USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Educational policy analysis archives


Material Information

Educational policy analysis archives
Physical Description:
Arizona State University
University of South Florida
Arizona State University
University of South Florida.
Place of Publication:
Tempe, Ariz
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - E11-00208
usfldc handle - e11.208
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


1 of 56 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 9 Number 11April 2, 2001ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2001, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education .Constructing Outcomes in Teacher Education: Policy, Practice and Pitfalls Marilyn Cochran-Smith Boston CollegeAbstractAs we enter the twenty-first century, the outcomes, consequences, and results of teacher education have become critical t opics in nearly all of the state and national policy debates about teacher preparation and licensure as well as in the development of many of the privately and publicly funded research agendas related to teacher and student learning. In this article, I argue that teacher education ref orm over the last fifty years has been driven by a series of questions abou t policy and practice. The question that is currently driving reform and p olicy in teacher education is what I refer to as "the outcomes quest ion." This question asks how we should conceptualize and define the out comes of teacher education for teacher learning, professional practi ce, and student learning, as well as how, by whom, and for what pur poses these outcomes should be documented, demonstrated, and/or measured. In this article, I suggest that the outcomes question in te acher education is being conceptualized and constructed in quite different w ays depending on the


2 of 56policy, research, and practice contexts in which th e question is posed as well as on the political and professional motives o f the posers. The article begins with an overview of the policy conte xt, including those reforms and initiatives that have most influenced h ow outcomes are currently being constructed, debated, and enacted i n teacher education. Then I identify and analyze three major "takes" on the outcomes question in teacher education—outcomes as the long-term or g eneral impacts of teacher education, outcomes as teacher candidates' scores on high stakes teacher tests, and outcomes as the professional per formances of teacher candidates, particularly their demonstrated ability to influence student learning. For each of these approaches to outcomes, I examine underlying assumptions about teaching and schooling the evidence and criteria used for evaluation, units of analysis, an d consequences for the profession. I point out that how we construct outco mes in teacher education (including how we make the case that some outcomes matter more than others) legitimizes but also undermines p articular points of view about the purposes of schooling, the nature of teaching and learning, and the role of teacher education in educ ational reform. In the second half of the article, I offer critique across the three constructions of outcomes, exploring the possibilities as well as th e pitfalls involved in the outcomes debate. In this section, I focus on th e tensions between professional consensus and critique, problems with the inputs-outputs metaphor, the need to get social justice onto the o utcomes agenda, problems with the characterization of teachers as e ither saviors or culprits, and the connection of outcomes to educati onal reform strategies that are either democratic or market-driven. In public opinion polls of what concerns Am ericans most, education has ranked higher than the economy, the environment, and even crime (Mosle, 1996). Since 1996, the New York Times alone has printed 1,220 articles about teacher qua lity and 920 articles about teacher testing. And, as the followi ng excerpt from the first Bush-Gore presidential debate indicates, the quality of publi c schools and of the nation's teaching force has now reached center stage in national poli tics (not to mention its continued central role in state and local politics): Mr. Lehrer (Debate Moderator): All right. So, havin g heard the two of you, voters have just heard the two of you, what's the d ifference? What's the choice between the two of you on education?Mr. Bush: Well the first—first is, the difference i s, there is no new accountability measures in Vice President Gore's pl an. He says he's for voluntary testing. You can 't have voluntary testin g. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money, you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. That's the difference. You may claim you' ve got mandatory testing, but you don't. Mr. Vice President. And that is a hu ge difference. Testing is the cornerstone of reform…Mr. Gore: Well first of all, I do have mandatory te sting. I think the governor


3 of 56may not have heard what I said clearly. The volunta ry national test is in addition to the mandatory testing that we will requ ire of states—all schools, all school districts, students themselves and requi red teacher testing, which goes a step farther than Governor Bush has been wil ling to go ( New York Times Archives, 2000). These comments from then presidential candidates Ge orge Bush and Al Gore reflect the current national attention to teacher quality and i ts frequent identical twin, teacher testing. In the media, in public policy debates, an d within the profession of teaching and teacher education itself, there is unprecedented em phasis on accountability, results, and outcomes, or at a fundamental level, what connectio n the public has a right to expect among teaching, schooling, and student learning. In this article, I consider these issues by focusing specifically on preservice teacher education. I argue that "the outcomes question in t eacher education" (Cochran-Smith, 2000, a, b; in press) is currently driving the fiel d and to a great extent, determining policy and practice. I begin this article by review ing the policy context, including those reforms and initiatives that have most influenced h ow outcomes are being constructed, debated, and enacted in teacher education. Then I i dentify three major "takes" on teacher education outcomes—outcomes as the long-term or gen eral impacts of teacher education, outcomes as teacher candidates' scores o n high stakes teacher tests, and outcomes as the professional performances of teache r candidates, particularly their demonstrated ability to influence student learning. For each of these three constructions of outcomes, I consider underlying assumptions abou t teaching and learning, evidence and criteria used for evaluation, units of analysis and consequences for the profession. I conclude by considering in some detail the pitfalls and problems that are implicated in various constructions of teacher education outcomes .The Questions That Drive Reform in Teacher Educatio n The recent history of teacher education—rou ghly the last half century—has been analyzed in terms of philosophical and epistemologi cal positions, historical trends, and paradigms of inquiry (Borrowman, 1956; Floden & Buc hman, 1990; Griffin, 1999; Klausmeier, 1990; Lucas, 1999; Shulman, 1986; Urban 1990; Yarger & Smith, 1990; Zeichner, 1988). Another way to think about and tra ce teacher education reform, however, is in terms of the major questions that ha ve driven the field and the varying and sometimes competing ways these questions are co nstructed, debated, and enacted in research, policy, and practice. Along these lines, a very loosely chronolog ical (and necessarily simplified) list of the major questions that have driven teacher educat ion reform over the last 50 years might go something like this: the attributes questi on, the effectiveness question, the knowledge question, and what I am proposing we now think of as "the outcomes question" in teacher education. Each of these quest ions both shaped and was shaped by the political climate, the degree and kind of publi c attention to K-12 schooling, the perceived supply and demand of teachers, federal an d state policies and funding programs, perceptions of teacher education as a pro fession and an area of scholarship that ought to be located (or not) in colleges and u niversities, and emerging and competing paradigms and programs of research on tea ching, teacher learning, and teaching/learning/curriculum in the subject areas.


4 of 56The Attributes Question The attributes question, which was promine nt from roughly the early 1950s through the1960s, asked, "What are the attributes a nd qualities of good teachers, prospective teachers, and teacher education program s?" Explored through studies of the personal characteristics of teachers and teacher ed ucators, versions of this question emphasized both attributes related to personal inte grity and human sensitivity (the "character" of the teacher or prospective teacher) as well as attributes of the liberally educated and/or academically able person (the "qual ity" of the teacher or prospective teacher). A different version of the attributes que stion was central to critiques of teacher education programs and faculty, especially the degr ee to which they provided (or, more often, failed to provide) intellectually rigorous, discipline-based training for new and experienced teachers worthy of a place in the unive rsity. This version of the attributes question animated program decisions and policy deba tes about the balance between professional versus arts and sciences courses for p rospective teachers, the academic qualifications and scholarship (or lack thereof) of teacher education students and faculty, and the organizational structures of teacher educat ion programs. The Effectiveness Question The effectiveness question focused differe nt issues: "What are the teaching strategies and processes used by effective teachers and, what teacher education processes are most effective in ensuring that prosp ective teachers learn these strategies?" This question drove many of the developments and re forms in teacher education during the late 1960s through the mid 1980s. Influenced by new studies of the "scientific basis of teaching" and by empirical evidence about effect ive teaching strategies, many teacher education programs developed systems for evaluating prospective teachers according to scientific objectives and stated performance criter ia (Gage, 1972). Checklists and other forms of assessment attempted to align classroom te achers' practices with the criteria used by fieldwork supervisors to evaluate the pract ice of teacher candidates and also with teacher education processes, programs, and lan guage. Some of the other questions that shaped this period arose at least partly in re sponse to perceived flaws in the effectiveness question (Shulman, 1986). New questio ns rooted in anthropological and sociolinguistic theories about the meanings of clas sroom events for participants, for example, countered the effectiveness question and p ointed to what was left out of discussions that focused on effective teacher behav iors (Erickson, 1986). The Knowledge Question Prompted by but also concurrent with publi c concern about the quality of teaching and teacher education, the knowledge question drove the field from the early 1980s through the late 1990s. This question became mantra throughout the field, "What should teachers know and be able to do?" and/or, its compa nion, "What should the knowledge base of teacher education be?" At the heart of the knowledge question was the desire to professionalize teaching and teacher education by b uilding a common knowledge base for the profession. Building on early research abou t teachers' thinking and on emerging knowledge in the various subject matter disciplines related to children's learning, the knowledge question moved the field away from an emp hasis on what effective teachers


5 of 56do to a focus on what they know and need to know, t he knowledge sources they use, how they organize and evaluate knowledge (Barnes, 1 989), and how they learn to construct new knowledge that is appropriate for dif fering local contexts (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993), particularly for increasingly diver se learners (Banks, 1996). Versions of the knowledge question identif ied and made distinctions among formal and practical knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994), peda gogical content knowledge (L. Shulman, 1987), case knowledge (J. Shulman, 1992), craft knowledge (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992); knowledge in action (Schon, 1983) reflection on knowledge (Schon, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1987), culturally relevant knowledge (Ladson Billings, 1995; Irvine, 1990), and local knowledge generated through teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993) and/or action researc h (Noffke, 1997). Prompted in part by new programs of research and in part by changing accreditation standards, the knowledge question drove major policies and program revisions in teacher education intended to ensure that the burgeoning codified kno wledge base was at the center of the curriculum (Reynolds, 1989; Murray, 1996). Some ver sions of the knowledge question concentrated on the contexts within which prospecti ve teachers could gain the knowledge and practices they need. This question pr ompted the development of new teacher education contexts, including school-univer sity partnerships (Sirotnik & Goodlad, 1988; Jacobson, et. al, 1998), professiona l development schools (Holmes Group, 1996; Levine & Trachtman, 1997), and new for ms of collaboration among beginning and experienced teachers, teacher educato rs, and arts and sciences faculty (Goodlad, 1994; Patterson, Michelli, & Pacheco, 199 9). Questioning the Questions As we close the twentieth century and open the twenty-first, the major question that is driving the field is the outcomes question in te acher education, which I explore in the remainder of this article. Before turning to the ou tcomes question, however, several other comments are important. First it is important to point out that the questions I have sketched above are not simply research questions, a lthough each of them has research aspects, and several have spawned major programs of empirical study. Each of them also has to do with policy and practice in teacher educa tion and with the intersections as well as disconnects among the three. More important to n ote, however, is the fact that each of these animating questions is also in some fundament al way a question about the priorities and goals of the profession (and even of the nation). As James Hiebert (1999) points out in a thoughtful article about the relati onships between mathematics research and National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NC TM) standards, the rightness or legitimacy of priorities and goals are questions of value and belief rather than questions of evidence that can suggest educational policies b ased on varying levels of confidence. Values questions, of course, cannot be settled empi rically. It is important to acknowledge, however, that in some cases, policies and practices are driven more by values than by empirical evidence, and, as I indica te throughout this article, all policies and programs of research are ideological in a certa in sense. Second, I want to make it clear that the s hort list I have offered here does not presume to include the only questions that have dri ven the field of teacher education nor even necessarily what some people would consider to be the most important questions. There has not been complete consensus in teacher ed ucation at any point over the last half century—nor is there now—about which questions are the right ones to ask. There have always been—and hopefully will continue to be— competing questions as well as questions that critique, play off of, and take on t he major animating issues. Thus my


6 of 56short list knowingly leaves out a host of important issues and critical questions that have been explored energetically by practitioners, polic y makers, and researchers in teacher education. Finally it is important to note that none of the questions I have loosely associated with particular time periods was settled during tha t time period or disappeared from consideration after that time. Rather many of the q uestions that drive the field during particular eras are periodically recycled, reemphas ized, and rethreaded into new and current intersections of research, practice, and po licy in ways that may or may not appear to be different from their previous iterations. For example, some of the questions about intellectual rigor in teacher education programs an d the questionable scholarship of teacher education faculty that were prominent in th e late 1950s and early 1960s reemerged in the 1980s (Earley, 2000). Even though the "new" critiques apparently had little to offer that was different from the old (Ze ichner, 1988), they were nonetheless different in that they emerged in the context of a different social and political climate. Similarly, as I suggest below, some of the underlyi ng assumptions of 1970s and 80s questions about the relationships of teaching and l earning processes and products (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974) are being recycled into som e current versions of the outcomes question in teacher education, and of course some o utcomes questions were also explored in the early and mid 1980s. Old questions, however, are never just "same ole" old questions. They are instead "new" old questions because they have a different import and a different set of implications when they are w oven into the tapestry of a changed and changing political, social, and economic time. The Outcomes Question As we enter the twenty-first century, the outcomes, consequences, and results of teacher education have become critical topics in ne arly all of the state and national policy debates about teacher preparation and licens ure as well as in the development of many of the privately and publicly funded research agendas related to teacher and student learning. If the major question that drove the field during the last fifteen years was, "What should teachers and teacher candidates k now and be able to do?" then the driving question for the last three or four has bee n, "How will we know when (and if) teachers and teacher candidates know and can do wha t they ought to know and be able to do?" In the remainder of this article, I elaborate and analyze how policy makers, practitioners, and researchers are constructing the outcomes question in teacher education, examining what I argue are its three maj or forms. First, however, I briefly consider the larger policy and professional context s out of which the outcomes question in teacher education emerged and continues to evolv e.Policy and Professional ContextsOf the Outcomes Debate in Teacher Education The context of reform in teacher education has been analyzed and described at great length from policy (Darling-Hammond, Wise & K lein, 1999; Kaplan & Edelfelt, 1996), curricular (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; G riffin, 1999), organizational (Jacobson, Emihovich, Helfrich, Petrie, & Stevenson 1998; Patterson, Michelli, & Pacheco, 1999), and political (Gallagher & Bailey, 2000; Hudson & Lambert, 1997) perspectives. In the section that follows, I sketch the outlines of what might be thought of as the policy and professional context of the ou tcomes debate in teacher education, or, those reforms and developments in teacher education that have had a strong influence on


7 of 56how the outcomes question is currently being constr ucted, critiqued, and enacted. Professionalization of Teaching First and perhaps foremost, the outcomes d ebate is deeply embedded in the movement to professionalize teaching and to secure for teaching and teacher education a legitimate place among other health and human servi ces professions. As is now well-documented, there has been a major effort over the last 15 years to codify and disseminate the formal knowledge base for teaching and teacher education in order to insure that teacher education is no longer a normat ive, natural, or intuitive process (Gardner, 1989). Prompted in large part by nationwi de criticisms of teaching and teacher education in the early and mid 1980s (Carnegie Task Force on the Teaching Profession, 1986; Holmes Group, 1986; National Commission on Ex cellence in Education, 1983) and by early work about teachers' thinking (Clark & Peterson, 1986) and knowledge (Shulman, 1986, 1987), the professionalization move ment was intended to make teacher education a state-of-the-art field by establishing an official and formal body of knowledge that distinguished professional educators from lay persons (Gardner, 1989; Yinger, 1999). The development of standards for the profe ssion has been a central part of the professionalization movement. Since the mid 1980s, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has eval uated teacher preparation programs according to the professional knowledge ba ses and later the conceptual frameworks that shaped and connected the various co ursework and fieldwork pieces of the curriculum. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) was established in 1987 as the first professional organ ization in the teaching profession to establish standards for the advanced certification of highly experienced and successful teachers. These were parallel to the model performa nce-based licensing standards developed by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), which was initiated in 1987 by the Counci l of Chief State School Officers to support the work of states in rethinking and reinve nting teacher preparation and teacher licensing (Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000). NCATE 200 0 standards also offer performance standards in keeping with those of NBPT S and INTASC (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1999). This means that there are major efforts now well underway to develop a common national system o f accreditation of "professionally grounded and performance-based standards for educat ion, licensing, and certification" (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1999, p. 11) that is remarkably broad-based in its support and connects the accreditation of teacher p reparation institutions with initial state licensing systems as well as systems for the advanced certification of experienced teachers. All of these center on authentic assessme nt of teacher performance. As Yinger argues quite persuasively (Yinge r, 1999; Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000), standards always play a critical role in the process of professionalization by establishing public definitions of effectiveness, p erformance criteria for thinking and action, and goals for initial and continuing profes sional learning. Notwithstanding the critique that professional standards for teaching a nd teacher education are largely provisional and unvalidated—based on a consensus of professional educators and an emerging knowledge base rather than on tested outco mes and solid evidence (Murray, 1996, 2000), standards are now part of state licens ing requirements in most states are play a major role in the outcomes context.New Understandings of Teacher Learning


8 of 56 Part of the professionalization of teachin g and teacher education was mounting recognition that training models were inadequate to the major tasks of teaching and school reform, and new models of professional devel opment for prospective and experienced teachers were required (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Little, 1993; McLaughlin, 1994; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 199 5). In fact, as we enter the new century, it is now being suggested that there i s a "new paradigm" for professional development and a "new professional consensus" abou t what teacher education and teacher learning need to look like in order to hand le the new tasks of teaching and learning in restructured schools (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999; Hawley & Valli, 1999; Stein, Smith & Silver, 1999). As I have sugge sted elsewhere (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2000), the general orientation of the "new" approach to professional development is more constructivist than transmissionoriented; it is based on the recognition that both prospective and experienced teachers (like all lear ners) bring prior knowledge and experience to all new learning situations, which ar e social and specific. In addition, it is now generally understood that teacher learning take s place over time rather than in isolated moments in time, and that active learning requires opportunities to link previous knowledge with new understandings. It also has been widely acknowledged that professional development needs to be linked to educ ational reform (Loucks-Horsley, 1995) and needs to focus on "culture-building" not skills training (Lieberman & Miller, 1994). It is generally agreed that professional dev elopment that is linked to student learning and curricular reform should be embedded i n the daily life of schools (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Elmore & Burney, 1997) and should feature opportunities for teachers to inquire systematically about how teachi ng practice constructs different kinds of learning opportunities for students (Little, 199 3; Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993). These new understandings about teac her learning are consistent and intertwined with the emerging standards for the pro fession noted above. Standards for Curriculum and Subject Matter Teachin g At the same time that researchers and pract itioners in teaching and teacher education were working to build and codify a knowle dge base, new frameworks for teaching, learning, and curriculum in almost every K-12 subject area were also being developed by the discipline-based professional orga nizations such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the N ational Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). These were based on new understandi ngs about learning, cognition, and the socio-psycho-cultural construction of subje ct matter understandings. These were intended to promote teaching for meaning and unders tanding and explicitly to avoid narrow emphases on skills development and rote lear ning. New curriculum frameworks were eventually implemented in almost every state, and in most of these, they were coupled with new standards for K-12 student achieve ment. In most states, new teaching and learning standards were eventually accompanied by high stakes paper and pencil assessments intended to be tightly aligned with the knowledge and skills outlined in the new curriculum frameworks, which in turn were to be tightly aligned with the new knowledge bases in each of the disciplinary areas a s established by the professional organizations. Taken together, these developments f ormed the backbone of the standards movement and what Robert Roth (1996) has called "th e age of standards." National Commission on Teaching and America's Futur e


9 of 56 Undoubte dly one of the most influential fa ctors in the policy context was the publication in 1996 of What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (Report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's F uture) and the materials that followed it— Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teach ing (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1997), Studies of Excellence in Teacher Education (Darling-Hammond, 2000, b), and Promising Practices: New Ways to Improve Teacher Quality (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). As Gallagher and Bailey (2000) point out, privately commissioned blu e ribbon reports such as National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF) —and before it the Flexner Report on medical education and The Reed Report on legal education—have been used since the early part of the twentieth century to ca ll public attention to perceived crises of national importance and to shape the discourse amon g practitioners, policy makers and the general public. NCTAF's Executive Director, Lin da Darling-Hammond, along with colleagues and collaborators in the policy, researc h, and practice of teacher education, have been explicit and tireless in getting the word out about the central message of the report: what teachers know and can do is the single most important influence on how and what students learn (NCTAF, 1996; Darling-Hammo nd, 1998 a,b, 2000b; Darling-Hammond, Wise & Klein, 1999; Darling-Hammon d & Sykes, 1999; Gallagher & Bailey, 2000). Based on this premise, the policie s called for by NCTAF, many of which are now being implemented in states across th e country, is exquisitely clear: We propose an audacious goal for America's future. Within a decade—by the year 2006—we will provide every student in Amer ica with what should be his or her educational birthright: access to com petent, caring, qualified teaching in schools organized for success (NCTAF, 1 996, p. vi). NCTAF's now highly familiar list of recomm endations includes: getting serious about standards for students and teachers; reinvent ing teacher education and professional development; placing qualified teachers in every cl assroom in America; supporting and rewarding teachers' developing knowledge and skill; and creating schools organized to support and sustain student and teacher success. What is unprecedented about the commission's report is the call for all of its recommendations to be addressed in concert in order to achieve across the states a coherent and consistent system of reform in teacher education, teacher licensing, and teacher accreditation (NCTAF, 1997). This requires consistency across several major efforts, including the move toward performance-base d standards for teacher licensing, parallel efforts to develop authentic assessments o f teachers, and the development of national standards for teacher education, licensing and certification. These national efforts are being led by NCTAF, NBPTS, INTASC, and NCATE (Darling-Hammond, Wise, & Klein, 1999). Also unprecedented are the teeth that the NCTAF recommendations now have in terms of federal money and policy related to profes sional development, teacher education, and federal grants (Earley, 2000). In 19 97, the Department of Education sponsored a five year, $23 million consortium of re search universities and professional organizations in order to develop a research base s upporting the implementation of recommendations put forth by NCTAF. In 1998 the Hig her Education Act (HEA) was signed into law; of particular importance in terms of the policy context for the outcomes debate are the mandatory (but unfunded) accountabil ity requirements for states and higher education institutions contained in Title II (Earley, 2000). These require that all states and colleges/universities that receive any f ederal dollars through HEA must


10 of 56provide annual information on the performance of al l teacher candidates recommended by an institution on each measure required for lice nsure. These data will be compiled into institutional and state report cards intended to serve as indicators of "the health of the teacher education enterprise" (Earley, 2000), w hich will provide public rankings of each teacher education institution .New Standards for Teacher Education Accreditation What is closest to day-to-day work of teach er educators are the new outcomes-based approaches to evaluating teacher pre paration programs and institutions. An outcomes-based approach is now in effect at NCAT E (1999), the major teacher education accrediting agency. Emphasizing outcomes rather than inputs was also a major reason for the founding of newcomer accrediting org anization, Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) (Teacher Education Acc reditation Council, 1999). Although fewer than half of the nation's teacher pr eparation institutions are currently accredited, NCATEaccredited institutions produce two thirds of the nation's teachers. In addition, NCATE has relationships with 40-some s tates, and some are moving to require all teacher preparation institutions to see k accreditation from either NCATE or TEAC (Wise, 1999). In recent articles and symposia, NCATE 200 0's new focus on outcomes has been described as a "paradigm shift from inputs to outpu ts" (AACTE, 2000), a "bold" and "daring… plunge into the world of performance asses sment and performance standards" (Schlalock & Imig, 2000, p. 4), and a "major shift from curriculumoriented standards to performance-based standards that focus on what t eacher candidates know and are able to do" (Wise, 1999, p. 5). NCATE's prior standards were described by critics as merely "counting courses" or focusing on curriculum conten t instead of paying attention to results. The new standards focus on what teacher ca ndidates can actually do in schools and classrooms by emphasizing performance, particul arly in relation to students' learning. The new standards, which received final a pproval in 2000, are effective for all institutions seeking NCATE accreditation during or after Fall 2001. NCATE's new system will require schools of education to provide performance evidence of candidate competence, including state licensing examination r esults as well as summarized and sampled performance evidence of candidates' knowled ge and skill (Wise, 1999). The stated rationale for the first major section of the new standards, "Candidate Performance," makes this emphasis clear: The public expects that teachers of their children have sufficient knowledge of content to help all students meet standards for P-12 education. The teaching profession itself believes that student le arning is the goal of teaching. NCATE's Standard 1 reinforces the importa nce of this goal by requiring that teacher candidates know their conten t or subject matter, can teach, and can help all students learn . Candid ates for all professional education roles are expected to demonstrate positiv e effects on student learning. Teachers and teacher candidates should ha ve student learning as the focus of their work…Primary documentation for t his standard will be candidates' performance data prepared for national and/or state review …[including] performance assessment data collected internally by the unit and external data such as results on state licensin g tests and other assessments. (NCATE, 1999, pp. 7-9) The new NCATE standards are in keeping wit h movement to professionalize


11 of 56teaching and also consistent with recent developmen ts in specialized accreditation organizations more generally, where the emphasis ha s shifted from inputs to outcomes measures (Dill, 1998). This is part of a larger tre nd in higher education, what Graham, Lyman and Trow (1995) refer to as an "increasing cl amor to apply quantitative measures of academic outcomes to guarantee educational quali ty for consumers" (p. 7) at the higher education level. The Deregulation Movement The aspects of the policy context for the outcomes debate that I have mentioned so far are in sync with one another in certain importa nt ways —the development of standards for subject matter teaching, new understa ndings of teacher learning, new standards for the accreditation of teacher educatio n institutions, and the efforts of NCTAF, NBPTS, INTASC, and NCATE to unify teacher pr eparation, licensing, and certification. All of these are consistent with the first item on the list—the movement to establish teaching (and teacher education) as a leg itimate profession with a well-established knowledge base (Reynolds, 1989; Mu rray, 1996; Houston, 1990; Sikula, 1996), jurisdictional responsibility for de fining and acting on professional problems (Yinger, 1999; Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 200 0), and clear principles or standards for professional practice (NCTAF, 1996; D arling-Hammond, Wise & Klein, 1999). Each of these initiatives works from but als o builds on the dual premises that caring, competent, and qualified teachers are essen tial to insuring rigorous learning opportunities for all children in America's schools and that upgrading teacher education and credentialing for the profession are necessary for ensuring that all children have such teachers. As is now well known, however, the profess ionalization movement is not the only national agenda related to teaching and teacher edu cation. There is also a well publicized and well-funded movement to deregulate teacher educ ation by dismantling teacher education institutions and breaking up the monopoly that the profession (i.e., schools of education, professional accrediting agencies, and m any state licensing departments) has, according to its critics, too long enjoyed. The der egulation movement, well-funded by conservative political groups like the Heritage Fou ndation, the Pioneer Institute, and the Fordham Foundation, begins with a premise that is r adically different from the premises of professionalization. Those who support deregulat ion assert that teacher education programs and most of the requirements of state lice nsing agencies are unnecessary hurdles that keep bright young people out of teachi ng and focus on social goals (even "social engineering") rather than academic achievem ent (Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999). Denigrating professionalization efforts as the "romance of regulation" (p. 3), the Fordham Foundation's 250 page volume on how to get "better schools" and "better teachers" (Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999), for example, i ntentionally frames its agenda in opposition to efforts to professionalize teaching a nd teacher education. The Fordham Foundation "manifesto" asserts: Today in response to widening concern about teacher quality, most states are tightening the regulatory vise, making it harde r to enter teaching by piling on new requirements for certification. On th e advice of some highly visible education groups, such as the National Comm ission on Teaching and America's Future, these states are also attempting to 'professionalize' teacher preparation by raising admissions criteria for trai ning programs and ensuring that these programs are all accredited by the National Council for


12 of 56the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Tha t organization is currently toughening its own standards to make accr edited programs longer, more demanding, and more focused on avant-garde edu cation ideas and social and political concerns… The regulatory strategy that states have f ollowed for at least the past generation has failed. The unfortunate results are obvious: able liberal arts graduates avoid teaching, those who endure the proc ess of acquiring pedagogical degrees refer to them as 'Mickey Mouse' programs, and over time the problems of supply and quality have been e xacerbated. When a strategy fails, it does not make much sense to do t he same thing with redoubled effort. Yet that is what many states are now doing. (pp. 45) Lest anyone think they eschew all regulati ons related to teacher education, editors of the Fordham volume concede that some regulation is necessary: Every child should be able to count on having a tea cher who has a solid general education, who possesses deep subject area knowledge, and who has no record of misbehavior. The state has an obli gation to ensure that all prospective teachers meet this minimal standard. (p 11) Publications by Chester Finn and colleague s (e.g., Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999; Finn, Kanstoroom, & Petrilli, 1999; Klagholz, 2000; Finn & Petrilli, 2000) advocate alternate routes into teaching, high stakes testing as the primary way to ensure teachers' subject matter knowledge, and a heavy emphasis in s chools on academic achievement, order, and discipline (Farkas & Johnson, 1997). Par t of a larger conservative political agenda for the privatization of American education, the deregulation movement is an influential part of the policy context in teacher e ducation and, as I argue here, it is playing a major role in the ways we construct outco mes in teacher education. Sorting Out the Outcomes Question The different ways outcomes are being cons tructed in teacher education rest on differing assumptions about what teachers and teach er candidates should know and be able to do, what K-12 students should know and be a ble to do, what counts as evidence of "knowing" and "doing," and what the ultimate pur poses of schooling should be. Different premises about the purposes of schooling mean different ways of demonstrating that teacher education programs and p rocedures are "accountable," "effective," or "value-added." Despite these differ ences, however, most discussions about teacher education outcomes have to do with th e connection between teacher education and student learning. In a certain sense, every debate related to outcomes assumes that the ultimate goal of teacher education is student learning and that there are certain measures that can be used to indicate the d egree to which this outcome is or is not being achieved by teacher candidates, K-12 stud ents, teacher educators, higher education institutions, local or state policies, an d the education profession itself. At a general level, then, the outcomes debate in teacher education revolves around these two questions: What should the outcomes of teacher education be fo r teacher learning, professional practice, and student learning?How, by whom, and for what purposes should these ou tcomes be


13 of 56documented, demonstrated, and/or measured? It is important to note that unanimity abo ut the outcomes questions we should be asking begins and ends here, at this rather surface level of understanding. If we move one level deeper in terms of specificity or elabora tion, we uncover disagreement. If we attempt to describe the relationship between teache r learning and professional practice, attempt to explain what we mean by teacher learning and student learning, attempt to elaborate the theoretical bases and consequences of the kinds of student learning we are trying to account for, or even attempt to define wh at we mean by "students" (which students? how many? all of them or some statistical ly significant portion of them?), we uncover differences, some of which represent deep p hilosophical and political divides. Notwithstanding the growing—and many say unpreceden ted—consensus about standards for teaching and teacher education (Darli ng-Hammond, 1996, 2000; Darling-Hammond, Wise & Klein, 1999), it is importa nt to acknowledge that there is considerable variation both within and outside the profession in terms of how outcomes are being constructed and upon what grounds they ar e being debated. The question of outcomes is being taken up in differing ways depending on the policy, research, and practice contexts in which it is posed as well as on the political and professional purposes of the posers. One way to sor t out different ways of constructing teacher education outcomes is to consider at least the following: How are "teacher learning," "professional practice, and "student learning" defined, or, what is used as a proxy for these? How are teacher learning, professional practice, and student learning assumed to be related to one another? What is assumed to be central or extraneous? 1. What counts as evidence of teacher learning and stu dent learning? What are the criteria against which the evidence is measured? Wh at is the source of these criteria? What is the unit of analysis? 2. What is assumed to be the larger purpose of schooli ng and the role of schooling in society? 3. What is the larger political and/or professional ag enda behind a given construction of outcomes? What are the consequences for policy a nd practice of constructing outcomes this way? 4. As Figure 1 indicates, at least three majo r ways of constructing outcomes in teacher education are currently receiving major att ention and visibility nationally, at the state level, and within teacher education instituti ons: the long-term or general impacts of teacher education as a profession; the aggregated s cores on teacher tests of teacher candidates, teacher preparation programs, and/or hi gher education institutions; and the professional performances expected of teachers and teacher candidates. In some policy and practice contexts, one or more of these is used in combination with others to guide decisions about distribution of resources, licensin g and accreditation privileges, and relative rankings of programs, institutions, and in dividuals.Figure 1 Constructing Outcomes in Teacher Education: Three "Takes" on the Outcomes Question


14 of 56 The OutcomesQuestion in Teacher Education What should the outcomes of preservice teachereducation be for teacher learning, professional practice, and student learning? How, by whom, and f or what purposes should these outcomes be documented,demonstrated, and/or measured? Outcome as "long-term/general impact" What long-term and/or general impacts should preservice teacher education be expected to have,particularly on student achievement? Outcome as "teacher test results" What impact should preservice teacher education beexpected to have on teacher test results? What resu lts on teacher tests should be expected of teachercandidates, teacher education programs, highereducation institutions, states? Outcome as "professional performance" What professional performances should teachercandidates be expected to demonstrate? How shouldteacher candidates and teacher educationprograms/institutions be expected to document,analyze, and evaluate these professionalperformances? So far in this article, I have explained why the outcomes question is the question that is driving reform in teacher education at this particular juncture of political, professional, and social contexts. In the next sect ion, I take each of the major "takes" on the outcomes questions and look more closely at how they are being constructed in teacher education and then consider what the consequences (and pitfalls) of these constructions are for policy and practice. Long-term/General Impact as Outcome of Teacher Educ ation The first major take on the outcomes quest ion concerns the long-term or general impact of teacher education on teacher knowledge, t eacher preparedness, teacher attrition, teacher ratings, and student achievement Explorations of these questions in teacher education are located within much larger de bates about teacher quality and teacher qualifications, teacher licensing and certi fication, professional standards for teaching and curriculum, and the use of student ach ievement as a valid evaluation measure for teachers and schools. Various studies h ave analyzed whether teacher candidates who have completed approved teacher educ ation programs stay in teaching longer than those without such preparation, whether their attitudes and knowledge about teaching and learning are different (Ashton & Crock er, 1987), whether they feel more committed to teaching than others or more prepared to teach, and whether their principals rate them higher or lower than others (H aberman, 1985). Studies have also compared the teaching ratings of liberal arts gradu ates with those prepared in pedagogy (Haberman, 1985; Grossman, 1990) and/or have compar ed the teaching effectiveness, including the classroom management skills, of those with minimal versus extensive subject matter knowledge and/or minimal versus full preparation in teaching (Ashton & Crocker, 1987; Evertson, Hawley & Zlotnik, 1985; Ke nnedy, 1991; Denton & Lacina, 1984; Darling-Hammond, 1991). Other studies have co nsidered whether education and


15 of 56subject matter preparation predict "teaching perfor mance" of teacher candidates (Ferguson & Womack, 1993) and/or have an impact on students' achievement (Ashton & Crocker, 1987). There is a great deal of attention currently to sorting out the results of these studies and drawing policy conclusions from t hem. As we enter the new century, the issue that is most visible and most highly contested has to do with the impact of teacher educ ation on K-12 students' learning. This question, debated in the research literature and in the media, is being explored primarily through meta-analyses and/or syntheses of previous and current work in order to make recommendations about teacher education as state po licy that is either value-added or not, either a good investment or not. In these high stakes debates, teacher education at the preservice level is not considered by itself bu t as one of several factors related to the quality and qualifications of teachers. The unit of analysis is not teacher candidates—individually or collectively—or even tea cher preparation programs and institutions. Rather the unit of analysis is the pr ofession itself—teacher preparation as one aspect of a broad category referred to as "teac her qualifications," which includes scores on licensure examinations, graduate level de grees, years of experience, preparation in the subject matter area of certifica tion as well as in pedagogy, type and extent of certification in the teaching area, and a mount of money spent by school districts on professional development. Student lear ning is generally defined as student gains on achievement tests, often reading and mathe matics in grades one through twelve. The relationship between the two is taken to be the percentage of variance in student gains accounted for by teacher qualifications when other variables are held constant or adjusted. The pertinent units of analysis are aggre gated student achievement scores and general indices of teacher qualifications that incl ude multiple features. Questions about the long term impact of teacher edu cation are at the heart of many policy debates related to the initial preparation o f teachers as well as teachers' continuing professional development. These have enormous impli cations for how states (and now the federal government) support and invest in the i mprovement of schooling, how higher education institutions support and invest in teache r education programs and schools of education, and how school districts establish and m aintain hiring and reward systems as well as local programs of ongoing professional deve lopment. Synthesizing the Research: "Teacher Education Matte rs Most" The initial report of NCTAF (1996) address ed the question of long-term impact directly by linking teacher qualifications—includin g extent of teacher education— with student learning. Speaking for the Commission, Darl ing-Hammond (1998) argued that a growing body of research "appears to confirm" that teacher knowledge and teacher expertise are significant influences on student lea rning, as are to a lesser extent class size and school size. Although Darling-Hammond pointed o ut that the initial Commission Report was a starting point for more public discour se rather than a set of research-based conclusions, this work was widely cited by those co mmitted to elevating the status of the teaching profession, particularly by those embroile d in battles about teacher certification regulations at the state level. The NCTAF report was highly successful in g enerating public discourse about teaching and teachers—Darling-Hammond (2000) indica tes that more than 1500 news articles and editorials have appeared nationally an d internationally since its publication. Major research syntheses that support the initial d irection of the report (Darling-Hammond, 1998, 1999, 2000b; Sykes & Darlin g-Hammond, 1999) have also now appeared as have several case studies (e.g. Elm ore & Burney, 1997) that provide


16 of 56contextual information. Darling-Hammond's (2000, b) major synthesis of research on teacher quality and student achievement has been di sseminated widely. The synthesis, which appeared in this electronic journal on Januar y 1, 2000, had been retrieved more than 23,000 times year later. This review provides what is probably the clearest example of how long-term impact is being constructed as an outcome of teacher education; the review explores the impact on students' achievement of large scale policies and institutional practices that affect the overall lev el of teachers' knowledge and skills in a given state or region. Drawing on data from an NCTAF 50-state sur vey of policies, case studies at the state level, the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surve ys (SASS), and the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), Darling-Ha mmond (2000b) examined how teacher qualifications are related to students' ach ievement. She concluded: The findings of both the qualitative and quantitati ve analyses suggest that policy investments in the quality of teachers may b e related to improvements in student performance. Quantitative a nalyses indicate that measures of teacher preparation and certification a re by far the strongest correlates of student achievement in reading and ma thematics, both before and after controlling for student poverty and langu age status. . This analysis suggests that policies adopted by states r egarding teacher education, licensing, hiring, and professional deve lopment may make an important difference in the qualifications and capa cities that teachers bring to their work. (p. 1) Constructing the outcomes of teacher educa tion as long-term impact on students' achievement is part of NCTAF's larger campaign to p rovide qualified and competent teachers for all students by emphasizing and aligni ng professional standards across initial teacher preparation, teacher licensure, and teacher certification at the state and regional levels. This take on the outcomes question provides little information about the impact of teacher education disaggregated from teac her qualifications more generally, nor does it address the relative merit of various a pproaches to teacher education, although there is related research that does so. Bu t this was never the point of constructing outcomes as long-term impact of teache r qualifications on students' achievement. The point was to demonstrate that teac her education, as part of teacher professionalization more broadly, was and is a good investment—for state policy makers, for higher education institutions, and for the future of a democratic society. Synthesizing the Research: "Teacher Education Doesn 't Matter Much" There is, however, another conclusion abou t long-term impact as an outcome of teacher education. Economists such as Dale Ballou, Michael Podgursky, and others (Ballous & Podgursky, 1997, 1998, 1999; Goldhaber & Brewer, 1999) offer analyses of teacher preparation, licensing and certification th at support the deregulation of teacher education and seek to limit the power of the educat ional community to control the profession. For example, in what they refer to as a "layman's guide" to teacher training and licensure that appears in the Fordham Foundatio n's (Kanstaroom & Finn, 1999) policy statement on how to produce better teachers and better schools, Ballou and Podgursky (1999) conclude: [T]eacher ability appears to be much more a functio n of innate talents than


17 of 56the quality of education courses. Teachers themselv es tell us that this is so. We come to similar conclusions when we examine the determinants of scores on teacher licensing examinations. Finally, teachers who enter through alternative certification programs seem to be at least as effective as those who completed traditional training, suggestin g that training does not contribute very much to teaching performance, at le ast by comparison with other factors. (p. 57) Like the syntheses that support the recomm endations of NCTAF, the summaries by these conservative economists construct outcomes in teacher education as part of a general category of teacher qualifications (includi ng teacher preparation and licensing based on completion of accredited programs) and in terms of student achievement and teacher attrition. They draw in many instances on t he same data and even refer to many of the same sources that are used by Darling-Hammon d and others. Despite a certain surface level of similar ity, however, the deregulation-ists reach conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the c onclusions of those who advocate professionalization. The introduction to the Fordha m Foundation's policy statement (Fordham Foundation, 1999), which is signed by Will iam Bennett, Chester Finn, E.D Hirsch, James Peyser, and Diane Ravitch, among othe rs, states this conclusion in no uncertain terms: We are struck by the paucity of evidence linking in puts [courses taken, requirements met, time spent, and activities engage d in] with actual teacher effectiveness. In a metaanalysis of close to four hundred studies of the effect of various school resources on pupil achieve ment, very little connection was found between the degrees teachers h ad earned or the experience they possessed and how much their studen ts learned. (p. 18) Contrast this conclusion with Linda Darlin g-Hammond's conclusion in Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching (1997): Reviews of more than two hundred studies contradict the long-standing myths that 'anyone can teach' and that 'teachers ar e born and not made' . .teachers who are fully prepared and certified in b oth their discipline and in education are more highly rated and are more succes sful with the students than are teachers without preparation, and those wi th greater training…are more effective than those with less. (p. 10) The fact that some of the same evidence is used to make two exceedingly different cases about teacher education is confusing to say t he least. (Note 1) Debates about the evidence concerning the relationship of teacher edu cation and student learning outcomes continue, and they are growing increasingly heated. In a recent issue of Teachers College Record for example, Ballou and Podgursky (2000) directly attacked the Commission's findings, and DarlingHammond (2000) emphatically refuted their use of evidence and their conclusions. Questions about the evidence wer e also explored in a face-to-face debate between Linda Darling-Hammond and Chester Fi nn, which was sponsored by the Education Commission of the States (Education Commi ssion of the States, 2000). The Problem of Teacher Education


18 of 56 Part of the difference in conclusions abou t the longterm outcomes of teacher education may lie in the details of the ways terms are defined and data are selected for these analyses. For example, there are major differ ences across reports in what is included under "alternate programs," what it means to be "fully qualified," or "to have a major" in one's area of certification. The accumula tion of many small differences in definitions of terms and data analysis procedures m ay account for some of the major statistical differences and the contradictory concl usions of these two major syntheses. But the differences may also be partly explained by differences in the way "the problem" of teacher education is framed in the first place a nd how these different constructions shape the ways terms are defined, procedures are es tablished for data selection, results are manipulated, and interpretive frameworks are de veloped. Penelope Earley (2000) makes an incisive p oint along these lines in a recent discussion about the value-laden nature of educatio nal research and its easy use by policy makers to further their own agendas. She sug gests that "data and evidence used in the policy process will have several levels of bias : that embedded in the data or evidence itself, bias associated with analysis, and the bias es of those in the policy world who use the information" (p. 35). This understanding of the policy process may help to explain some of the differences I have just been highlighti ng. Supported by the Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation, NCTAF (in colla boration with NBPTS, INTASC, and NCATE) frames "the problem" of American educati on in terms of democratic values (Engle, 2000; Earley, 2000; Labaree, 1997)) and thus begins—and ends—with calls for stepped-up, standards-driven improvements in teacher education and professional development in order to guarantee a we ll-qualified teacher for every American school child. The Fordham Foundation and other conservat ive organizations and politicians, on the other hand, frame "the problem" in terms of a m arket approach to educational policy making. They criticize the profession's "preoccupat ion with teacher preparation" (Ballou & Podgursky, 1997, p.4), seek to limit the power of the profession to control the market by controlling licensing and approved programs, and push an agenda based on what Earley calls "competition, choice, winners and lose rs, and finding culprits" (Earley, 2000, p. 36). They thus begin—and end—with calls fo r alternate routes to certification and for eliminating "needless barriers" to the prof ession. They advocate heavy emphasis on the results of education and favor heavy sanctio ns for those who cannot or will not measure up. (I return to this issue of market versu s democratic ideologies in the final section of this article where I suggest, following many others, that these two approaches to educational policy—democracy-driven and market-d riven—are mutually exclusive.)Teacher Test Scores as Outcome of Teacher Education The teacher tests now required for initial licensing in most U.S. states (Digest of Educational Statistics, 1997) suggest another highl y visible way that outcomes are being constructed in teacher education. The construction of test scores as outcomes is in a certain sense a subset of the preceding constructio n in that the test scores of prospective teachers are often taken to be one facet of the lon g-term impact of teacher education. However, because teacher tests have been given so m uch recent attention and weight, it is worth considering them separately. Debates about teacher tests are connected to larger debates about quality, licensing, standards, and as sessment. Teacher tests are also related to the long history of criticisms of teachers as me diocre students, "semi-skilled" workers, "less than literate" individuals, and members of a minor or "not quite" profession. With initial licensing tests, what is measured (and taken to be an indication of what


19 of 56prospective teachers have learned) is usually some combination of general knowledge, including communication and literacy skills, with k nowledge of specific subject matter and pedagogy, both of which are demonstrated on a p aper and pencil exam. Although teacher test scores have probably received more pub licity and more public outcry than any other recent measure of outcomes, they are link ed to teacher performance and K-12 student learning primarily through presumption rath er than empirical evidence and/or are considered in combination with other measures of te acher expertise or teacher qualifications that are difficult to untangle as I noted a moment ago. There is little evidence that large-scale implementation of statewi de teacher testing programs is affecting the actual classroom performance of teach ers (Flippo, 1986; Ladson-Billings, 1998), although there is some evidence that testing has an impact on the "quality" of those entering and remaining in teaching where "qua lity" is defined as other test scores, grade point averages, and similar measures (Gitomer & Latham, 2000) Until recently teacher test scores were as sumed primarily to measure individual fitness for teaching the way SATs and GREs are assu med to measure individuals' potential for college and graduate level academic w ork. Relatively little attention was paid to the aggregated scores of individuals from t he same state or the same teacher education institution. Times have changed, however, fueled in part by the dismal performance of Massachusetts teacher candidates on that state's first ever teacher test in 1998—when 59% of candidates failed, and Massachuset ts House Speaker Thomas Finneran called test takers "idiots" (Melnick & Pul lin, 2000). The Massachusetts scores fanned the debate about teacher quality and teacher preparation that was already going on in the U.S. Congress partly in response to the r eport of NCTAF and in light of proposed stipulations of the reauthorized Higher Ed ucation Act. (See Earley, 2000, for an excellent discussion of federal policy debates r egarding teacher education and Melnick & Pullin, 2000, for thoughtful analyses of many of the legal and policy issues involved in the Massachusetts teacher test.) Of particular importance in the Higher Edu cation Act are the mandatory accountability requirements, which stipulate that a ll states and colleges/universities receiving federal dollars must provide annual infor mation on the performance of all teacher candidates recommended by an institution on each measure required for licensure. As has been widely broadcast, these data are to be compiled into institutional and state "report cards" intended to serve as indic ators of the fitness of the teacher education enterprise and will provide public (and n o doubt highly politicized) rankings of teacher education institutions in the U.S. ( U.S Department of Education, 2000). By switching the unit of analysis from ind ividuals to institutions, recent testing arrangements locate the responsibility for teacher education outcomes squarely at the feet of colleges and universities, some of which wi ll be seriously threatened with closure when the new regulations go into effect (Schrag, 19 99; Wise, 1988). In some states, it has even been suggested that a major result of teac her tests has been to discredit schools of education and provide ammunition for those who w ould like to close them (CochranSmith & Dudley-Marling, in press). In a strange sor t of contradiction, teacher tests in some places are now being framed in the media as bo th outcomes of teacher education (i.e., teacher education programs and institutions get public blame for low test scores), and, at the same time, prerequisites for teacher ed ucation programs (i.e., candidates in some institutions are now being required to take ce rtain portions of tests in order to be admitted to programs in the first place). Constructing outcomes in teacher education as scores on teacher tests creates a number of problems and has important consequences f or the pool of candidates entering the profession. Some statewide teacher tests, for e xample, are anathematic to the


20 of 56concepts and knowledge taught in teacher education programs (Melnick & Pullin, 2000), particularly in terms of conceptions of literacy, v iews of student learning, and notions of growth and progress (Luna, Solsken, & Kutz, 2000). Unfortunately, at exactly the same time that we are supposedly interested in recruitin g a more diverse pool of teacher candidates, teacher tests are working as gate keepe rs to keep some potential teachers out. Fear of poor performance on teachers tests is leadi ng some schools of education to change admissions standards with the consequence th at fewer students are applying, and there is increasing evidence that the implementatio n of teacher tests—like other tests historically that are biased against minorities—may be playing a role in the decline of minority participation in the teaching profession ( Garcia, 1986; Gitomer & Latham, 2000; Smith, 1984; Wise, 1988). Further, although s ome studies have also considered whether teacher candidates prepared in fully-accred ited teacher education programs (particularly at NCATE-accredited institutions) sco re higher on teacher tests than those prepared in other teacher education programs and/or those with no teacher preparation (Wise, 1999), there is little evidence that teacher test scores are related to actual teaching performance in classrooms or to students' learning.Professional Performance as Outcome of Teacher Educ ation The third take on the outcomes question—an d the one that is closest to the everyday work of many teacher educators—has to do w ith the professional performances that teacher candidates should be expected to demon strate, including the ways candidates and teacher educators document, analyze, and evaluate these performances. This version of outcomes is located within larger d ebates about authentic assessments of teaching that result in student learning, the shift from "inputs" to "outputs" as the basis of professional accreditation reviews of teacher ed ucation institutions, the development of quality assurance mechanisms based on profession al standards that are consistent across the professional lifespan, and a growing bod y of literature that examines the relationships of inquiry, knowledge, professional p ractice, and teacher education pedagogy. Teacher Candidates and Professional Performance Constructing teacher education outcomes in terms of the professional performances of teacher candidates begins with the premise that there is a professional knowledge base in teaching and teacher education ba sed on general consensus about what it is that teachers and teacher candidates sho uld know and be able to do. The obvious next step, then, is to ask how teacher educ ators will know when and if individual teacher candidates know and can do what they ought to know and be able to do. A related and larger issue is how evaluators (i .e., higher education institutions themselves, state departments of education, or nati onal accrediting agencies) will know when and if teacher education programs and institut ions are preparing teachers who know and can do what they ought to know and be able to do. In a recent historical sketch of performan ce assessment, Madaus and O'Dwyer (1999) suggest that today's emphasis on performance assessment in K-12 education is part of a larger sea change in educational measurem ent that highlights the "3 P's—performance, portfolios, and products" and that has captured "the linguistic high ground, just as the term 'minimum competency testin g' did in the 1970s" (p. 688). Madaus and O'Dwyer point out that despite the hype, performance assessment is based


21 of 56on the same technology as all assessments—obtaining a small piece or sample of a candidate's behavior drawn from the larger domain o f knowledge and skill it is assumed to be part of and then using the candidate's perfor mance on that sample to make inferences about his or her likely performance on t he entire domain. Defining performance assessment broadly, Madaus and O'Dwyer include three ways to sample behavior from a larger domain—requiring an examinee to construct or supply oral or written answers to some set of questions, requiring him or her to perform an act that will be evaluated according to certain criteria, or requ iring him or her to produce a product of some kind. Notwithstanding the long list of cautions about the use of performance assessments for high stakes contexts cited by Madaus and others (Madaus & O'Dwyer,1999; Madaus, 1993; Haertel, 1999), all signs indicate that the t eacher education profession is driving full throttle into the world of performance assessm ent. This is being done for two different purposes, each drawing on different units of analysis: (1) for the purpose of evaluating individual prospective teachers where th e unit of analysis is the individual teacher candidate and the evaluator is some combina tion of schooland university-based teacher educators involved in the candidate's educa tional program, and (2) for the purpose of evaluating individual teacher education programs where the unit of analysis is the teacher education program itself within and in relation to its larger institutional unit (university, school, college, or department) a nd where the evaluator is a national accrediting agency, a state department of education or some combination of the two. In teacher education, performance assessme nt is intended to evaluate teacher candidates' ability to produce "products" and compl ete "authentic tasks" that closely resemble the real work of teaching and do so in way s that are aligned with consistent internal and external standards and criteria. The n otion of professional performance as outcome is a central to new partnerships among accr editing, licensing, and certification agencies across states and the nation (Wise, 1996). Performance as outcome is also implicated in the debate between NCATE and TEAC as accrediting agencies, including disagreements about whether the latter is a threat to professionalization or a useful and appropriate accrediting alternative for many instit utions (Murray, 2000; DarlingHammond, 2000, a). Performance as outcome is behind the move in some states to require all teacher education institutions to seek either NCATE or TEAC accreditation as well as other new state requirements that teache r education programs provide evidence that teacher candidates have state-of-theart knowledge and a demonstrable impact on K-12 students' learning (Wise, 1999). In the following section I briefly describe four teacher education initiatives or ongoing projects that illuminate how professional p erformance is being constructed as an outcome of teacher education. Although they use different language, each of these elaborates a process for documenting the linkage be tween teacher education, teaching practice, and student learning. Each of the program s I use as illustrations here has been highly visible and thus open to public scrutiny as a result of multiple publications and presentations. Each has also been supported by or c onnected to larger professional foundations, agencies, or organizations and/or has been used as a public exemplar of teacher education practice in keeping with a partic ular agenda. Taken together, the four examples reveal some of the range and variation in performance as outcome in terms of definitions of teaching and learning, how aspects o f teaching are related to one another, and the larger social and political agendas to whic h teachers' work is attached (or not). Despite differences, however, these examples also r eveal some basic similarities in the performances teacher candidates are being required to demonstrate in preservice education. (Note 2)


22 of 56Ability-Based Performance Assessment Alverno College's standards-based approach to performance assessment for preservice teachers is part of the larger ability-b ased curriculum of the college, which was developed in the 1970s in order to meet the nee ds of a non-traditional student population (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Th e work at Alverno College, which specifically eschews curriculum as "counting course s" and fosters instead a view of ongoing "assessment as learning" (Diez & Hass, 1997 ), has received considerable attention in the literature on outcomes in teacher education (Diez & Hass, 1997; Diez, 1996, 1997, 1998; Alverno College, 1996; Blackwell & Diez, 1999). It has been widely cited and used as an exemplar of preservice teacher education in line with the standardsbased professionalization efforts of NCTAF, INTASC, NBPTS, and NCATE (Darling-Hammond, Wise & Klein, 1999; Diez, 1998; N ational Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1997). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education's guide to improving teacher quality (U.S. DOE, 1998) features the program at Alverno as one of three preservice programs that exemplify "pr omising practices," and the Studies of Excellence in Teacher Education series copublished by AACTE and NCTAF (Darling-Hammond, 2000, c) include it in their book let on preparation at the undergraduate level,. Alverno College's program, which focuses on "what students can do with what they know" (Diez & Hass, 1997, p. 17), is based on the i dea that performance assessment is not an addon, but a basic approach that transform s the curriculum as well as the ways teacher education faculty think about their work. T he Alverno curriculum specifies eight general abilities including communication, analysis problem solving, values within decision making, social interaction, global perspec tives, effective citizenship, and aesthetic responsiveness that cut across the entire four year curriculum (U.S. DOE, 1999). Teacher education students also have profess ional abilities that they must demonstrate including integrating content knowledge with teaching pedagogy, diagnosing individual student needs, and managing r esources effectively. Each course has specific goals aligned with general outcomes an d requires "complex evidence of student performance." Students' abilities are assumed to be deve lopmental and, because the evidence they require is complex, assumed to demand multiple oppo rtunities for demonstration of abilities and a wide variety of assessment modes (D iez & Hass, 1997). Thus students are engaged in literally hundreds of performances durin g their preservice preparation, each of which includes a self-assessment component. In d escribing the Alverno program in the studies of excellence series, Zeichner (2000) c omments, "I doubt that there is a teacher education program anywhere that gives such careful attention to assessment of its students" (p. 11). Performance assessments are "situated in authentic contexts and teaching roles" (Diez & Hass, 1997, p. 21) and base d on "proofs" of professional ability such as essays, letters, position papers, case stud y analyses, observations of teachers, simulations with parents and others, and developmen t of curriculum materials. Program developers point out: Alverno faculty believe that performance assessment s are most beneficial when they come as close as possible to the realisti c experiences of the practicing teacher. In developing the curriculum fo r teacher education, they have identified a number of roles that teachers pla y, including but going beyond the primary role of facilitator of learning in the classroom.


23 of 56Therefore, performance assessments of the abilities of a teacher may be simulated to focus on parentteacher interaction, multidisciplinary team evaluation, the teachers' work with district or bui lding planning, or the teacher's citizenship role, as well as on actual cl assroom teaching performance in the field experience and student tea ching classrooms. In this way they provide candidates with successive approxi mations of the role of the teacher (Diez & Hass, 1997, p. 24). The portfolio interview assessment is the major external assessment and is required in order to conclude the preprofessional stage of the program and begin the student teaching period (Zeichner, 2000). Here stud ents compile all of their own work, lesson and unit plans, videotapes of lessons, and s elf assessments. Portfolios are reviewed by faculty advisors as well as teams of pr incipals and teachers, whose feedback is used to prepare for student teaching. Chief spokesperson for the program, Mary D iez (2000) emphasizes that Alverno's approach to performance assessment is based on the idea that teaching and learning have to be connected when teaching performance is assess ed, especially how particular teaching practices facilitate students' learning an d how teachers learn to examine their own and their students' work over time. Like the em phasis of the INTASC and NBPTS standards, the work at Alverno emphasizes how a tea cher's thinking leads to improvements in teaching and students' learning. Th us the performances that are required of teacher candidates must indicate teache r learning as much as and in connection to student learning. Through portfolios, analyses of lessons and units, and other self-assessments and reflective activities, t eachers learn to look at and make sense of students' work and document the impact of their own practice on students' learning. They are required not simply to demonstrate that th eir teaching has an impact on students' learning, although they must do that, but also how and why their teaching practices impact student learning within particular contexts that closely resemble the actual contexts of teachers' work.Performance Understanding Research ers and teacher educators at Mich igan State University, the University of Michigan, and elsewhere have for some time been inv olved in major efforts to develop professional education for prospective and experien ced teachers—particularly in mathematics—that generates teaching strategies in k eeping with new curriculum standards and reform-oriented pedagogies (Ball & Co hen, 1999; Lampert & Ball, 1998; Wilson & Ball, 1996; Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Cohen & Ball, 1990). Here teacher education outcomes are framed as the alignm ent over time of teachers' pedagogy with current curriculum standards and with discipli ne-based goals for students' learning of complex forms of reasoning, problem solving, and communication. This approach to performance understanding is based on earlier explo rations of teachers' learning of "adventurous teaching" (Heaton & Lampert, 1993) or "teaching for understanding" (Cohen, McLaughlin, & Talbert, 1993; Cohen & Ball, 1990), conceptualized as a kind of educational practice where "students and teachers a cquire knowledge collaboratively, where orthodoxies of pedagogy and 'facts' are conti nually challenged in classroom discourse, and where conceptual (versus rote) under standing of subject matter is the goal" (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). This work has r eceived considerable attention as part of the "new professional development" (Hawley & Valli, 1999; Sykes, 1999) and/or as a "new pedagogy of teacher education" that is cl osely aligned with national standards for professional development and especially with vi sions for contemporary K-12


24 of 56curricular reform (Lampert & Ball, 1998, 1999; Wils on & Ball, 1996; Ball, 1996; Ball & Cohen, 1999). Writing specifically about performance and knowledge, Lampert & Ball (1999) argue that if teacher education is to prepare teach ers for "the kind of ambitious teaching that reformers envision" (p. 39), then those who wo uld reform teacher education will have to reconsider what it means "to know" somethin g in teaching. They suggest that knowing means understanding in such a way that one is prepared to perform (or practice) in a given situation for which one cannot fully prepare in advance. They base this idea on David Perkins' and Howard Gardner's "p erformance perspective" on understanding: In brief, this performance perspective says that un derstanding a topic of study is a matter of being able to perform in a var iety of thoughtful ways with the topic, for instance, to: explain, muster e vidence, find examples, generalize, apply concepts, analogize, represent in a new way, and so on . Understanding something is a matter of being able t o carry out a variety of 'performances' concerning the topic. (Perkins, 1993 p. 7, quoted in Lampert & Ball, 1999, p. 35) Lampert, Ball and their colleagues advocat e K-12 classrooms where children's performance understanding is the norm. Consistent w ith this idea, they advocate teacher education pedagogy where the performance understand ing of teacher candidates is the norm. In this way K-12 curriculum and assessment, w hich are closely aligned with professional teaching and learning standards in the subject matter, are in turn closely aligned with teacher education pedagogy and perform ance assessment, which are also closely aligned with professional standards for tea cher learning and professional practice. Initiatives based on these ideas attempt to provide social and organizational contexts for teacher education in which teachers wo rk together in pairs or small groups where inexperienced teachers observe and reflect on the work of a more experienced one (Lampert and Ball, 1998). Lampert and Ball (1998) emphasize how teacher candidates should know what they need to know rather than focusing on simply what they need to know. Based on the idea that teaching is an uncertain and indeterminat e activity, they suggest that teachers learn how to construct knowledge by working in comm unities of practice. Teacher candidates learn by working with artifacts and reco rds of practice, raising questions about these, connecting these to other concepts and theories, and so on. This notion of a "pedagogy of professional development" (Ball & Cohe n, 1999) means presenting preservice students with various opportunities to c onduct "pedagogical inquiry" (Lampert and Ball, 1998) based on artifacts and rec ords that have been pre-catalogued and arranged in order to facilitate multiple perspe ctives, triangulation of interpretations, and retrieval and sorting of ideas in multiple ways For example, teacher candidates read or ex perience in a multimedia environment a more experienced teacher's records of practice and then reflect on these with the guidance of a teacher educator who may or may not b e one and the same with the experienced teacher they have observed. As Lampert and Ball (1999) point out, these assessments tap into: …beginning teachers' capacities to analyze practice and develop hypotheses about it [and] . assemble portfolios of their w ork and to describe, justify, and analyze it. As important as what they know is t heir capacity to reason


25 of 56critically and professionally about their work. (p. 37) The idea that the outcome of teacher educa tion should be performance understanding—or linking what and how teachers know by working with artifacts and records of practice—is very much in keeping with as sessments for beginning and experienced teachers designed by INTASC and NBPTS. Teacher Work Samples Western Oregon University's Teacher Work S ample Methodology (TWSM) has been in place since 1986 (Schalock & Myton, 1988) w hen the state of Oregon passed sweeping reforms of teacher education. These includ ed the requirement that teacher certification programs provide evidence that teache r candidates could produce appreciable progress in the learning of all K-12 st udents (Cowart & Myton, 1997). With the implementation of NCATE 2000's new outcomes-bas ed standards (NCATE, 1999), the work sample methodology—which is intended as bo th a vehicle for the learning of teacher candidates and a measurement system—has bee n receiving considerable attention (McConney, Schalock, & Schalock, 1998; Mi llman, 1997; Schalock, Schalock & Myton, 1998).Along these lines, the American Asso ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) has sponsored a series of worksho ps and institutes led by Western Oregon faculty to aid other teacher educators tryin g to develop systematic means of connecting teaching and learning (Schalock & Imig, 2000). Several other states are currently considering adopting this method. Western Oregon's TWSM is a "complex, 'authe ntic' applied performance approach" to the evaluation of teacher candidates that is out comes-based and grounded in a "context-dependent" theory of teacher effectiveness (Schalock, Schalock, & Girod, 1997, pp. 1718). Work samples represent teacher c andidates' teaching of 3-5 week units of study developed through 8 distinct design steps from which faculty derive 7 broad categories of measure. These are used for dec ision making in teacher preparation and licensing as well as in research. Teacher candi dates design units of instruction aligned with the desired outcomes, which are in tur n aligned with Oregon's standards-based curriculum. They then assess their teaching in terms of K-12 student progress by means of the work sample method. Thus w ork samples provide a "rich and ready context for the evaluation of a teacher's kno wledge and skill as well as a one-of-a-kind context for evaluation of teachers' e ffectiveness and/or productivity" (Schalock, Schalock, & Girod, 1997, p. 19). Although the authors note that the TWSM do es not stipulate specific performance standards, which are to be determined by the partic ular group or program using TWSM, they do provide information about how the Western O regon program deals with evaluative criteria and performance standards. The following is illustrative of how the TWSM constructs performance as an outcome of teache r education: Starting with preinstructional data on pupil learni ng, a student teacher calculates a 'percentage correct' score for each pu pil in his or her classroom. Using these scores, the teacher than (a) tabulates, from highestto lowest-scoring pupil, the range of preinstructional scores; (b) sorts these scores into high-, low-, and middle-scoring groups; and (c) calculates the means scores for each of the groups formed and for the class as a whole. These preinstructional groupings provide the struct ure for both the analysis of postinstructional measures of outcome attainment and the calculation of


26 of 56gain scores. As in the case of the preinstructional mea sure, a percentage-correct score is calculated for each pupil on the postinstr uctional measure and is matched with the pupil's preinstructional score. Ga in scores are then tabulated for the high-, low-, and middle-scoring g roups based on the preinstructional measure. Mean gain scores also are tabulated for each of these groups and for the class as a whole to obtain a general impression of the learning gains that have been made by particula r groups of pupils as a consequence of instruction received. Using these da ta as a point of departure, the teacher can then proceed to refine t hem to bring a level of standardization to the teacher-designed and curriculum-aligned mea sures of pupil learning used. This is done by calculating an Index of Pupil Growth (IPG) score for each pupil. The IPG is a simple met ric devised by Millman (1981) to show the percentage of potential growth each pupil actually achieved. The metric is calculated as follows: (Post % correct) – (Pre % correct) (100% Pre % correct) Multiplying this metric by 100 results in a score t han can range from –100 to +100, where a negative number represents a lower score on the posttest than on the pretest, 0 represents no change from pr eto posttest, and +100 represents a perfect score on the posttest regardle ss of pretest performance. A negative score is rare, with most scores falling in the +30 to +80 range. (Schalock, Schalock & Girod, 1997, pp. 22-25, empha sis in original) Following these calculations, teacher cand idates write an explanation for why K-12 students did or did not attain the desired learning outcomes. According to its architects, the teacher work sample approach to performance as outcome sharply contrasts with assessments that feature portfolios, teachers' anal yses of lessons planned and taught, candidates' assessments of students' learning for d iagnostic purposes, and so on. TWSM developers argue that these other approaches provid e "relatively weak evidence of the teachers' success in fostering learning" (Schalock, Schalock, & Myton, 1998, p. 469) as opposed to TWSM, which focuses explicitly on demons trable teacher effectiveness as measured by the learning gains of students. Inquiry as Stance For a number of years, a group of us as uni versityand schoolbased researchers and practitioners at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia area schools (and more recently at Boston College) have been inv olved in efforts to promote teacher research as a vehicle for generating local knowledg e and challenging the status quo by linking inquiry, professional knowledge, and profes sional practice across the teaching lifespan (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Cochran-Smith & Lytl e, 1990, 1993, 1999, 2000; Cochran-Smith et. al., 1999). In our efforts, we have not used the language of "outcomes" and "results." However it is clear in al l of the writing about these initiatives that a major outcome of teacher education is teache r learning and professional practice that promote rich learning opportunities for all st udents with the larger goals of equity and social justice. We have pointed this out explic itly:


27 of 56Here we take the more radical position that learnin g from teaching ought to be regarded as the primary task of teacher educatio n across the professional lifespan…This argument is based in part on the assu mption that the increasing diversity of America's schools and schoo lchildren and the increasing complexity of the tasks that educators f ace render global solutions to problems and monolithic strategies for effective teaching impossible. Hence, what is required in both preserv ice and inservice teacher education programs are processes that prompt teache rs and teacher educators to construct their own questions and then begin to develop courses of action that are valid in their local con texts and communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, p. 63) From this perspective, the goals of teache r education include teacher candidates' learning to engage in practitioner inquiry and to c onstruct local knowledge within inquiry communities (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, a ; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). This work has received considerable attention as pa rt of the teacher research movement over the last decade (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990, 1999b) and has been recognized and supported nationally by the Spencer Foundation, Tea chers College Press, and the University of Pennsylvania's Ethnography and Educat ion Research Forum What professional performance looks like when inqui ry is regarded as an outcome has been spelled out in detail in my writing about inqu iry-centered preservice teacher education with the goal of social justice (CochranSmith,1991; 1995a,b; 1998) and in the writing and presentations of my students at the Uni versity of Pennsylvania and to a lesser extent at Boston College (e.g., Maimon, 1999 ; Black, et. al., 1993). Inquiry performances include: analyses of the culture of th e school; small-scale classroom studies that drawing on classroom data, including s tudents' written work, verbal interactions, observations, texts and other materia ls; case studies that explore patterns in students' classroom behavior, uses of linguistic an d cultural resources, and responses to learning opportunities as well as documentation of the teacher's adaptations to these individual variations; and development of curriculu m and pedagogy that provide all students (including very young children and "at ris k" students) opportunities to debate complex ideas, interpret unabridged texts, exchange points of view with others based on evidence and experience, and explore issues related to equity, language, power, and racism in the classroom. These performance outcomes were developed collaboratively by university-based and schoolbased educators at the University of Pennsylvania over the course of many years of joint work. Fieldwork s upervisors and school-based cooperating teachers had a strong voice in the deve lopment of criteria for assessment of performance, including what counted as evidence of teaching skill, students' learning, and inquiry stance. Teacher candidates were evaluat ed jointly—by themselves, their cooperating teachers, and their fieldwork superviso rs—based on specific classroom evidence and documentation of the major goals of th e program. In addition, portfolios of all teacher candidates' inquiries, samples of teach ers' and students' work, and critical narrative essays analyzing teacher learning over ti me represented a major final performance (Cochran-Smith, 1998). When teacher inquiry is framed as an outco me, professional performances are expected to demonstrate how teachers construct loca l knowledge, how they open their decisionmaking strategies to critique, and how th ey know when and what their students have learned. They also demonstrate how prospective teachers learn to wrestle with multiple perspectives, utilize others' research to generate questions and new analyses,


28 of 56and work within professional communities committed to social justice. Each of these aspects of learning to teach is related to what Sus an Lytle and I have called an "inquiry stance" on teaching and learning (Cochran-Smith & L ytle, 1993, 1998, 1999a, 2000). Learning to teach through inquiry is difficult and uncertain work. It is work that is profoundly practical in that it is located in the d ailiness of classroom decisions and actions, including teachers' interactions with thei r students and families, choices of materials and texts, uses of formal and informal as sessments, and so on. At the same time, however it is work that is deeply intellectua l in that it involves a continuous process of constructing understandings, interpretat ions, and questions. Performances that demonstrate that teacher candidates are learning th rough inquiry to teach for social justice, then, include not only the particular prac tices they employ and the impact these have on K-12 students' learning—but also how they s truggle to document, theorize, and alter their practice.Looking Across Constructions of Performance The four preceding examples are similar in important ways. All four assume that a rightful outcome of teacher education is that teach er candidates can demonstrate classroom practices and accomplish classroom tasks that are linked to students' learning. All assess performance by focusing on authentic sch ool and classroom tasks that are close to the everyday work of teaching. All assume that teacher candidates should know how to learn from their own practice by analyzing t eaching and learning events and making their interpretations public and thus open t o critique by others. And finally, all four make it clear that professional performance as an outcome of teacher education has to do with demonstrating the connections among teac her learning, professional practice, and student learning. There are also important differences here, however, and the four examples provide some sense of range and variation in how profession al performance is being constructed as an outcome of preservice teacher education. With approaches such as teacher work samples, for example, teacher candidates demonstrat e their knowledge by constructing appropriate learning objectives and writing explana tions about why particular students did and did not make the desired learning gains. In these explanations, teacher learning and teacher knowledge are regarded only as "enabler s" of desired student outcomes (Schalock, Schalock, & Myton, 1998, p. 469) rather than as outcomes of teacher education themselves (Diez, 2000). The overriding f ocus with work samples is "demonstrable teacher effectiveness as measured by the learning gains of students" (Schalock, Schalock, & Myton, 1998, p. 469), an app roach that contrasts with assessments that emphasize portfolios and inquiries by teacher candidates about students' learning, which as I stated above, are co nsidered by work sample proponents as "weak evidence" of teacher candidates' success. In contrast to work samples, performance assessments that focus on teacher knowl edge and understanding are more consistent with the professional standards of NBPTS and INTASC (Darling-Hammond, 1998; Diez, 2000). Advocates of portfolios and the like point out that teacher work samples do not provide a well-developed explanation of the connections between teaching and learning, do not require teacher candi dates to understand why certain practices lead to student learning, and do not requ ire them to justify why certain learning objectives are more important than others. As these four examples make clear, when pr ofessional performance is regarded as an outcome of teacher education, there is variety i n emphasis on teacher learning, student learning, and/or the relation between teach er and student learning. There is also


29 of 56variation in the sources of standards and criteria for evaluation of performances. Some of the examples above evaluate teacher candidates' performances against standards aligned with professional curriculum and teaching s tandards, some against standards of professional practice validated in the field, and s ome against some combination of these. With other approaches, it is not clear what the sou rces of standards and criteria are. Along different lines, some versions of professiona l performance emphasize critique of curriculum standards and traditional practices by e valuating teacher candidates—at least in part—in terms of their ability to challenge, rat her than comply with, current "best practice" if and when these best practices do not s erve the interests of particular groups of students. I would argue here that at the heart of di fferent constructions of what constitutes competent teaching performance is more than a seman tic debate about whether teacher education should be producing what some have called "accomplished teachers," who know how to learn from teaching on an ongoing basis or as others have termed it, "teachers who can accomplish something" by way of m easured student learning gains (Schalock & Imig, 2000). What is at the heart are b asic differences in definitions of teaching and learning and in connections that are a ssumed among teacher learning, professional practice, and student learning. As my examples attest, these differences are played out in the tasks teacher candidates are expe cted to perform, the kinds of products they are required to produce, the evidence that is collected to document these, the criteria used to evaluate the evidence, and the underlying a ssumptions about professional knowledge and practice that guide the overall enter prise. Also at issue are the roles critique and inquiry are assumed to play (or not) i n professional performance and the larger political, professional, and social agendas to which they are connected.Constructing Outcomes in Teacher Education: Possibi lities and Pitfalls So far in this article, I have tried to ma ke the case that how we construct outcomes in teacher education (including how we make the cas e that some outcomes matter more than others) legitimizes but also undermines partic ular points of view about the purposes of schooling, the nature of teaching and learning, and the role of the teacher in educational reform. In the remaining sections of th is article, I explore some of the possibilities as well as the pitfalls in the outcom es debate. Tensions between Consensus and Critique Many discussions about outcomes in teacher education begin with the assumption that there is an unprecedented professional consens us about how to reform education by developing closer and closer alignment among three things: (1) standards for teaching and learning in particular content and curricular a reas, (2) high stakes assessments of students and teachers, and (3) new models of teache r education, licensing, and certification. There is, however, a fair amount of evidence that just below the surface of common language and very general agreement, there a re deep differences rather than consensus. The whole movement for the privatization o f schooling (and with it the deregulation of teacher education), driven by a mar ket approach to education reform (Earley, 2000), is an obvious—an enormous—example o f the lack of consensus about teacher education in the U.S. The deregulation move ment mentioned earlier in this article helps to explain some otherwise puzzling di screpancies within and among state policies. For example, many states now have officia l relationships with NCATE and/or


30 of 56are working with INTASC and NBPTS to develop profes sional standards for the licensing of beginning teachers (Scannell & Metcalf 2000). However some of these very same states have recently implemented or are about to put into place state policies that are fundamentally out of sync with the professional standards of these organizations. Colorado, for example, has removed the word "divers ity" from its regulations regarding teacher preparation. Massachusetts Department of Ed ucation officials have excised the word "constructivism" from discussions and guidelin es for school district leaders. Just two weeks before it was to be administered to thous ands of K-12 students (and well after teachers and school districts had adjusted curricul um and instruction so that they would be consistent with new assessments), Arizona suspen ded its "cutting edge" performance-based student assessment plan and retur ned to more traditional assessments (Smith, Heinecke, & Noble, 1999). In addition, stat es such as New Jersey and Texas now advocate alternate routes with "quickie" teache r education workshops as a preferred entry into teaching (Klagholz, 2000), and new teach er certification regulations such as those in Massachusetts explicitly separate the deve lopment of pedagogy, which is to be picked up on the job, from the development of subje ct matter knowledge, which is regarded entirely as an arts and sciences matter (M assachusetts Department of Education, 1999). These are glaring examples of the fact tha t there is not consensus in the U.S. about how and where teachers should be educated, what the y should learn (or not learn), and what theories of teaching and learning should guide their learning. Even if we put the professionalizationderegulation debate aside, how ever, it may be that what Hawley and Valli (1999) have called "an almost unprecedented c onsensus . among researchers, professional development specialists, and key polic ymakers on ways to increase the knowledge and skills of educators substantially" is at least partly an illusion—or a wish. There are indications of lack of consensus within the profession as well as between the profession and its detractors. For example, onl y 500 of the 1200 institutions in the country that recommend teachers for certification a re nationally accredited (Wise, 1999), and Linda DarlingHammond (2000) claimed in a rece nt discussion of the reforms called for by the NCTAF that the American Associati on of Colleges for Teacher Education had actually lobbied against a provision in the Higher Education Act that would have encouraged accreditation as a means of i ncreasing accountability for teacher education institutions. (Note 3) Along related but different lines, Frank Murray, who was an early and active player in efforts to codify the knowledge base for teaching and teacher education (Murray, 1996), has cautioned tha t the knowledge base is a tentative and emerging one with few settled policies and prac tices (Murray, 2000). He points out that the professional standards, which are the back bone of reforms proposed by NCTAF and other professional agencies, represent provisio nal and untested recommendations rather than empirically validated policies and prac tices. Murray advocates accreditation standards based on outcomes evidence in keeping wit h institutional purposes and goals rather than simply in keeping with standards. Murra y and the TEAC organization, which he heads, have been characterized as obstacles to r eform in teacher education, and their emphasis on outcomes evidence based on institutiona l goals rather than professional standards has been labeled "disingenuous" at best, "consumer fraud" at worst (Darling-Hammond, 2000, a). Along different lines, Susan Lytle and I h ave argued (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2000) that the widely touted "new professional deve lopment" may be less monolithic and consensual than is claimed in some places. We h ave suggested that beneath the surface of similarlynamed teacher education strat egies and organizational arrangements such as professional development schools or inquiry -centered teacher education, "the


31 of 56new vision" of professional development differs sub stantially, depending in part upon underlying assumptions and goals, especially upon d iffering images of knowledge, practice, and teacher learning (Cochran-Smith & Lyt le, 1999, a). Some of the differences noted above among teacher education policy makers, researchers, and practitioners may be accounted for as turf battles, some as what Smith, Heinecke, and Noble (1999) call "political symbolis m and contention" (p. 158), and some as genuine and rational debate about the meani ng of teaching and learning and the purposes of schooling. But in the face of these dis agreements, it is appropriate to ask what accounts for the strong claims that consensus already exists and what propels such strong advocacy of closer and closer alignment of e ducational outcomes. Yinger's incisive explanation of the role of standards and consensus in the process of professionalization (Note 4) is useful here (Yin ger, 1999; Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000). He points out that the central issue in prof essionalization is how a group makes a claim for and establishes "jurisdictional authority (Yinger, 1999, p. 86) over the knowledge and problems of professional practice in a given area. He comments that standards are a powerful professional tool and that consensus is critical to the professionalization process, signaling to the publi c and to policy makers that a profession has established cognitive jurisdiction. Yinger concludes: As consensus develops around national standards for teaching and teacher preparation, it fulfills the needs of both policy m akers and the public for simplification of the image of teaching and issues of quality. There was no way teaching could have met these social needs for a unified, scientifically based perception of professional practice as long a s academics were arguing publicly about conceptions of teaching and 50 state legislatures were deciding the matters for themselves. (p. 106) Yinger's analysis suggests that we need co nsensus about outcomes in teacher education whether we have it or not. The pitfall he re—and my caution as we construct outcomes in teacher education—is that we will sacri fice or gloss over the healthy and vital contribution of critique for what is arguably the greater professional good of consensus. On a certain level, working from consensus and alignment of standards at multiple levels of schooling and teaching are rational and m uch-needed improvements in teacher education. Aligning school-based curriculum and lea rning standards with standards for teacher education is a far cry from the days of hap hazard or idiosyncratic teacher education programs based on faculty members' favori te assignments or distant memories of their own teaching experiences. On another level however, the greater the supposed consensus and the tighter the alignment of all the pieces, the less room there is for critique and questioning within the profession and in the preparation of prospective teachers. As we construct outcomes in teacher educat ion, a central challenge is how to prepare teacher candidates who can demonstrate what some consider "best" instructional practices, but also know how to challenge those pra ctices when they exclude certain children or fail to serve some students. How will w e prepare teachers who know how to "fit" into tightly aligned standardsdriven school s and school systems, but also know how to raise questions about whose interests are be ing served, whose needs are being met, and whose are not being met by those systems? The emerging professional consensus is tha t teacher candidates must demonstrate that they can affect the learning of all K-12 students. But serving the needs of some K-12


32 of 56students may mean challenging the consensus itself— challenging the bases of some curriculum frameworks, assessments, and school poli cies that do not serve all students by identifying inequities in the current arrangemen ts of schooling. Critique as an outcome of teacher education—"teaching against the grain" as outcome (Cochran-Smith, 1991a)—is a notion that is diametrically opposed to recent initiatives in some higher education institutions that are intended to provide "quality assurances" about their recent graduates. Quality assurances, or warranties—if you will—are commitments made by higher education institutions to local school distr icts that if their teacher candidates, once hired, are not able to perform to the satisfaction of school principals on their first jobs, they will be assisted and "retrained" by the teache r education institution until they can. What does this kind of quality assurance do to the notion of the "learning teacher" who teaches to standards but also critiques them? What does this do the notion of teacher as professional decision-maker who faces difficult cho ices among competing claims to justice in order to meet the needs of all students? In teacher education, we face a major challenge—how to retain and nurture constructive cr itique at the same time that we work to build professional consensus about what makes a promising teacher candidate and a good teacher.Problems with the Inputs-Outputs Metaphor As mentioned above, some people have been describing changes in accreditation standards as a "paradigm shift" (Schalock & Myton, 1988; Schalock & Imig, 2000) from "inputs to outputs" or from "inputs to outcomes" in teacher education. It is certainly appropriate to acknowledge that there are major dif ferences in NCATE's new accreditation standards and in the new general focu s on results and outcomes. NCATE's new standards focus less on the knowledge bases and conceptual frameworks of teacher education programs and more on systematic evaluatio n of teacher candidates' demonstrated ability to foster K-12 students' learn ing (NCATE, 1999). It is also the case that from its inception, TEAC focused on outcomes r ather than inputs—that is, TEAC's approach was from the beginning a system for auditi ng the performances of teacher candidates and programs rather than assessing the a lignment of curricula and programs with professional standards (TEAC, 1999). There are a number of problems, however, w ith characterizing this change in emphasis as a paradigm shift and in using metaphors such as "inputs and outputs" to describe it. In Kuhn's sense, the phrase, paradigm shift, implied a major C change and a major change in world view that was shared by a giv en research or academic community. To apply the paradigm shift phrase to ne w and old ways of accrediting teacher education programs implies at the very leas t, that "old" programs—those that focused on the "inputs" of teacher education course s and curriculum—had nothing to do with teacher candidates' actual teaching or with K12 students' actual learning and that old programs had little concern with how teacher ca ndidates adjusted their professional practice to meet the needs of diverse learners. As many teacher education practitioners and researchers are well aware, however, this is no t the case. There have been many programs over the las t two decades that have had all along what we might now call an "outcomes" focus, particu larly those that were inquiryand/or research-based, those that were situated wit hin the ongoing work of schools and classrooms, and those that were committed to prepar ing teachers for urban and special needs populations. These programs have long concent rated on how teacher candidates posed questions, documented students' learning, ana lyzed and interpreted classroom data, adjusted the curriculum to meet the needs of different students, and critiqued their


33 of 56own and others' practice. (Note 5) Characterizing n ew accreditation standards as a "paradigm shift" fails to acknowledge that programs like these have long emphasized learning to teach as a process of learning to docum ent systematically teachers' and students' learning. However, the dominance of the input-output metaphor to describe teacher education outcomes is even more troubling than over use of the paradigm shift phrase. The input-output metaphor conjures up production an d factory imagery and calls to mind the linear flow charts of early computer programmin g days and the schematics that were used to represent the inputoutput operations of e arly technology. In Metaphors We Live By Lakoff and Johnson (1980) suggest that images lik e these can be powerful forces in the social construction of reality: Metaphors may create realities for us, especially s ocial realities. A metaphor may thus be a guide for future action. Such actions will, of course, fit the metaphor. This will, in turn, reinforce the power o f the metaphor to make experience coherent. In this sense metaphors can be self-fulfilling prophecies. (p. 156) The input-output metaphor carries with it a linear view of the relationship of teaching and learning for both K-12 students and fo r teacher candidates, an image that is somewhat reminiscent of the process-product researc h that dominated research on teaching not so long ago (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). W ith process-product research, teacher behaviors were central. Teacher education p rograms consistent with this research base made certain their teacher candidates could de monstrate these behaviors in classroom settings. In current constructions of the outcomes question, there is a different focus—a focus on K-12 student learning rather than teacher behaviors. Schalock, Schalock, and Girod (1997) points out explicitly th at the new focus on outputs and results is quite different from process-product app roaches in that the contexts of teaching are acknowledged and the emphasis is on student lea rning as opposed to teacher behaviors. Despite these differences between proces s-product research and outcomes-based evaluation of teacher education, how ever, their underlying conceptions of teaching and learning are similar—and linear—as the input-output metaphor so powerfully suggests. As we construct outcomes for teacher educat ion, an important challenge will be to eschew narrow views of teaching, particularly those that begin and end with the assumption that teaching can be defined as instruct ional practice that leads to demonstrable student learning gains. If we require teacher candidates to use some kind of calculus that measures and aggregates the learni ng gains of each K-12 student from pretest to posttest measures for each lesson or tea ching unit, there will be an inevitable narrowing of the curriculum and an inevitable pull toward teaching as transmission and learning as accruing bits of knowledge. There will also be an inevitable emphasis on teaching practice as what teachers do within the bo undaries of their classroom walls rather than an expanded view that includes teachers roles as members of school communities, activists, school leaders, and theoriz ers of practice. I have described this broader view of teaching practice as follows (Cochr an-Smith & Lytle, 1999, a): This image of practice entails expanded responsibil ities to children and their families, transformed relationships with teachers a nd other professionals in the school setting, as well as deeper and altered c onnections to communities, community organizations, and school-un iversity partnerships.


34 of 56We are not suggesting that an expanded view of prac tice results from adding teachers' activity outside the classroom to what t hey do inside, but rather that what goes on inside the classroom is pr ofoundly altered and ultimately transformed when teachers' frameworks fo r practice foreground the intellectual, social, and cultural contexts of teaching (p. 276). In short, what I am suggesting here is tha t we need outcomes measures that—ironically—make teaching harder and more compl icated for teacher candidates (rather than easier and more straight-forward). Suc h measures recognize the inevitable complexity and uncertainty of teaching and learning and acknowledge the fact that there are often concurrent and competing claims to justic e operating in the decisions teacher candidates must make from moment to moment, day to day. Linear models of teaching will not suffice here, nor will constructions of ou tcomes that push only for clarity and certainty. Someone once said that those who have be en forced to memorize the world are not likely to change it. It may also be true th at those who have been required to measure the outcomes of teaching only with pluses a nd minuses will not be likely to see the value of question marks, concentric circles, an d arrows that point both ways and sometimes double back. Teachers (and Teacher Educators) as Saviors and Cul prits Many of the outcomes discussions in teache r education are based on the premise that teachers and teaching, teacher educators and t eacher education, are critical components—arguably the critical components—in school change (and ultimate ly perhaps societal change). There is good news and ba d news here. In debates about outcomes, teachers and teacher educators are being constructed as both the last great hope and the most culpable culprits in what ails Am erican schools, a point that has been made repeatedly, often using quotations like these from Michael Fullan and David Cohen, respectively: Teacher education still has the honor of being simu ltaneously the worst problem and the best solution in education. (Fullan 1993, p. 105 quoted in Thiessen, 2000, p. 129)Teachers are the problem that policy must solve, in the sense that their modest knowledge and skills are one important reaso n why most instruction has been relatively didactic and unambitious. But t eachers are also the agents on whom policy must rely to solve that probl em, for unless they learn much more about the subjects they teach, and devise new approaches to instruction, most students' learning will not chang e. (Cohen, 1995, p. 13 quoted in Schalock & Imig, 2000, p. 6) The attention given recently to outcome-ba sed assessment systems that incorporate student achievement data into evaluations of indivi dual teachers and schools reinforces this idea. The research of Sanders and Horn (1994, 1998), for example, based on their Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System has been wi dely cited by researchers and policy makers who represent a wide range of perspec tives (e.g. Darling-Hammond,1998, 2000; Murray, 2000; Ballou & Podgursky, 1999) and e ven reach diametrically different conclusions about teacher education and teacher lic ensing policies. Despite their differences, however, policy makers use research li ke Sanders and Horn's to make the


35 of 56same point about the importance of teachers and tea chers' work: When other variables are adjusted for or held constant, teacher effectiv eness is the primary factor that accounts for differences in student learning, even stronger as a determinant of students' achievement than class size and heterogeneity. This means that teachers are responsible for students' learning despite the mitigation of so cial and cultural contexts, students' backgrounds, and the match or mismatch of school an d community expectations. Many of the most prominent voices in discu ssions about outcomes use evidence about the impact of individual teachers to make an equally strong point about the importance of teacher education. This link is cryst al clear in Gary Sykes' (1999) introduction to a recent handbook of policy and pra ctice, which he co-edited with Linda Darling-Hammond (Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 1999). Improvement of American education relies centrally on the development of a highly qualified teacher workforce imbued with th e knowledge, skills and dispositions to encourage exceptional learning in a ll of the nation's students. (Sykes, 1999, p. xv) My intention here is not to differ with Sykes and others who are adamant ab out the importance of teacher professionalization. I am in no way suggesting that teachers—and teacher education—are not important. I have spent m ore than twenty years demonstrating and acting on the assumption that the y are. During this time, I have argued consistently that we need teachers who enter and remain in the profession not expecting to carry on business as usual but prepare d to teach differently and to join others in major efforts to change the ways we think about teaching, schooling, and social change (Cochran-Smith, 1991, 1995b, 1998). As we construct outcomes for teacher educa tion, we face the challenge of how to emphasize the centrality of teachers' work without implying that teachers—individually or collectively—are the panacea for the problems of American education and American society. The dire circumstances of the cities are n ot going to change because teachers teach better. Weiner (1989) makes this point with c larity when she argues that the "Herculean task" of teaching in urban schools is th e result of complex school bureaucracies, the isolation of schools from the fa milies and communities they are supposed to serve, and the large numbers of student s in urban classrooms whose families have neither the resources nor the will to affirm a nd support school values. Weiner points out that professional development projects c an only help teachers deal with the third factor—the situations they find in their clas srooms: Teacher education programs can prepare teachers to confront ...conditions in their classrooms, by educating candidates to teach disadvantaged students with respect, creativity, and skill, but they canno t prepare individual teachers to substitute for the political and social movements that are needed to alter the systemic deficiencies of urban educati on. (p. 153) McCarthy (1993) makes a similar point in h is criticism of multicultural education. He claims that by ignoring "the crucial issues of s tructural inequality and differential power relations" (p. 243), advocates of multicultur al education place enormous and unrealistic responsibility on the shoulders of clas sroom teachers. Notwithstanding recent research about the enduring impact of teacher exper tise on students' learning, we must remember that teachers—and teacher educators—are ne ither the saviors nor the culprits of all that is wrong with American education and Am erican society.


36 of 56Getting Social Justice onto the Outcomes Agenda In the standards of NBPTS, INTASC, and NCA TE, there is an explicit mandate that teachers and teacher candidates meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student population by producing demonstrable learning gains for all children. NBPTS Standard 1 states that professional teachers must be committ ed to students' learning and dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students and that expert teachers adjust their teaching according to varying student interest, ski ll, knowledge and background (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards 1994). Similarly INTASC Principle 3 states that the good beginning teacher understands "how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructio nal opportunities that are adapted to diverse learners" (Interstate New Teacher Assessmen t and Support Consortium, 1992). NCATE's new Standard 4, which is labeled "Diversity ," is consistent with NBPTS and INTASC standards. It requires that teacher preparat ion units must design, implement, and evaluate curriculum, field experiences, and cli nical practices so that teacher candidates acquire the knowledge, skills and dispos itions necessary to help all students learn. NCATE stipulates that this should include ex periences working with diverse higher education and school faculty, diverse teache r candidates, and diverse and exceptional students in schools (National Council f or the Accreditation of Teacher Education 1999). In particular, NCATE standards r equire that "candidates learn to contextualize teaching and to draw upon representat ions from the students' own experiences and skills. Candidates should learn how to challenge students toward cognitive complexity and engage students through in structional conversation" (pp. 15-16). Some proponents of teacher professionaliza tion have pointed out that the standards of NBPTS and INTASC coupled with new NCATE standard s provide a remarkably consistent picture of the good teacher. Yinger (199 9) makes this point quite lucidly: Through the work of [these] three organizations…a p owerful consensus has emerged regarding the definition and assessment of good teaching throughout a career, from preservice education to a dvanced professional certification. The standards have framed the image of the professional teacher as a knowledgeable, reflective practitioner willing and able to engage in collaborative, contextually grounded lear ning activities. (p. 102-103) An image of the professional teacher as re flective and knowledgeable is certainly laudable, one that few would debate. It is also imp ortant to ask, however, whether this emerging view of the prospective professional inclu des images of teacher candidates as activists, as agents for social change, and/or as a llies for social justice? Does it include an image of the teacher candidate as one who works with others to challenge the current arrangements of schools and schooling? As we construct outcomes in teacher educati on, we need to interrogate what it means to teach "all students" well and what it mean s to adjust teaching practices according to the needs and interests of "all childr en." In a recent chapter on preparing teachers for diversity, Gloria Ladson-Billings (199 9a) asserts that "the changing demographics of the nation's schoolchildren have ca ught schools, colleges, and departments of teacher education by surprise. Stude nts are still being prepared to teach in idealized schools that serve White, monolingual, middle class children from homes


37 of 56with two parents" (p. 86-87). In another recent art icle about culturally relevant approaches to teacher assessment, Ladson-Billings ( 1999b) further asserts that these are "dangerous times" for teachers of students of color because some of the new evaluations of teacher competency "may actually serve to reinsc ribe a narrow set of teaching practices that fail to serve all children well—part icularly children of color and children living in poverty" (p. 255). Similarly Jackie Jorda n Irvine suggests that some aspects of current teacher assessments, including those used b y NBPTS, are not in keeping with what we know about the strategies, relationships, a nd beliefs of teachers who teach children of color most effectively (Irvine, 2000; I rvine & Fraser, 1998). As we construct outcomes in teacher educat ion, one of the challenges we face is how to keep social justice—particularly issues of r ace, class, and language background—on the agenda. At the same time that the re is a professional consensus that the professional teacher is knowledgeable, reflecti ve, and collaborative, another consensus has emerged about the effective teacher o f children of color, children whose first language is not English, and/or children whos e culture is not Western European in origin. This other image of the professional teache r is of one who constructs pedagogy that is culturally relevant and responsive (Gay, 20 00; Irvine & York, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995), multicultural but als o socially reconstructionist (Sleeter & Grant, 1987; Sleeter & McLaren, 1995), anti-racist (Sleeter, 1992; Tatum, 1992), anti-assimilationist (King, 1996), and/or aimed at social justice (Cochran-Smith, 1995, a,b; 1999). (Note 6) In short, the professional tea cher is one who teaches in a way that bell hooks (1994) calls emancipatory or "transgress ive": The classroom with all its limitations, remains a l ocation of possibility. In that field of possibility we have the opportunity t o labor for freedom, to demand of ourselves and our comrades an openness of mind and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively i magine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is education as the practice of freedom. (p. 207) I want to be clear that I am in no way sug gesting that these two images of the professional teacher—as reflective and knowledgeabl e, on the one hand, and as transformative and culturally relevant, on the othe r—are necessarily inconsistent or that they cannot mutually coexist in constructions of ou tcomes in teacher education. In fact with performance assessments where teacher candidat es are expected to document student learning but also demonstrate their own eff orts to work for social change, the two images are entirely consistent and mutually rei nforcing. But it is also important to note that these two images are by no means necessarily co-incidental. We could easily imagine performance assessments, for example, that demonstrate that a teacher candidate is reflective, collaborative, and knowled geable but that have little or nothing to do with critiquing the inequities of the educati onal system or raising questions about the school as a sorting machine that reinforces pri vilege as well as disadvantage. An important challenge as we construct outcomes for te acher education is to imagine performance assessments for teacher candidates that require both. Outcomes in Teacher Education: Democratic or Market Driven? As I have alluded several times, many of th e most contentious debates about outcomes in teacher education stem from two fundame ntally different approaches to teacher education reform and from two fundamentally different views of the purposes of


38 of 56schooling. The first, which is intended to reform t eacher education through professionalization so that all students are guaran teed fully-licensed and wellqualified teachers, is based on the belief that public educat ion is vital to a democratic society. The second, which is intended to reform teacher educati on through deregulation so that larger numbers of college graduates (with no teache r preparation) can enter the profession, is based on a market approach to the pr oblem of teacher shortages that feeds off erosion of public confidence in education. A number of analysts have argued that a ma rket approach to educational policy fundamentally undermines a democratic vision of soc iety (Earley, 2000; Engel, 2000; Labaree, 1997). Michael Engel (2000) makes this poi nt bluntly: "Market ideology and democratic values in education are mutually exclusi ve" (p. 6). Similarly Earley (2000) and Labaree (1997) each point out that a market app roach to reform of teaching and teacher education fundamentally misunderstands the nature of teachers' work, which is primarily a public enterprise for the common good, in contrast with market approaches to educational reform, which are about individual c ompetition for what Labaree calls "private goods." Pointing to some of the basic cont radictions implicit in the 1998 Higher Education Act as evidence of the mismatch between t eachers' work, which is fundamentally democratic, and market-driven reforms which are fundamentally competitive and individualistic, Earley offers this trenchant analysis: A market policy lens is based on competition, choic e, winners and losers, and finding culprits. Yet teachers must assume that all children can learn, so there cannot be winners and losers. Market policies applied to public education are at odds with collaboration and cooper ative approaches to teaching and learning…Paradoxically the Higher Educ ation Act Title II categorical programs encourage institutions of high er education to form collaborative partnerships across academic discipli nes and with K-12 schools for the purpose of preparing new teachers a nd offering professional development for career educators. However, under th e market approach being used in educational policy and reflected in t he accountability sections of the same law, teachers and those who design and administer their preparation programs must have as a primary concern competition, being a winner, not a loser, and certainly not being cast a s a culprit. The consequence of these pressures is the domestication of teachers (Note 7) [and perhaps I could add here, the domestication of teacher educators], perpetuating their role as semiskilled workers. . and frustrating efforts for teaching to be truly professional work. (pp. 36-37) [parenthetical comment added] Constructions of outcomes that are embedde d within market approaches to education reform legitimize the dominance of "priva te goods" and undermine the view that public education is an enterprise for the publ ic good in a democratic society. Emphasis on private goods and the privatization of education is a trend that is not limited to the U.S. Rather the free-market approach to educational reform is a global phenomenon. Along these lines, Apple (2000), Whitty Power, & Halpin (1998), and Robertson (1998), among others, have pointed out th at the tendency in Australia, New Zealand, the U.K., and in parts of the U.S. has bee n to devolve blame for the "failures" of public education to the local level—schools, tea chers, and teacher education programs—while at the same time overregulating th e content of education and dramatically curtailing the role of universities in teacher education (Thiessen, 2000).


39 of 56 Many of the recent attacks on teacher educ ation are best understood in terms of this lager global debate. There is a striking simil arity in many of the attacks on teacher education and in their allegiance to market-driven reforms that make the anti-democracy theme very clear In these attacks, multicultural education is often constructed as a villain (Farkas & Johnson, 1997; Schrag, 1999)—at b est politically correct but meaningless, and at worst an evil political movemen t that is denying white middle class citizens their share of space in the pages of textb ooks and causing a downward trend in children's skills (Stotsky, 1999). In many of the a ttacks on teacher education, the commentator presumes to speak for "the public," for "public school teachers," or for "parents," all of whom want the same things—order, discipline, basic skills, and a return to American traditions (Farkas & Johnson, 1997). Th ere is also an assumption that knowledge is a static and inert commodity that is ( or should be) transmitted directly from teachers to students. Finally there is the pre sumption that what would save our schools is the "return" to an earlier and idealized time when American values were uncontested and shared by all, when the "canon" of western European history and literary works was unchallenged, and when academic standards for all students were rigorous and culturally neutral (Ravitch, 2000). Ea ch of these entirely faulty presumptions and historical inaccuracies has been c ritiqued and deconstructed in great detail elsewhere (e.g., Apple, 2000; Banks, 2001; L adson-Billings, 1999a). The similarities among many of these attac ks, though, are not surprising—nor are their explicitly conservative politics and their ge stures toward racism—when it is understood that they are part of a market-driven ap proach to educational reform and part of the larger conservative political agenda for the privatization of American education. Although it claims to be neutral, this agenda begin s with the premise that we need to deregulate and dismantle teacher education, certify ing teachers solely on the basis of high stakes test scores and letting the market deci de which children will have the most qualified teachers. These are anything but neutral premises and neutral assumptions about the purposes of American education, the purpo ses of teacher education, and the role of public education in a democratic society. Mary Heaton Vorse once wrote, "In the last analysis, civilization itself will be measured by the way in which children live and by w hat chance they have in the world" (quoted in Maggio, 1997, p. 8). As we construct out comes for teacher education, we need to keep in mind how we will be measured by our own measures. As researche rs, practitioners, and policy makers in teaching and te acher education, we will not measure up unless we preserve a place for critique in the f ace of consensus, unless we keep at the center of teacher education rich and complex unders tandings of teaching and learning that are not easily reducible to algorithms, unless we acknowledge that although teachers have a critical role in educational reform, they al one are neither the saviors nor the culprits in what is wrong with American schools and American society, and unless we remain vigilant in demanding time and space on the outcomes agenda not just for professional discussions about meeting the needs of all students but for deep interrogation of questions related to diversity, eq uity, access, and racism.. At this critical juncture in the reform and development of teacher e ducation, if we do not take control of framing the outcomes in teacher education, then the outcomes will surely frame us and undermine our work as teachers, teacher educators, researchers, and policy makers committed to a democratic vision of society and to the vital role that teachers and teacher educators play in that vision.Notes


40 of 56The author wishes to acknowledge the insightful com ments on early drafts of this paper from: Susan Lytle, Larry Ludlow Curt Dudley-Marli ng, and Mary Kim Fries, who also provided invaluable bibliographic and research assi stance A version of this paper was presented as the AERA V ice Presidential Address for Division K (Teaching and Teacher Education) at the AERA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, April, 2000. The American Education Research Association's "Nati onal Consensus Panel on Teacher Education" is currently exploring the empir ical research in several areas related to teacher qualifications, program structur es, teacher attrition, and career choices. Part of the task of this panel is to consi der contradictory claims in these areas. 1. The examples used here are drawn exclusively from p reservice teacher education; thus I have not used as examples the performance as sessments developed as part of early licensing requirements in various states ( e.g., INTASC efforts in Connecticut, Indiana, etc.). It is important to not e also that I am not proposing a typology of performance assessments in preservice e ducation nor am I offering these examples as prototypes. I am also not suggest ing that these are mutually exclusive from one another since they are clearly n ot and in fact several of them overlap or are consistent in important ways. Rather I believe that they provide some sense of the ways the performance is being con structed as an outcome in preservice education as well as some sense of the c onsequences of doing so. 2. David Imig, President of the American Association o f Colleges of Teacher Education, suggests this characterization of AACTE' s position is misleading if not inaccurate because it does not fully take into acco unt the political issues that swirled around these debates nor the fact that ther e was no realistic possibility that this provision would have become policy (Imig, pers onal communication, 2000). 3. Yinger (1999) draws on Andrew Abbott's sociological analysis of professionalization across European and American mo dern professions for his analysis of professionalism and standards in teache r education. 4. See Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1999b) for a synthesis o f the teacher research movement over the last ten years and Cochran-Smith Lytle (1999a) for an overview of teacher education initiatives wherein n ew and experienced teachers work together to construct local knowledge of pract ice. 5. I have argued elsewhere (Cochran-Smith, 1999) that although these various pedagogies are not synonymous, they are animated by several shared premises that comprise the idea of teaching for social justice. S chools (and how "knowledge," "curriculum," "assessment," and "access" are constr ucted and understood in schools) are not neutral grounds but contested site s where power struggles are played out. The structural inequities embedded in t he social, organizational, and financial arrangements of schools and schooling hel p to perpetuate dominance for dominant groups and oppression for oppressed groups Power, privilege, and economic advantage and/or disadvantage play major r oles in the school and home lives of students whether they are part of language cultural, or gender majority groups or minority groups in our society The hist ory of racism and sexism in America and the ways "race" and "gender" have been constructed in schools and society are central, whether consciously or not, in the ways students, families, and communities make meaning of school phenomena as wel l as how they interact with school designates. Curriculum and instruction are neither neutral nor natural. 6.


41 of 56The academic organization of information and inquir y reflects contested views about what knowledge is of most value; part of the curriculum is what is present or absent as well as whose perspectives are central or marginalized, and whose interests are served or undermined. The social and organizational structures of instruction, including classroom and other discours e patterns, grouping strategies, behavioral expectations, and interpretive perspecti ves are most congruent with White mainstream patterns of language use and socia lization and are more conducive to the achievement of boys than girls. An imated by these understandings, teaching for social justice is teac hing that is openly committed to a more just social order (Freire, 1970; Nieto, 1996 ). Earley attributes this phrase to Philadelphia Schoo l District teacher and researcher, Diane Waff. 7.References_______________. The 2000 campaign: Transcript of d ebate between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush (2000, October 4)., [online website New York Time s Archives]. Alverno College. (1996). Ability-based learning program: Teacher education Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Institute.Apple, M. (2000). Can critical pedagogies interrupt rightists policies? Educational Theory, 50 (2), 229-254. Ashton, P., & Crocker, T. (1987). Systematic study of planned variations: The essential focus of teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 38 2-8. Ball, D. (1996, March). Teacher learning and the ma thematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn. Phi Delta Kappan, 77 (7), 500-508. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of po licy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Reforming teach er training and recruitment. Government Union Review, 14 (4), 1-53. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1997). Reforming teacher training and recruitment: A critical appraisal of the recommendations of the Na tional Commission on Teaching and America's Future [online website]. t.html. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? (ID: 10418), [online website]. http://www.tcrecord .org. Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (1999). Teacher trainin g and licensure: A layman's guide. In M. Kanstoroom & C. Finn (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools Washington, DC: The Thomas Fordham Foundation.


42 of 56Ballou, D., & Podgursky, M. (2000). Reforming teach er preparation and licensing: What is the evidence? Teachers College Record, 102 (1), 5-27. Banks, J. (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge a nd action: Historical and contemporary perspectives New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Banks, J. (2001). Citizenship education and diversi ty: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52 (1), 5-16. Barnes, H. (1989). Structuring knowledge for beginn ing teaching. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher (pp. 13-22). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Black, L., Bousel, H., Byer, L., Cimakasky, L., Coy D., Freilich, P., Hartman, B., Hilton, D., Joe, S., Lawrence, D., Mahoney-Hanley, M., Swenson, J., & Winkelstein, B. (1993). Leaving the script behind. In M. Cochran-Sm ith & S. Lytle, Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 194-203). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Blackwell, P., & Diez, M. (1999). Achieving a new vision of master's education for teachers Washington, DC: National Council for the Accredit ation of Teacher Education.Borrowman, M. (1956). The liberal and technical in teacher education: A h istorical survey of American thought New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986) A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation. Clark, C., & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York, NY: Macmillan. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review, 51 (3), 279310. Cochran-Smith, M. (1995a). Color blindness and bask et making are not the answers: Confronting the dilemmas of race, culture, and lang uage diversity in teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 493522. Cochran-Smith, M. (1995b). Uncertain allies: Unders tanding the boundaries of race and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65 (541-570). Cochran-Smith, M. (1998). Inquiry as a stance on teaching: The preservice cas e. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Ed ucational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Cochran-Smith, M. (2000a). Editorial: The questions that drive reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (5), 331-333. Cochran-Smith, M. (2000b). The future of teacher ed ucation: Framing the questions that matter. Teacher Education Journal, 11 (1), 13-24.


43 of 56Cochran-Smith, M. (in press). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching & Teacher Education Cochran-Smith, M., & Dudley-Marling, C. (In press). The flunk heard 'round the world. Teaching Education Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19 (2), 2-11. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Inside/Outside: Teacher research and knowledge New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999a). Teacher lea rning in professional communities. In D. P. Pearson & I. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Assoc iation. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999b). Relationshi p of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249-306). Washington, DC: American E ducational Research Association.Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28 (7), 15-25. Cochran-Smith, M., Dimattia, P., Dudley-Marling, C. Freedman, S., Friedman, A., Jackson, J., Jackson, R., Loftus, F., Mooney, J., N eisler, O., Peck, A., Pelletier, C., Pine, G., Scanlon, D., & Zollers, N. (1999, March). Seeking social justice: A teacher education faculty's self study, Year III. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal Canada. Cochran-Smith, M., Diez, M., Imig, D., Murrell, P., Pankrantz, R., & Schalock, D. (2000). Shifting the paradigm: Professionalizing teaching t hrough accountability for student progress in learning. Symposium held at the American Association of Coll eges for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL.Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1990). Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 347-353. Cohen, D., McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (Eds.). (1 993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cowart, B., & Myton, D. (1997). The Oregon teacher work sample methodology: Rationale and background. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools (pp. 11-14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Darling-Hammond, L. (1991). Are our teachers ready to teach? Newsletter of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Educa tion, 1 6-10. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). Who teaches and why: Di lemmas of building a profession


44 of 56for twenty-first century schools. In J. Sikula & T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 67-93). New York, NY: Macmillan.Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that s upports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55 (5), 611. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). State teachin g policies and student achievement. Teaching Quality: Policy Briefs (2), 1-7. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000a). Teaching for America's future: National commissions and vested interests in an almost profession. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 162-183. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000b). Teacher quality and st udent achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1999). Inves ting in teaching as a learning profession: Policy, problems, and prospects. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of po licy and practice (pp. 376-412). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Klein, S. (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for teaching San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Denton, J., & Lacina, L. (1984). Quantity of profes sional education coursework linked with process measures of education. Teacher Education and Practice, 1 3946. Diez, M. (1996). Who will prepare the next generati on of teachers? In L. Kaplan & R. Edelfelt (Eds.), Teachers for a new millennium: Aligning development national goals, and high standards for all students (pp. 20-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Diez, M. (1997, Winter). Assessment as a lever in e ducation reform. Phi Kappa Phi: National Forum, 77 (1), 2730. Diez, M. (1998). The role of standards and assessme nt: A dialogue. In M. Diez (Ed.), Changing the practice of teacher education: Standar ds and assessment as a lever for change Washington, DC: AACTE. Diez, M., & Hass, J. (1997). No more piecemeal refo rm: Using performance-based approaches to rethink teacher education. Action in Teacher education, XIX (2), 17-26. Digest of Educational Statistics. (1997). Elementary and secondary: Regulations ( NCES 98-015). Washington, DC: National Center for E ducation Statistics. Dill, W. (1998, July/August). Specialized accredita tion: An idea whose time has come? Or gone? Change 18-25.


45 of 56Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (Eds.). (1974). The study of teaching New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Earley, P. (2000). Finding the culprit: Federal pol icy and teacher education. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 2539. Education Commission of the States. (2000). In pursuit of quality teaching: Five key strategies for policymakers Denver, CO: Author. Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1997, August). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement in Commun ity School District #2, New York City New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching & A merica's Future. Engel, M. (2000). The struggle for control of public education: Marke t ideology vs. democratic values Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods on researc h on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Macmillan. Evertson, C., Hawley, W., & Zlotnik, M. (1985). Mak ing a difference in educational quality through teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 36 2-10. Farkas, S., & Johnson, J. (1997). Different drummers: How teachers of teachers view public education New York, NY: Public Agenda. Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. DarlingHammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 3-56). Washington, DC: American Educa tional Research Association. Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. (1993). The impact of su bject matter and education coursework on teacher performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (1), 55-63. Finn, C., Kanstoroom, M., & Petrilli, M. (1999, Nov ember). The quest for better teachers: Grading the states Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Finn, C., & Petrilli, M. (Eds.). (2000, January). The state of state standards 2000 Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Flippo, R. (1986). Teacher certification testing: P erspectives and issues. Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (2), 2-9. Floden, R., & Buchman, M. (1990). Philosophical inq uiry in teacher education. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 42-58). New York, NY: Macmillan.Fordham Foundation. (1999). Manifesto: A policy statement New York, NY: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Seabury Press.


46 of 56Gage, N. (1972). Teacher effectiveness and teacher education: The se arch for a scientific basis Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books. Garcia, P. (1986). The impact of national testing o n ethnic minorities: With proposed solutions. Journal of Negro Education, 55 (3), 347-357. Gardner, W. (1989). Preface. In M. Reynolds (Ed.), Knowledge base for the beginning teacher New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research an d practice New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Gitomer, D., & Latham, A. (2000). Generalizations i n teacher education: Seductive and misleading. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (3), 215-220. Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1999). Teacher licensi ng and student achievement. In M. Kanstoroom & C. Finn (Eds.), Better teaches, better schools Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Graham, P., Lyman, R., & Trow, M. (1998). Accountability of colleges and universities: An essay New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Griffin, G. (1999). Changes in teacher education: L ooking to the future. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook o f the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 1-17). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Pre ss. Grimmett, P., & MacKinnon, A. (1992). Craft knowled ge and the education of teachers. Review of research in education, 18 385-456. Grossman, P. (1990). Mapping back: The role of subj ectspecific teacher education. In P. Grossman (Ed.), The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teac her education New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Haberman, M. (1985). Does teacher education make a difference: A review of comparisons between liberal arts and teacher educat ion graduates. Journal of Thought, 20 (2), 25-34. Haertel, E. (1999, May). Performance assessment and education reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (9), 662666. Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of e ffective professional development: A new consensus. In L. DarlingHammond & G. Sykes (E ds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127150). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Heaton, R. M., & Lambert, M. (1993). Learning to he ar voices: Inventing a new pedagogy of teacher education. In D. K. Cohen & M. W. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy a nd practice (pp. 43-83). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.


47 of 56Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (1), 3-19. Holmes Group. (1986). Teachers for tomorrow's schools East Lansing, MI: Author. Holmes Group. (1996). Tomorrow's schools of education East Lansing, MI: Author. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice o f freedom New York, NY: Routledge.Houston, R. W. (Ed.). (1990). Handbook of research on teacher education (1st ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.Hudson, A., & Lambert, D. (Eds.). (1997). Exploring futures in initial teacher education London: University of London: Institute of Educat ion. Imig, D. (2000, October). Personal Communication. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Conso rtium. (1992). Model standards for beginning teacher licensure and development: A resource for state dialogue Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Offic es. Irvine, J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies, practi ce and prescriptions New York, NY: Greenwood Press.Irvine, J., & Fraser, J. (1998, May 13). Warm demanders [online website]., J., & York, D. E. (1995). Learning styles a nd culturally diverse students: A literature review. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education New York, NY: Macmillan. Jacobson, S., Emihovich, C., Helfrich, J., Paetrie, H., & Stevenson, H. (1998). Transforming schools and schools of education: A ne w vision for preparing educators Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Kanstoroom, M., & Finn, C. (1999, July). Better teachers, better schools Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.Kaplan, L., & Edelfelt, R. (Eds.). (1996). Teachers for a new millennium: Aligning development, national goals, and high standards for all students Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Kennedy, M. (Ed.). (1991). Teaching academic subjects to diverse learners New York, NY: Teachers College Press.King, J. E., Sleeter, C. E., Gutierrez, W., New, C. A., & Takata, S. R. (1996). Race and education: In what ways does race affect the educat ional process? In J. L. Kincheloe & S. Steinberg (Eds.), Thirteen questions: Reframing education's conversat ion (2nd ed.,


48 of 56pp. 157-190). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers.Klagholtz, L. (2000). Growing better teachers in the garden state: New Je rsey's "alternate route" to teacher certification [online website]. 20jersey. html. Klausmeier, R. (1990). Four decades of calls for re form of teacher education: The 1950s through the 1980s. Teacher Education Quarterly, 17 (4), 23-64. Labaree, D. (1997). Public goods, private goods: Th e American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34 (1), 39-81. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dream keepers: Successful teachers of African-American children San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of cult urally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465-491. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Teaching in dangerous t imes: Culturally relevant approaches to teacher assessment. Journal of Negro Education, 67 (3), 255-267. Ladson-Billings, G. (1999a). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. In A. Iran-Nejad & D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 211-248). Washington, DC: American E ducational Research Association.Ladson-Billings, G. (1999b). Preparing teachers for diversity: Historical perspectives, current trends, and future directions. In L. Darlin g-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Learning as the teaching profession: Handbook of po licy and practice (pp. 86-124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigatio ns of real practice New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lampert, M., & Ball, D. (1999). Aligning teacher ed ucation with contemporary K-12 reform visions. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (E ds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 33-53). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Levine, M., & Trachtman, R. (Eds.). (1997). Making professional development schools work: Politics, practice, and policy New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Problems and po ssibilities of institutionalizing teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Socket ( Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 204-220). Chicago, IL: The University of Chic ago Press. Little, J. (1993). Professional community in compre hensive high schools: The two


49 of 56worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. L ittle & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teacher's work: Individuals, colleagues, and contex ts (pp. 137163). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Loucks-Horsley, S. (1995). Professional development and the learner centered school. Theory into Practice, 34 (4), 265-271. Lucas, C. (1999). Teacher education in America: Reform agendas for th e twenty-first century New York, NY: St. Martin's Press. Luna, C., Solsken, J., & Kutz, E. (2000). Defining literacy: Lessons from high-stakes teacher Testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 276-288. Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher rese arch as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62 (4), 447-474. Madaus, G. (1993). National testing system: Manna f rom above? A historical perspective. Educational Assessment, 1 9-26. Madaus, G., & O'Dwyer, L. (1999). A short history o f performance assessment: Lessons learned. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (9), 688-695. Maggio, R. (Ed.). (1997). Quotations on education Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall. Maimon, J. (1999). Little pigs and big ideas: Blowi ng down the 'at-risk' straw house. International Journal of Leadership in Education: T heory and Practice, 2 (3), 191206. McCarthy, C. (1993). Multicultural approaches to ra cial inequality in the United States. In L. A. Castenell & W. F. Pinar (Eds.), Understanding curriculum as racial text Albany, NY: SUNY Press.McConney, A., Schalock, M., & Schalock, D. (1998). Focusing improvement and quality assurance: Work samples as authentic perfor mance measures of prospective teachers' effectiveness. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12 (3), 237-246. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Introduction: New visions of teaching. In D. K. Cohen & M. W. McLaughlin & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 1-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Melnick, S., & Pullin, D. (2000). 'Can you take dic tation?' Prescribing teacher quality through testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (4), 262-275. Millman, J. (1997).(Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Mosle, S. (1996, October 27). The answer is nationa l standards New York Times Murray, F. (Ed.). (1996). The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowled ge base for the preparation of teachers Washington, DC: AACTE.


50 of 56Murray, F. (2000). The role of accreditation reform in teacher education. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 4060. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1994). Standards Detroit, MI: NBPTS.National Commission on Excellence in Education. (19 83). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching for America's future New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.National Commission on Teaching and America's Futur e. (1997, November). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher E ducators. (1999). Proposed NCATE 2000 unit standards [online website]. Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education New York, NY: Longman. Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and poli tical dimensions of action research. Review of research in education, 22 305-343. Patterson, R., Michelli, N., & Pacheco, A. (1999). Centers of pedagogy: New structures for educational renewal San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Reynolds, M. C. (Ed.). (1989). Knowledge base for the beginning teacher Oxford: Pergamon Press.Robertson, H. (1998). Public education in a corpora tedominated culture. In A. Hargreaves & A. Lieberman & M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds.), International handbook of educational change (pp. 396-417). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publish ers. Roth, R. (1996). Standards for certification, licen sure, and accreditation. In J. Sikula & T. J. Buttery & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 242-278). New York, NY: Macmillan.Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1994). The Tennessee Value -Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational ass essment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8 299-311. Sanders, W., & Horn, S. (1998). Research findings f rom the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications fo r educational evaluation and


51 of 56research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12 (3), 247-256. Scannell, M., & Metcalf, P. (2000). Autonomous boar ds and standards-based teacher development. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 61-76. Schalock, D., & Imig, D. (2000). Shulman's union of insufficiencies +7: New dimensio ns of accountability for teachers and teacher educator s Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.Schalock, D., & Myton, D. (1988). A new paradigm fo r teacher licensure: Oregon's demand for evidence of success in fostering learnin g. Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (6), 27-32. Schalock, D., Schalock, M., & Girod, G. (1997). Ref lections on comments by Airasian and Stufflebeam. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools (pp. 62-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Schalock, D., Schalock, M., & Myton, D. (1998, Febr uary). Effectiveness —along with quality —should be the focus. Phi Delta Kappan 468-470. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schrag, P. (1999, July/August). Who will teach the teachers? University Bulletin Shulman, J. (1992). Case methods in teacher education New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Shulman, L. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundat ions of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 51 122. Sikula, J., Buttery, T. J., & Guyton, E. (Eds.). (1 996). Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan. Sirotnick, K., & Goodlad, J. (Eds.). (1988). Schooluniversity partnerships in action New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Sleeter, C. (1992). Restructuring schools for multi cultural education. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (2), 141148. Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1987). An analysis of mul ticultural education in the United States. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (4), 421-444. Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. L. (1995). Multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and the politics of difference Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.


52 of 56Smith, G. (1984). The critical issue of excellence and equity in competency testing. Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (2), 6-9. Smith, M. L., Heinecke, W., & Noble, A. (1999, Wint er). Assessment policy and political spectacle. Teachers College Record, 101 (2), 157-191. Stein, M., Smith, M., & Silver, E. (1999, Fall). Th e development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new sett ings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69 (3), 237-269. Stotsky, S. (1999). Losing our language: How multicultural classroom in struction is undermining our children's ability to read, write, and reason New York, NY: Free Press.Sykes, G. (1999). Introduction: Teaching as the lea rning profession. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. xv-xxiv). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Symms Gallagher, K., & Bailey, J. (2000). Introduct ion to the politics of teacher preparation reform. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 6-10. Symms Gallagher, K., & Bailey, J. (2000). The polit ics of teacher education reform: Strategic philanthopy and public policy making. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 11-24.d Tatum, B. (1992). Talking about race, learning abou t racism. The applications of racial identity development theory. Harvard Educational Review, 62 (1), 1-24. Teacher Education Accreditation Council. (1999). Accreditation principles of the TEAC [online website]., D. (2000). Developing knowledge for prepa ring teachers: Redefining the role of schools of education. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 129-144. Urban, W. (1990). Historical studies of teacher edu cation. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 59-71). New York, NY: Macmillan. U. S. Department of Education. (1998, September). Promising practices: New ways to improve teacher quality [online website]. U. S. Department of Education. (1999). Investing in learning: A policy statement with recommendations on research in education by the Nat ional Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board [online website]. S. Department of Education. (2000, February 1). Update on federal reporting requirements for teacher preparation institutions a nd programs Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.Weiner, L. (1989). Asking the right questions: An a nalysis framework for reform of


53 of 56urban teacher education. The Urban Review, 21 (3), 151-161. Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choice in education: The school, the state, and the market Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.Wilson, S., & Ball, D. (1996). Helping teachers mee t the standards: New challenges for teacher educators. Elementary School Journal, 97 (2), 121-138. Wise, A. (1988). Impacts of teacher testing: State educational gover nance through standard-setting ( NIE-G83-0023). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporat ion. Wise, A. (1996, November). Building a system of qua lity assurance for the teaching profession: Moving into the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (3), 191-192. Wise, A. (1999). Technos interview: Arthur E. Wise. Technos, 8 (3), 6-11. Yarger, S., & Smith, P. (1990). Issues in research on teacher education. In W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 25-41). New York, NY: Macmillan.Yinger, R. (1999). The role of standards in teachin g and teacher education. In G. Griffin (Ed.), The education of teachers: Ninety-eighth yearbook o f the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 85-113). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago P ress. Yinger, R., & Hendricks-Lee, M. (2000). The languag e of standards and teacher education reform. Educational Policy, 14 (1), 94-106. Zeichner, K. (1988). Understanding the character and quality of the acad emic and professional components of teacher education ( ERIC Reproduction Services, ED301537).Zeichner, K. (2000). Ability-based teacher educatio n: Elementary education at Alverno. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Studies of excellence in teachers Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America's Futur e. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1987). Teaching student teachers to reflect. Harvard Educational Review, 57 1-22.About the AuthorMarilyn Cochran-SmithProfessor of EducationBoston CollegeLynch School of EducationCampion Hall 113Chestnut Hill, MA 02467617-552-4180Email:


54 of 56 Marilyn Cochran-Smith is Professor of Education and Director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum & Instruction at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. She is immediate past Vice President of AERA for Division K (Teaching and Teacher Education, 1998-2000). Cochran-Smith is the Editor of the Journal of Teacher Education and co-chair (with Ken Zeichner) of the AERA Natio nal Consensus Panel on Teacher Education as well as co-editor (with Susan Lytle) of the Teachers College Press book series on Practitioner Inquiry She is also a member of the advisory board for th e Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 's CASTL project (Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learnin g) as well as the new Teacher Education Committee of the National Academy of Educ ation. She has written extensively about inquiry-based teacher education, race and diversity issues in teacher education,and teacher research as both professional development and knowledge generation.Copyright 2001 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation


55 of 56 William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven Robert E. Stake University of Illinois—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young UniversityEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/ Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos


56 of 56 Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20019999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00208
0 245
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 9, no. 11 (April 02, 2001).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c April 02, 2001
Constructing outcomes in teacher education : policy, practice and pitfalls / Marilyn Cochran-Smith.
x Research
v Periodicals.
2 710
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
1 773
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
4 856

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 9issue 11series Year mods:caption 20012001Month April4Day 22mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2001-04-02