Search

Political appetite for neoliberal education policy has problematised teacher education in a number of countries, including Australia, the US and England. In Australia, dominant policy discourses of quality normalise the regulation and standardisation of teacher education and position teacher educators within a deficit model of education reform. Such positioning has been shown to have a deleterious impact on professional status, dismantling complex conceptualisations of teacher educators' work. Framed by key tenets of positioning theory and conceptualisations of policy enactment, this study investigated, using online semi-structured interviews, the ways in which 16 teacher educators in one Australian university positioned policy as "other", and the ways in which they felt they could or should respond. It found that teacher educators position policy, and engage in the policy process, in complex and varied ways. While many positioned policy as an intruder, with the potential to do harm to the profession, others had made choices that positioned policy as a tool for innovative imagining for programme renewal. Findings also highlight the potential appetite for collaborative positioning between policy makers and teacher educators as partners. These findings have significant implications for future approaches to re-shaping the teacher education policy space both in Australia and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports on findings from a sociolinguistic qualitative study exploring inter-discursive relations manifested in the approaches and strategies that regional accrediting agencies in the United States utilise when recognising foreign universities. Even as most countries have developed national quality assurance systems and whilst international rankings comparing institutions globally are available, a growing number of universities around the world seek recognition from American regional agencies. By comparing policy statements, manuals, guidelines and other documents, and after interviewing top-level officers at US accrediting agencies, this study makes explicit the assumptions and central discourses associated with US accreditation of non-US institutions of higher education, from the accreditors’ perspective. Following constant comparison and cultural critical discourse analysis, the study reveals concerns about the equivalency of quality, emphasis on capacity building and reluctance toward adapting US standards. An interest in building international partnerships, in order to respond to globalisation, is also identified. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]