England the government determined the number of days student teachers must
spend in practice teaching schools (Murray and Passy 2014 , p. 497) which
diminished their connection to the university. Gilroy ( 2014 ) wryly observed that in
1992 the Secretary of State“launched a ferocious attack on university teacher
education...where he made it clear that only a tiny rump of courses would be left
in the hands of higher education, with teacher education quickly to be moved to
schools”(p. 623). Following suit, the U.S. governments (federal and state) are
increasingly inserting themselves into teacher education. The proposed new
Teacher Preparation Regulations:
requires states to assess and rate every teacher preparation program every year with four
Performance Assessment Levels (exceptional, effective, at-risk, and low-performing), and
states must provide technical assistance to“low-performing”programs.“Low-performing”
institutions and programs that do not show improvement may lose state approval, state
funding, and federal studentfinancial aid. (Kumashiro 2014 , p. n/a)White et al. ( 2010 ) describe the Australian scene as an audit culture:
At a broad level, neoliberalism elicits a climate of‘governmentality’that is articulated
through systems of centrally managed regulation. Outcomes, in this case of education, are
not only prescribed, but are also monitored and assessed through regulatory frameworks.
Professional standards frameworks linked to accreditation requirements underpin an‘audit’
culture in which structures and processes of centralised regulation are paradoxically‘de-
centralised’as institutions and individuals are made responsible for self-evaluation and
meeting specified quality assurance requirements (p. 185).Reforms have“played themselves”out differently across many countries leading to
a plethora of initiatives, models, and practices. In Australia there have been 101
government reports on teacher education over the past three decades (Louden
2008 ). In Australia and England there has been greater oversight by governments to
ensure adherence to the national mandates for education. In England OFSTED
carefully monitors programs to ensure they are addressing the National Curriculum.
Ironically these same governments and the US are allowing for alternative certifi-
cation providers. The US the government has gone so far to“support”alternative
certification programs by giving themfinancial incentives and loosening the rules
for“highly qualified”teachers for those who complete an alternative certification
program. Many American states have adopted the EdTPA (exit portfolio) while
others are framing their programs around Core Competences. Canada with its
decentralized education system has had the least interference although there is
slightly more monitoring of programs. An additional problem with the English,
Australia, and US governments is that they conceptualize literacy teaching as a
mechanistic process and learning to become a teacher through an apprenticeship
model is rooted in a nineteenth century conception of schooling. In the midst of this
political maelstrom teacher educators are preparing student teachers to work in the
schools as they are currently organized which may not be congruent with their
beliefs. Reconciling the differences raises both practical and moral issues.
138 C. Kosnik et al.