{"title":"中介组织、技术官僚话语与教师教育问责制度的兴起","authors":"Elena Aydarova","doi":"10.1177/00224871231174835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Intermediary organizations’ (IOs) involvement in teacher education policies has grown in recent years. Apart from advocating for the introduction of alternative routes into the teaching profession, IOs have facilitated the spread of outcomes-based teacher preparation accountability. While previous studies examined the neoliberal market-based logic of their proposals, less is known about technocracy as a discourse informing teacher education redesign. To address this gap, I use the tools of critical policy and critical discourse analysis to examine how IOs advocated for and participated in the construction of outcomes-based accountability regimes. This analysis captures key elements of technocracy, such as the depoliticization of social issues, scientism, and the dismissal of opposition on which accountability regimes are built. By attending to the assumptions and inherent contradictions of technocratic discourses, I shed light on the ways in which accountability regimes dismiss opposition and seek to refashion governance structures in teacher education.","PeriodicalId":17162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teacher Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education\",\"authors\":\"Elena Aydarova\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00224871231174835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Intermediary organizations’ (IOs) involvement in teacher education policies has grown in recent years. Apart from advocating for the introduction of alternative routes into the teaching profession, IOs have facilitated the spread of outcomes-based teacher preparation accountability. While previous studies examined the neoliberal market-based logic of their proposals, less is known about technocracy as a discourse informing teacher education redesign. To address this gap, I use the tools of critical policy and critical discourse analysis to examine how IOs advocated for and participated in the construction of outcomes-based accountability regimes. This analysis captures key elements of technocracy, such as the depoliticization of social issues, scientism, and the dismissal of opposition on which accountability regimes are built. By attending to the assumptions and inherent contradictions of technocratic discourses, I shed light on the ways in which accountability regimes dismiss opposition and seek to refashion governance structures in teacher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231174835\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871231174835","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Intermediary Organizations, Technocratic Discourses, and the Rise of Accountability Regimes in Teacher Education
Intermediary organizations’ (IOs) involvement in teacher education policies has grown in recent years. Apart from advocating for the introduction of alternative routes into the teaching profession, IOs have facilitated the spread of outcomes-based teacher preparation accountability. While previous studies examined the neoliberal market-based logic of their proposals, less is known about technocracy as a discourse informing teacher education redesign. To address this gap, I use the tools of critical policy and critical discourse analysis to examine how IOs advocated for and participated in the construction of outcomes-based accountability regimes. This analysis captures key elements of technocracy, such as the depoliticization of social issues, scientism, and the dismissal of opposition on which accountability regimes are built. By attending to the assumptions and inherent contradictions of technocratic discourses, I shed light on the ways in which accountability regimes dismiss opposition and seek to refashion governance structures in teacher education.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal of Teacher Education, the flagship journal of AACTE, is to serve as a research forum for a diverse group of scholars who are invested in the preparation and continued support of teachers and who can have a significant voice in discussions and decision-making around issues of teacher education. One of the fundamental goals of the journal is the use of evidence from rigorous investigation to identify and address the increasingly complex issues confronting teacher education at the national and global levels. These issues include but are not limited to preparing teachers to effectively address the needs of marginalized youth, their families and communities; program design and impact; selection, recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups; local and national policy; accountability; and routes to certification. JTE does not publish book reviews, program evaluations or articles solely describing programs, program components, courses or personal experiences. In addition, JTE does not accept manuscripts that are solely about the development or validation of an instrument unless the use of that instrument yields data providing new insights into issues of relevance to teacher education (MSU, February 2016).