16,180 --> 00:41:19,620 So if you look up definitions for the word reclaiming, 328 00:41:19,620 --> 00:41:27,780 a lot of them focussed on the idea of retrieving or getting something back that was previously lost or denied rhetoric, 329 00:41:27,780 --> 00:41:36,510 claiming your right to the throne or something that was temporarily separated from its owner, like reclaiming your luggage. 330 00:41:36,510 --> 00:41:43,370 But definitions of reclaiming also include the idea of rescuing something. 331 00:41:43,370 --> 00:41:50,750 From an undesirable stage or reforming something from wrong or improper conduct. 332 00:41:50,750 --> 00:42:01,790 So when we do this reclaiming in the book, we are talking about reclaiming teacher education accountability in this last sense of the word explicitly. 333 00:42:01,790 --> 00:42:11,510 I want to rescue teacher education accountability from its current immersion in market ideology and the human capital paradigm. 334 00:42:11,510 --> 00:42:20,600 And I want to rescue it for democratic education, which not only prepare students for participation in democratic deliberation, 335 00:42:20,600 --> 00:42:29,120 which I say more about in just a moment, but also identifies and works to eradicate the structures and systems that produce. 336 00:42:29,120 --> 00:42:33,050 So for my third question, where do we need to be? 337 00:42:33,050 --> 00:42:42,920 I want to return to our eight dimensional accountability framework and use that to help talk about where I would like to see us moving. 338 00:42:42,920 --> 00:42:48,950 So you remember, I hope that with the dominant accountability paradigm, 339 00:42:48,950 --> 00:42:56,840 I argue that the foundations for market ideology and inequity with democratic accountability, 340 00:42:56,840 --> 00:43:09,620 which we are proposing as an alternative idea of values, are derived from democratic education theory, especially ideas related to strong democracy. 341 00:43:09,620 --> 00:43:18,620 And what we have called strong equity. So democratic education theory draws on thinkers like many of these, 342 00:43:18,620 --> 00:43:24,980 and I know I know these are not all the same or many critically important differences amongst them, 343 00:43:24,980 --> 00:43:32,330 but they share some basic assumptions about what Michael Engle called democracy. 344 00:43:32,330 --> 00:43:37,520 Understood differently with and whether he meant democracy, 345 00:43:37,520 --> 00:43:44,480 it involves something beyond participants voting in elections and organising special 346 00:43:44,480 --> 00:43:49,070 interest groups to lobby for their own viewpoints and their own advantages. 347 00:43:49,070 --> 00:43:53,120 So really, what we're talking about democratic accountability, 348 00:43:53,120 --> 00:44:02,300 something more like Benjamin Barber's classic strong democracy, which is participatory, popular and community oriented. 349 00:44:02,300 --> 00:44:10,460 And there is the assumption here is that there actually is something called the public interest and that there actually is something 350 00:44:10,460 --> 00:44:23,180 called the common good or common goods and public interest that is more than different from just the sum of its individual self interest. 351 00:44:23,180 --> 00:44:29,450 The foundations of democratic accountability are also based on this notion of strong equity, 352 00:44:29,450 --> 00:44:38,360 and we develop this notion of thin and strong equity building on Barbour's thin and strong democracy idea in the first place. 353 00:44:38,360 --> 00:44:43,340 So we've conceptualised this idea of strong equity drawing, 354 00:44:43,340 --> 00:44:51,010 especially on the work of Nancy Frazier's theories of social justice and other work, and through some of my own early. 355 00:44:51,010 --> 00:44:53,710 About social justice in teacher education. 356 00:44:53,710 --> 00:45:04,150 So we are suggesting that the notion of strong equity for teacher education has four core ideas sort of four r's with your families with me. 357 00:45:04,150 --> 00:45:11,080 So the first is the idea of redistribution to all schools of teachers who are committed to work with other 358 00:45:11,080 --> 00:45:19,030 people for social change and who know how to teach students not just the core skills of literacy and numeracy. 359 00:45:19,030 --> 00:45:27,940 Although of course, they need to know how to do that, but also how to advocate for themselves and engage in democratic deliberation. 360 00:45:27,940 --> 00:45:33,070 The second R is recognition, and this is a recognition by teachers, 361 00:45:33,070 --> 00:45:39,760 school leaders and policymakers of the structures and systems that produce inequity. 362 00:45:39,760 --> 00:45:48,430 So this means it's not just going to be changes in teacher policies that are necessary to interrupt inequity. 363 00:45:48,430 --> 00:45:53,590 It's going to involve a whole lot of other kinds of social policy changes. 364 00:45:53,590 --> 00:46:03,940 The idea of recognition also includes recognition and representation of the values and knowledge traditions of minority students, 365 00:46:03,940 --> 00:46:14,120 families and communities in school curricula, practises and policies and in teacher education curricula. 366 00:46:14,120 --> 00:46:21,270 This means that access is not the sole answer to the achievement of strong equity. 367 00:46:21,270 --> 00:46:34,380 As Joyce King reminds us, equal access to a faulty curriculum that is one that doesn't include multiple knowledge, traditions is not justice. 368 00:46:34,380 --> 00:46:45,900 So that's part of this second part. The third are is what we've talked about is reframing how awful prevalent frames related to equity, 369 00:46:45,900 --> 00:46:55,350 equality and justice, especially ideas like colourblindness and meritocracy, which assume objectivity. 370 00:46:55,350 --> 00:47:06,920 And that's the structural, economic and racialized nature of inequality inside a discourse of individualism and equal access. 371 00:47:06,920 --> 00:47:11,120 In the final hour is resolving tensions, 372 00:47:11,120 --> 00:47:22,520 and this has to do with acknowledging the inherent tensions and contradictions amongst competing ideas and competing forces about 373 00:47:22,520 --> 00:47:34,580 equity and about achievement in teacher education and trying to manage these in ways that are knowingly imperfect but concrete. 374 00:47:34,580 --> 00:47:40,370 And also what this really means is not leaving these ideas at a high level of abstraction, 375 00:47:40,370 --> 00:47:46,190 which is pretty easy to do, but to resolve the tensions in some way on the ground. 376 00:47:46,190 --> 00:47:54,570 In local context, with real student teachers and real communities that we're working with is much more difficult to get into. 377 00:47:54,570 --> 00:47:59,360 Practitioners don't have the luxury of these high levels of abstraction. 378 00:47:59,360 --> 00:48:04,520 So moving on again with the dominant accountability paradigm, 379 00:48:04,520 --> 00:48:10,460 I hope I made it really clear that the problem of teacher education was framed as teacher education's 380 00:48:10,460 --> 00:48:17,120 failure to become a trusted profession because of its lack of sophisticated data systems. 381 00:48:17,120 --> 00:48:22,790 With the with democratic accountability, the problem is not seen as a lack of data. 382 00:48:22,790 --> 00:48:27,200 The problem is seen as the dominance of the economy. 383 00:48:27,200 --> 00:48:29,630 And so. 384 00:48:29,630 --> 00:48:39,980 And its negative effect on teacher education and teaching, so following Angela Badlands, where we used the word subtractive here to describe this. 385 00:48:39,980 --> 00:48:49,340 So we see the impact of the dominant accountability paradigm as having had a subtractive influence on the field. 386 00:48:49,340 --> 00:48:58,460 So it's prompted uniformity and compliance. It's redefined how many teacher educators understand their roles and their own agency. 387 00:48:58,460 --> 00:49:02,960 It's emphasised narrow test based or performance outcomes. 388 00:49:02,960 --> 00:49:09,770 It's de-emphasised local knowledge and local communities and reduce the spaces in teacher education 389 00:49:09,770 --> 00:49:16,250 for discussion and action related to efforts related to justice and democratic education. 390 00:49:16,250 --> 00:49:24,500 The democratic accountability The solution, then, isn't more data systems, but much more collective work. 391 00:49:24,500 --> 00:49:32,150 And so this means teacher educators working with other teacher educators, working with teachers, 392 00:49:32,150 --> 00:49:42,030 school leaders, families, communities, activists, multiple stakeholders and yes, even policy makers. 393 00:49:42,030 --> 00:49:49,560 The third aspect of democratic accountability has to do with how relationships there are no especially control. 394 00:49:49,560 --> 00:49:58,230 So here, instead of the dominant accountability paradigms focussed on externally controlled monitoring schemes, 395 00:49:58,230 --> 00:50:06,590 we are proposing the concept of intelligent professional responsibility in teacher education. 396 00:50:06,590 --> 00:50:09,560 And this is derived from three ideas. 397 00:50:09,560 --> 00:50:17,970 Intelligent accountability, professional accountability and the distinction between responsibility and accountability, 398 00:50:17,970 --> 00:50:24,540 I would just say a tiny bit about each of those. Some of you may know the work of Onuora O'Neill here in the UK. 399 00:50:24,540 --> 00:50:37,860 She suggested that the audit culture in the public sector has resulted in lack of motivation, mistrust and no actual improvement in people's work. 400 00:50:37,860 --> 00:50:48,960 She called instead for intelligence accountability, which begins with trust and with the audacious assumption that the people who do the work 401 00:50:48,960 --> 00:50:56,580 in a particular area actually know something about it and generally want to be better. 402 00:50:56,580 --> 00:51:02,400 The second idea professional accountability, was developed by Michael Flynn, some of his colleagues, 403 00:51:02,400 --> 00:51:08,100 and they were working on accountability in primary and secondary schools, not teacher education. 404 00:51:08,100 --> 00:51:15,840 But they suggested that in order to support teacher and student learning in schools and external 405 00:51:15,840 --> 00:51:22,020 policy makers should concentrate not on holding people accountable for all these things, 406 00:51:22,020 --> 00:51:27,540 but for creating the conditions for strong internal accountability. 407 00:51:27,540 --> 00:51:36,780 And they defined that as collective professional accountability with schools and school collaborations for continuous improvement. 408 00:51:36,780 --> 00:51:44,880 And finally, the distinction between responsibility and accountability has to do with the notion of obligation and imposition. 409 00:51:44,880 --> 00:51:49,500 So some people have suggested that responsibility is chosen. 410 00:51:49,500 --> 00:51:52,230 Accountability is imposed. 411 00:51:52,230 --> 00:52:02,340 So what we tried to do in the book is to elaborate and weave together these three concepts to develop for teacher education. 412 00:52:02,340 --> 00:52:07,050 The idea of intelligent professional responsibility. 413 00:52:07,050 --> 00:52:13,950 Obviously, this requires a lot of dialogue and participation of all the stakeholders in teacher education, 414 00:52:13,950 --> 00:52:20,250 including local teacher education institutions and the programmes who are being held accountable, 415 00:52:20,250 --> 00:52:25,050 but also the schools and the families and communities and the people they work with. 416 00:52:25,050 --> 00:52:29,910 So dialogue, inclusion and deliberation are key. 417 00:52:29,910 --> 00:52:36,090 The role of external regulators and in the U.S. that would be state or federal 418 00:52:36,090 --> 00:52:42,990 policymakers or national creditors is to create the conditions for intelligent, 419 00:52:42,990 --> 00:52:51,020 professional responsibility and networks programmes themselves and across. 420 00:52:51,020 --> 00:52:55,730 In terms of what future education programmes are actually how the. 421 00:52:55,730 --> 00:52:58,960 Well, for this Democratic candidate. 422 00:52:58,960 --> 00:53:09,190 Of course, teacher educators and teacher education programmes would be responsible for teacher learning and teacher performance and student learning. 423 00:53:09,190 --> 00:53:14,050 But consistent with living in a democratic society in today's world. 424 00:53:14,050 --> 00:53:22,860 So that means students learning would include academic learning, but also this long list of social and emotional development, 425 00:53:22,860 --> 00:53:33,010 sense of well-being, civic engagement, critical thinking, problem solving and democratic skills, in particular in our divided society. 426 00:53:33,010 --> 00:53:42,350 This would emphasise respect, perspective, taking responsible disagreement and delivering. 427 00:53:42,350 --> 00:53:52,670 Finally, with democratic accountability, the intended consequences would be heightened trust amongst participants, enhanced teacher and teacher, 428 00:53:52,670 --> 00:53:59,930 educator professionalism and deep responses to ongoing internal evaluations, 429 00:53:59,930 --> 00:54:11,620 rather than the very calm and superficial responses that are based on compliance when there are externally imposed. 430 00:54:11,620 --> 00:54:17,260 Now, it's no time for a fourth big question, which there isn't. 431 00:54:17,260 --> 00:54:25,570 I think it would have to be huge. Can we get it or is there any possible way we could even get close to this? 432 00:54:25,570 --> 00:54:28,110 There isn't time for this. But I do want to know. 433 00:54:28,110 --> 00:54:38,320 He said he thinks that in the book, we talk about promising practises and we identified nine of these in the final chapter of my book. 434 00:54:38,320 --> 00:54:46,930 Each of these nine is relevant in some way to our concept of democratic accountability in teacher education. 435 00:54:46,930 --> 00:54:57,040 The practises are different from one another. They're drawn from different levels of practise, so there are a few local teacher education programmes. 436 00:54:57,040 --> 00:55:06,490 There are a few local teacher education programmes that have gone up further to scale and have now multiple programmes like that. 437 00:55:06,490 --> 00:55:14,470 There's a teacher performance assessment developed by a statewide network of all of the teacher educators in one state. 438 00:55:14,470 --> 00:55:20,320 There is a not a new national and educator preparation accreditation, 439 00:55:20,320 --> 00:55:31,300 and the jury's still out on this just was announced that it was going to the press and a new national advocacy organisation of education school deans. 440 00:55:31,300 --> 00:55:36,910 So we are not saying that any of these accomplished democratic accountability. 441 00:55:36,910 --> 00:55:44,650 But we think that maybe they provide a proof of possibility that there are some places where people 442 00:55:44,650 --> 00:55:51,700 are doing some things that are in sync with what we're talking about in front of the cameras. 443 00:55:51,700 --> 00:56:02,780 I can't end without saying. That these are really tough times for teacher education in the US and a lot of other places. 444 00:56:02,780 --> 00:56:06,080 And it's not just a few million dollars for a moment. 445 00:56:06,080 --> 00:56:15,310 It's apparent in the US that the Trump administration favours neither strong democracy nor strong equity. 446 00:56:15,310 --> 00:56:27,290 So rather. Neither, although Trump shows little direct interest in education and some of us think that we should probably be grateful for. 447 00:56:27,290 --> 00:56:37,960 The Trump administration is presiding, so is relegated people over multiple options that are diminishing the protection of minority 448 00:56:37,960 --> 00:56:46,870 student groups and some people have claimed possibly represent a new low in terms of equity. 449 00:56:46,870 --> 00:56:50,930 When I walk with it, you tell me a little bit about the. 450 00:56:50,930 --> 00:57:03,190 But I think we also have bigger problems and deeper fault lines that are not unique to the US and weren't invented or introduced by the Trump era. 451 00:57:03,190 --> 00:57:09,070 Although his presidency has dramatically exacerbated, it's so across many developed countries, 452 00:57:09,070 --> 00:57:16,210 as I said at the beginning, we have growing income inequality, we have intergenerational poverty, 453 00:57:16,210 --> 00:57:21,790 we have persistent disparities in the educational opportunities and outcomes of 454 00:57:21,790 --> 00:57:26,590 people from historically privileged and minorities for disadvantaged groups. 455 00:57:26,590 --> 00:57:34,660 We have the emergence of conservative nationalism, a backlash against immigrants and immigration policies. 456 00:57:34,660 --> 00:57:43,840 We have the acute polarisation of various groups of people and in some countries led by me. 457 00:57:43,840 --> 00:57:53,770 I think I am very ashamed to say we have unprecedented and nearly unbelievable degrees of bigotry 458 00:57:53,770 --> 00:58:04,360 and contempt exhibited by people at the highest levels of leadership about diversity of every kind. 459 00:58:04,360 --> 00:58:12,340 These are tough times, even dangerous times, I think, for teacher education and for democracy. 460 00:58:12,340 --> 00:58:17,050 Given all this, I mean, given all this, we should all just go ahead and bring this. 461 00:58:17,050 --> 00:58:19,170 Possible, but in conclusion, 462 00:58:19,170 --> 00:58:28,920 I just want to raise some questions about what it might look like to reclaim teacher education accountability for democracy. 463 00:58:28,920 --> 00:58:37,320 So for example, there's a question what would state national or professional teaching standards or curriculum 464 00:58:37,320 --> 00:58:46,410 frameworks look like if teachers were expected to teach students the skills of disagreement, 465 00:58:46,410 --> 00:58:48,700 deliberation and perspective? 466 00:58:48,700 --> 00:59:00,810 To what would teacher preparation programme accreditation look like if programmes have to show evidence of democratic outcomes? 467 00:59:00,810 --> 00:59:08,820 What might countrywide reporting requirements and regulations, which we have in the U.S. include, 468 00:59:08,820 --> 00:59:17,250 is the definition of recruitment and persistence didn't just mean whether people entered and stayed in teaching, 469 00:59:17,250 --> 00:59:23,850 but included whether they make persistent efforts to challenge existing systems, 470 00:59:23,850 --> 00:59:30,840 school structures and policies that reproduce exactly what advocacy groups, 471 00:59:30,840 --> 00:59:40,060 business interests or philanthropists might invest their time and resources in reporting to the. 472 00:59:40,060 --> 00:59:47,140 The progress initial teacher education programmes were making for Democratic candidates. 473 00:59:47,140 --> 00:59:55,210 What if we recast teacher education accountability as the mutual intelligent responsibility of all 474 00:59:55,210 --> 01:00:02,770 stakeholders based on commitment to the public good and to democratic goals like deliberation, 475 01:00:02,770 --> 01:00:12,700 disagreement and dialogue? In short, what if we worked from the outrageous assumption that accountability should serve democracy, 476 01:00:12,700 --> 01:00:20,500 not global competition and economic power for a relatively small so few people? 477 01:00:20,500 --> 01:00:29,750 I think that one of the things we ought to do in future education is try to find out what is the accountability service. 478 01:00:29,750 --> 01:00:36,299 Thank.