Teacher education programs in the United States face a variety of new accountability policies at both the federal and the state level. Many of these policies carry high-stakes implications for students and programs and involve some of the same challenges for implementation as they have in the P-12 arena. Serious dilemmas for teacher educators arise in these contexts, as compliance with prescriptive state mandates is often interpreted by faculty to signify a demoralizing loss of program autonomy and integrity, whereas noncompliance may result in loss of program accreditation. The authors describe how one teacher education program negotiated these dilemmas in a fashion responsive to local values and concerns while also meeting state requirements. Results are discussed in terms of tensions between (a) policy goals seeking alignment and coherence across institutions of higher education and (b) motivational conditions likely to engage faculty in the difficult work of programmatic renewal and change in teacher education.
Anagnostopoulos, D., Smith, E., & Basmadjian, K. (2007). Bridging the university-school divide: Horizontal expertise and the "twoworlds pitfall."Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 138-152.
2.
Apple, M. ( 2001). Markets, standards, teaching and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(3), 182-195.
3.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. ( 1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Bales, B. ( 2006). Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teaching and Teacher Education , 22, 395-407.
5.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1978). Federal programs supporting educational change: Vol. VIII. Implementing and sustaining innovations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6.
Billett, S. ( 2003). Sociogenesis, activity and ontogeny. Culture and Psychology, 9(2), 133-169.
7.
Boreham, N., & Morgan, C. ( 2004). A socio-cultural analysis of organizational learning . Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 307-325.
8.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. ( 1991). Organizational learning and communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organizational Science, 2, 40-57.
9.
Coburn, C., & Stein, M. ( 2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher professional community in policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 25-46). Albany: State University of New York.
10.
Cochran-Smith, M. ( 2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11). Retrieved January 22, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n11.html
11.
Darling-Hammond, L. ( 2001). Teacher testing and the improvement of practice. Teaching Education, 12(1), 11-34.
12.
Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. ( 2004). Political rationales and ideological stances of the standards-based reform of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 1-15.
13.
Engestrom, Y. ( 1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental work research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
14.
Engestrom, Y. ( 2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133-156.
15.
Finnegan, K., & Gross, B. ( 2007). Do accountability policies influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594-620.
16.
Gallucci, C. ( 2003). Theorizing responses to reform: The role of communities of practice in teacher learning. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
17.
Gallucci, C. ( 2007). Using sociocultural theory to link individual and organizational learning processes: The case of Highline School Districts’ instructional improvement reform. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
18.
Gallucci, C. ( 2008). Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support in the context of school district instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 114, 541-581.
19.
Gee, J., & Suckow, M. ( 2007). Annual report card on California teacher preparation programs 2005-06. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
20.
Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. ( 1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. ( 1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Honig, M. ( 2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation (pp. 1-23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Hubbard, L., Mehan, H., & Stein, M.K. ( 2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.
24.
Huber, G.P. ( 1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organizational Science, 2, 88-115.
25.
Kornfeld, J., Grady, K., Marker, P., & Ruddell, M. ( 2007). Caught in the current: A self-study of state-mandated compliance in a teacher education program. Teachers College Record, 109(8), 1902-1930.
26.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. ( 1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Leont’ev, A. ( 1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
28.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
McDonnell, L., & Elmore, R. ( 1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 133-152.
30.
McNeil, L.M. ( 2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
31.
Merriam, S.B. ( 1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. ( 1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
33.
Meynell, F. ( 2005). A second order approach to evaluating and facilitating organizational change. Action Research, 3(2), 211-231.
34.
Nelson, T. G. (Ed.). (2003). In response to increasing state and national control over the teacher education profession [Special issue]. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(1).
35.
Peck, C., Gallucci, C., Sloan, T., & Lippincott, A. (2009). Organizational learning and program renewal in teacher education: A socio-cultural theory of learning, innovation and change. Educational Research Review. 4, 16-25.
36.
Rowan, B. ( 1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the organizational design of schools. Review of Research in Education , 16, 353-389.
37.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. ( 2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist , 55(1), 68-78.
38.
Thompson, C., & Zueli, J. ( 1999). The frame and its tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341-375). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Tuomi-Gröhn, T. ( 2003). Developmental transfer as a goal of internship in practical nursing. In T. Tuomi-Gröhn & Y. Engestrom (Eds.), Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary crossing (pp. 199-231). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
40.
van den Berg, R. ( 2002). Teachers’ meanings regarding educational practice . Review of Educational Research, 72(4), 577-625.
41.
Vixie Sandy, M. ( 2006). Timing is everything: Building state policy on teacher credentialing in an era of multiple, competing, and rapid education reforms . Issues in Teacher Education, 15(1), 7-19.
42.
Wasley, P., & McDiarmid, G.W. (2003, July). Tying the assessment of new teachers to student learning and to teacher preparation. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, Denver, CO.
43.
Weatherly, R., & Lipsky, M. ( 1977). Street-level bureaucrats and institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
44.
Wechsler, M., Tiffany-Morales, J., Campbell, A., Humphrey, D., Kim, D., Shields, P., et al. (2007). The status of the teaching profession 2007 . Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
45.
Wenger, E. ( 1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Whitford, B., & Jones, K. ( 2000). Accountability, assessment, and teacher commitment: Lessons from Kentucky’s reform efforts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
47.
Whittaker, A., Snyder, J., & Freeman, S. ( 2001). Restoring balance: A chronology of the development and uses of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 85-107.
48.
Yin, R.K. ( 2003). Case study research design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
