Chapter 6. Towards principles of governing initial teacher preparation systems?
This last chapter discusses four principles that emerge from the challenges and strategies presented in this report with regards to governing initial teacher preparation systems. In particular, it first highlights the importance of strategic thinking and sets out a vision for initial teacher preparation (ITP) in the context of teacher learning as a continuum. Second, it discusses key elements of effective knowledge governance and how these can be implemented with respect to ITP. Third, the chapter emphasises the role of building capacity at the individual, organisational and system levels. Finally, it concludes by emphasising a whole-of-system perspective through strong partnerships and networks to drive systemic improvement.
This report has described the key challenges and corresponding strategies as they relate to designing initial teacher preparation as the foundational stage in the continuum of teacher learning. It presented teacher education as a complex system of multi-layered contexts, schools and policy environments – “a cluster of simultaneous interactions at multiple levels which people become part of for a period of time” (Ell et al., 2017[1]). Clearly, creating a coherent learning experience for teacher candidates, new and experienced teachers in such complexity requires system level coordination. This section summarises the strategies laid out above (see Table 6.1) with a view to governing initial teacher preparation (ITP) systems in ways that foster the development of coherent, evidence-informed, sustainable and self-improving systems.
These strategies and the suggested forms of implementation are interconnected in multiple ways. For example, at least eight strategies are directly related to the effective production, use and dissemination of knowledge (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11), while other six strategies (3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12) point to the need to understand and design ITP as a system. The ways in which the different stakeholders can apply these suggested strategies suggest that the following are vital elements in ITP systems:
-
1. The continuity and coherence of teacher learning throughout the career is at the heart of a strategic vision for ITP systems.
-
2. A sustainable ITP system requires the systematic production, mediation and use of data and evidence.
-
3. A self-improving ITP system needs strong capacity at all levels.
-
4. A whole-of-system view through cross-institutional and multilevel partnerships, engaging all actors and establishing positive feedback loops is necessary to ensure a coherent ITP system.
These four emerging principles are discussed in more details in the next sections.
6.1. Strategic thinking in governing ITP systems for coherent and continuous teacher learning
Flying start – the title of this report – reflects the key principle of the ITP study, which is conceptualising teacher learning as a continuum, in which initial teacher preparation is the beginning of a process of professional development and relationship with the wider education community. Developing this continuum across institutional boundaries, support systems, career structures and local school contexts, that is, in a complex ITP system, requires strategic thinking. A strategy first needs a vision for ITP shared among multiple agents. The mission for all institutions and actors, and the specific action plans to establish and sustain ITP based on the shared vision needs the capacity of all to work within a system perspective and understand planning as a dialogue.
When developing a vision, we need to take into account that initial teacher preparation does not work in a vacuum, but is driven by outstanding goals in education. Typically, the following common goals underpin educational policy agendas that aim at preparing future generations to participate in framing solutions for the challenges of our era:
-
Improve the learning outcomes and the quality of education provision in line with new contexts and challenges
-
Ensure equity
-
Improve the efficiency of the system.
Addressing these goals expands beyond the mission of ITP systems to ensure a balanced teacher workforce and highlights the need for improving the quality of teacher learning. In this sense, ITP has to build also on the role of the teaching profession, on how to train effective teachers, according to a set of well-established standards of practice and pedagogical knowledge that would be capable of advancing innovations and working collaboratively with other colleagues. Further, it has implications for understanding schools and teacher education institutions as learning organisations that are able to address problems and develop new solutions attuned to the communities they serve.
The vision for ITP as the first stage in a continuum is based on three main principles of understanding the teacher profession:
-
Teachers as learners. In the same way as their students, teachers need to be provided with a system of scaffolding that must help them develop and allow them to fulfil their potential as professionals. Continuously questioning their practice, developing their own educational ideals and strengthening their conceptions of equity and social justice are fundamental elements of teachers as learners.
-
Relevance of learning that takes place after ITP. The idea that teachers work alone and should take full responsibility over their classes from day one undermines the relevance of career-long professional development. A strategic vision for ITP should start with the assumption that becoming a teacher does not finish during the induction phase and therefore initial preparation. While ensuring minimum standards for teacher graduates, ITP must lay the foundation for an ongoing learning process. This implies that ITP systems should not be expected to cover all the possible competences for teachers, or to anticipate all the potential situations that new teachers may encounter, but to equip teachers for lifelong and collaborative learning.
-
Clinical and research practice in particular contexts. Embedding continually evolving knowledge coming from research and experience is key for teachers’ continuous growth. The interaction of knowledge about practice and enacting knowledge in practice includes translating learning theories into practice, experimenting with their implementation in particular contexts, as well as strengthening the validity of new practices. As a result, ITP must move beyond the theory-practice divide and prepare teachers for an ongoing enquiry about their practice. This necessitates creating strong partnerships with schools for allowing rapid flows of newly emerging knowledge and evidence.
An explicit common vision helps the system avoid conflicting agendas such as having rigid standards while understanding teaching as a creative, innovative profession. It also encourages a constructive dialogue through, for example, developing specific missions and actions plans to achieve shared goals according to the different realities of schools. Figure 6.1 illustrates the way forging a shared vision for ITP based on a continuum of teacher learning is anchored in the definition of educational goals and the role of the teacher profession.
This report argues that the idea of a continuum does not only provide stakeholders with a meaningful concept that helps steer the system, it also sets out an appealing view for bringing them together in realising this goal. The above-described vision for ITP helps systems to creatively think about how to ensure a sustainable teaching workforce while improving its quality. It can serve as the basis for designing coherent policies and establishing well-adapted environments for policy implementation.
6.2. Governing knowledge for evidence-informed ITP systems
The strategic governance of an education system requires an effective organisation and flow of knowledge (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[2]). Identifying what knowledge is relevant in a given context is a prerequisite for effective knowledge management (Fazekas and Burns, 2012[3]). Developing a strategic approach to mobilising relevant knowledge involves thinking about its production and utilisation, as well as the link between these, i.e. knowledge mediation (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[2]). Knowledge governance in this sense, involves the following elements:
-
collecting quality and rich data for research and decision-making
-
facilitating access to data and knowledge
-
promoting a culture of using rich data and knowledge (OECD, 2018[4]).
With regards to governing ITP systems, two types of knowledge can be distinguished: knowledge that is relevant for designing ITP policies and knowledge that is relevant for the practice of ITP actors. Knowledge can originate from data sources (e.g. quantitative and qualitative data on teacher candidates, teachers, teacher educators), and evidence.
The challenges described in this report discussed some of the evidence collected in the ITP study, and available in international literature. Descriptions also pointed to gaps that still need to be filled. Table 6.2 lists the most important areas of evidence. While available data and evidence is dependent on particular systems, for many of these topics the amount of evidence does not yet seem globally robust. Available evidence is still often patchy, not well connected, not easily accessible and sometimes controversial. In some areas, however, such as student learning, instructional processes and teacher motivation, research activity is high in many countries.
Compiling similar lists and determining the status of evidence and data for each topic is a useful exercise that ITP actors and policy makers could perform when governing knowledge. In areas where more evidence is needed, ITP leaders can map actors who have the capacity to contribute to building the evidence by collecting data, conducting research, coordinating and systematising existing evidence, and mediating this towards practice. For example, teacher candidates, teachers and researchers involved in initial teacher education (ITE) can co-conduct research on instructional processes. ITE institutions can work together to coordinate such research projects and then synthesise the outcomes to strengthen the evidence base at the system level. This in turn needs to be built in ITE programmes, which requires mediation by ITE leaders and teacher educators. Mentors and school leaders can also play a role in mediating evidence towards schools and teaching practice. It has been argued that practitioners will find research relevant and more directly applicable for their practice if they have a certain degree of ownership over the research (Révai and Guerriero, 2017[5]).
In areas that are relevant for policy design, such as the effectiveness of certain ITP practices (for example induction programmes), relevant actors may include policy institutions, brokerage agencies (e.g. to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses), but also teacher education institutions and schools to collaborate in data collection.
Similarly to facilitating strong partnerships, a strategic governance of knowledge in ITP systems requires established mechanisms, funding schemes, incentives and so on. These efforts will then also lead to a more systematic and integrated knowledge base for ITP systems. The OECD CERI is currently engaged in developing a policy toolkit to support countries and stakeholders in governing complex systems, including in governing knowledge (OECD, 2018[4]).
6.3. Building capacity for self-improving ITP systems
Developing the individual professional competences of all actors playing a role in ITP design and development (e.g. teacher educators, mentors, heads of ITE institutions, school leaders, and policy makers responsible for ITP) is at the heart of quality and evidence-based teacher education programmes. Capacity building should however go beyond that, and include developing organisational and system level capacity as well (Figure 6.2).
Source: Based on Matachi (2006[6]), Capacity Building Framework, UNESCO.
At the individual level, capacity building involves developing teacher educators’ knowledge and competences to process, evaluate and integrate new evidence on teaching and learning into their teaching practice. Teacher educators also need to be able to facilitate the production of evidence, as well as explore and model up-to-date pedagogies. As discussed in Chapter 5, those who are supporting beginning teachers during their induction and in their early years whether they are school-based mentors, experienced teacher colleagues or external coaches, need specific knowledge and competences. These have to be acknowledged and strategically developed. In turn, school leaders responsible for leading their pedagogical team, need for example knowledge of human resource development and management (e.g. selecting, supporting, monitoring mentors, beginning and experienced teachers), and a capacity to build personal and professional relationships, as well as a team (Révai and Kirkham, 2013[7]).
An organisational capacity – resources, structures, processes and leadership – is needed to provide individuals with opportunities to develop in and fulfil their multiple roles. This also includes having a shared vision of the continuity of teacher learning, a culture of valuing people’s ideas, encouraging collaborative learning and building collective knowledge to move towards that vision. For this, organisations also need to develop distributed leadership for learning. Using a concept from modern management literature, organisations involved in ITP (ITE and policy institutions and schools) need to become learning organisations in order to address the challenges described in this report (Kools and Stoll, 2016[8]). In fact, the suggested strategies laid out in the chapters are very much in line with the recommendations formulated specifically for systems aiming to turn schools into learning organisations:
-
establishing stronger collaborations between schools and teacher education institutions
-
promoting professional learning throughout the professional lifecycle through enquiry, exploration and innovation; strong induction programmes; mentoring and coaching, observations and peer review
-
developing learning leadership in schools and other parts of the system (OECD, 2018[9]).
At the system level, capacity is required to create appropriate structures, and perhaps more importantly, facilitate processes that allow the continuous improvement of teacher preparation. For this, system level ITP leaders need to be aware of the challenges discussed in the previous sections and need to have knowledge and competences to address them. A key element is the capacity to govern data, knowledge and evidence across the system as described in the previous section. To date, only few systems provide regular training for stakeholders in using data for their purposes (González-Sancho and Vincent-Lancrin, 2016[10]).
6.4. A whole-of-system perspective for a coherent ITP system
If ITP is considered as a continuum, it should provide beginning teachers with a coherent learning experience across coursework, practical training, induction and early career professional development. Yet, ITP is often a fragmented experience for many beginning teachers, and stakeholders in ITP systems struggle to work together to create a coherent learning experience (Beck and Kosnik, 2009[11]; Hammerness and Klette, 2015[12]; Grossman, Hammerness and McDonald, 2009[13]). Key stakeholders in teacher education – teacher educators, mentor teachers, policy makers and teacher candidates – do not cohere on the basic elements of teacher education nor its strongest influences (Ell et al., 2017[1]). Most teacher candidates, teacher educators and researchers belong to the tertiary education system, whereas most teacher mentors, school leaders and policy makers operate in the school system. The fact that different policy makers are often responsible for the different elements of the teacher education pathway also makes it a challenge for stakeholders to co-create a coherent learning experience for beginning teachers. Schools often have little say over the design of ITP programmes, and ITP institutions often have little say over the design of school induction programmes and other support schemes provided to beginning teachers, as was the case in almost all the countries reviewed as part of the OECD ITP study.
A coherent ITP system needs to establish cross-institutional and multilevel partnerships to engage stakeholders who belong to different contexts in a whole-of-system perspective. Strong partnerships are more than regular discussions between schools and ITP institutions on operational issues such as practical training placements, and include designing, evaluating and improving programmes together (Toon and Jensen, 2017[14]) as depicted in Figure 6.3.
Source: Toon, D. and B. Jensen (2017[14]), Teaching our Teachers: a Better Way - Developing Partnerships to Improve Teacher Preparation, Learning First, Melbourne, http://learningfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2columnsITECoPPaper2PartnershipsFINAL17Nov17.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2018).
As described throughout this report, strong partners collaborate to provide authentic and reflective practical training and induction experiences for beginning teachers. They discuss decisions about selection into ITP programmes and hiring into schools based on the needs of the local context. They routinely share and discuss quantitative data on candidate outcomes as well as qualitative information from graduate teachers and schools to inform programme improvement.
To ensure that school-university partnerships live up to their potential, ITP stakeholders need a common vision and commitment to work towards that. This is however not enough. Systems require deliberate strategies to build strong partnerships:
-
Mechanisms to support the collaboration of different partners and institutions. Co-ordinated knowledge sharing, and formal feedback and mutual review processes, in which partners share and analyse data and feedback to identify both strengths and areas for improvement, are examples of mechanisms that support partnerships. Accountability mechanisms such as programme accreditation and school review processes can also encourage strong partnerships if this is an explicit element in them. Accreditation reviews can recognise those partners who successfully collaborate on programme improvement initiatives. Similarly, an explicit collaboration with ITE institutions on preparing and supporting beginning teachers could be included in school review/evaluation processes.
-
Collaborative learning. Collaborative practices and a collaborative culture should be embedded into ITP systems. Schools and ITE institutions should participate in networks, professional learning communities and other learning partnerships with shared responsibility for learning, mutual support of each other's learning, supportive leadership and a commitment to the common good (European Commission, 2015[15]). Systems can support collaborative learning by offering learning opportunities to all stakeholders involved in ITP – those based in schools, universities and other institutions. For example, providing tools and joint training in topics that are a priority to the system (e.g. new school curriculum, assessment and evaluation) can strengthen connections, and help build a shared understanding and language.
-
Sustainable resources: dedicated time and ongoing funding. Collaboration needs investment, and all actors across the system need dedicated and recognised time for engaging in partnerships. Short term funding mechanisms can impede the establishment of ongoing and well-functioning partnerships and networks of ITP stakeholders. Providing additional funding to accredited school-university partnerships is a way to ensure standards for deep collaboration.
-
Fostering professional responsibility, agency and trust. Guaranteeing stakeholders’ agency over processes of decision making, steering and monitoring is key to establishing strong partnerships (European Commission, 2015[15]). As partnerships depend on the stakeholders’ involvement in building a shared purpose, mutual trust and respect, and common language over a number of years, they cannot simply be mandated by the system (Toon and Jensen, 2017[14]). Rather, the system should encourage professional responsibility and personal ownership. Likewise, evaluation and feedback loops can easily make actors vulnerable, as they share genuine areas for improvement and must be willing to implement change based on the feedback. Such mechanisms therefore require a high level of trust and transparency.
However, sometimes partnerships, not only actors, also work in isolation, which may provoke opposing effects at the system level. Therefore, coordinating different governance levels and policies, and aligning the diverse roles and responsibilities of actors is necessary (OECD, 2018[4]).
Establishing or incentivising the creation of networks can allow different stakeholders to mutually apply pressure on each other towards an explicit goal, creating communities of practices around the reflection on common challenges (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[2]). Such networks have the potential of connecting professional learning at different levels: from school and ITE institution to cluster to system level, thus enhancing system capacity (OECD, 2015[16]). Networks for knowledge sharing, skill development, and reflection on practice among schools have proved to be successful for culture change, capacity creation, collaboration and the scaling of innovations (OECD, 2013[17]).
A recent report by the European Commission identifies three potential benefits of different networks:
-
networks as policy or practice incubators (experimenting with new practices to address certain challenges and testing them)
-
networks as a tool for educational governance (ensuring quality assurance processes and resource management)
-
networks as a participatory democratic form (peer learning, knowledge sharing or addressing specific issues in national policy) (European Commission, 2017[18]).
Similarly to partnerships, networks are effective when they maintain a clear focus on purpose and mobilise quality information (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[2]). Other essential criteria are developing high-trust relationships, ensuring appropriate frequency of interactions inwards and outwards, and a deliberate strategy to focus on leadership from the middle in relation to system goals and local needs (Hargreaves and Ainscow, 2015[19]). Overall, networks are forms of distributed leadership, and offer windows of opportunity for participants to move beyond their own interests and navigate through different institutional boundaries and rationales.
To sum up, a whole-of-system perspective is necessary to moderate tensions and drive systemic improvement. Governing ITP with a view to the whole system is a time-consuming enterprise, and it must be grounded in an ownership of the policy objectives and planned action among the stakeholders implementing the policy (Burns, Köster and Fuster, 2016[2]). Engaging stakeholders in processes at all levels is therefore a prerequisite for implementing a whole-of-system approach. Given the highly diverse needs of the actors that configure ITP systems, the implementation of the continuum on teacher learning discussed in this report calls for ITP policies to be flexible enough to respond to unexpected situations and continuously integrate new knowledge and embrace emerging patterns.
References
[55] AITSL (2015), Accreditation of Initial Teacher Education Programs: Standards and Procedures, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/initial-teacher-education-resources/accreditation-of-ite-programs-in-australia.pdf (accessed on 30 December 2017).
[11] Beck, C. and C. Kosnik (2009), Priorities in Teacher Education: The 7 Key Elements of Pre-service Preparation, Routledge, London, https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781135226190 (accessed on 1 October 2018).
[20] BERA, B. (2014), Research and the teaching profession: Building the capacity for a self-improving education system. Final Report of the BERA-RSA Inquiry into the Role of Research in Teacher Education, British Education Research Association, https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/BERA-RSA-Research-Teaching-Profession-FULL-REPORT-for-web.pdf.
[31] Boyd, D. et al. (2009), “Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 31/4, pp. 416-440, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373709353129.
[42] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[2] Burns, T., F. Köster and M. Fuster (2016), Education Governance in Action: Lessons from Case Studies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262829-en.
[59] Canrinus, E. et al. (2017), “Coherent teacher education programmes: Taking a student perspective”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 49/3, pp. 313-333.
[56] CCSSO (2017), Transforming Educator Preparation: Lessons Learned from Leading States, Council of Chief State School Officers, http://www.ccsso.org. (accessed on 5 February 2019).
[36] Clinton, J., R. Aston and J. Quach (2018), Promoting evidence uptake in schools: A review of the key features of research and evidence institutions, University of Melbourne, https://doi.org/10.4225/49/5aa61c6c75a9e.
[26] Cochran-Smith, M. and A. Villegas (2015), “Framing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part I”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 66/1, pp. 7-20.
[24] Cochran-Smith, M. et al. (2015), “Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, part II”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 66/2, pp. 109-121, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268.
[23] Cochran-Smith, M. and K. Zeichner (2005), Studying Teacher Education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, American Educational Research Association, published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, https://books.google.fr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hbiLAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Studying+Teacher+Education:+The+Report+of+the+AERA+Panel+on+Research+and+Teacher+Education.+Lawrence+Erlbaum+Associates.+&ots=kvcbq8M6DT&sig=hrAHfWD_o5TPEUKJAicby2UxLwE (accessed on 1 October 2018).
[39] Cordingley, P. (2015), “The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 41/2, pp. 234-252, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105.
[40] Cordingley, P. and M. Bell (2012), Understanding What Enables High Quality Professional Learning, CUREE and Pearson School Improvement, http://www.curee.co.uk (accessed on 18 February 2018).
[28] Darling-Hammond, L. and A. Lieberman (2012), Teacher Education Around the World : Changing Policies and Practices, Routledge, Abingdon, https://www.routledge.com/Teacher-Education-Around-the-World-Changing-Policies-and-Practices/Darling-Hammond-LIEBERMAN/p/book/9780415577014 (accessed on 4 October 2018).
[35] Davies, H. (2007), “Academic advice to practitioners—the role and use of research-based evidence”, Public Money and Management, Vol. 27/4, pp. 232-235.
[34] Deeble, M. and T. Vaughan (2018), “An evidence broker for Australian schools”, Centre for Strategic Education, Vol. 150.
[22] du Plooy, L. et al. (2016), “Searching for research results to inform the design of an initial professional teacher education programme for the foundation phase: A systematic review”, South African Journal of Childhood Education, Vol. 6/1, pp. 1-8, https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i1.285.
[1] Ell, F. et al. (2017), “Mapping a complex system: what influences teacher learning during initial teacher education?”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 45/4, pp. 327-345, https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2017.1309640.
[18] European Commission (2017), Networks for Learning and Development across School Education, European Commission, Brussels.
[15] European Commission (2015), Shaping career-long perspectives on teaching: A guide on policies to improve initial teacher education, Education & Training 2020 - Schools Policy, Brussels, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/reports/initial-teacher-education_en.pdf.
[43] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, E. (2017), Support Mechanisms for Evidence-based PolicyMaking in Education (Eurydice Report), Publications Office of the European Union.
[3] Fazekas, M. and T. Burns (2012), “Exploring the complex interaction between governance and knowledge in education”, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/exploring-the-complex-interaction-between-governance-and-knowledge-in-education_5k9flcx2l340-en.
[32] Gansle, K., G. Noell and J. Burns (2012), “Do Student Achievement Outcomes Differ Across Teacher Preparation Programs? An Analysis of Teacher Education in Louisiana”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 63/5, pp. 304-317, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112439894.
[10] González-Sancho, C. and S. Vincent-Lancrin (2016), “Transforming education by using a new generation of information systems”, Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 14/6, pp. 741-758, https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316649287.
[13] Grossman, P., K. Hammerness and M. McDonald (2009), “Redefining teaching, re-imagining teacher education”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 15/2, pp. 273-289, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340.
[12] Hammerness, K. and K. Klette (2015), “Indicators of quality in teacher education: Looking at features of teacher education from an international perspective”, in Promoting and Sustaining a Quality Teacher Workforce, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1479-367920140000027013.
[19] Hargreaves, A. and M. Ainscow (2015), “The top and bottom of leadership and change”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 97/3, pp. 42-48, https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715614828.
[33] Koedel, C. et al. (2015), “Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real Differences Across Programs”, Education Finance and Policy, Vol. 10/4, pp. 508-534, https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00172.
[8] Kools, M. and L. Stoll (2016), “What Makes a School a Learning Organisation?”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 137, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwm62b3bvh-en.
[54] Louisiana Board of Regents (n.d.), Teacher Preparation Data Dashboards & Fact Book, https://regents.la.gov/divisions/planning-research-and-academic-affairs/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/teacher-preparation-data-dashboards-fact-book/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
[49] MA DESE, M. (2016), Educator Preparation: Program Approval Criteria List, http://www.doe.mass.edu/edprep/evaltool/2017CriteriaList.pdf.
[48] MA DESE, M. (2016), Program Approval Guidelines, http://www.doe.mass.edu/edprep/ProgramApproval.pdf.
[47] Mandinach, E. and E. Gummer (eds.) (2018), Building Capacity and Commitment for Data Use in Teacher Education Programs, Routledge.
[6] Matachi, A. (2006), Capacity Building Framework, UNESCO - International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa, http://www.iicba.unesco.org/sites/default/files/Capacity%20Building%20framework.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2018).
[58] Nusche, D. et al. (2014), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Netherlands 2014, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264211940-en.
[9] OECD (2018), Developing Schools as Learning Organisations in Wales, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264307193-en.
[37] OECD (2018), Innovation Strategy for Education and Training, http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/innovationstrategyforeducationandtraining.htm (accessed on 5 December 2018).
[4] OECD (2018), Strategic Education Governance - Project Plan and Organisational Framework, OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/SEG-Project-Plan-org-framework.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2018).
[16] OECD (2015), Schooling Redesigned: Towards Innovative Learning Systems, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264245914-en.
[17] OECD (2013), Innovative Learning Environments, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-en.
[46] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[45] OECD (2008), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: Volume 1 and Volume 2, OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264046535-en.
[21] OECD (2007), Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264033672-en.
[25] Peck, C., C. Gallucci and T. Sloan (2010), “Negotiating implementation of high-stakes performance assessment policies in teacher education: from compliance to inquiry”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 61/5, pp. 451-463, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109354520.
[5] Révai, N. and S. Guerriero (2017), “Knowledge dynamics in the teaching profession”, in Guerriero, S. (ed.), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-4-en.
[7] Révai, N. and G. Kirkham (eds.) (2013), The Art and Science of Leading a School, Tempus Public Foundation, Budapest, https://tka.hu/docs/palyazatok/theartandscienceofleadingaschool_issuu_xs.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2018).
[53] Rhode Island Department of Education (n.d.), Rhode Island Educator Preparation Index, http://www3.ride.ri.gov/RIEdPrepIndex/ (accessed on 5 February 2019).
[60] Roberts-Hull, K., B. Jensen and S. Cooper (2015), A New Approach: Reforming Teacher Education, Learning First, Melbourne, Australia, http://www.learningfirst.org.au. (accessed on 2 October 2018).
[50] Sonmark, K. et al. (2017), “Understanding teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: report on an international pilot study”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 159, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/43332ebd-en.
[38] Tatto, M. (2015), “The role of research in the policy and practice of quality teacher education: an international review”, Oxford Review of Education, Vol. 41/2, pp. 171-201, https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2015.1017405.
[30] Tatto, M. et al. (2016), “The emergence of high-stakes accountability policies in teacher preparation: an examination of the U.S. Department of Education’s proposed regulations”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 24/0, p. 21, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2322.
[52] TEMAG (2014), Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers, Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_print.pdf.
[44] TEMAG, T. (2014), Action Now: Classroom Ready Teachers (Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group Final Report), Australian Department of Education, https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/action_now_classroom_ready_teachers_accessible.pdf.
[41] Timperley, H. et al. (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration [BES], New Zealand: Ministry of Education, Wellington, http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES (accessed on 11 October 2018).
[14] Toon, D. and B. Jensen (2017), Teaching our Teachers: a Better Way - Developing Partnerships to Improve Teacher Preparation, Learning First, Melbourne, http://learningfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2columnsITECoPPaper2PartnershipsFINAL17Nov17.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2018).
[29] Toon, D., B. Jensen and S. Cooper (2017), Teaching Our Teachers: a Better Way - Continuous Improvement in Teacher Preparation, Learning First, Melbourne, http://www.learningfirst.com. (accessed on 4 October 2018).
[57] Viennet, R. and B. Pont (2017), “Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en.
[51] Welsh government (2017), Connecting Research and Teacher Education: Quality Enhancement for ITE Partnerships, Education Directorate, Welsh Government,, http://learning.gov.wales/resources/browse-all/connecting-research-and-teacher-education/?lang=en.
[27] Wilson, S., R. Floden and J. Ferrini-Mundy (2001), Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, Washington DC, https://www.education.uw.edu/ctp/content/teacher-preparation-research-current-knowledge-gaps-and-recommendations (accessed on 4 October 2018).