Teacher Certification and the Professional Status of Teaching in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book locates recent developments in teacher certification in North America within a broader, international policy context characterized as hegemonic neo-liberalism wherein economic rationalism has begun to trump professional judgment. We focus on teacher certification because it addresses fundamental questions about who will teach, what are the required minimum levels of competence, and who will make those decisions. Such questions are central to teaching, constituting a new battleground for education in North America.Two ideas—economic rationalism and professionalization—have become pivotal to education policy. Economic rationalism finds its expression in a free market ideology. Professionalization has two meanings: professionalizing the practice of teaching (constructing a professional knowledge base); and professionalizing the status of teaching (through links with universities and self-regulation). These ideas’ contestation varies by setting. In the USA, neo-liberalism has attacked professional knowledge, questioning its scientific veracity. Professionalization advocates claim that the neo-liberalist aim is to undermine teaching as a profession. In Canada, neo-liberalist critics are heard but have limited impact on policy. Professionalization has emphasized teachers’ pedagogical development and a valuing of the field’s input into teacher preparation. Neo-liberalist economic rationalism plays itself out overtly in the USA as de-regulation; in Canada, it lies embedded within labor mobility agreements. In the USA, professionalization highlights professionalism in practice; in Canada, the governance of teaching. This book explores how economic rationalism is using labor mobility agreements in Canada as a covert operation analogous to de-regulation in the USA to assert its dominance in the battle to de-professionalize teaching in North America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".