Neoliberalism in Websites of Schools of Education and Teacher Education Programs: Comparison between Canadian and American Public Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes websites of university-based Schools of Education and Teacher Education Programs, and points to the (intentional or unintentional) active role these institutions play in maintaining and supporting neoliberal ideology. The study uses a qualitative method to examine websites of 30 public universities, 15 American and 15 Canadian. Using a grounded theory approach, five neoliberal-related features are identified: marketing, business terminology, employability, economic orientation, and outcome-based approach. The latter two features were found only in the American websites. The paper discusses implications for each of the features, as well as for the differences between American and Canadian institutions. Teacher educators are encouraged to take the findings seriously as there is a concern that neoliberal trends and practices will continue to seep more deeply into Teacher Education Programs. Cette étude analyse les sites Web de programmes universitaires de formation des enseignants et fait ressortir le rôle actif (intentionnel ou non) que jouent ces institutions dans le maintien et l’appui du néolibéralisme. L’étude emploie une méthode qualitative pour examiner les sites Web de 30 universités publiques, dont 15 américaines et 15 canadiennes. Une approche théorique à base empirique a permis d’identifier cinq éléments liés au néolibéralisme : le marketing, le vocabulaire commercial, l’employabilité, l’orientation économique et une approche axée sur les résultats. Les deux derniers éléments étaient présents seulement dans les sites Web américains. L’article discute des retombées de chacun des éléments et évoque les différences entre les institutions américaines et canadiennes. On encourage les formateurs d’enseignants de prendre ces résultats au sérieux car on craint que les tendances et les pratiques néolibérales continueront à s’infiltrer de plus en plus dans les programmes de formation des enseignants. Mots clés: établissements de formation, programmes de formation des enseignants, sites Web, marketing
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".