Educating Preservice Teachers in a Neoliberal Era: Specialized Technicians or Public Intellectuals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neoliberalism’s influence on teacher education has intensified a view of teachers as skilled technicians trained to implement centrally developed curriculum rather than as public intellectuals who engage in self-reflection and critique. In this paper, reforms in the United States and England provide a context for discussing teacher education programs in Canada. Young and Boyd’s (2010) “modes of governance” and “images of teachers work” provide a way to conceptualize teachers as public intellectuals that may be useful to counter neoliberal conceptions. Since neoliberal reforms continue to influence both universities and K-12 education, teacher educators are uniquely challenged to maintain a critical perspective on the role of teacher education and teacher work. L’influence du néolibéralisme sur la formation des enseignants a intensifié une perspective selon laquelle les enseignants sont des techniciens spécialisés et formés pour mettre en œuvre un programme d’études élaboré par des autorités centrales plutôt que des intellectuels publics qui pratiquent l’autoréflexion et l’autocritique. Cet article emploie des réformes aux États-Unis et en Angleterre comme cadre pour une discussion sur les programmes de formation des enseignants au Canada. Les « modes de gouvernance » et les « perceptions du travail des enseignants » de Young et Boyd (2010) offrent une façon de conceptualiser les enseignants comme des intellectuels publics. Ce moyen pourrait s’avérer utile pour contrer les perceptions néolibérales. Puisque l’influence des réformes néolibérales continue à se faire sentir dans le milieu universitaire et dans celui de l’éducation K-12, les formateurs d’enseignants sont confrontés au défi particulier de maintenir une perspective critique sur le rôle de la formation et du travail des enseignants. Mots clés : néolibéralisme, travail des enseignants, formation des enseignants, intellectuel public
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".