AERA 2019: Innovation in Teacher Education: Toward a Critical Reexamination


Okay, good morning everyone and welcome to the special presidential session. My name is Chris Harris and I’m from King’s College, London and I’m chairing today. So I’m gonna start off up here although I will spend most of my time down amongst you because I’m gonna make sure that people do keep to time today. So I have my little cards that will be stopping people. This really exciting event arose from a seminar that happened in London two years ago that’s part of the Center for Innovation and teacher education and Development which is a joint co-run center from Teachers College, University of Columbia, and King’s College, London. And the aim of our group, and I do invite you to go and look at our new website which came live last week, is very much to look at this idea of innovation and to reclaim innovation for the teachers and the teacher educators who work and do so much fantastic work within our education systems, not just here in Canada but in across the world. So what you’re gonna hear today are a group who are internationally renowned scholars who are going to give you their take on innovation and what innovation means. So we have six papers. Here are the six papers and they’re gonna have 15 minutes each. And then we’re very, very fortunate to have Dorinda who’s going to be our discussant who’s gonna pull up the threads of what’s actually happening within these talks, and hopefully if I do my timing right, there’ll be time at the end for comments and questions. But we will be around at the end of the event if people do want to talk with us more. So without further ado I’m gonna start off. And our first paper today is Kelsey Darity who’s going to start us off with Social Justice teacher educators: What Kind of Knowing Is Needed? Thank you. (clapping) Hi, unfortunately Lin Goodwin couldn’t be here. She wasn’t feeling well this morning so you’re stuck with me. But we wrote this paper, I guess about a year ago, looking at what kind of knowing is needed for social justice for teacher educators. So we were looking at two issues, the first being the quality and effectiveness of teacher education which largely depends on confidence and expertise of teacher educators. It’s commonly understood that or known that teacher education and teacher educators are important. But at the same time teacher ED qualifications are minimally discussed and formal preparation for those who instruct teachers is often absent. So it’s important but we’re not talking about it. And then also the issue of educating teachers for diverse classrooms needs to be addressed urgently. In our changing social context, increasing amounts of immigrant refugee, and vulnerable youth, it’s very important that we know how to teach those students in our classroom. But what this means and how it can be enacted remains unclear. And what we assumed going in and then also found to be true was that the rhetoric around social justice and teacher education is more robust than the actual practice of doing it. So if you cannot teach what you do not know what do teacher educators need to know and do in order to move from espousing to enacting social justice in their teaching and teacher educating practice? So in this study we looked at five knowledge domains that were previously developed by Lin and used those as lenses to analyze scholarly literature that speaks to international teacher ED for social justice. These domains, the first is personal, where their beliefs about students, schooling, teachers, and teaching, and these are based on past experiences and personal attitudes. So what do our student teachers, preservice teachers, bring with them into the classroom, what are they already thinking about? A contextual knowledge is not only classroom and family communities but it’s also looking at that as situated within a larger political, historical, institutional, and cultural context. So really understanding where all of this is happening. Pedagogical knowledge is not just how-to strategies. It’s also the ability to observe and analyze the situation, really recognize what your students are bringing and also what they need, and then developing appropriately-responsive practices and not just picking something out of a hat. Sociological knowledge is understanding really that we have a complicated and diverse world, and it is growing evermore interdependent at the same time that it is increasingly diversifying. So how are we going to answer to and respect that diversity in our classrooms? And then lastly is the social knowledge, which is an ability to participate in and lead democratic and cooperative groups, and teachers need to be able to do that if we are going to create classroom settings where cooperation, fairness, mutuality, and equality are norms. So that’s the framework that we use to see what kind of literature is being written about teacher educators and social justice. So in our data we looked at three journals, highly ranked, widely read, and well respected. We looked at the Journal of Teacher Education in the United States, the Journal of Education for Teaching in the United Kingdom, and the Australian Journal of Teacher Education just to kind of get a broad sense of what people are writing about internationally. We looked at the years 2010 through 2016 because that kept it manageable. But also that was enough of a base that we could actually understand like, okay, well, what are people actually writing about? This is a credible study because we looked at enough data. And so ultimately there were nearly 1,800 articles that had potential to be in this study. As we were narrowing the articles, we were looking specifically for preservice prep for social justice articles. And we were reading titles, abstracts, keywords, what do we need, what is indicating that there might be something more in this article? And we tried to be very inclusive and pretty generous initially with thinking of what are the articles that we want to include? So we looked for social justice, any mention of increasing diversity, educational equity. Those were the articles that we read completely. We looked at 2010 and 2011. It says together, but it was together but also independently. We looked at each of these years and independently decided which articles were going to fit and came to an agreement. And ultimately we had 76 articles that we reviewed. And we were looking really at what are the authors themselves saying about their work? What are they saying are their main ideas, their goals, their purposes? What are they putting in headings, what are their conclusions, what are their key points to really allow us to clarify and further operationalize our domains so that we really understood what we were talking about but also we were honoring what the original researchers had to say about their work. We looked at article type, what kinds of articles there were. There were overwhelmingly empirical articles. So there is an emphasis on research in these journals but there’s also a lack of emphasis on research about preparing social justice teachers as the 76 articles we ended up with were just 4% of that original 1,800. So we’re talking about it but we’re not then actually writing about it. When we were looking at the content of what these articles are about we found that generally they’re talking about diverse learners in general rather than looking in terms of specific racial or cultural groups, specific needs, specific issues or considerations, just really addressing things broadly, which is a good first step. And then finally our knowledge domains you can see. Well, maybe you can’t because the words are very small but the domain that was most, like by far emphasized was personal knowledge and what student teachers and preservice teachers are bringing to their teacher preparation programs. So most of the research in the field is looking at understanding the beliefs of preservice teachers. And more often than not they were focused on the mismatch of increasingly diverse student bodies and the homogenous teaching forces. So nothing really new or shocking. And most researchers were looking at the beliefs of their own students through surveys, interviews, and analysis of work samples especially like reflection essays and other things that student teachers had produced. So overall, we developed some insights regarding social justice in teacher education and as we suspected the rhetoric is a lot stronger than social justice in teacher education practice. Oftentimes these studies were in single courses. So one professor would be doing this kind of work with one group of students. It was not like across the program, it wasn’t multiple courses. It was a one-time thing and then it was done. And there were continuous restarts at step one so the studies aren’t building. Everyone’s kind of asking the same initial questions and doing similar studies just with different groups of students and therefore they’re finding similar things but we’re not moving past that. And then the isolated and discontinuous small-scale backyard studies, they’re really looking at their own students and everything is very contextual for their situation. And most of the authors framed helping future teachers examine and alter their views about diversity as a fundamental problem of teacher preparation. And so they were invested in discerning the impact of an intervention or experience on shifting, expanding, or modifying the thinking of their teacher candidates. The intervention or experience was mostly contained within one course or a specific program or a specific sociocultural or geographic location. And the conclusion of most studies was that the intervention or activity was successful in helping preservice teachers develop greater cultural understanding, become more socially aware of their implicit biases, and reduce deficit nicking. However, they offered few illustrations of specific teacher education practices reflective of the field as a whole where we can actually replicate these things in our own context. So implications would be accidental profession no more. Teacher educators are obviously in need of formal preparation and we need to really think critically about what kind of preparation that looks like. Because there’s a need for social justice teacher preparation and if we are going to prepare teachers for the classroom to do social justice then we as teacher educators also need to know what we are doing. We need collective research, heftier studies. The studies that we reviewed, again were small-scale, short-term, focused on very individual courses and experiences. And if we could link these studies across context, countries, and disciplinary boundaries, lots of people are talking about this but they’re doing it kind of in silos. And what could we accomplish if we worked together? How could we make this more impactful so that we’re actually progressing forward? And then of finally social justice thinking and doing? We found a lot of our articles in special issues of journals and social justice isn’t a special issue. It should be a baseline criteria for teacher preparation. So we should be thinking about how are we creating social justice programs and not just courses. So really thinking much more broadly and actually doing more of the work that we’re talking about but not necessarily doing. So thank you. (clapping) Hello, I’m Keith Turvey from University of Brighton in the southeast coast in England. And the title of my talk is Humanizing as Innovation in a Cold Climate of So-called Evidence-based Teacher Education. It’s a conceptual paper where I wanted to try and problematize our kind of the approach to evidence that is predominant and that our student teachers are often kind of exposed to particularly through social media but also the dominant sort of approaches into researching teacher education. And I apologize. Usually when I’m in a rush I become more polemic than academic but let’s have a go, 15 minutes. To start off just trying to kind of define what I mean by sort of humanizing research evidence but also innovation. I come from a sort of a educational technology research background where there’s been a lot of techno-determinants kind of approaches to innovation that focus very much on change. So you know, if we think of kind of Sternberg’s eight sort of his taxonomy of innovation focuses very much on the change. What I’m really interested in is this concept of being able to innovate in any context. I want my teachers to be able to be responsive and sustaining of innovation and education and learning in across a range of diverse contexts. So I think we’ve become too transfixed on innovation as change for change sake and that’s something that particularly kind of dominates the educational technology research area. So what do I mean by humanizing and dehumanizing? Evidence that dehumanizes I think is increasingly becoming meaningless and unusable. It lacks the provenance and I gotta keep coming back to this word, provenance, pedagogical provenance. Professional, what do we mean by that? That’s capable of sustaining learning and also teacher development within and across diverse contexts. So meaningful and humanizing evidence for me is evidence that is not just meaningful for the teachers who are utilizing it, making use of it, but also meaningful for those in the context within which they might be innovating. Some teachers would claim that, for example, randomized control trials might be meaningful to them but actually how meaningful is the intervention based upon the evidence that they’re using to the communities, the learners, and the individuals with whom they’re working with? How meaningful and appropriate does it sustain their learning? So meaningful, humanizing, in this context for me is evidence that’s based upon a rich provenance, its granular detail that actually is responsive and able to sustain not only teachers’ learning but also their students in meaningful ways to them. And I just want to kind of have a look at some of the kind of evidence bases that have been used quite increasingly in teacher education, teachers. There’s quite a sort of econometric if you like imperative driving much research evidence. In England particularly, there’s much use made of the Education Endowment Fund teacher toolkit, which is often based on meta-analysis in technology. If we look at Hassler et al’s meta-analysis of RCTs focusing on the introduction of iPads into schools, they found looking predominantly at ad hoc outcomes. 16 positive impact on attainment. 5, no difference and 2 negative impact on attainment. But really significantly, can quite often get lost, I think. A large proportion of the identified research offered limited or no details of the activities that learners engaged in. Which I find pretty stunning actually. The actual kind of qualitative nature of these interventions with iPads, it just seems to me they might as well dropped them off in the classroom and come back later. But I think it’s troubling that increasingly the evidence base that teachers are being given to draw on in such things as teacher toolkits is essentially lacking in any kind of qualitative meaningful data that might be useful. As Marin and Conchran-Smith has kind of made quite clear the discourse of econometrics has really pervaded all aspects of education and teacher education. So the problem with econometrics is that it’s basically biased towards populations. But we’re dealing with communities, individuals who come with their own cultural context, historical context and backgrounds which quite often epidemiological research is not responsive to, I’d argue. And with my own student teachers, if there’s any doubt about the pervasiveness of this discourse of econometrics quite often my student teachers come back into university having been in schools for one term, and this is often the way they start to talk about groups of children in their class. Met, met-minus, met-plus, on track to achieve, below expected, highers, lowers, whether they’re highers, lowers are on track to achieve met-minus, et cetera. For me, this is a deficit discourse. This is a discourse of putting children into categories and pretty much leaving them there without really kind of responding to them. Who are these children? What is their cultural context? What is there background? What meaning are they making of the activities we’re engaging with here? Also something that I’m concerned about is if you like, the sort of other imperative at the moment, I’d say this is the next, if you like, technologically determinist innovation that we’re kind of faced, which is the kind of rise of datafication. And how easy it is, increasingly easy to collect data on teachers. I was just reading this morning about an initiative in China with cameras on the walls, that look at room like this and put squares around faces and have the algorithms to actually analyze, engaged, disengaged et cetera. Really, how useful is this? Is it a distraction? Cope and Kalantzis argue that increasing datafication means that increasingly professionals are working in transformed environments. And they argue that actually new professionals need new pedagogical sensibilities. For me, I think there’s a little bit of naivete here about the potential of datafication and possibly of the dangers in terms of it’s potential to distract and also to kind of ride very roughshod over kind of the ethical and moral kind of underpinning of our work as educators and teachers. So what I’m interested in data and evidence that actually provides pedagogical providence. ‘Cause what I see is potentially pedagogically paralysis. If we go back to Hassler et al’s study there’s nothing there that really helps a teacher to think about how they might use an iPad and the kind of intrinsic value that might have on developing children’s literacies, their understanding of networks and social media. So pedagogical providence for me, is the potential data to afford meaningful application used in praxis. And my colleague and I, Nova Packler, did a review of educational technology and in terms of the Education Endowment Toolkit in the UK is often used with teachers. Which just simply raises more questions. But also I think, a lot of the way that evidence is gathered and used has what Justin Parkhurst calls technical and issue biased built into it. In the sense that it kind of, often in the way it’s used can other alternative forms of data sources that are really important, if we’re to really think about the impact that our pedagogies have on issues of social justice and equity. So, Parkhurst argues that quite often these are just insufficient bases for policy decisions. But more often than not policy is interested in this kind of evidence. So, perfect, narrative. I gotta just put a caveat here, that I am not suggesting that narrative and narration is a panacea, but I’m gonna leave that bit of my paper out because I have five minutes left. So the desire to understand and explain, a natural human instincts to story and narrative’s a powerful research tool. Because it’s argued that it offers the potential to recognize the distinctive and diverse nature of lived experience. But also, if we’re interested in developing student teachers and teachers as worthy witnesses of building relationships of care, dignity, and dialogical consciousness-raising. I think narrative is a fundamental tool. And I’m just gonna finish with an example. Which you can make up your own mind about, you know, in terms of whether this is a humanizing culture sustaining innovation. On my course we use blogging a lot with student teachers to try to get them to explore that liminal space between being in university and being in school and the kinds of experiences they have so they can synthesize theory and practice. So let’s have a look at some thin evidence. Here’s a blog on inclusion and diversity. We notice straight away that it has more page views and unique page views. But also interestingly, more people stayed longer on this page. It’s pretty thin, I think, for the meaningless evidence in one sense. But if we look at behind this blog post, we come to Omar’s blog. Omar’s a deaf student who is studying PGC Primary education course and experienced a lot of obstacles that we were trying to sort of to remove to actually enable Omar to be successful because he has a great deal to offer. One of the things that particularly he had to offer was sharing his experience as a deaf student, as a deaf child, recalling his experiences. “When I was a child no one wanted to play with me because I always had communication support worker with me. Other children had a stigma against having adults around. And they generally left me alone.” The longer page views on Omar’s blog post simply about the provenance, the real provenance of Omar’s experience as a deaf student within different learning contexts, training to become a teacher, learning himself. So, what we’re looking at here is curriculum and pedagogy as an erasion not prescription. When we have, knowing a storying is valued, promoted and represented. Narratives, I think, provide the space for pedagogic moments like Omar’s moment there. And their hopes and aspirations and ultimately an intentional mentored construction of knowledge. So all of the student teachers within that group are able to benefit from Omar’s unique perspective there in a really positive way. So finally, I think we need to actively and equitably engage and listen to the voices of those in active innovation, focusing on context, much more focused. We need to question critically, the nature of evidence that our student teachers are drawing upon and question that. We need to shift away from determinist, econometric, or technological imperatives towards innovation. Much more towards what I would call, humanizing imperatives for innovation. Thank you. (clapping) Hi everybody, I’m Jo Lampert I’m here from La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. Although I am originally from Toronto and I’m presenting today on behalf of myself and my colleague Bruce Bernat from Australian Catholic University in Australia. And he couldn’t make it all the way to Canada this year. So, I’m gonna be talking today about the NETDS program, the National Exceptional Teaching for Disadvantage Schools program. Which has been running in Australia now for 10 years. And I think that one of the things I’m going to do today is not only just tell you about the program but also critique a little bit along the way. Because if we’re talking about innovation then we mustn’t become complacent. And we mustn’t talk about what works and really we should avoid talking about silver bullets that seem to offer solutions to perennial and changing issues. So one of the things I think I’ll begin by saying is that if we were to start now, we would never have called it the Exceptional Teaching for Disadvantaged Schools program because discourses change. So we’ve talked a lot about this over time. But it’s quite a complicated one. So I don’t have much time to talk about this. But we talk all the time about it with our preservice teachers, teachers, principals, and other stakeholders, all of whom offer different language and discourse about what we can call this program. For instance, as many of you would know in the US, you often talk about urban education. But it’s not really language that works all that well in the Australian context where a lot of our poverty and disadvantaged is in fact rural or remote. Principals would like us to talk about equity focused schools. But of course many of the schools aren’t equity focused, in reality. So, I want to begin by kind of critiquing the name of our own program and saying that we wouldn’t have called it that. These days we tend to talk about high poverty schools but that also in some ways is inadequate. So I say that right upfront. I’ll talk a little bit though today, about the nature of the program, a critique of the program, and what I am now starting at La Trobe University which I think is the extension of the program in some ways. When we began the NETDS program, in many ways it was for selfish reasons. We were sociologists in a faculty of education. We saw our sociology subjects being reduced, there were almost none left in our faculty at a certain stage. We were concerned that we saw our very best most socially-justice oriented preservice teachers kind of get absorbed into the system and get cherry-picked in fact by private and independent, in what we call in Australia, we call leafy-green schools by the time they graduated. So some of the ones we thought were just the most amazing of our students in first year when they were doing indigenous education subjects or sociology subjects ended up teaching in the private schools. I’ll show you a little bit on that later. But this depressed us. And we also for very selfish reasons thought, if we can just hive off those amazing preservice teachers and give them what we thought was a great equity-oriented teacher education program, we’d get to the work with the students we wanted to work with most. And at the time, we had this great culture within our faculty where we were given permission to do so. One of the things I’ll critique a little bit later on is that this kind of program is a little bit expensive. Because in fact we spent so much more time in schools, so much more time with our preservice teachers reflecting, debriefing, et cetera. That puts these programs, I think, at risk in general. But we knew that there was high teacher turnover. You know, we knew all the things everybody else knows. That there’s high teacher turnover in low SES schools, that teachers don’t feel prepared to teach in them, that they come into teaching with deficit perspective et cetera, et cetera. And that they aren’t themselves a culturally diverse group. So in some ways the program itself was reasonably simple. We worked very hard at the beginning and then we felt lucky that we had. To develop the program in a way that made it not difficult to run. So the way it worked was that we would identify… I’m sorry, I’m gonna critique that in a moment also. (crowd laughs) Because that’s not in fact quite accurate. That’s not in fact what happened. It came though directly from the principals of high poverty schools saying, don’t send us your missionaries, is actually what they said to us. Can you send us some great maths teachers? ‘Cause actually we had one principal tell us, you know the high expectations discourse where you say, any teacher can be a rocket scientist, any teacher can be a doctor is just lying to teachers, to students, unless, in fact, they get some chemistry and physics and science and things along the way. So they wanted high-achieving teachers. Along the way we critiqued that, we changed our criteria. But high academic achievement was always one of our criteria. One of our criteria, we’ve had to work really hard at resisting criticism of that because that didn’t mean we excluded caring socially just, culturally diverse teachers. Those assumptions in themselves, I think were deficit. That we wouldn’t find participants who are both teachers of color plus from low SES backgrounds themselves, plus had a sense of social justice and also were doing well academically. So that was one criteria. We brought them together as a cohort and community. It’s on Cohort 10 now because we’ve been running 10 years. Taught them a social justice curriculum in all sorts of ways. They did all of their practicum placements in high poverty schools or low SES schools. And then we found ourselves increasingly drawn into the employment cycle whereby after a certain time, when we proved ourselves, principals started calling us up saying, got any of yours? I’m hiring. So that’s kind of how it worked. I emphasize this here, grade point average was only ever one of the selection criteria but it is one of the selection criteria. We worked hard so that there were no bribes or rewards for being part of this program. They didn’t get extra credit, they did it because they were passionate about it. If it didn’t work out, in every year there were one or two who either weren’t resilient enough or weren’t as committed as they thought they were or weren’t suited. They went straight back into their regular teacher ED program. There was no loss to them or to us or to anyone. We focused of course, on social inclusion. They did all of their PRAC in a low SES setting. I would say probably that one of the main reasons that it has been successful is because of the community of practice. NETDS teachers know each other, they hang out, we’ve still got a really active Facebook site. We often had calls at midnight from teachers trying to work something out. One of my teachers is here at eight year already this year doing her PhD now, an amazing PhD now. Several others are doing their PhDs as well. It’s a big community. I’ll just show you a tiny little bit about data and I won’t emphasize it because I probably don’t have that much time left. But the turnaround in terms of where teachers got jobs was immediate. So before we started the program, 65% of the top graduating teachers at my old university ended up in private schools. They were just snapped up. They got lost into the system. Immediately because we were so much together, that 82% of them the very first year ended up in low SES schools. And that has been consistent all along. And I feel quite proud to say almost all of them, 85% I think that’s 84% of them are still after 10 years, working in low SES schools. So we’re pretty proud of what we think is systemic change. And the Australian Research Council Engagement and Innovation case studies have just come out and we were ranked quite highly in terms of engagement and innovation. Then at some point, because we had a track record we started to get noticed and it was only then that we got external funding and moved into other universities. And now we’re running in eight universities across the country. But in my own self-critique and in working out what the issues are for this kind of program, it very much like it does in schools, depended on the university leadership. So in fact, what we used to call the flagship program, which it was the first university we started in, is no longer running the program. So there are two issues of critique I would offer there. One is that you have to get support from leadership in order run this kind of a program. And the other one is a lesson I myself have learned and that is that the program itself was for a very long time largely the Bruce and Jo show. It was me and my colleague working overtime, you know? So actually it made it unsustainable. So if I can say something about the sustainability of social justice programs, is it has to be a whole of school endeavor, It’s just gotta be. Otherwise we’re all gonna die one day. Isn’t that the song? So we gotta kind of keep that in mind. All along there were tensions with the program. And rather than call them tensions maybe I should talk about challenges. But really they were tensions. We were always pulled into the wider debates about entry into initial teacher education, privatizing initial teacher education. How are you different from Teach for Australia? We have consistently had to prove ourselves to critique. The whole debate around quality teaching and the kind of thing that we’ve already heard from two speakers today. And Keith was talking about the quality teaching debates and how do you prove your impact. And pressures on us all along to prove that our teachers would be able to see increased academic achievement amongst the future teachers of our graduates. We put a lot of work. We got some funding one year and hired statisticians and tried to work out some methodologies around how you can do that. It’s so flawed to pretend that your teachers can be measured by their future students’ outcomes. But it’s so grounded in what people will ask you to do if you kind of… So I think those new conversations we’re having around proving impact are just fundamental. Sustainability I’ve already talked about. And of course teacher ED changes all the time. So every time there’s a new policy around teacher ED you really need to be quite adaptable and hold your ground because such a crowded curriculum everywhere anyway in such a highly regulated field that is quite evil for social justice to disappear from us altogether, much less to be given the luxury time to work with small groups of students. So now, I’m just gonna end by talking about what I think is the new… How much time have I got left? Okay, so the new iteration which is something that La Trobe University were calling the Nexus Program. And I am actually very excited about it. So I know a lot about this kind of work but there were things always along the way that I thought could be better. And one of the thing is about community engagement. I don’t think teacher education in general has ever done community engagement and I’m talking about working within the communities in which the teachers are teaching very well. For instance, I know that many of us graduate teachers who have actually never even met a family except for maybe at a parent-teacher night when really most of the middle class families come anyway. Or possibly making a phone call home. But really getting a working with community is initiative changing power and balances in the system in the system in general. So we’re working really closely on trying to develop what we hope will be a genuinely community engaged teacher education program, working with rather than acting on and that will mean recruit preservice teachers from the community themselves, working mostly in schools on school sites to offer teacher education, and all of the social inclusions still at its core. So that’s all a bit of a snapshot of what we’re doing. (clapping) I’ll let you do it ’cause I’m only used to maths. I am too, we’ll figure this out. (laughing) All right, good morning, I’m Michael Dominguez from San Diego State University. And I first want to start with a acknowledgement. I’m really pleased to be here today on traditional territory of many nations including the Mississauga, Anishinaabe, the Chippewa, and the Wyandot peoples. And so today, what I’m gonna be talking about is decolonial innovation in teacher education. And what that word decolonial means, because just a quick cursory search of social media will show you that it’s becoming increasingly trendy. And just like many other words that we start to use in social justice education, starting to become increasingly devoid of meaning. And so to continue on thinking about what it might mean to engage in practice beyond what we would call the colonial zero point. And to begin explaining that concept, I actually want to just share an image that’s gonna seem a little bit random here. And what we’re looking at is an episode from the Latin American comic Mafalda, which depicts a young girl as she makes sense of her sociopolitical and sociocultural world. And one particular fascination Mafalda has is her place in the Global South and what this means for her knowledge and her identity. And so here, it is in Spanish, Mafalda speaks with a classmate who has inverted the world map. And she asks, why has he reversed it? His reply, however is to question the assumption, the zero point of white coloniality itself and push Mafalda to consider, given that the world exists in space and that up and down distinctions, above and below, literally the way we orient and view and operate in our world are arbitrary. And if we together step back from that for a moment then the reality dawns on us that map and so much of our world and lives just isn’t arbitrary but it necessarily positions Europe and the Western world top and center. Drawing disproportionately larger and oversized in many projections. It’s a bit simplistic but the point is we speak here today about teacher education is simply to raise the question how so much of our world, our lives, our pedagogies, and the pedagogies we teach our educators are intentionally or not operating just like that world map, oriented through a hubristic lends of colonial assumption. As the legacies and Eurocentric myopia of colonization linger in our everyday lives, shaping our institutions and leaving them ill-suited to serve our historically marginalized students. Because even though the de jure systems of colonization and colonialism may have been rolled back and have since been lifted, coloniality as a de facto reality has persisted and thrived in our world. As Melvin Torres notes it’s the long-standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism that define culture, labor, inner subjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administration. It’s alive in books and criteria in academic performance for cultural patterns and common sense, in the self image of peoples and aspirations of self and so many other aspects of our modern experience. And recognizing and acknowledging this distinction between coloniality and colonialism is imperative. For colonialism was overt and tangible, coloniality is all of that. Now, perhaps more than ever we can worldwide, with a bit more time, name countless tangible examples of neocolonialism, Eurocentric hegemony. But it’s also epistemic. Coloniality is psychic, it’s spiritual in its oppression. Coloniality anchors us to an epistemic zero point, an ideology, a logic that ensures that our sociopolitical and sociocultural world, our norms, our institutions, what we value and see as important in schooling, teaching and learning, they begin and end with the discourses of whiteness and Eurocentrism. In essence, Eurocentric knowledge warps our perspective, validating its own logic and hubris by encouraging the ongoing subjugation, devaluation and denial of the wisdoms, knowledges, insights, contributions and experiences of the Global South. And while this can seem abstract and distant, it’s a vague theoretical term, coloniality, right? It shouldn’t, ecause coloniality, the zero point, and colonial hubris, they are alive and well in teacher education, in the most practical and grounded of ways. We can see coloniality in the way pedagogical content and curricular theory remains dominated by Eurocentric literatures and thinking. The way even our culturally responsive pedagogies fail to center, sustain, or revitalize the culture of communities of color. It’s alive in the way we still avoid meaningfully engaging in race in teacher education. And as folks have noted relegate engagement with questions of justice to inoculation courses once in a experience. It’s alive in the way our diverse field experiences failed to disrupt colonial arrangements and knowledge and hierarchical power dynamics and in a way covering demands narrow how diversity is welcomed in institutions while they’re constraints simultaneously provide educators with white intellectual alibis to displace their own culpability. And this coloniality has flourished even amidst our discourses of multiculturalism, equity and social justice. For the reality is we’ve fallen short of troubling the zero point of preparing our educators to question what counts as knowledge, as success, as value culture, even within conversations of social justice. Because we’ve deployed those discourses themselves within colonial frames. As even our critical pedagogies broadly speaking have remained epistemically obedient to that colonial zero point. We fail to authentically honor the lied material and effective realities of historically marginalized communities. And in so doing, we’ve bound ourselves and our outcomes to the lingering ways that society, neoliberalism, and culture position marginalized and post colonial communities as subordinate, striving towards mimicry of impossible standards and an effective terrain which has historically marginalized youth will always be as Homi Babah says, always the same but not quite; always the same but not white. And nor should they be because as Fernon reminds us challenging the colonial world is not meant to be a rational confrontation of viewpoints. It’s not a discourse on the universal but an impassioned claim by the colonized, that their world is fundamentally different. And that perhaps is the core here, that we’ve not heard that cry or recognized that historically marginalized youth and communities that we are meant to serve, experience and know the world in profoundly different effective ways. And what we’ve been left with is the reality of ontological distance. The vast effective terrain emerging from coloniality between the practices, knowledges, and goals that are recognized in schools and beyond, as valid and normative on one hand and an evolving multitude of others deeply rooted in community histories and present vivid in the lives of youth of color on the other. Disrupting coloniality then requires that we work to close the ontological distance between our educators and their students. But so long as we cling to the colonial zero point in our epistemic ontological practice, these distances will persist. And when ontological distances persist, change, equity, diversity, social justice, will continue to be depleted of meaning as they echo more and more hollow each year and our teachers will not be the types of people who can do the pedagogies that we know that youth need. But I don’t want to dwell on doom and gloom here. Because there’s always hope in possibility. I’ve got two computers open and I’m clicking the wrong things. (laughing)
All right. There’s always hope in possibility here. And the reality is we’ve already a robust repertoire of generative practices to build from. And we largely know what we want teachers to be able to do. Rather than the challenge should be how we might reorient, remediate these practices to position our educators to be the types of people who can do that work. The challenge of innovation we face is not pragmatic but epistemic and effective, shifting the colonial ways we and our novices think the world and remediating who our educators and we are in relation to the sub-alternate other, closing those ontological distances. By preparing educators to recognize the impacts of coloniality both tangible and effective, dramatic and mundane on the way the world is experienced. And so if we focus on what it might mean in our practice to close ontological distance, then we might approach a teacher education paradigm that rather than ceding to epistemic obedience and the colonial zero point, encourages generative discomfort and epistemic disobedience. Focusing for once for the knower, the historically marginalized youth and not the colonial known to actively seek to honor, to understand, to learn, to explore, to appreciate the center, and to sustain the languages, practices, culture, and wisdom of historically marginalized youth. So what does this look like? Well, I don’t think we can ever point to any one way that decolonial practice might look. Because, frankly, the goal here is to decolonize all of our practices. The point is that we should be decolonizing everything that we do rather, right? But decolonizing practices should seek to cultivate what I’ll call pedagogical menageries. Drawing from Perez, where differential politics and social dilemmas can be negotiated. And a community can enter epistemically uncomfortable space and ask hard questions of themselves to leverage epistemologies and confront, disrupt, and mediate the ways in which coloniality lives and lingers in schools. And in the material, in effect of lives, that’s historically marginalized youth. To that end, I want to offer just a little short example of what maybe this might look like. What we’re gonna watch here is a little quick exercise of Tiato Raparmido where a variety of teacher candidates preservice teachers were working to sort of role play an experience that might come up. And just like I’ve mentioned, here we set this up working with a literature text that they were working on but setting it up so that it would necessarily lead them to hard questions. And so what we see here is two educators who are acting as students, have begun a heated argument before we begin because we couldn’t show the whole thing, too much time. Acting as students they’ve begun a heated argument about a dismissive and misogynistic comment one of them had made related to an sexual assault as it arose in a text that they were reading. After an attempt at mediating this classroom moment, we join the conversation as Kirsten, acting as the teacher, pauses the conversation to engage the group in sense-making and problem solving over how to handle such a moment. I’m gonna pause here, Tiato. This is really hard for me, ’cause this is something that’s really personal. And so this like really good that I’m doing this right now. But I want to strangle you all. (laughing) So what I’m trying to work through right now is I had to pause it because I don’t know… I’m trying to make it so that everyone feels comfortable but in reality I want to be like, yeah Josie, like freaking go. (laughing) and then I want to say you know, I worked at crisis hotline my sister was raped, I know many people who were. I want to say all that, but I don’t want to make your person, mind you– Yeah, you’re right. –uncomfortable, you know? I think that it’s a good point to reach out formally at that point, you know, get a little personal. And you know that they expressed that there are different places that we’re all coming from here. This is the way I see it in an educating space. We have these conversations that are really gonna be hard. And there’s gonna be feelings that are kind of messed up and nothings ever going to be clean. I’m sure there’s nothing that’s completely clean. The way I see it, it’s okay for you to get your emotions involved as well, because that’s part of learning. And I think that’s what consists of learning point is that it’s not ignoring the feelings that we’re all bringing in. Rather, cherishing them and using it as a tool for us to move forward. And I think that also come back to this idea of becoming vulnerable ourselves. That’s kind of hard though. Because growing up, you never saw that. I feel like you’re saying, you know… I think it liberates your to see that. You can be emotional. You can demonstrate that and still be in this position where you’re helping others and where you’re serving others and collectively learning from each other. Sometimes they do need almost a little bit of validation for their feelings. And sometimes we as educators can provide that. So what I hope we’re seeing there, this is obviously just a small example, but that this is both the moment where we are talking about questions of practice, of how to do something in a classroom, but also who to be and how to be with students to close those ontological distances that exist between what they might be experiencing and the colonial frames that teachers are often meant to work through as they go through crap like the edTPA et cetera, et cetera. Right, and so this is a telling example as the students here they engage in epistemic disobedience. They’re considering not just what would be most pragmatic, how to get through this situation as quickly and cleanly as possible. But how we value what students are saying and bringing, how they’re feeling and thinking, and how we ourselves might lead, not with colonial rationality and reason, but vulnerability. Pedagogical menageries then help us dig into and ask this vital question. What is it that we are decolonizing from? And grow our pedagogical selves guided by those answers. And so I want to end here with more Mafalda. Here, her classmate finds himself shocked and then quizzical as he’s turned disorientingly right-side up. And it’s revealed that this has occurred because Mafalda, smiling, has inverted the globe. Recentering knowledge to align with her perspective, her ontology, her practices and her world. Latin America, the Global South, has rosen into ascendancy. In a very literal way, this is the decolonial turn. Because decolonization isn’t necessarily jarring. It should leave us unsteady. A pedagogy that requires discomfort but that and our hyperdiverse world must be the goal. Ensuring that we work to close the ontological distance between the educators we prepare and the students they will teach. And that means that we need to be asking ourselves some profoundly hard questions, including whether we center Global South thinking or have we just had them read one article on culturally responsive pedagogy, maybe chapter of Palo-Frerrei, right? Where are Fenon, Baba, Minyola, Spevack, Anzodua, in our practice? And if our impulse is to think of those texts as too challenging for educators, what does that say about our relationship to the ontologies, the knowledge traditions that reflect the experiences and ways of being that are historically marginalized youth? Because if we ourselves are not centering, let alone robustly engaging with race, with questions of difference, with Global South thinking, epistemologies, ontological frameworks in our own thought, work and practice, how can we ever expect our novice and practicing teachers to do so in their classrooms? My point here is that this decolonial imperative I’ve tried to lay out is not, or at least should not be just a buzzword, right? We as teacher educators have our own ontological distances to face. Our own colonial assumptions and zero points to uproot. If we want to produce liberatory teachers, if we want to confront the underlying malignancies of coloniality, then those hard questions need to begin with ourselves. Thank you very much. (clapping) So, I’m Susan Jurow and the title of our paper is Remediating Knowledge Infrastructures Aside from Innovation and teacher education. Since my computer is over here I’m going to shout from like, moving over here. Okay Move the mic over. That’s okay, I can handle this. All right, so, we wrote this paper as a way to develop a shared analytic framework for designing and analyzing our distinct and contextually specific approaches to designing responsible and social justice oriented innovations in teacher education. So, each of us is engaged in teacher education in different ways. I teach a course and direct an associated practicum focused on learning. The course is part of a larger justice focused elementary teacher education program. Thomas teaches in and directs a program of preservice teacher education. And Lonnie partners with a professional development organization to find ways to support experienced mathematics teachers in urban schools. So what we share is the view that designing responsible innovations in teacher education requires carefully attending to the goals, social relationships, and material dimensions of learning that are part of the teacher education programs, university-school partnerships, and classroom teachers’ practices. So we are also all committed to organizing consequential learning for teachers, students, and communities, that leverage their cultural and historical practices towards greater social justice. So today I’m gonna share the analytic framework we developed for talking across the innovations that we’ve organized in our work. And some of the questions that emerged from taking these particular perspectives and like everyone else, I’m gonna do like a quick version of what our paper’s about. I hope you will actually read the longer paper. So central to our analysis of innovations for teacher education is our emphasis on learning. We use the term consequential learning to describe how people organize their changing participation and those of others, so as to be recognized as competent and valued participants in and across spacial, social, and temporal scales of practice. In studying learning, we are particularly attentive to how people manage issues of power, race, and cultural practices as they engage in joint activity. Such as partnership work with each other. So the question with which all of us grappled as learning scientists and teacher educators is how can we organize for consequential learning in teacher education? We approached this as a problem of collaborative or codesign which means we needed to work with our partners teachers, administrators, and teacher education faculty, to identify what was not working in their specific context and then figure out which dimensions of social life we could change to advance our goals for justice. We did not think we could, quote, engineer our way out of injustice but we did think that the metaphor of design could help us to be systematic in our approach to understanding the dialectic between social structures and local interactions. So from our view, changing what ways of knowing as a situated social practice, or what ways of knowing are valued, by whom, when, and where requires attention to what we call the infrastructure that constitutes knowledge. So that is the social and material organization of the world that supports definitions of what knowledge is and who can be a knower. So as a quick example of a complex idea of infrastructure, I want you to consider your school curricula. So curricula, though varied are often materially organized with the support of texts, lecture points, and demonstrations to guide learners through content in a way that represents a progression of ideas and skills. And they are socially structured vis-a-vis purposed participant structures and evaluation formats that are meant to orient learners to particular values and understandings of desired relationships between individuals and the world. So my point is to point out that there are material and social dimensions of the infrastructure that I’m referring to which is curricula. So attending to the material and social infrastructure of curricula can help you understand how they function, to reproduce, and or challenge power knowledge relations. And it can help you as a designer to know what you might leverage or revise to transform these outcomes. So focusing on the infrastructure that supported our teacher education designs or innovations gave us a way to engage in what Michael Kohl and Peg Griffin have called re-mediating, re hyphen mediating or reorganizing the current and social and material dimensions of infrastructure to support valued knowledge practices. So our orientation towards remediating infrastructure is founded in the assumption that we can use theory to reflect on and organize action towards meaningful change in support of greater justice. So in the cases that we shared in our paper we considered the different context of our teacher education work and interpreted our designs towards justice, using an infrastructural lens. Our cases considered whose knowledge and goals were being valued through how our designs were concretely enacted and how changing who did what, where, with whom, and with which tools change the nature of the kinds of situated knowledge and expertise that was valued. So doing this helped us see the mundane ways in which what was counted as knowledge and whose knowledge mattered in our specific contexts with structured socially and materially. It helped us understand how knowledge infrastructures have been historically established and enacted to ignore and or devalue local forms of expertise. And it helped us to imagine new ways of coordinating and creating new forms of social and material infrastructure to support consequential learning for teachers, students, and school communities. So as an example from our paper, Thomas’s interest in politics of learning helped him see how the material arrangement of his teacher education program separated social foundations. That is the study of the social, historical, and political organization of schooling, how it separated social foundations from the psychological foundations of learning. And how both of these were problematically separated from preservice teachers’ field experiences. So in and through these mundane everyday arrangements and interactions, the two-world problem of university based knowledge or school-site based knowledge or based practice, this seeming objectivity of theories of learning and the notion of social change as an exclusively macro level process. Those practices were reinscribed through the material and social organization of the program. He came to understand how this longstanding material and social organization of the program limited preservice teachers’ understandings of schooling, the relationship between theory and practice, and their roles within schools as agents for justice. Thomas wanted to figure out how to productively blur the boundaries between theory, field, and community. In conversations with organizers from an immigrant rights organization, they considered how they could codesign a strand within a teacher education program that worked toward these goals. So working with a teacher who had a longterm relationship with the organization, they prioritized a colearning context that would be mutually beneficial to the preservice teachers and the high school students. So together, this team from the university, the community, and a local school, imagined concrete ways to remediate the social and material dimensions of a strand within a program of teacher education. In ways that were more responsible to the students, to prospective students, cooperating teachers and communities. So in this case, the notion of who can be a teacher educator and where teacher education takes place was expanded. All right, it’d be nice if I had numbers on my pages. Okay. There we go. So tensions are always part of any kind of design. So rather than ignoring them, the perspective on learning that we take as authors, leads us to acknowledge and dig into those tensions as part of the iterative process of redesign and adaptation. So building on the tensions that we have each experienced in our local context, I’m going to conclude with the fundamental set of questions that we feel need to be addressed throughout the codesign process. So the questions are when does infrastructure need to be remediated and how do we know? Based on whose perspectives are we making these judgements? Who needs to do this work? And finally, towards what ends are we working? And how do we know when we’ve gotten there? So teacher education for justice demands that we stay alert to how learning is materially and socially organized, to recognize and extend the assets of students, teachers and communities. And it also requires our ability to adapt our designs for teacher education in principled ways that further students’ dignity and advance their agency. So I’m gonna end there. Thank you for putting up with this. (clapping) All right, good morning everyone. My name is Mariana Souto-Manning. I’m a professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. And today Recognizing the Importance of Learning from Experience. I share with you a mix method study where I critically problematize how teacher educators often position student teaching as pivotal in teacher education programs in ability to focus on racial equity entitled, Toward separate -Just Transformations: Interrupting Racism in Teacher Education. So historically and contemporarily quality of student teacher placements in initial teacher education has been closely associated with the quality of teachers. The aim is not to work together to transform teaching or teacher education but to select, to curate the best placements. And this is what they often look like. Seeking to ensure quality placements for their students, teacher education programs curate placements under the guise of partnerships, Yet often without much collaboration. In the US, this historically sedimented practice often constructs quality student teacher placements as those serving mostly white students, perpetuating racist ideas in problematic ways. Racialized quality student teacher placements contribute to the development of teachers who are unfamiliar with the pedagogies that build on the strengths of students of color, of communities and families from minoritized backgrounds, the growing demographic majority in the US. Seeking to interrupt injustice and foster justice, are much needed transformations in teacher education. I hope to contribute to a pedagogical agenda for transformation, for transforming teacher education by considering how critical pedagogy really firmly rooted in commitments to foster injustice inequity can serve as an avenue for transforming teacher education. I critically problematize the argument that teacher education programs avoid placing student teachers in schools serving intersectionally minoritized students of color because they need quality student teaching placements which are defined according to dominant norms. Further, I make visible how this argument serves to justify the reproduction of what Christie Slater has titled, The Overwhelming Presence of Whiteness in teacher education. Despite widely professed commitments to social justice, teacher education in the US remains pervasively characterized by whiteness. Demographically, 82% of public school teachers and 74% of students in university based teacher education programs are white. And so are 78% of teacher educators. This has huge ramifications for what happens in teacher education programs, including how curriculum is designed and what is taught. And the 78% includes all of our graduate students and those teacher educators who are actually preparing to go back to other countries and engage in teacher education there. So, the professorial percentage is actually much higher. In a addition to the demographic whiteness, teacher educations characterized by white ways and systems of knowing. Which historically and contemporarily continue to further white interests, visibility and or normalizing systemic racism. So rejecting the way that teacher education’s currently organized, and seeking to interrupt its incredible whiteness, Lads and Billings identified three leverage points in 2017 for transforming teacher education. Admissions, which is widely talked about. We need to recruit more teachers of color. Student teaching, which is actually not looked at very much. And certification, the gate-keeping structures such as edTPA right now in the United States but so many tests that have come prior since black teachers were pushed out of black schools in the south, and then required to take white tests in order to regain their license to teach. So in this paper, I actually focus on student teaching placements. Because learning from experience is fundamental in the process of becoming a teacher. Placements are in the possible site for the problemtization and transformation of teacher education. Albeit, one seldom interrogated with regard to teacher education’s reproduction of racism. So seeking to interrupt whiteness is an often unquestioned yet racist architectural feature in the design of teacher education. I reject claims of neutrality in teacher education. Deliberately regarding teacher education as ideological, I approached the transformation of student teaching by address the need to centrally reposition communities of color. To do so, I engaged the national survey of U.S. university based teacher educators to identify and problematize practices which have been taken for granted in teacher education, yet have contributed to the reproduction and or maintenance of the overwhelming whiteness which characterizes teacher education. The survey really sought to identify obstacles to teacher education programs, focused on racial justice from the perspective of practicing teacher educators via descriptive analysis. I surveyed 83 teacher educators across the U.S. about their ideas and practices as they relate to justice and equity focused teacher education. I was actually surprised that the most commonly identified obstacle to quality teacher education focusing on equity and justice was student teaching. 68.7% of the respondents identified student teaching as that insurmountable obstacle. To better understand the issue, I followed up by interviewing eight teacher educators using video enabled technology who had identified student teaching as the greatest obstacle to engaging in equity focused teacher education. After the interviews which lasted between 40 and 65 minutes, after they were transcribed, I used transcription as analytical method, seeking to highlight the data’s emotional hot points and heighten language from their original discourse. This allowed me to identify what was important and critical to the teacher educators interviewed. Here are a couple of examples. We just don’t have good placements that are diverse. And by diverse they really meant have served children, families of color. Another one was I have to choose. Either place them in a good school or in a school serving minority kids. These were very much representative of the emotional hot points in followup interviews. And they were rooted in ideologies of pathology and furthered white supremacist aims. The interviews unveiled how racist ideas shape the definition of quality in teacher education and quality student teaching placements. These aligned with the reasons I had heard in my own teacher education program. For its own lack of student teaching placements prior in schools serving intersectionally minoritized students of color. So as a way of representation of an implicit yet pervasive racist practice, this issue needed to be addressed. So instead of identifying an issue and writing about it for the typical configuration of academic work, you know we identify, we write about it, we publish, we move on, which often focus on the norms of individual achievement over collective wellbeing engaged in praxical research. Characterized by reflection, dialogue, and action. Leading to transformation really informed by the work of Paulo Freire. Specifically, I probelmatized the generative theme identified by US teacher educators via survey. The racist construction of student teaching in schools populated by intersectionally minoritized children of color as problems. I sought to collaborate with teachers who reorganized the learning environment of student teaching, developing a more robust learning experience for student teachers saturated with meaningful and authentic educational opportunities. I wanted to move away from theorizing justice and engage with justice as praxis. So I identified a public school close to the university. A school mostly serving students of color from low income background and sought to work alongside teachers collaboratively, to revision student teachers in a way that moved the experience away from its reproduction of whiteness. I started working with a teacher who’s here today, Jessica Martel. Jessica, raise your hand. So which Jessica and I met for three hours. Together we negotiated a construction of a horizontally aligned collaborative partnership marked by intellecutal interdependence. Our ideas were transformed dialogically over time and there was an absence of a calcified expert, the university person. We really worked together and we negotiated this process. But today instead of talking about the process that Jessica and I negotiated, which we actually wrote about in the piece that just came out in Teacher’s College Record. I’m going to share highlights of the development of a collective, leading to the transformation of student teaching. And how this worked actually started with our partnership, with the partnership between Jessica and I. Because I wanted to signal how authentic relationships and horizontally aligned partnerships take time. They’re not a given. This learning community provided fertile grounds for the problematization and potential transformation of student teaching. In ways that interrupted its inherent racism. As teachers in the school where Jessica taught, watched our relationship grow, Jessica’s classroom became a space for critical conversations about topics pertaining to race, racism, and injustice, and in true education. Among this conversations, all of which were audio recorded and transcribed, the need to transform teacher education in general and student teaching in particular figured prominently. Five kindergarten teachers, one first grade teacher, three second grade teachers, and on fourth grade teacher came together regularly, at least weekly. Nine were teachers of color and one, a white teacher who clearly identified and acted as an ally. Regarding these as quality space for the development of teachers where quality was epistemologically centered on minoritized communities. I placed Edalia, a Latina initial teacher certification student in Jessica’s classroom. Edalia joined the collective during her student teaching semester. This group of teachers really relished the opportunity to critically read their worlds, centering the perspectives of women of color. Positioning themselves agentivally and developing a professional collective committed to transformation. While the initial engaged in critically reading their worlds with great ease with regards to their role in mentoring student teachers. This teacher collective felt stuck. What do we do, one of them asked. Explaining, if we don’t do anything we’re complicit, you know? So I shared with them this structure of Freire culture circles as one possible way of moving from critical conversation to action as a set way of representation of a critical adult education pedagogy. Culture circles really stood in stark contrast to most of their professional developments. It started really from the thematic investigation of their realities, reading their world. When to the identification of pressing and oppressing issues as important generative themes. Together we problem-posed, we dialoged, we engaged in problem solving, and we plotted and enacted transformative actions. Through culture circles, they read their worlds through thematic investigations. Some generative themes related to the student teaching identified through the data’s emotional hot points were student teachers having deficit perceptions of teachers of color, of children of color. One of them said they think those four children, plubacitos, and even when they mean well, they think the children are broken. The second theme was white university based supervisors supporting student teachers deficit perceptions through guidance and feedback. And here’s a quote, instead of helping them, the student teachers, understand how indirect language is not always appropriate. They reinforce the, would you like to conventions without acknowledging that not all families talk the white way, you know? And the third emotional hot point was that classrooms are seen by universities as sites for theoretical application under the assumption that university based educators know more and can determine what counts as valuable practice. Here’s one of the things that they said, they see are classrooms as laboratories without thinking about our responsibility to children. After identifying these and other themes, the teacher collective probematized the historical structure and systemic roots of this generative themes. They regarded each other as valuable resources and engaged in critical dialog moving from reflection to action. They worked together to engage in actions that interrupted preservice teachers deficit perceptions. Sorry, obviously I’m going the wrong way. You all have been very generous. They worked together to engage in actions that interrupted preservice teachers’ deficit perceptions agentively reframing their classrooms as sites for transforming teacher education one student teacher at a time. Using transcription as analytical method, I worked with them to identify what was critical to this group of teachers. How the purported fragmentation which characterizes teacher education explained by Britzman, serves to keep a racist and whiteified status quo in place. And how teacher education is implicated in the reproduction of racism through its enactment of white superiority in content, demographics, and problematic structures. In addition to identifying those two critical issues this teacher collective problematized issues within the context of culture circles and thought to identify possible transformative actions to dismantle teacher education’s and specfically student teaching’s role in the reproduction of racism. As they developed over the course of an academic year culture circles became intergenerational spaces where inservice and preservice teachers and teacher educators learn together and unlearn as well. This space was marked by collective agency becoming sites for change. As a collective with distributed agency they moved from seeing teaching as an individual endeavor to teaching as a collective responsibility. As Ellis and McNicholl explain, they develop agency, the capacity and the freedom for human beings to act responsibly in widely distributed ways marked by trust which led to confidence in their capacities to innovate. As reported in much more detail than this article and there are some copies in the back but it’s also available online. Within one year, school became a hub for student teaching placements. Often being requested by student teachers and being constantly referred to by other faculty as a good placement. The student population in the school did not change nor did the teachers. But there was a new collaborative ethos, a distributed agency among teachers, teacher educators, and student teachers. So, in problematizing the lack of good placements as obstacles to equity and justice in teacher education it is essential to understand the need to transform, to identify and transform racist structures, locations, and roles which have traditionally configured the work of teacher education. Collectively and critically with teachers, preservice, and inservice. Thank you. (clapping) Well, thank you very much to all of our speakers who amazingly all kept to time. I didn’t actually get around to my stop card with any of them. But I hope what you’ve heard today in these six speakers is these different layers of innovation and different ways of looking at it actually has stimulated your thinking in this area. And to help us further with that, our discussant today, Dorinda Carter Andrews is gonna take us through some of her thoughts that will take those ideas further. Thank you, Dorinda. Thank you very much and thank you for staying to hear from our fabulous presenters. I’m just so thankful to have had the pleasure to read this collection of papers and I really encourage all of you to check the papers out in the Journal of Education for Teaching. I think they’re available online, not in print yet. They are in print. So they’re just so many rich insights and nuances here. And so I know from myself personally, there’s a lot that I have to go back even incorporate into my undergraduate and graduate courses. So just thank you for your insights and wisdom. So I’m gonna try to pull together what we’ve heard here and some of the themes. As I read the full papers in their entirety. And I want to start by saying, I think Dr. Dominguez’s paper provides a nice overview of the challenges we face in really innovating in teacher education and that being the need to make epistemological and ontological shifts in our pedagogy, practice, and praxis. And I really want to encourage us today to think about this. I don’t think we talk about epistemology and ontology enough in ways that are really nuanced and meaningful in teacher education, that move us to what he talks about as this decolonializing in teacher education. We do know teacher education is a political project and as we’ve heard from our presenters today, there is a lot of rhetoric around social justice pedagogy and practice, but very little transformative practice and praxis. Bridging theory and practice matter. And so what does this look like when it’s done well? I think these papers move us to ask and attend to critical questions of program design that center humanization as an imperative. Humanization as an imperative. And a move away from technocratic ideas about teaching and learning. We heard centering humanizing data as evidence. And for me that really illuminated as Dr. Turvey talked about in his paper, The Role of Narrative. And how, if we are really concerned with as Dr. Dominguez said really lifting up and being attentive to epistemologies and ontologies of the Global South, we know that narrative and truth-telling are essential and foundational in those communities. And so what does it look like when partnerships really matter in the ways that the Jurow, Horn, and Phillip paper talk about, that also lift up epistemological and ontological indigineity. We have to consider what’s necessary across kowledge domains when we’re looking to make these shifts and establish authentic partnerships that move us to transformative innovation. I also read across the papers, this idea of how conceptions of quality are really pitted against considering the needs of intersectionally minoritized youth and communities. And we see that emerge in Dr Souto-Manning’s paper specifically. And I like that the Bernet and Lampert paper as well as the Jurow and all paper, offers us concrete examples of how our epistemological and ontological shifts get enacted for centering equity and justice. A unique feature of this collection of papers is that they really ask us to consider how can we promote innovation in teacher education that creates new ideas that have public value for the whole of society? And not just focused on increased productivity and lower cost and even greater mobility within existing social structures. These papers purport or argue humanization broadly as an imperative for innovation and really help us resist what Turvey refers to as pedagogical paralysis. In the absence of a humanizing imperative for innovation in teacher education, a technologically driven development such as learning analyitics heralds a new hyper economistic paradigm that really further dehumanizes the practices of learning, teaching, and this process of becoming that some of you in the room have heard me talk about in my own work around humanizing pedagogy in teacher education. And so with the time I have left, I will make a few specific comments about each of the individual papers that I hope also raise additional questions for us to think about. I appreciate in Goodwin’s and Darity’s paper, that they really focus on what do teacher educators need to know and do in order to move from espousing to enacting social justice in their own teacher education practice. And through this focus on the five knowledge domains I think we can think about those frames, not just for teacher educators, but for our work with preservice teachers and also thinking about these epistemological and ontological shifts. So what does it mean to authentically focus on the personal, contextual, pedagogical, sociological, and social across all domains of our work in teacher education? It is possible for teacher educators to embrace the goal of teaching social justice in the absence of shared meaning. And so this focus on knowledge domains for teacher educators is an innovation in and of itself given the posity of research on teacher educator qualifications and formal preparation of those of us who prepare teachers. Given the findings from this work, I believe there are implications for redesigning teacher preparation curriculum, such that knowledge gaps for future teacher educators are less apparent. We actually need real innovation in how we prepare future teacher educators. And I think the Goodwin and Darity paper move us in a way to have some framework for doing that. Dr. Turvey’s paper really focusing on humanizing as an innovation. And this question this article argues for humanization of research evidence through narrative as an urgent project in teacher education. I believe this really challenges us to move away from discourses as he says of econometrics because this flies directly in the face of affirming, sustaining, and empowering communities and historically marginalized students. So a question that his paper raises for us is how can our discourse be less categorical and technocratic and more responsive to lived experiences and epistemological and ontological frameworks that emanate from the communities we claim to serve? Discourse matters and narrative is essential for establishing care, dignity and dialogic consciousness raising that we often claim to promote particularly in teacher preparation programs that have a social justice focus. I appreciate that Dr. Turvey offers narrative as a humanizing innovation in teacher education suggesting that humanizing research evidence can adjust the persistent issues of social justice and inequity. Because narrative is an intrinsically human interpretative and explanatory device. And again, if we are committed to really honoring the lived experiences of those who have been historically and traditionally marginalized in our school spaces globally, then we will take up narrative and voice as data that informs our program design and implementation. This reminds me of Bryan Brayboyd’s work about stories as data and as Turvey talks about in his paper, the ways in which teachers need to be worthy witnesses. Which is offered up by Paris and Wen. It also reminds me of a connection to William’s notion of radical honesty. That in our work as teacher educators how can we engage each in the process of humanization that allows for truth telling with our students and amongst ourselves that values narrative and personal experience and then moves us to action? And this in and of itself is part of the process of becoming as teachers and teacher educators. I want to say a little bit more about the Dominguez paper in terms of the idea of rethinking justice projects in teacher education because as he says, our discourses may have become shallow since they don’t often honor the lived material and effective realities of historically marginalized communities. We saw this question on one of his PowerPoint slides but I’d like to think about it again as we think about these epistemological and ontological shifts. If we are not centering Global South thinking, epistemologies and ontological frameworks in our own thought, work, writing, and praxis how can we expect novice teachers to do the same? So in fact we must not just talk the talk as teacher educators, we have to walk it out as those who are inspired by Freire have said, we make this road by walking. In part, one of the things that Dominguez’s paper raises for me is an alignment with my own argument around the need to make epistemological and ontological shifts through resisting binaries and utilizing multi-modality as foundational to humanizing pedagogy and teacher education. We have to be comfortable with what Dominguez calls epistemic discomfort. And I would urge us to think about this is not an easy process and will not happen over night it will require that we actually reimagine and re-envision the way we have done teacher education historically and even in contemporary times. In this work to embrace epistemic discomfort we actually resist what I call damage centered pedagogical work. And the implications of what Dominguez offers is a concrete discourse example as we saw here in his presentation for how this might play out in classrooms. I would argue that we need more examples of what this looks like in practice. And that there are those of us in the room who may already be engaging in the pedagogical imaginary as a radical innovation. And we need to write about that, so that we have those examples. With regard to the Jurow, Horn and Phillip paper I appreciate their call to all of us to have shared commitments to consequential learning that leverages cultural and historical resources towards justice. And this focus on the remediating of infrastructures in teacher education. How this process of remediating knowledge infrastructures really can become a site for innovation in teacher development. I really appreciate the way in which the authors frame this as restructuring social and material dimensions of infrastructure. And if you read the paper, you really get some nice examples around three cases that they offer of what this looks like. This raises the question that I think they also pose. How do we authentically value local forms of knowledge and expertise? This is a fundamental question that should be responded to across teacher education programs. And what does it mean to authentically collaborate when you attend to the organization of infrastructure. Because in this process new forms of valued knowledge and expertise can be generated. The questions that Dr. Jurow raised at the end of her presentation I believe are essential for considering how learning is materially and socially organized in ways that are principled and advance justice goals. And then finally Dr. Souto-Manning’s paper really takes on this work of how we racialize quality in teacher education. And I don’t think we talk about that explicitly enough. And I really appreciate the case example in her paper on how this happens through the student teaching placement. Which we know as a field, we need more research about what actually happens in the student teaching placement. So I would encourage us to consider how the racialization of field placements more broadly pitfall us into enacting damage centered pedagogy. Because think about this, even when we flip our definition of quality for those of us who work in explicitly named social justice oriented programs and we place those students in urban centers, right? Assuming that placing students in historically minoritized communities will help raise their critical consciousness. We actually have not done the hard decolonial work that Dr. Dominguez suggests which fosters an experience where student teachers really can enact epistemic disobedience as he says. And coconstruct with teachers and students and communities to really decolonize their learning experience as preservice teachers. So I challenge all of us to really ask ourselves, how the concept of quality as Dr. Souto-Manning raises, cloaks the reproduction of racism in and through teacher education. How is teacher education and how might you be implicated in the reproduction of racial inequities? Because when you are implicated in that work, it inhibits you from being able to be innovative in transformative teacher education projects. We know from this paper, that student teaching is a sight where whiteness is upheld under the guise of notions of quality that masks white power and privilege. But a nuance and a way forward that Dr. Souto-Manning offers us is praxically just work. And I find this concept to be very important to the work of decolonizing teacher education and helping us make those epistemological and ontologicial shifts. And culture circles can be a way to do that as she talks about in her paper. So in closing, I see this collection of six papers as offering us much to think about by way of innovation in teacher education. But if we are not willing to do the hard work of thinking about whose knowledge counts, whose body counts and the ways in which we are willing to collaborate and partner in meaningful and authentic ways. We will not really be able to move beyond talking the talk of social justice teacher education and walking it out. Thank you. (clapping) So I want to thank you all today for coming along to this event. What you’ve seen today has been the culmination of work that started just under two years ago at this meeting in London where the Center for Innovation for Teacher Education Development called together scholars from across the world to come and talk about reclaiming innovation. And you’ve seen the different ways that the different papers have added to our understanding and knowledge of this but also raise questions and made us start to possibly rethink how we take this ideas forward. It’s extremely rewarding to see that a special issue arose from that meeting just two years ago and to also see people here, a very good audience here today early on a Saturday morning, come along to hear about it, but also hopefully to discuss and take that further. I particularly want to thank our discussant. Dorinda Carter Andrews, I think did a really amazing job of pulling together the themes that are in there. But I would encourage you all to go back to the original papers and have a look for yourself. Because I think that will stimulate your own ideas about how this may move forward and how we may take teacher education in a more socially justice way forward as our ideas do development. So I’m going to stop at this point. I’d either ask you to go and talk to people before the end. We’ve got about five minutes before we need to leave the room. Or to come forward and talk to some of the authors of the papers about your thoughts and comments of what you’ve heard today. Thank you very much. (clapping)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *