I see our work as being about the development of teachers as public intellectuals...not
simply to prepare beginning teachers for whatever the particular curricular or pedagogic
demands of policy here now are but for a lifetime in teaching and this involves them being
able to be both critical of initiatives that are thrust on them and creative in their approaches.Although all stated that knowledge of government initiatives was essential, few
stated explicitly that the goal for their course was to teach the official curriculum!
None of the participants from England echoed Gove’s goals of“the preservation of
the nation’s cultural heritage”(Furlong 2013 , p. 40). Similarly, the Australian LTEs
did not conceptualize their courses around the narrow set of goals (phonics and
grammar) that the government proposed. Across the participants many stated they
addressed the formal curriculum but when teaching it they also intentionallycri-
tiqued it. Sharon (Canada) had her student teachers try tofigure out the goals of the
official curriculum while considering the limitations of the government’s position;
Bob (Australia) and his student teachers critiqued the curriculum to expose the view
of literacy that underpins it. Those in England felt the pressure to teach synthetic
phonics, but did so in a way that showed this is not the only way to teach literacy
because it does not work for all children. Although many governments have
developed agencies (e.g. OFSTED in England) to ensure teacher educator com-
pliance, the 28 LTEs intentionally found ways to go beyond simply and uncritically
teaching the national curriculum.
9.7.1 Designing Responsive Courses
Moving from the goals for their courses to course design further illustrates the
complexity of the work of LTEs. Although all spent time preparing a formal course
syllabus enacting it was not straightforward. Given their focus on their student
teachers as individuals courses had to be somewhatflexible. Discussing issues
student teachers were facing in their teaching (e.g. pupil lack of interest in content,
pressure of standardized testing) was deemed a priority by most. The LTEs felt that
connecting the academic program with practice teaching was essential to help
student teachers understand the complexity of teaching and navigate their journey
in teacher education. In order to create a place for these relevant and timely dis-
cussions, the LTEs could not adhere to a rigid syllabus. When asked if their courses
were organic, pre-set, or a combination of both many explained that the course has
to beflexible (organic) in order to meet the needs of the students and address issues
as they arise, see Fig.9.6.
Misa (US) described the importance of beingflexible/organic.“I’m not someone
that goes there with a prepared lecture but I love to engage in conversational
dialogue...sometimes those digressions are where some of the most powerful
learning happens”. While Maya (US) conceptualized her approach as“I see my role
as facilitating conversations between the readings and then providing particular
examples and scaffolds so that we can inquire together and they can arrive at just
different understandings [of children]”. Giovanni (US) said that some of topics
9 You Teach Who You Are Until the Government Comes to Class... 145