Education I NEED HELP ON MY HOMEWORK

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uate20

Action in Teacher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Skepticism, Gratitude, and the Neoliberal Narrative: TFA Teachers’ Conceptualization of Occupational Stature

Angela Kraemer-Holland

To cite this article: Angela Kraemer-Holland (2021) Skepticism, Gratitude, and the Neoliberal Narrative: TFA Teachers’ Conceptualization of Occupational Stature, Action in Teacher Education, 43:4, 430-446, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2020.1825239

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2020.1825239

Published online: 06 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 109

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Skepticism, Gratitude, and the Neoliberal Narrative: TFA Teachers’ Conceptualization of Occupational Stature Angela Kraemer-Holland

National Louis University

ABSTRACT This article highlights the capacity of both neoliberal discourse and Teach for America (TFA) in shaping how emergent TFA teachers frame teaching with regard to occupational esteem, occupational status, and occupational pres- tige. Relevant literature explores the evolution of teaching and teacher preparation in light of neoliberalism, and the organizational structure and positioning of TFA. Qualitative phenomenological interviews focused on participants’ initial educational experiences, TFA participation, and the impact of their experiences on their overall conceptions of teaching. Findings illuminated participants’ concerns over entering teaching due to its seemingly lower occupational stature that TFA would allegedly alleviate, as well as participants’ growing reverence for teaching upon departure, reverence attributed to their teaching experiences irrespective of TFA. This research exposes how TFA and neoliberalism shape our understanding of teaching, and calls our attention to how we can elevate the teaching profes- sion amid a neoliberal discourse that threatens its existence.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 19 December 2019 Accepted 15 September 2020

KEYWORDS Teach for America; teacher education; occupational stature; occupational prestige; neoliberalism

Introduction

Varied conceptions of teaching’s occupational stature have created discrepancies between the public esteem for teaching, its status within the job market, and teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions and a broader lack of occupational respect (Smak & Walczak, 2017). Neoliberal discourse in education augments these discrepancies by conceiving of teachers as both saviors and scapegoats evaluated against narrow corporatized measures (Au, 2011; Kumashiro, 2012; Labaree, 2004). This illustrates an all-encompassing yet technical framing of the teacher, despite teaching’s questionable occupational stature. Acknowledging the stereotype that undergraduate education students encom- pass “the least able on campus” (Koerner, 1963, p. 39), emerging and practicing teachers may be skeptical of the prestige, status, and esteem of teachers and teaching. This skepticism redefines what the desired pathways are for entering the profession, impacting the pursuit of teaching as a long-term career (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Podolsky, Kini, Bishop, & Darling-Hammond, 2016).

The purpose of this article is to examine how former TFA teachers conceptualize teaching as a desirable career in light of both their educational experiences and their TFA preparation, and how these experiences may have shaped their understandings of the occupational prestige, status, and esteem of teaching (Grunder, 2016; Hoyle, 2001; Lankford, Loeb, McEachin, Miller, & Wyckoff, 2014; Smak & Walczak, 2017). Additionally, this article explores how both TFA and public discourse have shaped former corps members’ general perceptions of teaching’s occupational prestige, status, and esteem. I sought to examine the following research questions:

(1) How do former TFA teachers conceptualize the occupational stature of teaching?

CONTACT Angela Kraemer-Holland [email protected]

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 2021, VOL. 43, NO. 4, 430–446 https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2020.1825239

© 2020 Association of Teacher Educators

(2) How does TFA and public discourse shape former TFA teachers’ understanding of the occupational stature of teaching?

The Evolving Stature of Teaching

Ingersoll and Collins (2018) define professions as respected high-status, high-prestige occupations, encompassing people who are considered experts in their fields. As a result, they demonstrate significant “self-governance” and authority over their work (p. 207). The degree to which this applies to teaching has shifted and changed within the last century (Lieberman, 2007). Teachers formerly served as revered community intellectuals when education emerged as a predominantly female- oriented course of study in the United States in the late 1800s (Drudy, 2008; Kelleher, 2011; Strober & Lanford, 1986). Although teaching served as the career path women sought in pursuit of financial independence (Smulyan, 2006), research suggests that more feminized professions suffer from poor pay (O’Connor, 1998), illuminating a gradual hegemonic depreciation of what is considered “femi- nine” (Drudy, 2008, p. 319). This has negatively impacted the stature of teaching, due to its connection to domesticity and perpetuation of the stereotype that women tend to be responsible for young children (Drudy, 2008; Ullah & Skelton, 2013).

Nevertheless, with the significant population growth across the United States at the turn of the 20th century, teacher certification became a rapid process to fill vacancies to address the ballooning number of students in classrooms (Lieberman, 2007), allowing several quick-certification pathways to emerge (Fraser, 2007). From there, questions concerning teacher certification and quality surfaced as a result of an amended entry into the profession, impacting the stature of teaching over time. The contemporary stature of teaching situates it below medicine, law, and engineering, but above blue-collar work (Hoyle, 2001). Evans (2010) suggests that teaching is a “semi-profession” (p. 184), despite the specialized knowledge and qualifications required to teach (Ingersoll, 2004). However, bureaucratic structures like schools and districts govern aspects of the job, where the extent to which teaching possesses a significant amount of “self governance” is questionable and relative to locales (Ingersoll & Collins, 2018, p. 207). The bureaucratic structures that shape teaching include individual schools and institutions of teacher preparation, the latter of which—distinguished between a foundation of training versus scholarship—provide an “ideological basis” through which emerging teachers come to understand their roles within schools and the profession at large (Evans, 2010, p. 184).

Neoliberalism in the Education Landscape

Neoliberalism’s presence in education and teacher education has impacted the occupational position of teaching (Giroux, 2004; Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013), as well as how teachers understand their roles in the classroom and beyond (Thomas & Mockler, 2018). Neoliberalism is both an economic and political rationality founded on principles of privatization, liberated financial markets, and the diminished power of public institutions (Brown, 2006; Harvey, 2005), principles elevating the elite at the expense of the masses. Indicative of its potency, neoliberalism can alter discourse and shape notions of truth around the economic, the political, and the social (Harvey, 2005; Lipman, 2011). The neoliberal education discourse portrays public education in crisis (Taubman, 2009), due in no small part to A Nation at Risk that framed public education as couched in failure (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Neoliberal education discourse connects this failure to the alleged mediocrity of schools, teachers, and traditional teacher education programs (Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013), and by extension, schools of education (Labaree, 2004). Grounded in the economic market to structure society, neoliberal education policies allow the market to alter the purpose of education, mold the position of the teacher and the perception of teaching (Olssen, Codd, & O’Neill, 2004).

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 431

As neoliberal education policy morphs student learning into a performative entity, the evaluative nature of teaching follows (Apple, 2006; Giroux, 2004; Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013; Taubman, 2009; Zeichner, 2006), assisting in the degradation and deregulation of teaching and jeopardizing teachers’ self-governance (Arnot & Miles, 2005; Au, 2011; Codd, 2005). Despite specialized knowledge and stakeholder relationships, the position of a teacher has taken on a different meaning with the influx of neoliberal education policies. Fashioning teachers into mere transmitters of standardized curricula negates the knowledge and skills required for teaching and redefines “effective” teaching as narrow and technical (Au, 2011), enabling the deskilling of teaching (Stairs & Hatch, 2008). Neglecting the theoretical basis for teacher education and preparation in favor of prioritizing on-the-job learning results in a less valuable education degree (Zeichner, 2012), as well as a minimally prepared practi- tioner (Fraser, 2005; Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2001). However, it is this increasingly minimized dependence on pedagogy and education degrees that has helped to alter the contemporary teacher preparation landscape.

TFA and Its Neoliberal Status Education schools’ historical struggle against the belief of their mediocrity may signify a catalyst for the inception of contemporary alternative teacher preparation pathways (Labaree, 2004). As applica- tions to teacher education programs declined during the 2008 economic recession (Podolsky et al., 2016), applications to alternative teacher preparation programs increased, especially to the program Teach for America, or TFA (Brewer, 2016; Vasquez Heilig, Cole, & Springel, 2011). Beginning as a “fast-track teacher preparation program” meant to address teacher shortages nationwide (Brewer & deMarrais, 2015; Fraser, 2007; Labaree, 2010), TFA has since evolved into a broader educational movement beyond teacher preparation (Kretchmar, Sondel, & Ferrare, 2016; Price & McConney, 2013; Scott, Trujillo, & Rivera, 2016). Prospective TFA corps members find entrance into TFA often through college recruitment events, where interest, application, and acceptance into the program illustrate a multistep process (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Stern & Johnston, 2013). Upon program acceptance, emerging TFA teachers embark on a five to eight-week “teacher boot camp” that TFA calls Institute (Labaree, 2010). It is during this time that TFA teachers practice teaching five to ten students in teams of two or three peer TFA teachers for roughly four weeks of summer school (Veltri, 2012). TFA teachers also learn aspects of classroom management, lesson planning, incorporating data into instruction, and adopting teacher authority during this time (Farr, 2010). It is after this summer Institute that TFA teachers take the reigns as teachers-of-record in their classrooms, although rarely staying in teaching indefinitely (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Straubhaar & Gottfried, 2014).

TFA’s “organizational evolution” denotes both internal changes and its widespread neoliberal influence within teacher preparation and beyond education through establishing and profiting from district partnerships (Brewer, Kretchmar, Sondel, Ishmael, & Manfra, 2016; Labaree, 2010; Lahann & Reagan, 2011; Scott et al., 2016, p. 4), sustaining education’s charter school and venture philanthropy insurgence (Ravitch, 2013; Zeichner & Peña-Sandoval, 2015), and shaping public discourse around the teaching profession (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Kretchmar et al., 2016; Ravitch, 2013; Stern & Johnston, 2013; Straubhaar & Gottfried, 2014). To address their mission of “closing the achievement gap” that characterizes the experience of this present study’s participants (Brewer & deMarrais, 2015; Farr, 2010, pp. xiii-5), TFA adopted a teaching framework that relied on data-driven instruction, structured lesson and unit plans, and isolating teachers’ behaviors to place more responsibility on the teacher in driving student achievement (Farr, 2010), suggesting a narrow, neoliberal framing of teacher efficacy (Apple, 2006; Kretchmar et al., 2016; Lahann & Reagan, 2011; Ravitch, 2013; Weiner, 2007; Zeichner, 2010). Although TFA encourages its teachers to adopt this framework with the assumption that this framework increases TFA teachers’ occupational stature, it is unclear whether this effort translates to the teaching profession as a whole. With the shift in both coverage of and support for programs like TFA (Labaree, 2010), changes have emerged not only in how TFA corps members understand their roles as teachers (Thomas & Mockler, 2018), but also in how we con- ceptualize the teaching profession.

432 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

Conceptualizing Teaching’s Occupational Position

Adopting Hoyle’s (2001) framework for defining occupational prestige, status, and esteem is integral to understanding how we conceptualize the teaching profession. Although seemingly separate, occupational prestige, status, and esteem collectively inform a broader conception of teachers and teaching that pervades public discourse. Hoyle (2001) and Lankford et al. (2014) differentiate these terms to highlight the role of authority figures and the general public in shaping the frames through which we understand particular occupations, in addition to an individual’s perceptions of their work (see Figure 1.). However, it becomes clear that the intertwining of occupational prestige, status, and esteem provides a comprehensive, suggested truth or understanding of a given occupation. Generally, prestige encompasses money, power, knowledge, social utility, and demonstrating the potential for influence and social change in light of particular achievements (Hargreaves, 1999; Smak & Walczak, 2017). Additionally, occupational prestige reflects the public perception of an individual in light of their occupation, compared to other kinds of work (Hoyle, 2001). It is this collective perception of occupational worthiness that determines the individual’s social standing, or status.

Despite similarities, Hoyle (2001) differentiates occupational status from occupational prestige. Although status signifies one’s social standing (Hargreaves, 1999), occupational status encompasses socioeconomic status and relates to the social standing of an occupation compared to other forms of work. Figures or groups in positions of authority assist in framing a job’s occupational status, which inherently shapes the social standing of that particular occupation. A consistent source of frustration and inquiry, especially for teachers, rests in teaching’s contested “semantic status” as a profession or not (p. 144). Elevated semantic status could enable a shift in the discursive framing of teaching, in addition to elevating teachers’ “subjective status” (Hargreaves, 1999, p. 218; Turner, 1988), or perception of their prestige related to their qualifications.

Finally, Hoyle (2001) defines occupational esteem as the level of regard the general public holds for a particular occupation based on what those engaged in this work allegedly bring to the occupation. He suggests that the general public tends to generate esteem for teaching based on the “interpersonal” tenets that teachers bring to the work, coupled with their own prior, personal experiences with school and with teachers (Grunder, 2016; p. 147). Though occupational esteem remains high for teaching, this does not align with the occupational status and occupational prestige given to teaching (Hargreaves, 1999). Unequal levels of prestige, status, and esteem for teaching can, therefore, impact the overall stature of the profession.

Research Methods

This research utilized a qualitative approach to examine participants’ conceptualization of teaching’s occupational stature, drawing from dissertation research that encompasses a pilot study of similar interview questions and emergent data. A qualitative approach was most appropriate, as it enabled me to prioritize participants’ voices and experiences. I conducted semi-structured interviews and docu- ment analysis, the latter of which helped to contextualize participants’ individual experiences in TFA. Nevertheless, the data for this article more heavily reflects the interviews, thus demonstrating findings that capture participants’ perceptions around teaching’s occupational stature and their TFA prepara- tion in shaping their understanding of the teaching profession at large.

I chose not to adopt phenomenology as a methodology – instead applying this approach to the interviewing technique – because I held a stronger interest in examining the individualized teaching experiences of participants in retrospect, rather than exploring a shared experience in-depth. Although participation in TFA would be considered a shared experience here – and the single search criterion for this research study – my interest in participants’ complex experiences drove the decision to adopt a phenomenological interview approach to examine participants’ individual experiences conceptualiz- ing teaching’s occupational stature more deeply.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 433

Fi gu

re 1

. C on

ce pt

ua liz

in g

H oy

le ’s

(2 00

1) fr

am ew

or k

fo r

oc cu

pa tio

na l s

ta tu

s.

434 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

Participants

Five participants were involved in this research. Participants completed their TFA participation between 2009 and 2016, coinciding with TFA’s shift in mission and teaching framework toward one endeavoring to “close the achievement gap” (Brewer et al., 2016; Farr, 2010, p. 2). Jane, Annie, and Dominic taught in the South, while Jennifer and Catherine taught in the Northern part of the United States (see Table 1.) Jennifer was the only participant who had both a teaching degree and prior teaching experience before entering TFA. Social and economic background emerged in the interviews with three of the participants: two came from elite backgrounds, and one participant came from a working-class background. However, these participants drew more heavily on their educational opportunities, regardless of social status. Four of the five participants completed their two-year teaching requirement, while TFA released Dominic after his first year. Although none are currently classroom teachers, this did not serve as a search criterion.

Participant recruitment proved difficult. However, this was something I anticipated, so I framed my recruitment around a single criterion of TFA participation from 2007-present. This period coincided with an economic downturn and a surge in TFA applications (Brewer, 2016; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2011). Two participants responded to recruitment flyers posted locally, one participant was an acquaintance, and two pilot study participants permitted me to include their data in the dissertation research. As a former K-12 teacher, I could relate to issues participants experienced as emerging teachers in communities that have experienced disenfranchisement. However, because I completed my education degree through a university-sponsored teacher education program, the TFA experience was unfamiliar to me. Because participants taught in different TFA regions, they offered individualized experiences, precisely what I desired as a qualitative researcher. Focusing not on generalizing, but rather the vibrant data that emerged from participants’ interviews, highlights what is missing from grand education policy narratives: a more nuanced window into the lives of former TFA teachers, in this case.

Data Sources and Data Collection

The chosen interview questions adhere to the segmented structure of examining participants’ life history, a particular experience, and the meaning behind these elements. Additionally, the interview questions allow participants to examine their evolving conception of teaching and its occupational

Table 1. Participant Information.

Participant pseudonym Years in teaching

Grade level and subjects taught

Type of school (TFA Placement)

Occupation at the time of data

collection

TFA region and participation time

frame Interview dates

Catherine 3 years Middle and High School Science

Charter Gym owner North: 2009–2011 October- December, 2017; January, 2019

Jennifer 5+ years (includes teaching prior to TFA)

Elementary Education; Special Education

Public (Turnaround) Graduate student (education)

North: 2010–2012

September, 2018;

October 2018

Dominic 1 year High School Math Public Graduate student (internal medicine)

South: 2009–2010 (released after first year)

December, 2018

Annie 2 years High School History

Public (Early College)

Graduate student (law)

South: 2014–2016 October- December, 2017; January, 2019

Jane 3 years High School Math Public Tutoring center manager

South: 2012–2014 November, 2018

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 435

position before, during, and following their TFA participation. Adopting this particular phenom- enological interviewing technique offered participants the opportunity to examine their educational, preparation, and teaching experiences in retrospect, embedding reflection into not only the inter- view model, but also into the process through which participants engaged with the interview questions in light of their own educational experiences and philosophies, and how public discourse may have informed their early and evolving conceptions of teaching. Because TFA served as a shared, common structure through which participants were prepared to teach, it proved integral to explore how TFA – as both an organizational structure and extension of public discourse – shaped participants’ evolving conceptions of teaching. Therefore, interview questions allowed space for participants to consider TFA’s role in shaping their understanding of teaching and its occupa- tional position.

Data collection spanned six months. I conducted interviews via phone, Skype and in person for those participants based locally. Interview questions were mostly open-ended; however, at times, a need for narrower questions emerged for clarification purposes. I implemented a phenomenological approach for the semi-structured interviews, divided into three separate 60–90 minute segments (Seidman, 2006). The initial segment focused on life history, examining participants’ early educational experiences. The second segment explored participants’ TFA experiences in-depth. Finally, the third segment engaged participants in reflecting on their educational and TFA experiences in light of their current careers and educational philosophies. I conducted 30-minute member checking sessions before the second and third interview segments, and held a 30-minute follow-up session after the completion of all interviews. With pilot study participants, these follow-up sessions were 45–60 minutes, sessions where I informed them of the dissertation research, reviewed our earlier interviews, and asked follow-up questions.

Data Analysis

I chose to code interview and document data inductively and then deductively to allow the data to inform the emergent codes and subsequent themes. Data were coded inductively through a combination of initial or open coding, with in vivo coding meant to preserve the voices of individual participants (Saldaña, 2013). I then chunked these codes into the following categories: the stature of TFA, the stature of teaching, the low stature of TFA, low stature of teaching, and teaching realities/recommendations. Within each of these categories, I looked for words and phrases that specifically highlighted esteem, status, and/or prestige. I utilized Hoyle’s (2001) framework to select key words or phrases that spoke to status (financial compensation, teacher qualifications, and occupational standing), prestige (TFA and public perceptions/understanding of teachers, value judgments regarding personal experiences in school) and prestige (TFA and public regard for teaching as a profession, TFA and public perception of “good” teaching). From these categories, I sought patterns within and between the codes to develop emergent themes (Saldaña, 2013).

To address issues of internal validity, I reviewed interview transcripts and all documents received in order to collect sufficient data for emergent findings. From there, I triangulated data by collecting documents and conducting interviews, utilizing these modalities to more deeply examine similar or divergent ideas within and between interview transcripts and TFA-generated documents. Additionally, the segmented interview structure enabled me to conduct member checks prior to the next interview segment, which ensured the preservation of participants’ testimonies (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2016). Member checks occurred before the second and third segments, and after the third segment as a brief follow-up session. Finally, I kept an audit trail during the data collection and analysis processes that took the form of document summaries, reflective memos, voice memos I later transcribed, and concept maps (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2016; Merriam, 1995). This reflective process allowed me to engage with the data in light of my positionality as a former K-12, non-TFA teacher.

436 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

Findings: from Skepticism to Gratitude

Findings illuminate participants’ desires for meaningful careers, despite some hesitations in pursuing teaching outside of TFA. As a result, four participants did not consider teaching before TFA due to its perceived low occupational positioning. This assessment excludes Jennifer, who did not voice initial concerns around teaching’s esteem. It was not until after their time as teachers that four of five participants understood the power of and value in teaching, irrespective of their TFA preparation. From there, participants highlighted how TFA may have exacerbated their initial concerns about the occupational stature of teaching through its approach to veteran teachers and by discouraging the idea of teaching long-term, and their instrumental framework for teaching (Veltri, 2008).

The Choice to Teach Under TFA

Although four participants did not have teaching experience prior to TFA, each desired meaningful careers, defined as ones that created “impact” and could “build the skills to effect certain changes.” Unlike the other participants, Annie sought out TFA because she “could still do policy” after teaching. The temporary teaching requirement provided a sense of security for her, where she could depart from the profession if she did not like it. However, the other participants desired careers in teaching for the long-term. Dominic merely desired “a salary and a teaching job,” noting his value in teachers and teaching and framing TFA as “a means to an end.” And, although TFA was not initially her first choice —she had been turned down for an environmental science fellowship—Catherine found TFA’s promise of creating change as both significant and a challenge. It was after her first year that Catherine realized she “wanted to teach forever.” Like Catherine, Jane sought out TFA not only as a challenge (“let me see if I can get in . . . ”), but also as a pathway into meaningful work with young people. After spending five years as an accountant, Jane spent a year volunteering with an after-school program for high school students, awakening her enjoyment in working with teenagers. Jane returned to her accounting firm for a few months while waiting on her application decision for TFA.

Jennifer was the only one of the five participants who had both prior teaching experience and a degree in elementary education. Because Jennifer had spent summers with her cousin in the northern part of the United States, she endeavored to use TFA as a vehicle to gain a teaching position in a preferred location. After attempting to navigate the district’s “confusing” and cumbersome website, she found TFA through a Google search. Jennifer initially rejected TFA’s offer to teach in a different location, but received her preferred placement soon after. “The best part about TFA,” Jennifer maintained, “was like, someone to be like, here’s where you put your paperwork.” Despite different objectives around the entrance, each participant cited the importance of carrying out meaningful work that demonstrated their value in education.

THE Weight of the Name

As Dominic phrased it, TFA’s “degree of distinction” motivated most participants to join the organization. Participants found TFA’s initial recruitment through Ivy League schools, its name and brand as markers of status that teaching seemed to lack, where Annie argued that an opportunity with TFA eventually warranted “an incredibly solid resume.” Annie and Dominic suggested that teaching under TFA “means something different” than teaching through other means. From here, three of the five participants explicitly communicated that what they termed “prestige” from their teaching experiences originated exclusively from teaching under TFA. Moreover, participants cited TFA’s exclusivity as a marker of its status, warranting an “ego boost” only accessible to the academically driven “special class of people” accepted into the program. Jane suggested TFA’s structure and catering toward predominantly “twenty-something” postgraduates mirrors a sorority, fraternity, or other “exclusive club” that other participants collectively understood to include the “best and brightest,” a classification communicated to her during Institute.

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 437

However, membership within and the existence of this “exclusive club” were not without criticism. TFA’s exclusivity bothered Dominic; exclusivity he believed ran counter to TFA’s social justice mission and vision. He lamented his culpability in “[buying] into the narrative” that a “special class of people” with “minimal training” could effectively teach in communities that had been disenfran- chised. More broadly, Dominic took issue with the nature of TFA’s program model, suggesting it creates a “semblance of equality,” where the “haves” bestow value on the “have-nots.” with education as the vehicle to level the social playing field. Despite Dominic’s critique of TFA’s exclusivity in light of its mission, participants attested to this and other features of TFA that bolstered its reputation in teacher preparation that set it apart from university-sponsored teacher education programs.

Teaching as a “Stepping Stone” Career

Four of five participants desired a pathway into long-term teaching, despite TFA’s two-year teaching requirement. However, upon entering TFA, participants suggested that TFA and fellow corps mem- bers framed teaching as a temporary, “stepping stone” career. Jane noted TFA’s motivation to “catch” people who might not initially consider teaching as a career, suggesting this brief, “taste of education” was an opportunity to “try out teaching” temporarily. Similarly, Dominic remembers fellow corps members having “jobs lined up” before their two-year teaching requirement ended, approaching teaching as something to do before “join[ing] the real world,” or “the thing before the real thing.” Annie mused about the “stagnant teacher pay,” characterizing teaching as “a wonderful backup,” when considering whether to remain in teaching for a third year. Mirroring Annie’s viewpoint and experience, TFA has since altered its organizational marketing language by stating that its “impact” stems from “change-makers” and “coalition-builders” in industries outside of teaching, and even outside of education (Teach for America Inc, 2019, para. 1). Since TFA seeks to uphold its commit- ment to “leadership development” broadly construed (Teach for America, 2014, p. 3), it seems the objective is for corps members eventually transition out of the classroom to demonstrate their leadership skills cultivated during TFA participation in careers outside of classroom teaching (Farr, 2010). Despite most participants’ desire to remain in teaching long-term, preparation for what Annie called a teaching “sprint” made it more challenging to envision a career beyond TFA’s two-year requirement.

Framing Long-Term Teaching In light of the messaging that framed teaching as temporary, participants acknowledged beliefs and stereotypes communicated to them during their preparation about those who chose long-term teaching. Participants suggested TFA perpetuated a dichotomy between TFA teachers and “regular” or non-TFA teachers. TFA’s heavy dependence on learning classroom management (Teach for America, n.d.-c, n.d.-d), data-driven instruction (Teach for America, n.d.-a, n.d.-e), and teacher authority may have reinforced this dichotomy (Teach for America, n.d.-b, n.d.-f). Participants defined the “typical” TFA corps member as, “type A and nerdy,” “talented,” “valuable,” and possessing “young energy,” in contrast to the “traditional” teachers, who “couldn’t connect” to their students due to minimal classroom management, or exhibited a “lifer mindset” by keeping pedagogy unchanged. Catherine later realized that teaching methods illustrated “100 ways to skin a cat,” instead of merely “old” and “young” teaching styles she initially believed existed. However, she did note TFA’s refrain that “traditional” education majors “came from the bottom 10–15%” of their undergraduate class, which Jane echoed as well.

Participants recognized a clear divide between themselves and non-TFA practitioners through TFA’s perpetual contrasts. This became particularly apparent for Jennifer, who already had teaching experience before TFA. She assumed her application to TFA might have been rejected by TFA because “[I] was a teacher already,” suggesting TFA desired those without teaching degrees or experience. Additionally, Jennifer felt her decision to stay in the classroom after TFA was “not good enough” for TFA staff, who encouraged her to pursue leadership positions in charter schools or

438 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

within the TFA organization. She felt that “teaching was the thing” for her, and did “not [consider it] a hobby.” She cited the “unfortunate transience” of not just TFA corps members, but of teachers in general, arguing instead for the importance of “building a teaching force.” Despite four of five participants desiring a career in teaching for the long-term, many encountered conflicting message from TFA and fellow corps members that framed teaching as a temporary, and possibly lowly career choice.

Toward Understanding and Reverence

Noting powerful teaching experiences, participants felt their time in the classroom transformed their initial beliefs about teaching. Not every participant initially viewed teaching with reverence, never believing they would become teachers, beliefs that changed with their increased appreciation for the profession after teaching. Catherine was “always good at school,” valuing teachers that challenged her intellectually, and “[took] leadership” from teachers who fell short. Although Annie valued her teachers, she never saw herself becoming one, admitting she “selfishly felt [she] was above [teaching],” noting the minimal respect and pay it receives as a career choice. Like Annie, Jane remembers thinking that people who were “smart” did not become teachers due to its minimal pay and respect. Her initial understanding of teaching as a “passive” pursuit with “some relationship-building” grounded her hesitation in pursuing a career of perceived low pay and intellectual ability.

Participants also noted the minimal understanding of teaching demands before entrance, where their time in the classroom increased their grasp of and value for teachers and teaching. Participants attributed their newfound appreciation for teaching to their teaching experiences, irrespective of their TFA preparation. Dominic had always valued his teachers and his learning experiences, but his time in the classroom brought him to the conclusion that teaching was “the most noble thing,” where one could serve as a “community pillar” and “intellectual mentor” for young people. After her time in the classroom, Annie concluded that teaching, “was above other careers,” citing teachers as “masters” and “experts” at their craft, a sentiment participants similarly echoed upon reflecting on their time as teachers. Like Annie, Jane’s viewpoint changed after her time in the classroom:

. . . But so I feel like, if you’re, if you don’t KNOW a teacher, if you’re not you know, you’re not married to a teacher, you don’t have a close friend who is a teacher, you do not know how much work goes into teaching (November, 2018).

Despite Jane’s value in school, she initially believed teaching was “passive.” Reflecting on her time in the classroom informed her current stance arguing the significant amount of time and work that teaching demands, even though it might look effortless. In sum, teaching experience built on participants’ value, appreciation, and esteem for the teaching profession.

Discussion

Hoyle (2001) defines occupational prestige as the public perception of an individual based on their occupation. Occupational status signifies an occupation’s social and economic standing related to other forms of work, often framed by the authoritative structures that govern the occupation. Finally, occupational esteem signifies the value that the general public holds for a particular occupation, often subjectively measured and defined through previous experience with that occupation. Despite differ- ences between participants’ teaching experiences, backgrounds, and decisions for choosing teaching through TFA, common threads emerged how they conceptualized teaching’s occupational stature. Moreover, participants’ accounts highlighted how these elements are inextricably linked, exposing the blurry lines between each occupational tenet when teetering between what they perceive to be celebrations and concerns regarding teaching. It seems that elevating or diminishing one tenet of occupational stature can either elevate or diminish the remaining two. Participants’ use of the word “prestige” to describe what they understood to be the occupational positioning of teaching—especially

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 439

when aligning teaching with TFA—illustrated a blanket term that covered the occupational prestige, status, and esteem associated with teaching in some capacity.

Overall, most participants held high occupational esteem for learning and education before entering the profession, and esteem for teaching only increased after their time in the classroom. However, participants were hesitant to enter teaching in light of its perceived low occupational stature, where teaching under TFA could seemingly alleviate these concerns (Labaree, 2010; Straubhaar & Gottfried, 2014). These hesitations emerged through concerns about pay and salary, the level of social influence and power, and the overall social standing of teaching without TFA. However, the TFA experience for most participants exacerbated their hesitations about the minimal esteem associated with teaching as a profession, exposing conflicts between prior beliefs, the TFA narrative, and the public discourse that both praises and vilifies teachers as academic and social saviors (Kumashiro, 2012; Labaree, 2004; Veltri, 2008; 2012). Even with the possibility of building what Annie called “an incredibly solid resume” through TFA participation, four exited teaching closely following their two-year requirement, adding to the transience of TFA corps members (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011), calling into question how TFA has contributed to this transience, thus shaping the overall conception of teaching and its occupational stature of the profession at large (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Podolsky et al., 2016; Ravitch, 2013).

Intertwined Concerns Over Teaching’s Position

Participants acknowledged that teaching remains an “unattractive” career choice lacking “respect.” As Annie characterized it: teaching is a “seemingly lower intellectual battle” because of teachers’ primary work with children and adolescents. These sentiments highlight the intertwining of occupational prestige and esteem especially, where a career’s occupational worthiness depends upon how the general public frames the career and how practitioners conceptualize it (Giboney Wall, 2016; Sandlos & Dolnick, 2016). Teachers’ position between the child and adult worlds makes elevating the profession’s prestige more difficult (Hoyle, 2001). Teachers straddle dichotomous developmental worlds situated in a feminized profession educating young people (Drudy, 2008; Kelleher, 2011; O’Connor, 1998; Smulyan, 2006; Strober & Lanford, 1986; Ullah & Skelton, 2013). They are both adult professionals in the workforce, but serve young people as their primary work “clients” (Hoyle, 2001, p. 143). Because teachers balance between the child world and the adult world where seemingly few obstacles occur, or little specialized knowledge is required, elevating the prestige around teaching becomes difficult.

Additionally, most participants (excluding Jennifer) cited concerns around teacher salary over time, citing the “stagnant teacher pay” as a concern before entering the profession. This concern aligns with the occupational status of teaching, and highlights a motivator undergirding participants’ choices to pursue teaching through TFA specifically – for both the name and financial incentives of stipends and loan forgiveness (Brewer et al., 2016; Ravitch, 2013; Veltri, 2008). Ingersoll and Collins (2018) suggest the “frontloading” of teachers’ salaries at the beginning of their careers, then the tapering out of teachers’ salaries at the middle and end. This not only diminishes long-term commitment to teaching, but this frontloading also limits financial growth whether through a short or long-term career in teaching. Frontloading teachers’ salaries can deepen inequities in salaries compared to other careers that require college degrees (Espinoza, Saunders, Kini, & Darling-Hammond, 2018). Lower salaries for teachers impact the status of teaching, where it is assumed that those who enter teaching—and accept the lower salary associated with it—allegedly possess lower postsecondary academic qualifications for other, arguably more prestigious careers (Hoyle, 2001). Framing teaching as encompassing a seemingly ordinary skill set—and offering salaries accordingly—only augments the diminished occupational status of teaching as a career (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Kumashiro, 2012; Labaree, 2004; Shulman, 1986), poten- tially discouraging others from entering.

440 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

The Social Constructions of Teaching

All participants suggested what Annie called a “lack of public understanding” of both teaching and public education, amounting to what she believed was a “gratitude [for teaching] lost in the national narrative” (Sandlos & Dolnick, 2016). This lack of understanding highlights concerns over teaching’s occupational esteem, where a persistent juxtaposition between the “super teacher” and “bad teacher” motifs publicized to frame teacher efficacy can influence the level of collective esteem associated with teaching (Kumashiro, 2012). Amid this dichotomy, practitioners experience unrealistic demands while being chastised for student failures. Moreover, these motifs do more harm than good to practitioner self-esteem and morale (Ball, 1990; Smak & Walczak, 2017). Practitioners chastise these public narratives of teachers for providing insufficient context and information about their teaching roles and experiences (Smak & Walczak, 2017). Practitioners attribute these opposing poles to the decline in public confidence and thus overall esteem surrounding the career of teaching (Smak & Walczak, 2017), amounting to little improvement of the occupational status, prestige, or esteem of teaching (Hoyle, 2001).

Occupational esteem for teaching reflects a subjective, individually constructed image of teachers and school, where non-practitioners’ limited understanding of teaching makes it that much more difficult to elevate both its prestige and esteem. One’s memories may influence understanding of teachers and teaching (Grunder, 2016; Vélez-Rendón, 2006), shaping the collective framing of aca- demic institutions and those who work within them (Grunder, 2016; Smak & Walczak, 2017). The level of esteem one bestows on teaching emerging from one’s impression of the profession can stem from what Lortie (1975) calls the “apprenticeship of observation” (p. 61), stemming from our educational pasts. Our time as students undergird our belief we possess a deep understanding of what constitutes effective teaching. Participants highlighted how this was hardly the case when they came in contact with the reality of teaching and the extensive cerebral and pedagogical work associated with it (Spence, 2012; Vélez-Rendón, 2006; Veltri, 2012). Overall, the discursive framing of teaching shapes how emerging teachers come to view and conceptualize teaching, where few may consider the career due to its seemingly low prestige, status, and esteem (Giboney Wall, 2016).

TFA’s Role in Shaping the Narrative

Participants noted that issues of teaching’s occupational position emergent in public discourse also appeared in their TFA preparation through TFA’s all-encompassing conception of the teacher (Kretchmar, Sondel, & Ferrare, 2019; Kumashiro, 2012), framing teaching as a temporary career, and sidelining veteran teachers. These views jeopardize teaching’s prestige and esteem and underscore a neoliberal rationality in TFA’s organizational structure (Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013; Stairs & Hatch, 2008). Despite TFA’s teaching framework requiring and allegedly producing radical change and claiming to elevate the occupational position of TFA teachers (Straubhaar & Gottfried, 2014), participants argued this teaching framework exemplified highly structured, data-driven underpin- nings reflected through what Dominic called “corporate language.” Labaree’s (2004) concept of the natural teacher–one who combats social and economic ills while increasing student achievement— exemplifies TFA’s expansive yet technical conception of the teacher, one that perpetuates the “super” and “bad” teacher motifs (Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013), ignoring individual teaching realities and jeopardizing teaching’s occupational prestige and esteem, and enabling a “manufactured expertise” of effective teaching (Brewer, 2016, p. 2) As a result, despite TFA’s promise for alleged educational and social change amid perpetuating a narrow framework for teaching, adopting these measures for the profession is unlikely to elevate teaching’s occupational stature (Hoyle, 2001).

It seems TFA’s commitment to “leadership development” and to building an educational “move- ment” through avenues outside of teaching mutes both experienced practitioners and decisions to stay in teaching, (Teach for America, n.d.-g; Teach for America (Ed.), 2009, p. 1; Teach for America, 2014, p. 6; Veltri, 2008), and weakens the occupational tenets of teaching by framing it as a temporary, less

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 441

prestigious career (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Kumashiro, 2012; Ravitch, 2013). Consequently, TFA’s conception of veteran teachers and teaching suggests a neoliberal understanding that shapes public discourse and beliefs about teachers and schools of education or “traditional” teacher education pathways (Zeichner & Conklin, 2005), pathways increasingly marginalized within academia and beyond as a result of emergent doubts regarding their efficacy (Labaree, 2004). Participants in other research studies not only held higher prestige for veteran teachers (Smak & Walczak, 2017), but emerging practitioners also craved veteran teachers’ experience in helping them navigate teaching challenges despite TFA’s efforts to “downplay” traditional teacher education pathways and veteran teachers’ expertise (Veltri, 2012, p. 63). Although other professions rarely relax entrance requirements (Fraser, 2007; Ingersoll & Collins, 2018), the neoliberal framing of teaching capitalizes on the argument that “traditional” teachers and teaching are less-than-prestigious and helps to popularize alternative preparation programs (Evans, 2010; Labaree, 2004; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2011). This leaves education schools, teacher educators, and practitioners to struggle against rhetoric that diminishes their expertise and professionalization (Kumashiro, 2012), thereby threatening the occupational position of the teaching profession, especially for those practitioners from university-based teacher education pathways.

Limitations, Conclusions, and Suggestions for Future Research

Study limitations included recruitment setbacks and document collection from participants. TFA holds a contentious position in teacher education and public education (Brewer, 2016; Brewer & deMarrais, 2015; Ravitch, 2013), a source of prospective participant hesitation in speaking about their experiences in fear of reprisal. Furthermore, not offering incentives for study participation may have impacted prospective participants from electing to participate. However, I justified the lack of incentives to separate the potential link between incentives and buying participation or data. Regarding interviews, I conducted a few through phone and Skype to accommodate those participants not based locally. Unfortunately, phone interviews deprived me of body language and facial expres- sions, integral elements to interview experiences (Bailey, 2017). Finally, because not every participant thoroughly documented their time in TFA, I could only rely on the documents provided to me by participants and from the TFA website. However, the general TFA-generated documents I received provided significant information about the organization and its philosophies.

This research explores teaching’s occupational prestige, status, and esteem, and how neoliberal- leaning organizations like TFA shape the narrative around teaching’s occupational position (Lahann & Reagan, 2011; Ravitch, 2013), and to what extent their corps members embody this narrative (Veltri, 2008). Before entering the profession, participants raised hesitations around teaching’s allegedly low occupational positioning, concerns that TFA exacerbated through its exclusion of veteran teachers into its model for corps member support (Veltri, 2008), by framing teaching as a stopover career (Donaldson & Johnson, 2011; Ravitch, 2013), and communicating a narrow, instrumental framework for teaching (Kumashiro, 2012). Participants’ esteem increased after their time in the classroom, but irrespective of TFA. They communicated newfound respect for teaching, a profession—they noted—the general public and policymakers do not understand (Sandlos & Dolnick, 2016).

This research highlights teaching’s position as a “semi-profession” in light of the public perception and discursive framing of teaching (Evans, 2010, p. 184). In relationship to TFA, Jennifer raised the question of whether organizations like TFA “harm” teaching by quickly transitioning corps members out of the classroom and into allegedly more prestigious or esteemed careers. This research reinforces the argument that TFA’s preparation model has shifted away from teacher preparation toward sustaining an educational movement meant to maintain their brand (Kretchmar et al., 2019; Scott et al., 2016; Veltri, 2008; 2012). This transition deepens teacher attrition and weakens teaching’s occupational position (Hoyle, 2001; Ravitch, 2013). It is unclear whether TFA’s dependence on sustaining a movement includes the belief that long-term teachers undergird and are important to

442 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

this movement (Scott et al., 2016; Veltri, 2008), whether TFA-prepared or otherwise, as this research exposed the concerted efforts to transition corps members out of teaching.

Finally, this research suggests TFA’s efforts focus on preparing corps members to “think like a TFA teacher” (Veltri, 2012, p. 65), but only preparing them to do so for a limited period of time. TFA teachers must navigate a multitude of competing discourses between their classrooms, TFA prepara- tion, and developing teaching philosophies (Sondel, 2015). Because TFA exclusively concentrates their teachers in communities that have been disenfranchised, pressures to focus on achievement and address disparities, while meeting programmatic expectations highlight TFA teachers’ minimal pre- paration for mitigating these kinds of experiences, where achieving these feats seemed almost impossible. Moreover, concentrating minimally prepared teachers in these communities leading to high rates of corps member attrition does little to increase the position teaching at large, and highlights a diminished effort to retain teachers in the very communities where they are needed most (Veltri, 2008). Concerning this research, it is necessary to continue examining teaching’s occupational position in light of the neoliberal wave in education, and how practitioners begin and continue to conceptualize their work.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Angela Kraemer-Holland taught high school English and Spanish in Chicago. She currently educates and supervises emerging teachers across the Chicagoland area. Her research interests focus on teacher education and socialization, neoliberalism in education, and urban education policy.

ORCID

Angela Kraemer-Holland http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4681-6649

References

Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Arnot, M., & Miles, P. (2005). A reconstruction of the gender agenda: The contradictory gender dimensions in new labour’s educational and economic policy. Oxford Review of Education, 31(1), 173–189. doi:10.1080/ 0305498042000337255

Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. doi:10.1080/00220272.2010.521261

Bailey, C. A. (2017). A guide to qualitative field research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. New York, NY: Routledge. Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2016). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map from beginning to end (3rd

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Brewer, T. J. (2016). An examination of teach for America’s impact on the teaching profession, hiring practices, and

educational leadership. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (Doctoral dissertation), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2142/90541

Brewer, T. J., & deMarrais, K. (Eds.). (2015). Teach for America counter-narratives: Alumni speak up and speak out. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Brewer, T. J., Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., Ishmael, S., & Manfra, M. M. (2016). Teach for America’s preferential treatment: School district contracts, hiring decisions, and employment practices. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(15), 1–38. doi:10.14507/epaa.24.1923

Brown, W. (2006). American nightmare: Neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and de-democratization. Political Theory, 34 (6), 690–714. doi:10.1177%2F0090591706293016

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 443

Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-files/Teacher_ Turnover_REPORT.pdf

Codd, J. (2005). Teachers as ‘managed professionals’ in the global education industry: The New Zealand experience. Educational Review, 57(2), 193–206. doi:10.1080/0013191042000308369

Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Standards, accountability, and school reform. In C. Sleeter (Ed.), Facing accountability in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Drudy, S. (2008). Gender balance/gender bias: The teaching profession and the impact of feminisation. Gender and Education, 20(4), 309–323. doi:10.1080/09540250802190156

Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. M (2011). Teach for America teachers: How long do they teach? Why do they leave? Phi Delta Kappan. Oxford Review of Education, 93(2), 47–51. doi:10.1177%2F003172171109300211

Espinoza, D., Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking the long view: State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/ sites/default/files/product-files/Long_View_REPORT.pdf

Evans, L. (2010). Professionals or technicians? Teacher preparation programs and occupational understandings. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 16(2), 183–205. doi:10.1080/13540600903478458

Farr, S. (2010). Teaching as leadership: The highly effective teacher’s guide to closing the achievement gap. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fraser, J. W. (2005). Notes toward a new progressive politics of teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 279–284. doi:10.1177%2F0022487105275841

Fraser, J. W. (2007). Preparing America’s teachers: A history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giboney Wall, C. R. (2016). From student to teacher: Changes in preservice teacher educational beliefs throughout the

learning-to-teach journey. Teacher Development, 20(3), 364–379. doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1149509 Giroux, H. A. (2004). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. Herndon, VA: Paradigm

Publishers. Grunder, H. U. (2016). The image of teachers: The perception of others as impulses for the professionalisation of

teaching. British Journal of Religious Education, 38(2), 152–162. doi:10.1080/01416200.2016.1139890 Hargreaves, A. (1999). Reinventing professionalism: Teacher education and teacher development for a changing world.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 2(1), 65–74. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hoyle, E. (2001). Teaching: Prestige, status and esteem. Educational Management & Administration, 29(2), 139–152.

doi:10.1177%2F0263211X010292001 Hyslop-Margison, E. J., & Sears, A. M. (2006). Neo-liberalism, globalization and human capital learning: Reclaiming

education for democratic citizenship. New York, NY: Springer. Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Four myths about America’s teacher quality problem. In Miretzky, D., & Smylie, M.A. (Eds.),

Developing the teacher workforce (Part 1). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Ingersoll, R. M., & Collins, G. J. (2018). The status of teaching as a profession. In J. H. Ballantine, J. Z. Spade, &

J. M. Stuber (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (6th ed., pp. 199–212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kelleher, F. (2011). Women and the teaching profession: Exploring the feminisation debate. London: Commonwealth Secretariat; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

Koerner, J. D. (1963). The miseducation of American teachers. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books. Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J. (2019). Teach for America, the educational entrepreneur network, and the

reshaping of teacher preparation. In T. Jameson Brewer & Christopher A. Lubienski (Eds.), Learning to teach in an era of privatization: Global trends in teacher preparation (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kretchmar, K., Sondel, B., & Ferrare, J. J. (2016). The power of the network: Teach for America’s impact on the deregulation of teacher education. Educational Policy, 32(3), 423–453. doi:10.1177%2F0895904816637687

Kumashiro, K. K. (2012). Bad teacher! How blaming teachers distorts the bigger picture. The Teaching for Social Justice Series. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Labaree, D. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Labaree, D. (2010). Teach for America and teacher ed: Heads they win, tails we lose. Journal of Teacher Education, 61

(1–2), 48–55. doi:10.1177%2F0022487109347317 Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass. Lahann, R., & Reagan, E. M. (2011). Teach for America and the politics of progressive neoliberalism. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 38(1), 7–27. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., McEachin, A., Miller, L. C., & Wyckoff, J. (2014). Who enters teaching? Encouraging evidence

that the status of teaching is improving. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 444–453. doi:10.3102%2F0013189X14563600 Lieberman, M. (2007). The educational morass: Overcoming the stalemate in American education. Blue Ridge Summit,

PA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

444 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND

Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the city. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of l?: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE

Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51–60. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April 26). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational

reform: A report to the nation and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_Risk_1983.pdf

O’Connor, P. (1998). Emerging voices: Women in contemporary Irish society. Dublin, Republic of Ireland: Institute of Public Administration.

Olssen, M., Codd, J., & O’Neill, A. M. (2004). Education policy: Globalization, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage Publications.

Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the teacher shortage: How to attract and retain excellent educators. Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/ product-files/Solving_Teacher_Shortage_Attract_Retain_Educators_REPORT.pdf

Price, A., & McConney, A. (2013). Is ‘teach for all’ knocking on your door? Journal of Pedagogy, 4(1), 98–110. doi:10.2478/jped-2013-0006

Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sandlos, K., & Dolnick, M. (2016). Art education as potential space: A conversation about navigating divides in the

process of becoming an art teacher. The Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 36, 20–31. Scott, J., Trujillo, T., & Rivera, M. D. (2016). Reframing teach for America: A conceptual framework for the next

generation of scholarship. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(12), 1–33. doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2419 Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

doi:10.3102/0013189X015002004 Smak, M., & Walczak, D. (2017). The prestige of the teaching profession in the perception of teachers and former

teachers. EDUKACJA, 22–40. doi:10.24131/3724.170502 Smulyan, L. (2006). Constructing teaching identities. In C. Skelton, B. Francis, & L. Smulyan (Eds.), The SAGE handbook

of gender and education (pp. 469–482). London: Sage Publications. Sondel, B. (2015). Raising citizens or raising test scores? Teach for America, “no excuses” charters, and the development

of the neoliberal citizen. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(3), 289–313. doi:10.1080/00933104.2015.1064505 Spence, S. (2012). Student to teacher. META: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy, 4(1),

37–55. Stairs, A. J., & Hatch, J. A. (2008). Teacher education, deregulation, and the neoliberal global agenda. Teacher Education

and Practice, 21(4), 455–457. Stern, M., & Johnston, D. K. (2013). I want to do Teach for America, not become a teacher. Critical Education, 4(13), 1–

27. Straubhaar, R., & Gottfried, M. (2014). Who joins teach for America and why? Insights into the “typical” recruit in an

urban school district. Education and Urban Society, 48(7), 627–649. doi:10.1177%2F0013124514541463 Strober, M. H., & Lanford, A. G. (1986). The feminization of public school teaching: Cross-sectional analysis, 1850-1880.

Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(2), 212–235. doi:10.1086/494217 Taubman, P. M. (2009). Teaching by numbers: Deconstructing the discourse of standards and accountability in education.

New York, NY: Routledge. Teach for America. (n.d.-a). CMA 7: Adjusting instruction based on mid-institute analysis. Teach for America. (n.d.-b). EXEC review: Asserting authority II. Teach for America. (n.d.-c). MGMT1: Developing a mindset, voice & plan for strong management. Teach for America. (n.d.-d). MGMT5: Planning a response to chronic misbehavior. Teach for America. (n.d.-e). Reflecting on data: Using video footage or observation notes. Teach for America. (n.d.-f). Rehearsing classroom management: Asserting authority—role plays. Teach for America. (n.d.-g). Teaching as leadership comprehensive rubric. Retrieved May 31, 2020, from https://www.

yumpu.com/en/document/read/6620808/tal-comprehensive-rubric-final-teaching-as-leadership Teach for America (Ed.). (2009). Teaching as leadership. Retrieved February 23, 2019, from http://www.teachingasleader

ship.org Teach for America. (2014). Corps member handbook. Teach for America Inc. (2019). Our impact. Teach for America Retrieved February 1, 2019 from https://www.teachfor

america.org/what-we-do/impact

ACTION IN TEACHER EDUCATION 445

Thomas, M. A. M., & Mockler, N. (2018). Alternative routes to teacher professional identity: Exploring the conflated sub-identities of teach for America corps members. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(6), 1–25. doi:10.14507/ epaa.26.3015

Turner, B. S. (1988). Status. Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press. Ullah, H., & Skelton, C. (2013). Gender representation in the public sector schools textbooks of Pakistan. Educational

Studies, 39(2), 183–194. doi:10.1080/03055698.2012.702892 Vasquez Heilig, J., Cole, H. A., & Springel, M. A. (2011). Alternative certification and teach for America: The search for

high quality teachers. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy, 20(3), 388–412. Vélez-Rendón, G. (2006). From student to teacher: A successful transition. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 320–333.

doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02269.x Veltri, B. T. (2008). Teaching or service? The site-based realities of teach for America teachers in poor, urban schools.

Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 511–542. doi:10.1177%2F0013124508319281 Veltri, B. T. (2012). Teach for America: It’s more about leading than teaching. Educational Leadership, 69(8), 62–65. Weiner, L. (2007). A lethal threat to U.S. teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(4), 274–286. doi:10.1177%

2F0022487107305603 Zeichner, K. M. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university-based

teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3), 326–340. doi:10.1177%2F0022487105285893 Zeichner, K. M. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity:

Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1544–1552. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.004

Zeichner, K. M. (2012). The turn once again toward practice-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 63 (5), 376–382. doi:10.1177%2F0022487112445789

Zeichner, K. M., & Conklin, H. G. (2005). Teacher education programs. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 645–735). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zeichner, K. M., & Peña-Sandoval, C. (2015). Venture philanthropy and teacher education policy in the U.S.: The role of the new schools venture fund. Teachers College Record, 117(5), 1–44.

Appendix A. Interview Guide

Focused Life History, Details of Experience, and Reflection on Meaning Basics and Education (Focused Life History):

(1) Name, occupation, hometown, TFA placement and year in the program, decision driving returning to/departing from hometown to teach.

(2) Talk to me about your educational experience as a student. What place does education hold in your upbringing? Fondest memories of your teachers? Least pleasant memories?

TFA (Details of Experience):

(1) Why TFA? What resonated with you and what didn’t? Before TFA, what was your conception of teaching? (2) Describe your summer institute. How did these experiences develop you as a teacher? (3) Describe your relationship with your MTLD/Program Director and your administrator (s). (4) What are TFA teachers’ opinions of TFA? What is your opinion? (5) What is most/least admirable about TFA? Why do you think organizations like TFA exist?

Teaching and Beyond (Reflection on Meaning):

(1) Why teaching? Describe the responsibilities you had as a teacher. (2) Walk me through your most rewarding and most difficult teaching moments. (3) How’d you respond to this? How’d your supervisor (s) interpret these challenges? (4) Talk to me about your former/current students. What grades and subjects did you teach? (5) What do you think has shaped the teacher you became? (6) Do you miss teaching? What did you want to take away from teaching? From TFA? (7) Talk to me about your career now. Any similarities or differences to teaching?

446 A. KRAEMER-HOLLAND