UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A critical discourse analysis of the standards for the education, competence and professional conduct… Higgins, Christine Lorna 2010

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2010_spring_higgins_christine.pdf [ 3.46MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0069214.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0069214-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0069214-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0069214-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0069214-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0069214-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0069214-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0069214-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0069214.ris

Full Text

i  A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF THE STANDARDS FOR THE EDUCATION, COMPETENCE AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF EDUCATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by Christine Lorna Higgins B.A., University of Western Ontario, 1978 M.Ed., University of Manitoba, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Cross-Faculty Inquiry in Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) February 2010 © Christine Lorna Higgins, 2010  ii  ABSTRACT  This dissertation examines discourses of professionalism and teacher education reform by carrying out a Critical Discourse Analysis of the British Columbia College of Teacher’s Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia (BCCT, 2004). The broader context of the dissertation is the evolution of competing notions of professionalism in teacher education in Canada and the United States in the decades following the release of the influential policy report, A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). It is argued that a more perspicuous understanding of professionalism in teaching will help prospective and practicing educators make better sense of their professional responsibilities, and will also encourage educators to enter into the ongoing discussions about appropriate directions for teacher education reform. The study takes the form of a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). CDA is an interdisciplinary form of qualitative research that treats language as a social practice, and interprets texts in accordance with concepts such as discourse, power, and knowledge creation (Fairclough, 1995; Foucault, 1970; Habermas, 1970). The research utilizes the methods provided in Fairclough’s (1995, 2003) three step model of CDA to first describe, then interpret, and finally, to explain the relationships between understandings of professionalism and reform as these are taken up in the Standards text.  iii The key finding from the study is that the term professionalism as it appears in the Standards is part of a discourse best understood in light of the tensions between various conceptions of educators’ responsibilities in an age of accountability. These various and often competing notions of responsibility are intertwined with genres of texts that are described as codes of conduct, manifestos, and standards. Contested perspectives on professionalism are interconnected with offers of membership, stipulations of governance, and regulatory pacts concerning educators’ professional obligations. In conclusion, it is argued that educators’ obligations should be framed in terms of ethical commitments, and specifically as a continual search for balance between notions of individual moral responsibility and professional accountability as defined in such documents as the Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia.  iv iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................... vi DEDICATION........................................................................................................ vii PREFACE.............................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background to the Study ..................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research Questions and Outline of Chapters ....................................................... 5 1.4 Audiences for the Study ...................................................................................... 7 1.5 Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................... 8 1.6 Theoretical Perspectives from the Literature on Teacher Education ................... 10 1.7 A Personal Context for the Investigation ........................................................... 11 Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS.................................................... 14 Section One: Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... 14 2.1 CDA as an Interdisciplinary Form of Inquiry..................................................... 14 2.2 Conceptions of Power and Knowledge in CDA ................................................. 18 2.3 Conceptions of Discourse in CDA ..................................................................... 26 2.4 Power, Knowledge, and Discourse in Fairclough’s CDA ................................... 36 2.5 Integrating Philosophical Insights: Carr and Vokey ........................................... 38 Section Two: Methods and Procedures.................................................................... 40 Chapter 3: LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................... 43 3.1 Professionalism as a Discourse .......................................................................... 43 3.2 A Nation at Risk................................................................................................ 44 3.3 Tomorrow's Teachers ........................................................................................ 48 3.4 From the Holmes Report to NCATE: The Ascendancy of Standards ................. 52 3.5 Reform, Professionalism, and Standards in Canadian Teacher Education........... 54 3.5.1 Canadian Teacher Education as a Participant in Worldwide Trends ................ 54 3.5.2 The Example of Ontario ................................................................................. 57 3.5.3 The Example of Alberta.................................................................................. 59 3.6 Chapter Conclusion ........................................................................................... 61 Chapter 4: ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 62 Section One: An Overview of the Standards............................................................ 62 4.1 The Thirteen Standards...................................................................................... 62 Section Two: Analysis ............................................................................................ 64 4.2 Fairclough’s Three Step Model of Analysis ....................................................... 64 4.2.1 Step One-Description ..................................................................................... 65 4.2.2 Step Two-Interpretation.................................................................................. 66  v 4.2.3 Step Three-Explanation .................................................................................. 67 4.3 A Descriptive Analysis of Professionalism and the Standards............................ 67 4.3.1 Statements ...................................................................................................... 68 4.3.2 Connotations .................................................................................................. 68 4.3.3 Presuppositions .............................................................................................. 70 4.4 An Interpretive Analysis of Professionalism and the Standards.......................... 72 4.4.1 Orders of Discourse........................................................................................ 72 4.4.2 Genre ............................................................................................................. 73 4.4.3 Intertextuality and Hybridity.......................................................................... 74 4.5 The Code of Conduct and Dutiful Educators...................................................... 76 4.6 The Manifesto and the Called Educator ............................................................. 84 4.7 The Standard and the Competent Educator ........................................................ 91 4.8 Summary of Stage One and Two of the Analysis ............................................... 99 4.8.1 Ethics ............................................................................................................. 99 4.8.2 Governance ...................................................................................................101 4.8.3 Membership ..................................................................................................102 4.9 Chapter Conclusion ..........................................................................................103 Chapter 5: EXPLANATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...........................................105 Section One: Explanation .......................................................................................106 5.1 The Structure of the Explanation ......................................................................106 5.1.2 CDA and the Explanation Stage of the Analysis ............................................106 5.1.3 Professionalism and Teacher Education Reform in BC ..................................107 Section Two: Professional Obligations and the Standards.......................................112 5.2.1 Contextualizing Professional Obligations .....................................................112 5.2.2 Responsibility and Accountability .................................................................116 5.2.3 Arguments for Responsibility and Accountability..........................................117 Section Three: Conclusion .....................................................................................126 5.3.1 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................126 5.3.2 The Challenges of Utilizing CDA..................................................................127 5.3.3 CDA and Interdisciplinarity...........................................................................130 5.4 Avenues for Future Research............................................................................131 5.5 Final Words......................................................................................................133 References .............................................................................................................135 Appendix One ........................................................................................................168  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I owe my deepest debt of gratitude to Dr. Linda Farr Darling for her guidance and encouragement throughout the conception and writing of this dissertation. Dr. Farr Darling personified compassion and intellectual curiosity across long distances and under challenging circumstances. In addition, I would like to thank most sincerely my committee members, Dr. Lisa Loutzenheiser and Dr. Daniel Vokey for their contributions to my learning. I am also grateful for the support of friends and colleagues at the University of British Columbia. I offer a special note of appreciation to the staff at the distance branch of the Koerner library, who unfailingly located and shipped me books for several years. I also wish to acknowledge the financial support of the University of British Columbia, the Patrick David Campbell Foundation and the Walter C. Koerner Foundation. My final thank you is extended to my family, and particularly my daughter Claire. Your encouragement made this journey possible.  vii  To Claire  viii PREFACE: WHAT’S AT STAKE IN THE STANDARDS  The reform of teacher education has been a key concern in many parts of the world since the early 1980s. Reform efforts have linked competing discourses about the social purposes of schooling in democracies to the role educators play in maintaining and changing social values learned in schools. The emergence of these reform discourses in teacher education can be traced to neoliberal economic and political philosophies, which position educators as citizens who contribute to national competitiveness by teaching their students to be effective workers (Popkewitz, 1993). In contrast, many scholars and educators envision public education as a system that promotes values such as equal opportunity, the reduction of inequality, and the benefits of participatory citizenship (Carr, 2000). It is no surprise then, that reforms to teacher education have involved ongoing debates between policymakers, the public, and educators about whose interests and values ought to be paramount in the social practice of teaching. Throughout these debates, conceptions of educating as an ethical, vocational, and social endeavor have been repeatedly framed in terms of teachers’ professionalism (Eisner, 2001). In both Canada the United States the concept of professionalism remains in tension, as policy makers juxtapose claims about educators’ ethical responsibilities with demands that educators participate in a variety of accountability structures. Even so, scholars of teacher education such Fenstermacher (2002), have reiterated that “just public policy” should recognize that teaching is a sophisticated and complex undertaking that deserves to be legislated and regulated with care and restraint (p. 22).  ix This context of teacher education reform played out through competing and even incommensurable visions of professionalism has considerable salience for educators currently practicing in the province of British Columbia. In 2001, the citizens of BC elected a neoliberal government who framed choice in education as prosperity through free-markets, efficiency, and accountability. Based on the premise that “every child counts-either as taxpayers or social welfare recipients”, the Campbell government has since introduced numerous legislative changes that attempt to establish relationships between educators’ professionalism and the government’s capacious view of what impacts student success (Anderson, in Poole, 2007, n.p.). As one means of influencing what counts as professionalism in the province, the Campbell government reorganized the self-regulatory professional body for licensed teachers known as the British Columbia College of Teachers [BCCT] in 2003. Many of BC’s teachers question whether a College constructed under such circumstances can legitimately address the breadth of their conceptions of professionalism and education as a social force. For example, Poole (2007), challenges the legitimacy of the restructured BCCT when she claims: Regardless of whose vision of education or whose view of professionalism is right, if indeed there is a right or wrong perspective, it is not up to government to decide who will represent teachers (n.p.). Nevertheless, the College continues to administer provincial legislation and thus both regulates and represents teachers and the teaching profession in British Columbia. Since 2003-2004, the BCCT has chosen to address educators’ professionalism and primarily via the Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British  x  Columbia text ([the Standards], BCCT, 2004). The Standards text articulates the provincial government’s educational policy for BC’s educators, and includes directives about their ethics, values, and roles as citizens. However, the Standards is much more than a rhetorical artifact. As Poole (2007), makes plain, the standards is also a crucial instrument of self-representation and a means for educators' to begin to recognize the possibilities of their collective authority. This dissertation contributes to the ongoing conversation about the Standards by carrying out a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of the Standards text. Taking up the critical stance inherent to CDA provides a framework for illuminating what might otherwise pass unnoticed in the Standards. This critical perspective also extends the reach of my analysis beyond description and explanation, as it allows me to consider how to increase educators’ awareness and discernment of competing conceptions of professionalism as an aspect of reform. The following chapters analyze the text in detail, and consider the contexts of its creation in light of professionalism in teaching, and teacher education reform. It is my hope that the study will serve not only to provide new insights, but also to provoke productive debate.  1 Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION  This dissertation examines the evolution of attention to conceptions of professionalism in the present era of “teacher education reform” in North America (Fenstermacher, 2002; Russell, McPherson, & Martin, 2001). The study is premised on the proposition that fostering educators’ professionalism has become a primary discourse underlying significant changes in teacher education throughout the continent (Cochran Smith, & Fries, 2001; Larabee, 1992). For educators in the province of British Columbia, the introduction of a new educational policy document entitled the Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia offers a timely opportunity to review contemporary conceptions of professionalism and consider their complexities and implications ([the Standards], BCCT, 2004). Accordingly, this dissertation takes up the introduction of the Standards in BC as an occasion to consider the tensions and potentialities engendered by the multiple epistemological and ontological questions about professionalism raised by the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 3).  1.1 Background to the Study  The Standards text was created by the British Columbia College of Teachers [BCCT] in 2003. On one level, the origins of the Standards can be traced to specific legal rulings affecting the province’s educational policy and legislation at that moment (Phelan, Erickson, Farr Darling, Collins, & Kind, 2007). In 2003, the BC Supreme Court clarified the BCCT’s  2  authority “to set standards” for teacher certification (BC Supreme Court, 2003, in Young 2004, np.). The Court ruled that the BCCT did not have the jurisdiction “to approve how teacher education programs are administered or taught” (BC Supreme Court, 2003, in Young 2004, np.). In spite of these developments, the provincial government’s existing provincial statute (the Teaching Professions Act, 1996) continued to delegate a comprehensive governance role to the BCCT, including defining who is “moral” enough to practice in the province’s schools (BC Ministry of Education, 2004, p. 6). The BCCT required a new tool to inform university administrators and teacher educators about changes in the province’s educational policy; one that honoured the court rulings. As well, the BCCT needed a mechanism for disseminating important certification amendments to prospective educators (BC Supreme Court, 2003 in Young, 2004, np.). From another perspective, the emergence of the Standards can also be located within the international context of reform in teacher education. Many scholars identify the last quarter century as a period of particular tumult for teacher education worldwide (Eisner, 2001; Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, & Watson, 1998; Goodlad, 1994). The political contexts of these reform agendas vary widely around the globe. Scholars such as Eisner (2001) argue that many of the motivations driving teacher education reform can be fruitfully traced to economic and political ideologies that reach beyond the borders of teacher education. On the other hand, there are concurrent opinions stating that the present focus on professionalism in North American teacher education arises from unique and competing points of view about the obligations of educators in relation to North American society (Cochran-Smith & Fries,  3  2001; Tom, 2000). According to Tom (2000), these ideological conflicts are particularly represented by, and constituted in, reports discussing education in the United States. Tom (2000) singles out A Nation at Risk (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, [NCEE], 1983) and the Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions (NCATE, 2007) as significant publications in this regard. As many authors commenting on the present state of American teacher education attest, interpreting and appraising the perspectives on professionalism engendered by texts such as these have been a substantial challenge for educators in that country (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001; Larabee, 1992). While it is unlikely that the Standards will be as influential in international discussions of teacher education reform and professionalism as A Nation at Risk, the appearance of the Standards marks a significant juncture in teacher education policy in British Columbia. Does the appearance of the Standards signal innovation in policies about teacher education? Alternately, does the text represent a continuation of existing understandings of professionalism for BC’s educators? The emphasis on educators’ professionalism in the text provides an impetus for the present investigation into the relationship between conceptions and discourses of professionalism and reform in teacher education in BC.  1.2 Statement of the Problem  The relationship between teacher education reform and conceptions professionalism in the literature about teacher education is often stated, but not commonly analyzed or explained  4 (Eisner, 2001). Schon (1987) provides an uncompromising précis of the premises for problemitizing the discourse of professionalism overall:  When professionals fail to recognise or respond to value conflicts, when they violate their own ethical standards, fall short of self created expectations for expert performance, or seem blind to public problems they have helped to create, they are increasingly subject to expressions of disapproval and dissatisfaction. In return for access to a professional’s extraordinary knowledge in matters of great human importance, society has granted them a mandate for social control, a high degree of autonomy and a license to determine who shall exercise their authority. But in the current climate of criticism the bargain is coming unstuck. When the professions’ claim to extraordinary knowledge is so much in question, why should we continue to grant them extraordinary rights and privileges? (p. 7).  As Schon (1987) asserts, there is much at stake in professionalism for individuals and the societies they participate and work within. Furthermore, Schon delineates several areas in which professionalism is much more than a matter of individual ethical and/or vocational concerns. Anxieties about professionalism also coalesce around numerous complex social and political factors, such as collective societal status and power. The challenges, obligations and privileges of professionalism so succinctly identified by Schon are fundamental to teacher education reform in British Columbia,  5 and are of particular significance to educators encountering the Standards. This study thus situates tensions and controversies about professionalism within an examination of the Standards text. This research also deliberates on a secondary problem that is exclusive to the Standards. While the introduction of the Standards is a significant development in the political and educational policy context in BC, the policies that are laid out in the text are of particular import to prospective educators enrolled in the province’s teacher education programs. There are two areas of significance for this audience. To begin, prospective educators are among the first British Columbians to interact with the Standards, as the text is integrated into teacher education curriculum and assessment. Second, prospective educators are now required to sign a commitment that they will abide by the text when they seek the British Columbia College of Teacher’s [BCCT] permission to practice (2004, p 6). As a result, prospective educators are uniquely impacted by the discourses of professionalism located in the Standards.  1.3 Research Questions and Outline of Chapters  This dissertation will provide an examination of the competing conceptions of professionalism represented in the Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia. I will guide this examination by addressing the following three questions:  6  1. What competing discourses and corresponding conceptions of professionalism are at play in the Standards? 2. How can the tensions between these discourses of professionalism in the Standards be historically and socially contextualized within efforts to reform teacher education in North America? 3. In the context of competing discourses of professionalism, how can this examination help prospective educators come to a more perspicuous understanding of their professional obligations, including their ethical obligations?  The dissertation has five chapters. Following this introduction, chapter two introduces critical discourse analysis [CDA] as an interdisciplinary approach to research that provides a “critical perspective on unique social arrangements sustained through language use” (Lazar, 2005, p.1). Chapter three delves into the historical aspects of teacher education reform in North America and details the forms of professionalism that have arisen out of this context. Carrying out the literature review after introducing the theoretical framework allows for a focused examination of scholarship on professionalism using perspectives and tools garnered from critical discourse analysis. A CDA based analysis of the Standards text follows in chapter four. Chapter five presents implications for interpreting the Standards and professionalism, and proposes strategies for discerning readings of the text. The study concludes by considering both the limitations of the present research and possible avenues for future study.  7  1.4 Audiences for the Study  Both the theoretical challenges and questions for practice outlined above raise the stakes for understanding professionalism in the context of British Columbia. First, the various audiences of the Standards (including teacher educators, administrators, educators, and prospective educators) all face challenges understanding the concept of professionalism as they consider what the text says (or doesn’t say) to them as individuals. What, for instance, are prospective educators to make of suggestions that they “contract with the public” through their “behavior” and their shared “reputation” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4; p. 18)? A second issue for these audiences is the dearth of interpretation and analysis available about the Standards as a piece of educational policy. The BCCT is the most prolific commentator on the text, having released a number of supporting documents relating to the Standards (eg. BCCT, 2004a,b). In addition, some of the province’s faculties of education have begun to consider the impact of the Standards on teaching and learning. For example, the University of British Columbia has produced an “Appendix: Guidelines for assessing BC teacher education students: Meeting certification standards” (n.d.) to provide guidance on assessment according to the Standards. There is also a fairly consistent record of remarks about the Standards from the BC Teachers’ Federation [BCTF] dating back to 2002. However, there are very few references to the Standards in educational research literature to date that question the appearance of the text, or query its contents. Young, Hall, and Clarke (2007) make mention of the Standards in an international comparison of teacher education program autonomy, but there are only two scholarly articles entirely devoted to the Standards  8  extant (Coulter, Coulter, Daniel, Decker, Essex, Naslund, Naylor, Phelan, & Sutherland, 2007; Phelan, et al., 2007). And, although there has been no sustained scholarly analysis of professionalism with reference to the Standards, the policies on professionalism outlined in the text are also becoming part of the practice of teacher education in the province. For example, the University of British Columbia’s [UBC] Faculty of Education describes the 2006–2007 academic year as “a lead transition year” with the Standards fully implemented by 2007–2008 (Irwin, personal communication, February 22, 2006). Prospective educators and their teacher educators at UBC are now producing exit e-portfolios and syllabi that link professionalism to the Standards, (UBC, Attainment of Standards Report, February 2008). This study aims to fill in some of these gaps in the literature and provide an interpretation and analysis about the Standards that is not presently available to practitioners and scholars. These tasks will be approached by carrying out a historical and critical analysis of professionalism, of the Standards, and of the contexts they share.  1.5 Theoretical Framework  In addition to adding to knowledge about teacher education reform and professionalism, this research aims to increase educators’ awareness and discernment of the advantages and limitations of competing conceptions of professionalism by illuminating what might otherwise pass unnoticed in the Standards. The theoretical framework that supports this simultaneously descriptive and prescriptive project is the “critical” point of view advocated by critical discourse analysis [CDA] (Fairclough, 2003; Rogers et al., 2005). CDA is an  9 interdisciplinary approach to research that draws on insights garnered from academic disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy, and sociology (Meyer, 2001). CDA allows for “problem-based” inquiries that share broad “thematic priorities” grounded in the critical perspectives of the Frankfurt School (Wiggershaus, 1995, p. 20, Habermas (1968, 1984, 1992) and Foucault (1970, 1972, 1977). Researchers employing CDA have the opportunity to develop and account for a critical position that is appropriate to their object(s) of study (Rogers et al., 2005). In the case of this inquiry, Foucault (1970, 1972, 1977) and Habermas (1968, 1984, 1992) will be utilized in order frame professionalism and the Standards as a unique “problem” accessible through considerations about language as a socially mediated system of representation (Fairclough, 1995). In addition, the work of the educational philosophers Carr (2000, 2002(b), 2003, 2005) and Vokey (2001) will be employed to formulate critical arguments and interpretations concerning professional obligations, including ethical obligations, in teacher education. According to CDA scholars like Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), a critical orientation to research must also involve a reflexive or self-critical stance (p. 26). As I proceed with a mindful reconstruction of this theoretical framework in chapter two, I acknowledge that my choices are themselves grounded in theoretical discourses, and that I should critically interrogate my motives for these choices (Bentz & Shapiro, 1998, p. 166).  10  1.6 Theoretical Perspectives from the Literature on Teacher Education  The theoretical framework described thus far provides tools for examining the relationships between educators’ professionalism and the Standards, and highlights grounds for reexamining these relationships “at this time, [and] in this situation” (Hostetler, 2005, p. 20). Still, the discussion of professionalism in this specific context can benefit from being situated within teacher education literature that hails from a variety of theoretical perspectives and/or considers how professionalism is understood in different locales. There are multiple points of entry for theorizing about professionalism in teacher education, from an emphasis on stories of school leaders to consideration of teacher education program graduation criteria (Zeichner & Liston, 1990; Phelan, 2005, p. 68). This study calls on researchers who hold a range of views on professional obligations, including Dik and Duffy (2009) and Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik (1990). For example, Carr (2000, 2005) posits that professionalism rests uneasily at the intersections of educators’ social and vocational roles and educating as a moral enterprise. Following Carr (2003) and others, concepts such as responsibility, accountability, service, a calling, competence, quality, dispositions, behavior and conduct will be discussed (Diez & Raths, 2007; Earl, 1999; Goodlad, 1990a). Teacher education reform and educators’ professionalism in the context of the United States will be also be considered (Cochran-Smith, 1999, 2001(a), 2001(b), 2006; CochranSmith & Fries, 2001; Earl 1999; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996; Larabee, 1992; Zeichner & Listen, 1990). Canadian perspectives on both teacher education reform and professionalism according to Beck, Hart, and Kosnik (2002), Cole, (2000), Fullan (1998), Portelli, Solomon  11 Barrett, and Mujawamariya (2005), Phelan (1996, 2005), Russell, McPherson, and Martin (2001) and finally, Young (2004) and Young, Hall, and Clarke (2007) will also be included.  1.7 A Personal Context for the Investigation  I have developed an interest in discourses such as professionalism as a result of my work at an adult education centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The curriculum at this centre was designed to familiarize refugees and immigrants with Canadian society, and ease Canadians with limited literacy skills into more advanced adult education programs. My students were a diverse group. Newly arrived doctors from Germany sat alongside former subsistence farmers from Sudan in my classroom. These immigrants and refugees sat across tables from teenaged single parents who lived in the subsidized housing complex down the road. Some students lived with memories of war, displacement, and the deaths of their family members. The Canadian born students frequently suffered from haphazardly diagnosed mental health issues and unrecognized learning disorders. Nonetheless, all of these students shared some mutual circumstances. On the whole they were chronically confused, tired, and hungry. And what was I expected to impart to these vulnerable people at such an important juncture in their lives? I was mandated to teach them the perspectives that were considered crucial to being a “successful Canadian”. It was my job to facilitate students’ efforts to become different people; or at least to learn to speak and act differently than when they started the program. However, as in many situations where people practice pretending until it becomes difficult to remember who they once were, taking up this “successful Canadian” identity entailed many social and ethical conundrums for my students. Over time, I became aware  12 that they were forced to negotiate a number of dichotomies hidden below the surface of such a success narrative, including:  1. Personal success is a personal journey of identity and growth, but it is largely measured in economic terms; 2. Canada is a multicultural society, but there are apparently a number of beliefs, attitudes, and ways of being that are common to all assimilated Canadians; 3. Social relationships in Canada are transparent and permeable, but are simultaneously constructed on implicit conventions about gender, class, sexual preference, and race.  It was difficult to watch my students accept these dissonances at face value, with very little debate or bitterness. It was even harder for me to recognize that we all seemed equally powerless to revise the contradictory collections of words, behaviors, and demeanors that would allow them to “pass” as successful in Canadian schools and workplaces. We all lacked the conceptual tools to challenge this troubling status quo. My growing unease about serving as a conduit for these discourses led me to graduate studies in education. Encountering Foucault during my Master of Education coursework was a both a revelation and a tremendous relief. In his texts, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (1970), The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972), and Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (1977), I discovered explanations of how knowledge and power are socially constructed that allowed me to make some sense of the tensions and incoherencies of the discourses I helped circulate through my teaching. In particular, I found Foucault’s emphasis on language as a social, cultural, and historical construct to be of enduring value when thinking  13 about how students speak and are spoken to through discourses. Wrapped in the cloak of Foucault’s theory, I felt prepared to save both my students and myself from harm. During my PhD studies, I re-read Foucault and other critical theorists under the guidance of sharper eyes than my own. I realized that my wish to emancipate individuals from disempowering practices (such as the ones into which I have just implicated myself), was in many ways contradictory with deconstructing the discourses and ideologies I depended upon for my intellectual energy. As I became immersed in teacher education as an area of study and practice, I also became aware that educators come to recognize themselves as certain kinds of people under the same kinds of constraints as those that challenged my adult education students. When my dissertation committee offered me a copy of the Standards for the Education Competence and Professional Conduct of Educators in British Columbia, I saw that the text presented an ideal opportunity to undertake a substantive examination of these ongoing contradictions through a dissertation project. In the following pages, I hope to illuminate these ongoing tensions that relate to the issue of professionalism in the Standards and offer the possibility of providing educators, and particularly prospective educators means of complicating their professional conversations. I also hope to clarify my own position in this ethical conversation.  14  Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY AND METHODS  What we are able to see of the actuality of a text depends on the perspective from which we approach it, including the particular social issues in focus and the social and discourse theory we draw upon (Fairclough, 2003, p. 16).  This chapter introduces the theoretical framework and research methods used in this study. I begin by positioning critical discourse analysis [CDA] as a form of interdisciplinary inquiry. I then provide a review of the cross disciplinary epistemological and ontological notions utilized in CDA that are pertinent to professionalism and the Standards. The second section of the chapter outlines Faircough’s (1989, 1992a, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003) version of CDA, and explains why his iteration is particularly relevant to this inquiry. This section also details the specific analytic strategies and tools that will be followed in order to carry out a CDA inspired analysis of the Standards.  Section One: Theoretical Framework  2.1 CDA as an Interdisciplinary Form of Inquiry  In chapter one I introduced discourses and corresponding conceptions of professionalism as a complex object of study with historical roots in branches of learning such as sociology, philosophy, linguistics, and policy studies. This state of affairs is typical of many contemporary  15 research “problems”, which are dependent on multiple disciplines for their very expression, let alone their “solutions” (Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, [COSEPUP], 2004). For example, it is hard to imagine how one can speak of global warming without appealing to a range of scientific, social, and culturally grounded theoretical paradigms (COSEPUP, 2004). Similarly, an inquiry into professionalism and standards in this era of teacher education reform is best achieved through an interdisciplinary perspective that integrates a variety of academic disciplines. But what exactly does an interdisciplinary inquiry involve? van Leeuwen (in Wodak & Meyer, 2001) defines “interdisciplinarity” as an evolution in contemporary research that supports cross-fertilizations between research cultures and theoretical schools of thought (p. 3). In practice, interdisciplinary researchers generally transcend the languages and modes of sense-making representative of specific disciplines by selecting “a common denominator – a problem, issue, topic, or theme – (and) by deploying two or more relevant (not arbitrary) discipline-based foci that are meaningfully integrated, based on practical need or curiosity” (LaFever, 2008, p. 33). Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an example of this type of problem- based inquiry (Repko, 2008). Although CDA research is exceptionally diverse, studies characteristically blend the discipline of linguistics with a variety of social theories in order to study problems from a particular interdisciplinary position labeled as “critical” (Rogers, MalancharuvilBerkes, Mosley, Hui, & O’Garro Joseph, 2005, p. 3). The origins of CDA can be traced to scholarship published in the 1970’s and 1980’s by European linguists such as Fairclough (1989) and sociologists such as Wodak (1989). As Fairclough (1992a) states, the well known linguistic turn in social sciences fostered a mirroring social turn in linguistic scholarship, as  16 theorists sought to make their work reflect developments in theory during the period (p. 1). As a result, Fairclough (1992a) sought an “alternative orientation” to language study based on “a social theory of discourse” that offered both “theoretically adequate and practically usable” means for inquiry (p. 92, p. 1). After roughly forty years of research, teaching practice, and publication activities by scholars around the world, Fairclough is still recognized as the foremost proponent of this “shared perspective” on the role of language in society (Meyer, in Meyer & Wodak, 2001, p. 19). In the eyes of Bijeikiene (2008), CDA has developed a niche in the interdisciplinary space between linguistic and social theory on two fronts. First, CDA has encouraged linguists to attend to social and political issues that are passed over by many other perspectives on language and textual study (p. 105). In addition, Bijeikiene (2008) credits CDA with providing social scientists with linguistic tools that have enhanced their studies of social life (p. 105). It would seem, then, that CDA is a successful and well-accepted form of interdisciplinary research that is an appropriate choice for this inquiry into professionalism and the Standards. Specifically, CDA offers means of integrating: a) a linguistically oriented inquiry concerning the Standards text, b) an examination of the social and philosophical issues that arise from the contexts of the text, and c) scholarship on professionalism as a whole. All the same, Fairclough (1992a) acknowledges that some aspects of CDA remain contentious (p. 207). In particular, critics challenge the appropriation of the term “critical” by CDA analysts (Slembrouck, 2001). Fairclough (2003) rebuts the charge of these critics by claiming that CDA is critical in two ways (p. 20). To begin, he posits that CDA is critical because of the theoretical resources CDA analysts draw upon. According to Chilton (2001) the distinguishing tenets of CDA are selected from a range of sociological and philosophical  17 theories known as “critical theory” (p. 19). Bohman (2005) further portrays “critical theory” as a shorthand term for a series of historical stages in social, philosophical, and political thought focused on aims that are “explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time” (n.p.). The ideological roots of critical theory lie in Marxist analyses of social injustice and asymmetrical distributions of power in newly capitalist societies (Bohman, 2005). Fairclough (2003) concurs with Chilton (2001) that neo-Marxist political theory (Marcuse), the Frankfurt school of critical social theory (Horkheimer & Adorno; Habermas), and French discourse theory (Foucault) provide the primary critical foundations for CDA. Fairclough (1989, 2003) and Wodak (1989, 2001), continue to model a pragmatically critical perspective for CDA researchers, in that they combine aspects of early critical theorists with the work of selected poststructural and postmodern scholars (van Dijk, 2001, p. 2). For instance, Weiss and Wodak (2002) incorporate Walkerdine’s (1990) poststructural feminist discussion of “relations of difference” into their critique of racist political discourse (p. 87). However, this theoretical eclecticism is not universally appreciated. For some scholars, the interdisciplinarity espoused by CDA analysts who self-declare as “encompassing a range of approaches rather than just one school” needs further explanation (van Dijk, 1998a, p. 7). For example, Slembrouck (2001) suggests that CDA is less than rigorous because Fairclough’s (1992a, 1989) theoretical blendings are unsystematic and lack scholarly attribution (p. 43). Hammersley (1997) agrees saying that CDA researchers also take their intermingled theoretical foundations for granted, and assume that such combinations are unproblematic (p. 243). Some CDA scholars (i.e., Koller, 2003; Meyer, 2001; Rogers, 2004, Rogers, et al., 2005), have responded by detailing the foundational principles that guide their research. In the next section, I follow the lead of these authors, and provide an historical discussion of the  18  sources of the three key constructs I employ when considering professionalism and the Standards: power, knowledge, and discourse.  2.2 Conceptions of Power and Knowledge in CDA  Given critical theory’s emphasis on exposing social inequity, it is not surprising that many CDA inquirers focus on explaining underlying assumptions about power as an unevenly distributed social phenomenon. CDA theorists such as Fairclough (1995) articulate how power is constrained or organized through socially mediated linguistic practices by turning to Gramsci’s (1971) neo-Marxist concepts of hegemony and ideology (p. 26). Gramsci’s (1971) critical innovation is to broaden the economic base of Marxist ideology by envisioning that each social class is united by their own ideology, or “a conception of the world implicitly manifest in art, in law, in economic activity and all manifestations of individual and collective life” (p. 376). For Gramsci (1971) hegemony describes the functioning of ideology; a form of social control that depends on the more or less conscious acquiescence of some classes in a society to the benevolent leadership of more intellectually adept classes (p. 323). One of Gramsci’s most influential claims is that such leadership need not be organized through force. Instead, classes are convinced that prevailing ideological representations of the world make “common sense” and can be accepted at face value (p. 333). Fairclough (1995, 2003) has consistently depended on Gramsci’s theorizing about hegemony and ideology to explain how elites maintain power by claiming that notions such as globalization are both universally beneficial and timeless. Many CDA analysts also cite Gramsci’s concept of ideology as a contributor to their critical perspective (van Dijk, 2004).  19  According to van Dijk (2004), ideologies are “foundational social beliefs of a rather general and abstract nature” that motivate hegemonic practices (n.p.). In other words, ideologies are the collective belief systems or world-views that lead individuals and groups to accept common sense versions of reality, even if such beliefs do not provide positive results for all involved (van Dijk, 2004, n.p.). Wodak (2001) makes connections between power and ideology as a basis for her critical stance by saying that, “ideology, for CDA, is seen as an important aspect of establishing and maintaining unequal power relations” (2001, p. 10). In this present study of professionalism and the Standards, Gramsci’s (1971) formulations of power according to ideology and hegemony will support claims about the (re)production of social power through themes such as membership, accountability, and responsibility. As in much CDA inspired work, Gramsci’s (1971) principle of ideology will also be referenced in this research to support critiques of the tacit meanings and implied agreements central to social consensus (Gee, 2004, p. 20). Some CDA researchers have also adopted perspectives on power developed by the second-generation Frankfurt school theorist Habermas (1989, 1990). The original scholars of the Frankfurt School are occasionally cited in CDA research. A case in point is Wodak (in Rydgren, 2005), who refers to Horkheimer and Adorno’s Marxist scholarship as a source for the social theories she applies to interpreting discursive events (p. 124). However, most CDA researchers access the critical social theory typical of the Frankfurt school through the lens of Habermas’s expansive appraisal of ideology and communication in modern and postmodern societies (1984, 1990). Wodak (1995, 1996) is also partially responsible for the developing the use of Habermas in CDA, as a result of her early research on the legitimacy and commodification of communication in institutional environments. Recently, theorists such as  20  Cukier, Bauer, and Middleton (2004) have taken up Habermas’s (1968, 1971) rejection of scientific positivism when they examine how power hierarchies affect knowledge creation in curriculum. Cukier, Bauer, and Middleton (2004), also endorse Habermas’s (1968, 1971) formulation of knowledge as historically situated and motivated by social interests. In a recent study on technology use in university curriculum, these authors ponder the constraints that arise when empirical evidence is used to make decisions about socially mediated technology (p. 241). Scholars also refer to Habermas’s (1971) framework of knowledge based on technical, interpretive, and critical-emancipatory interests when discussing power struggles in knowledge creation (Cukier, Bauer, & Middleton, 2004; Motter, 2008). Habermas (1971) rejects the Marxist principle that all knowledge is a product of economic power struggle between classes, and instead distinguishes between the ways that power is operationalized in scientific, historical, and self-reflective spheres of knowledge. For Habermas (1971) scientific or technical knowledge is a product of the belief that it is possible to acquire objective meaning from a world that is pre-existing and external to human knowing. He posits that technical knowledge is used by some segments of society to control social life by insisting that efficiency is the most natural human goal. Habermas (1971) further suggests that interpretive knowledge developed through research in the social sciences often differs only slightly different from the “hard sciences”, because communicators strategically position human meaning and consciousness through “law-like” statements about human action (p. 310). Habermas (1971) claims that his formulation of practical knowledge is an antidote to both of these other models because it encourages self- reflection, which, due to its liberating effects, is individually emancipatory (p. 137). Motter (2008) engages with this aspect of  21 Habermas’s work in her CDA inspired analysis of media impacts on educational policy in Brazil (p. 14). Motter (2008) shows how policy development can become a “struggle over meaning” by segments of society who have competing interests and therefore different ideas of what counts as knowledge (p. 14). Koller (2003) claims that Habermas expands on Gramsci’s notion of power distribution through unwitting social consensus (p. 37). Koller (2003) supports Habermas’s (1971) claim that the paralysis of social life predicted by neo Marxists like Gramsci (1971) has come to pass, and that human emancipation must be reclaimed by returning to the Enlightenment’s goals of democratic progress through reasoned argument among equal citizens (p. 38). In doing so, Habermas (1984, 1987) seeks to reform the role of ideology in the “public sphere” as an ideal of shared sense-making where the legitimacy of individual arguments are weighed according to which citizens’ interests are being served by such arguments. Like some CDA inquirers, Koller (2003) suggests that Habermas’s model for communication provides theoretical prerequisites for carrying out critiques of neoliberal citizenship (p. 48). In his study of political advertising, Koller (2003) goes on to claim that the power balance of democratic participation has been so radically altered by such advertising that citizens must become communicative experts to acquire even the smallest measure of social control (p. 10). On the other hand, Habermas’s (1984, 1987, 1990) postulations about power negotiated through “ideal speech acts” and impartial public conversations are often critiqued in CDA research for failing “to address the plurality and fragmentation of contemporary social life” (Thomas, 2004, p. 230). In this vein, Thomas (2004) argues that Habermas is actually more effective in summarizing themes appropriate for critical opposition than he is at  22 imagining conditions for social change (p. 230). Citing Fraser’s (1999) analysis of Habermas’s (1984, 1987) conception of “public space”, Thomas (2004) describes how Habermas’s emphasis on unity and coherence in power relations excludes oppositional voices and practices (p. 231). Like Wodak (2002), I acknowledge Habermas’s contribution to “socio-diagnostic critique” in critical research, and recognize the value of his “investigations into long-term developments of historical structures” for this study (p. 6). I will also make use of some aspects of Habermas’s definitions of knowledge throughout the following analysis. Like many education researchers who utilize CDA, I will also make a particular, adapted, use of Habermas’s (1971) distinction between technical, historical, and critical knowledge (Fairclough, 2001; Motter, 2008). By this I mean that this study will link the terms “technical” and “rational” with knowledge in order to incorporate a related line of critique central to teacher education reform (Habermas, 1971; Popkewitz, 1993, pps. 272273). Following Thomas (2004) however, I intend to provide counterpoints to Habermas’s (1984, 1987, 1990) views on citizenship and public discourse. I will support this appraisal by appealing to the work of the political philosopher Benhabib (1992, 1995, 1996, 2003). Best described as a friendly critic of Habermas, Benhabib (1992) aims to outline an “interactive universalism” that offers space for negotiation within Habermas’s ideals of autonomous citizenship and utopian consensus (p. 162). Foucault (1970, 1972, 1977) is the final critical theorist whose views on power will addressed as part of this discussion. Foucault’s prominence in CDA is substantial, despite the fact that his theorizing complicates the prescriptive and emancipatory goals often espoused by CDA scholars. While Foucault rejects the label, his work is widely considered to be  23  poststructural, partially because he avoids dictating what should replace social structures he critiques (Hall, in Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001, pps. 78-79; Thomas, 2005, p. 2). Nevertheless, Foucault is consistently cited as a theoretical source for the critical orientations of CDA, and references to his linkages between power, knowledge, and social control are ubiquitous in the literature. In order to wrestle with this dilemma, Foucault’s early work will now be situated beside, and in contrast to, the pantheon of interdisciplinary “critical theorists” described thus far. My intention is to situate Foucault’s (1970, 1972, 1977) theory of power as an integral part of the 20th century critical tradition that underlies this inquiry. Like Habermas, Foucault carries out an interdisciplinary analysis of power in pre-modern and modern western societies over several volumes. Although they disagree in many areas, both scholars ground their work in critiques of positivist and scientific paradigms of knowledge that purport that transcendent truths motivate human interaction and social systems (Habermas, 1971, 1990; Foucault, 1970, 1972, 1977). Both also question Gramsci’s (1971) Marxist view of power as a force distributed from the top to the bottom classes of a society. Instead, Habermas and Foucault both recognize that “power is dispersed through social relations” and distributed through bureaucracies and informal memberships as well as by states (Foucault, 1977, p. 27). However, Habermas and Foucault diverge from this point of agreement due to their analytical aims and their conclusions concerning power. In contrast to Habermas’s (1971) goal of managing power by reaching consensus, Foucault (1977) proposes that social consensus is neither possible nor desirable (p. 31). Rather, he claims that power “circulates” as a capillary, plural, and productive force in societies and is formed and reproduced through decentred multiplicities of conflicting social relations (1977, p. 27). In Foucault’s (1977) estimation, the term “power relations” further captures a sense that, contra Habermas  24  participation in these relations may not be entirely based on individual or conscious choice (p. 27). Foucault’s (1970, 1977) reframing of power contributes to the manner in which researchers, such as Niewolny and Wilson (2007), approach their study of agricultural adult education. These authors appeal to Foucault when defining power as a force that “may be unclear to those involved” when they learn about becoming “new farmers” (p. 458). Like both Gramsci (1971), and Habermas (1971), Foucault (1972) speculates on the ways that relations between power and knowledge can be seen to produce social consensus. However, Foucault (1972) claims that there is no correct knowledge (in contrast to Gramsci’s Marxism) and no Habermasian ideal system for such knowledge creation (Hall, in Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001, p. 77). Most controversially, Foucault (1977) posits that power and knowledge are inextricably linked, saying that:  We should admit that power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging it because it serves power, or by applying it because it is useful); that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations (p. 28).  In statements like these, Foucault (1977) provides CDA inquirers with ammunition to tie manifestations and hierarchies of power to the organization of ideas and the control of knowledge in any given era and locale. Smythe’s (2006) study of family literacy texts is a  25  recent example of the use of Foucault’s linking of power and knowledge to problematize “truths” that have historically marginalized some literacy and mothering practices and privileged others (p. 23). Elsewhere, Foucault (1970) extends power/knowledge to reframe Gramsci’s (1971) conception of ideology as well. For Foucault (1970), knowledge in any era may be commonly shared, but it need not be rational or make any sense to function effectively as effect of power. According to Foucault (1970), it is the role of the analyst to critique what seems to commonly held as knowledge rather than to seek out knowledge that appears to impart reason (p. 387). Foucault’s (1970) reformulation of ideology is deeply embedded within CDA. Wodak (2001) specifies that CDA analysts aim to “demystify” discourses by “deciphering ideologies” (p. 10). Fairclough (1989) is particularly indebted to Foucault’s understanding of ideology to support his claims that the “ideological assumptions embedded in particular conventions” of language distribute power in daily life (p. 2). Smythe’s (2006) inquiry into family literacy texts again demonstrates how CDA analysts have employed Foucault’s (1970) rereading of ideology. Smythe (2006) notes that family literacy texts issued by governments across the continent are almost identical, regardless of the culture or audience to which they are presented (p. 246). In fact, these texts simply recycle the same research (and terminology), but only those readers who know the jargon are aware of the situation (p. 246). The previous section has aimed to position Foucault (1970, 1972, 1977) as one of several significant “critical theorists” who are invoked by CDA researchers. It has been shown that Foucault engages with power and knowledge from several of the same starting points as Habermas (1971) and Gramsci (1971). It has also become more apparent where Foucault’s  26  theorizing on power and knowledge veers away from these scholars. For the purposes of this study, Foucault’s conception of power will support claims that social consensus does not necessarily represent a progressive or unified narrative and that apparently rational regimes of cooperation may mask gaps and discontinuities in patterns of social interactions. Foucault’s (1970) linkage of knowledge to power will also play a role in the upcoming inquiry into professionalism and the Standards. His distinctive analyses through power/knowledge offers the possibility of raising similar questions about what knowledge is maintained to be correct in any given locale for professionalism. Finally, this inquiry will aim to illuminate, if not “demystify” the workings of power in discourses of professionalism and the Standards text itself (Wodak, 2001, p. 10).  2.3 Conceptions of Discourse in CDA  In the previous section, power and knowledge were presented as key elements for critically examining professionalism and the Standards. In the following portion of the chapter, I will explain why discourse is an equally significant concept for this study. The ascendance of discourse in CDA is an example of the evolution of relationships between linguistics, scholarship in the humanities, and social sciences research over time (Suurmond, 2005). CDA draws on a lengthy tradition of interdisciplinary theorizing about language in order to cultivate a complex conception of discourse. For many scholars, the linguistic thread of this tradition begins with Saussure’s (1916) attempts to systematize language as an abstract system of representation (Poynton & Lee, 2000, p. 19). Saussure (1916) differentiates between “langue” as a system of signs and “parole” as individuals’  27  conversations (p. 112). Scholars define this division, along with Saussure’s (1916) more general claim that there are “no ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of linguistic structure” as the starting point for linguistics as a field of study (p. 110). Although he is often dismissed in contemporary scholarship, it is also generally accepted that Saussure (1916) debunks the notion that language serves merely to name an already existing reality, and that he repositions language as a humanly created system of abstractions (Culler, 1982, p. 16). Nonetheless, the “critical” interdisciplinary approach in which I have situated CDA in this chapter is constructed upon a critique of Saussure’s (1916) internally structured approach to language. This critique reintroduces language use as “parole” and refutes Saussure’s (1916) original principle that language can be separated from everyday practices (Rogers, 2004, p. 239. Instead, CDA theorists appropriate Saussure’s (1916) systematic approach to language as a means to reconfigure social life as a linguistically based series of representations (Fairclough, 1999b, p. 21). While this reconfiguration may seem radical on first reading, it distills the work of numerous theorists who generally are not credited in CDA research (Suurmond, 2005, p. 2). According to Suurmond (2005), notable antecedents include Wittgenstein (1953) who investigates language as a contextual tool of daily meaning (p. 2). In addition, the school of “ordinary- language philosophers” led by Austin (1962) has contributed to an even more concrete notion of language use as a practice applicable to CDA (Hammersley, 2002, p. 4). For Austin (1962), meaning making in language is metaphorically enacted as individual performances that conform to social rules (Suurmond, 2005, p.11). Suurmond (2005) positions Habermas (1981) as part of this lineage, noting that he borrows directly from Austin’s notion of “speech-acts” to develop discourse as the medium for “ideal  28 speech situations” (p. 2). For Suurmond (2005), all of these theoretical precedents contribute to the rise of the term “discourse” in contemporary interdisciplinary critical theory (p. 12). For Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), Habermas’s theorizing on discourse is a significant turning point in the development of CDA. Reading Habermas from a linguistic perspective, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) state that Habermas‘s critique of power structures leads him to conclude that social life is being increasing separated from normative and rational forms of human interaction that are based in language (p. 86). In particular, Habermas (1981, 1992) distinguishes between strategic action as irrational communication and communicative action as rational and reasoned. Discourse for Habermas is a new form of communicative action that focuses on the consensual discussion of validity claims. “Discourse” is thus a practical “step back from action”, so that the claims about the problems of social life can be examined according to agreed upon normative criteria (Outhwaite, 1994, p. 33). For Habermas (1981), discourse functions through the development of commonly understood representations or “symbols” and therefore social understanding is at its core symbolic understanding rooted in language (p. 196). As an end result, Habermas (1981) imagines that discourse should be supported by transparent and fair institutions, where citizens can metaphorically congregate to maintain and generate symbols such as democracy (p. 3). Although framed in a positive tone, Habermas (1981) uses the concept of discourse to explicate deficiencies with social interactions and knowledge creation in the modern democratic era (p. 25). He states that the dominant symbols and representations are not adequate and that institutions of democracy are not now transparent or accessible. And while Habermas (1992) speaks of consensus as an ideal, he places such goals in opposition to social unrest, conflict, and disunity (p. 85).  29  Habermas’s account of discourse strikes many scholars as overly dependent on symmetrical relationships between equals (Devenney, 2004, p. 144). In addition, Devenney (2004) challenges Habermas’s ideal of universality; saying that the process of communication or the creation/maintenance of metaphorical symbols cannot address the antagonisms inherent to democratic plurality (p. 126). Flyvbjerg (1998) also struggles with the extent to which Habermas’s understanding of discourse is so specifically intertwined with democracy as a political system (p. 1). Flyvbjerg (1998) suggests that Habermas should not assume his historically and geographically embedded model of discourse could be universally applied to all societies (p. 2). Taking these critiques into account, it is important to recall how much the concept of discourse in CDA benefits from the a) the critiques Habermas provides as precursors to his discursive solution and b) his groundbreaking work in blending of linguistic and social theories as a basis for critical analysis. Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) identify three ways that Habermas’s theory of discourse has been valuable to CDA research (p. 88). First, Habermas’s critique of the modern society recognizes that linguistically constructed systems of meaning making and knowledge constrain social change. Habermas’s (1981, 1992) construction of discourse is built upon the idea that present systems of representation and the resultant production of symbols are not equally accessible, or even comprehended by many social groups. This orientation supports the “critical” stance already identified in this chapter as crucial to CDA. Second, Habermas (1970) details how ideology continues to be a factor in modernity even though it is manifested quite differently than in Gramsci’s (1971) original account. Although he discontinues using the term relatively early in his career, Habermas (1970)  30  reframes ideology as a succession of competing interests that/who are not offering better alternatives to many members of democratic societies, even though they appear to be becoming more “progressive” and humane (p. 111). In particular, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) point out that Habermas’s principle of discourse is presented against a backdrop of “colonizing” discursive practices such as market-driven globalization that remain a research priority (p. 95). Finally, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) say that Habermas’s work as a whole provides object lessons for wrestling with discourse as part of interdisciplinary programs that attempt to meld linguistic theorizing with socially and philosophically based orientations to research (p. 88). All three of Chouliaraki and Fairclough’s (1999) clarifications about the value of Habermas’s approach to discourse are germane to this study. Habermas’s discourse theory will be included because he offers something that is quite rare in CDA analysis; suggestions for fulfilling the critical aims and goals of a CDA inspired study at a procedural level (Cukier, Bauer, & Middleton, 2004, p. 252). I agree with Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) that Habermas’s work is both taken too literally and also underutilized as a theoretical resource (p. 155). At the same time I share the view (supported by Thomas, 2004) that Habermas’s project for universal equality and consensus is burdened by unexpected consequences that tend to negate his goals. However, I also propose that Habermas provides an example of how researchers can manage the implications of their critical analysis by examining and judging their arguments and conclusions. As a result, chapter five of this inquiry will explore the implications of my analysis of professionalism and the Standards making use of a similar framework provided by Vokey (2001).  31  The second conception of discourse relevant to this inquiry is proposed by Foucault. Foucault’s theory of discourse is one of most referenced aspects of his thought. Since Foucault revisited the idea of discourse repeatedly over his decades of scholarship, it is difficult to incorporate every stage of his thinking on the concept into a coherent explanation. As a result, this inquiry focuses on Foucault’s work in the 1970’s, when he frames discourse through the metaphors of archeology and genealogy. As discussed earlier, Foucault’s theorizing on power and knowledge can be fruitfully positioned within the context of the 20th century tradition of “critical theory” that critiques how knowledge is structured and distributed. However, Foucault makes a unique contribution to this tradition with his notion of discourse. Much has been written about how differently Foucault frames discourse than Habermas (Kelly, 1994; Strydom, 2001). It is the case that both scholars use the term discourse to challenge the legitimacy of enlightenment derived knowledge claims in modern institutions and societies. For instance, Foucault (in Mahon, 1992, p. ix) retrospectively describes his work as critical with reference to the same Frankfurt school of sociological philosophers that had so much influence on Habermas, even though he did not become aware of their work until the 1980’s (p. 180). However, Foucault owes a considerable debt to Nietzsche, and his critical position reflects that philosopher’s disputes with universal norms (Strydom, 2000, p. 36). Mahon (1992) claims that Foucault is echoing Nietzsche’s aversion to normative dichotomies when he states that, “a critique does not consist in saying that things are not as good as they are” (p. 104). This stance leads Foucault (in Flyvbjerg, 2000) to conclude that, “criticism is no longer going to be practiced in the search for formal structures with universal value” (p. 9). Instead, Foucault (in Mahon,  32  1992) determines that to be critical “consists in seeing what kinds of self evidences, what liberties acquired, and non reflective modes of thought the practices we accept rest on” (p.104). From this critical position, Foucault (in Flyvbjerg, 2000) imagines that inquiry involves an “historical investigation” or archeology of knowledge; where knowledge is understood as interlocking sets of socially constructed rules of language that allow or constrain meaning (Foucault, 1970, p. 9). As the term archeology implies, Foucault’s (1970) retrospective tracing of how knowledge functions at certain points in history unearths previously unrecognized or forgotten rules for meaning making, or “discourses” (p. 10). Foucault’s (1970) archeological metaphor is an apt one, since he claims that discourses distribute many layers of explanation simultaneously. For Foucault discourses function as tools for the construction of meaning at the level of texts, as well as though systems of symbolic socio-cultural representation (p. 10). In the same way as Habermas, Foucault’s theory of discourse is constructed in response to Saussure’s (1916) structuralist theories about the organizing principles of language as a meaning making system. However, Foucault owes so much more to Saussure’s (1916) linguistics than Habermas that Strydom (2000) calls his archeological phase “quasi structuralist” (p. 36). It is evident that Foucault (1970) is influenced by Saussure (1916) when he frames discourse as systems of meaning because “things attain existence only in so far as they are able to form the elements of a signifying system” (p. 328). However, this position is just a starting point for Foucault’s (1970) critique of Saussure’s (1916) understanding of how language distributes meaning through universally shared structures such as sentences. Specifically, Foucault wishes to reconfigure what is appropriate as a unit of analysis to consist of elements broader than the level of grammar. For  33 Foucault (1970) discourse analysis is thus concerned with analyzing what he calls “statements”, or segments of meaning in language that are defined by their use as organizers of knowledge (p. 17). Foucault (1972) recognizes that this conception is not entirely coherent, saying that:  Instead of gradually reducing the rather fluctuating meaning of the word “discourse”, I believe I have added to its meanings: treating it sometimes as a general domain of all statements, sometimes as an individualizable group of statements, and sometimes as a regulated practice that accounts for a number of statements (p. 80).  Foucault (1970) is not interested in whether statements are truthful, rational, or grammatical, but rather with how they make it possible for certain beliefs, but not others, to occur at locations, points in time, and institutions (p. 81). For Foucault (1970) “discourses” are further organized and regulated as “discourse formations”, or social conventions that delimit how sets of statements can be said to belong an era, or in a discipline. In addition, Foucault (1970) claims that discourses are constitutive rather merely than representative because they contribute to the production, transformation, and reproduction of knowledge as socially constructed (p. 83). One of the enigmatic aspects of discourse as presented by Foucault (1970) in his archeological phase is the disparity between the regularity of patterns of knowledge production through discourses and the idiosyncrasy of human social behavior that is then structured by these discourses (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983, p. xxv). Like Habermas, Foucault is challenged  34 when applying formal theories derived from linguistics to human social life. As a result, Foucault (1977) introduces the methodological metaphor of genealogy in his text entitled Discipline and Punish. Genealogy incorporates a broader relationship between linguistic features of discourse and social theory by introducing the concept of power, borrowed from Nietzsche. Foucault (in Gordon, 1980) says; it was Nietzsche who specified the power relation as the general focus, shall we say, of philosophical discourse --whereas for Marx it was the production relation. Nietzsche is the philosopher of power, a philosopher who managed to think power without having to confine himself within a political theory in order to do so (p. 53). According to Strydom (2000), Foucault concludes that he needs a substitute for rationality and consensus as motivators for social behavior (p. 36). Strydom (2000) claims that Foucault (1972) envisions that “power” provides this missing link in his theorizing (p. 39). Foucault (1972) formulates the notion of power as a force that is not just distributed through formal means from institutions and governments down to oppressed individuals. Instead, power produces a network of forces that circulates in every social interaction and every aspect of knowledge production. Discourses facilitate the employment of power in both productive and unproductive ways, by making visible how power is structured and reproduced, but also by allowing for the regulation and control of language and social behavior (Foucault, 1972, p. 28). Discourse can be analyzed as being the underpinning of strategic, conflicting, and consensual relations of fields of knowledge” containing a number of competing  35 and contradictory discourses as well (Foucault, 1972, p. 31). Finally, Foucault (1977) attempts to account for change and evolution in discourses without appealing to ideology by using power (p. 201). Ideology in its original Marxist sense of false knowledge has no place in Foucault’s genealogy, where all knowledge is equally functional. However, Llyod (2003) suggests Gramsci’s original notions about how knowledge is regulated and dispersed without the complete understanding of the people involved are simply diffused of their overtly political nature and renamed as power/knowledge by Foucault (p. 230). Critics of Foucault’s notions of discourse are legion. Some, including Habermas (1986) dismiss Foucault’s move away from rationality as a primary goal of human thought. Others object to the joining of power and knowledge, saying that there must be some way to separate the two at a political level (Taylor, 1986). There is considerable body of work that suggests that discourse in the hands of Foucault pays too little attention to feminist concerns of agency and difference (Fraser, 1999; Hartsock, in Nicholson, 1990). On the other hand, it is now clearer why references to Foucault predominate in the historical network of influences described in CDA literature. The utility of Foucault’s theorizing on discourse to CDA has been shown to be twofold. First, Foucault is clearly one of the “founders of discursivity” he admires (Rabinow, 1984, p. 116). Foucault forever complicates ideas about language as a key medium of social control and management, even for those who don’t agree with his lines of reasoning (Rabinow, 1984, p. 116). As Rabinow (1984) says, “one does not declare certain propositions in the work of these founders to be false: instead...one sets aside those statements that are not pertinent” (p. 116). In addition, Foucault’s theorizing on discourses provides constructive tools for textual analysis that  36 are used in CDA research to this day. Choularaki and Fairclough (1999) employ “orders of discourse” to link the discursive aspects of hegemony to consider the relationships between politics and media in texts (p. 114). More recently, Taylor (2004) has analyzed education policy documents through the lens of discourses and power relations. Taylor (2004) discusses how discourses can be identified, and possibly changed, in the relationships between researchers and “insiders” in Australian education (p. 17). Foucault’s (1970, 1972, 1977) notion of discourse will also be used extensively in this study. I will borrow from Foucault’s (1977) genealogy to consider professionalism and the Standards by employing an historical perspective that emphasizes intersections of power and of knowledge. I will also seek out gaps in fields of knowledge such as “teacher education reform” that may reveal power and knowledge as social constructions. Like Gale (in Smythe, 2006), in this inquiry I will ask how both professionalism and the Standards have come to be “problems” worthy of attention by considering conditions of discursive possibility (p. 385). The methods of archeology will also be utilized, including a number of Foucault’s (1970) analytical tools, such as discursive formations, statements, and orders of discourse. All of these methods and strategies will be carried out under the umbrella of Faircough’s (1989, 2003) approach to CDA.  2.4 Power, Knowledge, and Discourse in Fairclough’s CDA  Fairclough’s version of CDA is explicitly indebted to Foucault and Gramsci, and more subtly references Habermas. To paraphrase, Fairclough (1993) explains his approach as a form of discourse analysis that aims to “systematically explore often opaque relationships  37 between: 1. discursive practices, events and texts, 2. wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; By carrying out: 3. investigations into how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power, 4. explorations into how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony (p. 135). This definition encapsulates the extent to which Fairclough’s (1989, 2003) theoretical framework is an eclectic continuation of the 20th century critical project of analyzing power, knowledge, and discourse. In spite of this, Fairclough clarifies three key elements of CDA as a theoretical perspective that are of interest to the present research. First, Fairclough (1992) is unequivocal in stating that engaging with Foucault does not mean that CDA analysts reduce the whole of social life to discourse, or avoid analysis of social structures and the material world (p. 40). The synthesis of linguistic and social theory that Fairclough (1992) emphasizes incorporates “practices”, or broader social and historical contexts that include extra- discursive elements (p. 57). In other words, Fairclough (in Waller, 2006) states that “people not only act and interact within networks of social practices, they also interpret and represent to themselves and each other what they do, and these interpretations and representations shape and reshape what they do” (n.p.). Another distinctive feature of Fairclough’s (1989) variation on CDA is his foregrounding of CDA as an interpretive form of analysis that is inherently reflexive (p. 167). Accordingly, Fairclough (1999) says that CDA analyses do not aim to “disprove truths”  38  (p.17). Instead, Fairclough (2001) calls attention to CDA’s strengths in expanding knowledge by putting forward subjective analytical representations (p. 9). Wetherell (2001) characterizes Fairclough’s (2000) particular attention to redefining the construction of CDA analysis as a creative act (p. 383). This is particularly the case when Fairclough (2001) encourages analysts to remember that they are constructing impressions of social life in their research (p. 9).  2.5 Integrating Philosophical Insights: Carr and Vokey  I began this chapter by positioning CDA as interdisciplinary mode of research that draws on many intellectual traditions to research problems that cannot be confined within any specific discipline. I have described interdisciplinary work as an evolving space and pointed towards the shared criteria of CDA’s critical orientation as particular point along this continuum (Repko, 2008). Repko (2008) states that interdisciplinarity does not presuppose that specific intellectual paradigms or methods disappear, but rather that the unique qualities of each can be applied to the problem under consideration. In this inquiry, the CDA analysis will draw two philosophers of education to enhance the discussion of professional obligations, including ethical obligations, in teacher education. Neither scholar portrays himself as critical in the characteristic sense seen so far in this chapter. Collectively, they make little reference to the Frankfurt school or neo-Marxism, nor are either participants in the “topsy turvy world of postmodern reflection” (Carr, 2001, p. 117). Carr (2009) describes himself as an “analytical philosopher of education” whose methods focus on the traditional forms of conceptual philosophical debate, including arguments, counter arguments distinctions, and proofs (p. 182). While Carr (2009) agrees that  39 analytical philosophy overall is somewhat “methodologically exclusive” he also proposes that educational philosophy calls upon “educational theory”, as an applied genre of philosophy with interests in:  I. the critical analysis of received educational theory and policy documentation; II. the conceptual analysis of philosophically central concepts of educational significance and relevance; III. the philosophical examination in the vein of normative ethics of reasons and IV. justifications for particular educational policies and practices (pps. 184-185).  According to these criteria, Carr (2009) offers another layer of critical analysis that is well suited to an examination of the Standards. In addition, Carr (2000, 2003) has written extensively on professionalism in teacher education. Consequently, selected arguments raised by Carr (2000, 2003) concerning conceptions of professionalism are included as tools for leavening the standard approach to critical discourse theory included in this inquiry. Vokey’s (2001) scholarship also supports the critical debate undertaken in this inquiry about discourses of professionalism and teacher education reform with regard to the Standards. Vokey (2009b) describes himself as a practitioner of interdisciplinary research in areas that include the professional ethics of educators (UBC, 2009, n.p.). Vokey (2009b) characterizes philosophy of education as the critically comparative study of the conceptual frameworks and worldviews that educational scholars and practitioners employ when they consider the aims and goals of education. Vokey’s (2001) discussion of the traditions that educators can appeal to when weighing out rival and even incommensurable perspectives is particularly pertinent to this inquiry (p. 1).  40  Section Two: Methods and Procedures  This section introduces the methods and procedures that will be employed to carry out a CDA analysis of the Standards text. A consistent theme in the work of respected CDA scholars is a concern that the methods they employ are explicit and systematic (Fairclough, 2001, p. 9; Rogers, 2004, p. 250; van Dijk, 1997). Rogers et al. (2005) recognize Fairclough as an exemplar of CDA study design, due to his consistent attention to the details of methods and procedures for examining texts (p. 8). Fairclough (1989, 1992, 2003) has published numerous variations on a three step model of analysis based on stages of description, interpretation, and explanation. This chapter will provide a general overview of Fairclough’s (1989, 1992, 2003) approach to analysis. A detailed discussion of the particular model chosen for this study will appear in chapter four. Although he has a project specific approach, Fairclough (with Chouliaraki, 1999) generally operationalizes his theoretical framework by providing a corresponding analytical framework that connects the social and textual methods that are appropriate to the text(s) at hand. This inquiry will follow Fairclough and Chouliaraki’s (1999) lead by reiterating that the social theories under consideration will include Gramsci’s (1971) conceptions of ideology and hegemony. Habermas’s (1971, 1989, 1990) notions of strategic knowledges will be accessed along with critical references to his theory of discourse. The core social theory employed will be an interpretation of Foucault’s (1970, 1972, 1977) understanding of discourse, which Fairclough (1992) positions as a bridge between social and linguistic methods, or as “a social theory of discourse” (p. 62).  41 Having established methods at the level of social hypotheses, Fairclough (1995) then situates a textual analysis in relation to these theories (p. 21). Although Fairclough (1995) acknowledges the influence of Foucault’s historical research methods, he dispenses with repeated references to archeology and genealogy. This study will do the same. And, since Foucault does not provide tools for detailed textual analysis, Fairclough generally turns to Halliday’s (1978) systemic functional linguistics to provide signposts for the contents of statements and their relationships to each other. Halliday (1978) presumes that the linguistic choices that appear in texts can convey information about both the ideational (field) and interpersonal (tenor) functions of such texts (p. 169). According to Halliday (1978):  linguistic structure is the realization of social structure, actively symbolizing it in a process of mutual creativity. Because it stands as a metaphor for society, language has the property of not only transmitting the social order but also maintaining and potentially modifying it (p. 186).  Following Halliday (1978), Fairclough systematically identifies elements of the text under consideration through criteria such as those described by Huckin (2002):  I. word/phrase level (classification, connotation, code words, metaphor, presupposition, modality); II. sentence/utterance level (transitivity, deletion, foregrounding, register, intertextuality); III. text level (genre, register, framing, foregrounding backgrounding, heteroglossia,  42 coherence, omission) (n.p.).  This study will also make use of a number of these linguistic tools when analyzing the Standards. A more detailed description of their roles in the analysis will be provided in chapter four. After examining the lexical and semantic aspects of a text, Fairclough (1992) applies a second level of interpretive frames that are characteristic of the critical nature of CDA analyses. For Fairclough (1992) “interdiscursive” analytical strategies such intertextuality, or the combination and recombination of genres, are reflections of theoretical concepts such as hegemony in addition to their linguistic purposes (p. 101). The concluding phase of Fairclough’s (with Chouliaraki, 1999) version of CDA provides an “explanation” and a synthesizing “critique” of the text(s) under examination; in order to supply a recursive review of the linguistic and interpretive aspects of the analysis, and to explain how they are connected to social practices (p. 93). This inquiry will play close attention to “context”, Fairclough’s most effective tool for this critique (Meyer, 2001, p.14). This introduction to Fairclough’s (1989, 2003) model of CDA analysis concludes chapter two. The chapter that follows will provide a literature review of teacher education reform, professionalism, and standards in order to outline the history and context that is required to carry out the analysis in chapter four.  43  Chapter 3: LITERATURE REVIEW  3.1 Professionalism as a Discourse  Where, when, and in what ways do educators become professionals? This issue lies at the heart of the representations of professionalism in the Standards. The possible trajectories of this discussion are multifarious. The following literature review takes the approach of examining the history of professionalism as it has developed in North American teacher education according to the interdisciplinary research orientation introduced in the previous chapter. Accordingly, this review positions professionalism as an interdisciplinary research “problem” that can be framed according to intersecting conceptions of professionalism found in educational policy, curriculum history, educational psychology, and educational theory. Professionalism will be envisioned as a discourse that overlaps with two others: teacher education reform and standards based assessment in teacher education. Because all three of these discourses have circulated internationally for the better part of a century, the literature available on these topics is vast. To keep is scope manageable the review that follows will focus on research and reportage about teacher education in Canada and the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. This discussion will also employ the CDA inspired theoretical framework outlined in chapter two, and draw on the discourse analysis tools provided by Foucault (1970, 1972, 1977). Following Foucault’s analytical strategies, discourses related to professionalism will be viewed as a series of “statements” that have coalesced as “professionalism” at the present  44  time, but have appeared under various guises in North American literature. These statements include conceptions of “quality” (Darling-Hammond & Berry, 1999), “competence” (Kerr, 1983) and “knowledge, skills and dispositions” (NCATE, 2008).  3.2 A Nation at Risk  In this chapter, “quality”, “competence”, and “knowledge, skills and dispositions” are understood as part of a Foucaultian discourse formation that represents the strategic interests at play in American educational policy in the final decades of the 20th century (Zeichner & Listen, 1990, p. 1). From this perspective, teacher education is just one area of the highly contested political and social terrain that makes up education policy in the United States. It is a truism to state that the conceptualization and administration of education as a public good is a central aspect of democratic nations such as the United States (Stoddard, 1937). However, Stoddard (1937) makes the case that the revolutionary foundations of American democracy have contributed to an exceptional focus on education as a social and ethical inspiration within conceptions of American democracy (n.p.). It is certainly true that shifting consortiums of federal and state departments, special interest groups, privately funded “foundations”, and educators’ associations have eternally contested and negotiated educational change in the United States (Earl, 1999, p. 4; Larabee, 2004, p. 109). A significant feature of the American public conversation about education as an aspect of democracy has been the preoccupation with educators’ roles as influences on the social fabric of the country. For instance, the ideal American educator in the early 1900s was an archetype of social decorum who served primarily as a moral role model for students. Mitchell et al.  45 (2001) refer to an employment contract that makes clear who these educators were and what was expected of them in the early 20th century:  I promise to abstain from all dancing, immodest dressing and any other conduct unbecoming a teacher and a lady. I promise not to go out with any young men except insofar as it may be necessary to stimulate Sunday-school work. I promise not to fall in love, to become engaged, or secretly married. I promise not to encourage or tolerate the least familiarity on the part of any of my boy pupils. I promise to remember that I owe a duty to the townspeople who are paying my wages, that I owe respect to the school board and the superintendent that hired me, and that I shall consider myself at all times the willing servant of the school board and the townspeople (p. 21).  Given the weight placed on education in the American rendering of democracy, it is not unsurprising that social change throughout the 20th century involved a considerable emphasis on how educators were prepared for their vocational and community roles. There is a substantial body of literature that discusses various waves of reform in teacher education throughout the twentieth century (Tom, 2003; Zeichner & Liston, 1990). However, Shaker (2001) points to the release of a report entitled A Nation at Risk, (The National Commission on Excellence in Education, [NCEE], 1983), as one of the most defining moments in American teacher education policy in 20th century. A Nation at Risk is not an example of scholarly literature. Rather, it falls into the tradition of theoretically bipartisan reports on education commissioned by American  46 presidents. These reports are nonetheless politically charged and ideological in nature. For example, A Nation at Risk is framed as an “open letter to the American people”, and it informs the electorate that in order “to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets…we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system… (NCEE, 1983, p.1). In addition to equating the U.S. position within the global economy to a state of war, the report connects educational reform to a number of social/political goals such as “pluralism and individual freedom” that the authors maintain can only be continued through increased worker productivity (Mitchell, Robinson, Plake, & Knowles 2001, p.1). According to the NCEE (1983), improvements to the standardized test scores of graduating American high school students are therefore necessary, based on the premise that only students with high test scores enter post secondary education (p. 1). This premise has been widely critiqued on the grounds that the areas of the economy referred to in the report are not primarily employers of college graduates (Mitchell, et al., 2001). In addition, the test score data used to construct these conclusions has since been discounted (Berliner & Biddle, 1995). All the same, the urban myth of a “crisis” in American education promoted by A Nation at Risk has become entrenched in scholarly, media, and policy discussions about teacher education, where it remains influential to this day (Guthrie & Springer, 2004, p. 8). According to Popkewitz (1993) the “crisis” in education outlined in A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), marks the introduction of neoliberal political and economic ideologies into American educational policy (Giroux, 2002; Hargreaves & Goodson, 1996). Scholars from many perspectives label the philosophical underpinnings of neoliberal political policy “technical rationality” (Habermas, 1971; Popkewitz, 1993; Schon, 1983). As articulated in A  47  Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) theorists and policymakers who speak from the standpoint of technical rationality assume that an ideal reality mirrors a market model. The premise is that economic principles provide the most natural map for human organization, including educating (Cornbleth, 1983). A number of specific claims about educators that appear in A Nation at Risk are central to the discourse of professionalism in American teacher education. The first claim concerns educators as citizens. According to A Nation at Risk, educators contribute to the economic well being of the United States through their teaching of children. Suggesting that the American interpretation of democracy includes education is a means to “promote a civil society and serve the good of the public writ large”, the NCEE (1983) concludes that educators have been civilly negligent. In particular, the report posits that educators are primarily responsible for the performance of their students on test scores (n.p.). The intellectual limitations of prospective educators, their weak preparation, and their lack of ability in particular content areas are all cited as factors contributing to these assumed declines in student achievement (Mitchell et al. 2001, p. 2). As a final point, the authors of A Nation at Risk propose that poor pupil performance is thus related to a statement about “quality” of educators as a result, or an outcome, of their education and training (n.p.). Mitchell et al. (2001) concur, saying that, as a result of A Nation at Risk, “teaching …as a cultural activity… became linked to notions of teacher quality…” that reflect how “American society has shifted its values and concerns” (p. 20). Darling-Hammond, Haselkorn, Fideler, and Berry (1999) claim that advocates of competing socio-political agendas in the United States have wrestled with reforming teacher education according to the nebulous concept of educators’ “quality”. There are numerous other examples in the literature that support these  48  links between social change, economic decline, and educator deficiencies to a discourse of “quality” in reference to A Nation at Risk (Shaker, 2001, p. 75; Berliner & Biddle 1997; Bracey, 2003).  3.3 Tomorrow's Teachers  A Nation at Risk set the stage for further American policy texts that wrestled with reforming teacher education in the 1980’s involving states, the federal government, the aforementioned “foundations”, and special interest groups (Cochran Smith & Fries, 2001, p. 5). In 1986, a group of deans at U.S. colleges of education known as the Holmes Group published a report entitled Tomorrow's Teachers in response to A Nation at Risk. The Holmes Group proposed improving the “quality” of teachers by constructing “a genuine profession of teaching” that could be held ethically and fiscally responsible by the American public (The Holmes Group, 1986, p. 62). The Holmes Group (1986) also recommended revamping teacher education as graduatelevel professional study, and developing licensure examinations and internships in dedicated “professional development schools (PDSs)” (p. 66). The coalition based their vision of what it meant to be a “professional teacher” on a “science of education” that they believed could ameliorate teachers’ apparent lack of “quality” (p. 3). The Holmes Group (1986) intended this statement about professionalism as part of “the science of education” to supersede the vague claims being made to that date about educators’ “quality” (p. 7). In fact, The Holmes Group (1986) was quite successful in redefining the discourse of educator quality to include professionalism as an outcome of a “scientific” education. By 1998, the group had members  49  in one hundred universities, there were over 1,000 PDS schools operating in the U.S. by 2005 (Zeichner, 2005, n.p.). A gradual introduction of graduate degrees occurred, and the concept of initial licensure was taken up by many states. Some scholars, such as Lunenburg (1998) made claims that viewing educators “new kind of professional” equivalent to other well- known professions had become prevalent in public opinion as a result of these changes to teacher education (p. 402). At the same time, The Holmes Group’s (1986) reframing of professionalism as an outcome of a “science of education“ brought to the forefront a number of preexisting issues that were crucial to the development of a discourse of professionalism in teacher education. Claims for a “science of education” linked statements about professionalism to long-standing curricular orientations developed in the early 20th century (Zeichner & Liston, 2001, p. 8). Zeichner and Liston (2001) describe how teacher education became a recognized field of study in the United States in the 1920’s, at the same time as a number of psychological and sociological theories concerning human behavior and, particularly, the competence of workers came into vogue. The study of competent workplace performances became popular in research about many vocations, and the psychological time study research carried out by curricular scholars like Charters and Thorndike established a place in teacher education for notions of “competence” as part of professionalism (Scott, 2003, p. 28). Of particular interest (and/or concern) was the tendency by educational theorists such as Charters to include traits of character such as honesty in his criteria of competency (Kliebard, 1972, p. 34). Tom (1983) says that, “literally no one tried to implement a teacher education program based on these traits and activities” (p. 158). All the same, by the time The Holmes Group was appealing to “the science of education” in 1986, a number of versions of “competency based  50  teacher education” (CBTE) had been attempted at faculties of education across the United States (Bowles, 1973). The adoption of “standards” by many American states in the late 1980s and 1990’s contributed another layer of complexity to professionalism as a discourse (McLeod, Stake, Schappelle, Melissinos, & Gierl, 1996). The concept of standards entered American education policy and theory via the business management practice known as “benchmarking” (Appleby, 1999). In the context of manufacturing, Appleby (1999) describes benchmarking as a continuous process of “total quality” improvement and goal-setting based on comparisons with market competitors (p. 54). Choularaki and Fairclough (1999) position the systems like Total Quality Management as a variant of technical rationality saying that these systems depend on:  Making everything subservient to maximizing the effectivity of institutional systems, whether it is a matter of maximally effective ways of producing or selling commodities, or maximally effective ways of organising or educating people (p. 12).  Translated into the practice of education, benchmarks became the specific goals of student “production” or learning outcomes, and standards became umbrella name for the rationales and guidelines that laid out expectations about these outcomes (Erwin, p. 211). Notwithstanding the philosophical differences between the meaning of standards as a value judgment, and standards as a protocol for quality control, standards based assessment  51 systems became widespread in American public schooling (Portelli & Vilbert, 2001, p. 5; Eisner, 2001). A National Council on Education Standards and Testing lobbied state and local governments to ensure that federal policies on standards were implemented nationwide in the early 1990’s (Brown, 2009, p. 7). Governments and educational policy makers in many nations were attuned to the technical rational principles essential to standards based assessment, and standards for curriculum and student testing appeared around the globe in the same decade. In the United States, standards were originally designed as part of subject based curricular frameworks, and were primarily intended to provide parameters for testing students in order to meet funding and accountability criteria (Cochran Smith & Fries, 2005, p. 90). According to Raizen (1998), testing became accepted by policy makers and administrators (although certainly not by all educators, see Apple, 2004) because of increasing stringent demands of federal education funding criteria (p. 73). The term accountability rose to the forefront of American educational policy as a potent discourse that related educational funding as an expense for governments to a public debate about educational fairness and equity for students (Cochran Smith, 2001a). According to Zollers, Lillie, and Cochran-Smith (2000) race, gender, and social class remained pernicious impediments to the increase of test score levels, and the solution applied was to develop more standards and test students more often in hope of finding improvements in their scores (p. 6). By 1994, the U.S. federal government’s Department of Education had invested over $24 million in the development of curriculum frameworks and content standards across 30 states (Olson, 1995, p. 9). According to Cochran Smith and Fries (2005), the translation of the concept of standards into three national outcomes based systems designed to promote the quality, competence, and  52  accountability of educators and their faculties of education was a gradual process that mirrored the entrenchment of standards in public schooling (p. 90). The implementation of both the New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) reviews for new teachers, and the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) assessments for experienced teachers was widespread at the turn of the 21st century, and are prevalent determiners of professionalism at this time. As Darling-Hammond, Wise, and Klein (1999) remind American educators, “professionally grounded and performance-based standards for education, licensing, and certification…” are now are now such a dominant factor in decision making nation wide that “…if we do not take control of framing the outcomes in teacher education, then the outcomes will surely frame us” (p. 11).  3.4 From the Holmes Report to NCATE: The Ascendancy of Standards  The third system of outcomes that has come into play for the discourse of professionalism in the United States is the voluntary teacher education program accreditation provided by the National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE, 2008). Although NCATE (2008) has existed since 1954, the organization’s growing influence can be traced to its adaptation of the professional principles and vocabulary of Tomorrow's Teachers in 1986 (Larabee, 2004). Today, NCATE accredits approximately 500 of the 1,200 colleges of education in the United States and impacts approximately two thirds of the country’s education graduates annually (Wise, 2006). According to Johnson, Johnson, Farenga, and Ness (2005), NCATE’s and the quality of the institution they attend have profoundly affected how many educator are prepared in the United States (p. 193).  53  The historical period between the release of the Holmes Group’s (1986) report Tomorrow's Teachers and the current reign of NCATE (2008) can be understood as a time when American teacher education fell under the spell of a new statement about professionalism based on prospective educators’ “knowledge, skills and dispositions” (NCATE, 2008, p. 4). The difficulties inherent in meeting both the NCATE (2008) and state standards are well documented by teacher educators at the level of administration and program organization (Beyer, 2002; Bullough, Clark, & Patterson, 2003). According to multiple authors, these challenges pale in comparison to the curricular and assessment quandaries resulting from NCATE’s (2008) framing of professionalism as “knowledge, skills and dispositions” in teacher education classrooms (Sherman, 2006; Weiner & Cohen, 2003; Wenzlaff, 1998). Because of the challenges of identifying and recognizing the dispositions aspect of this conceptual trio, the present iteration of professionalism in American teacher education has produced a discourse that almost entirely focuses on prospective educators’ dispositions (McKenna, in LeBlanc & Gallavan, 2009, p. 32). The primary dilemma with NCATE’s (2008) three part formula is the same concern as preoccupied Charters in the 1920s; namely that character traits and moral judgments are neither universally shared nor amenable to precise performances (Scott, 2003, p. 28). Nevertheless, contemporary literature by American researchers and practitioners includes a plethora of attempts to catalogue prospective educators’ professionalism according the NCATE (2008) standards criteria (Erikson, Hyndman & Wirtz, 2004; Taylor & Wasicsko, 2000). For instance, Schulte, Edick, Edwards, and Mackiel (2004) employ a likert scale entitled the “teacher dispositions index” as part of their attempts to mediate NCATE’s (2008) requirement that prospective educators “demonstrate” professional dispositions.  54  LeBlanc and Gallavan (2009) sum up the present situation of educator professionalism in teacher education defined as “knowledge, skills and dispositions” well (p. 42). According to these authors, identifying teachers’ professional dispositions through NCATE’s (2008) criteria raises three major concerns;  teacher educators and candidates tend to be… a) unsure as to what teachers professional dispositions are …b) unclear how important specific selected dispositions are to candidates themselves…c) uncertain as to how each of the specific selected dispositions relates to teaching efficacy…(p. 42).  3.5 Reform, Professionalism, and Standards in Canadian Teacher Education The previous section aimed to provide an historical context for the Standards by outlining how Foucault inspired statements describing educators’ professionalism as quality and competence evolved into the current focus upon “knowledge skills and dispositions” in American teacher education (NCATE, 2008, p. 4). The goal of the present section is to compare this discussion about teacher education reform, professionalism, and standardsbased assessment in the United States to the Canadian teacher education milieu. 3.5.1 Canadian Teacher Education as a Participant in Worldwide Trends  The literature reviewed thus far has suggested that professionalism as a combination of quality, competence, accountability, and standards has uniquely American roots. However,  55  reform in teacher education is also a worldwide phenomenon (Carnoy, 1999; Furlong, 2002; Weiner, 2003). Dialogue about a need for reform in Canadian teacher education can be located in literature that discusses these international political and policy trends. Young (2004) positions Canada within a global reform context when saying that, “public education came to assume a central role in the political economy of all Western industrialized countries” in the latter part of the 20th century (p. 25). The body of comparative international literature that takes account of Canada in this policy evolution includes publications by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1990) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization (APEC, 1999). The principle that teacher education is in need of reform worldwide due to market competitiveness is central to these reports and reviews (APEC, 1999; Yoem, 2005). The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) has proposed national reform initiatives for public education in response to the research provided by these intergovernmental organizations. There is a limited amount of scholarly work available that compares Canadian teacher education reform and/or discourses of professionalism to events in the United States (Yaculic & Noonan, 2001). Canadian authors Portelli and Vilbert (2001) compare reform and standards in the United States to Canada as part of philosophical discussion on standards (p. 7). At the same time, a large body of research about teacher education reform in the U.S., Britain, and Australia has long been available to Canadian scholarly readers, and Canadian researchers often refer briefly to A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986) when discussing reform in their local environments (Beck, Hart, & Kosnik, 2002; Grimmett, 1998).  56 Because education is a provincial responsibility in Canada and there is no national department of education, educational research and publications generally focus on concerns at a provincial level, or at the scale of single institutions (Cole, 2000; Gardner, Doyle, Dibbon, Goodnough, Strong, & Ciszewska-Carr, 2005). Exceptions to this rule include Young (2004), and Young, Hall and Clarke (2007) who compare historical trends across provinces. Outside of academic circles, there have been attempts to develop a national appetite for reform. For instance, a Maclean's magazine report titled What’s wrong at school? (January 11, 1993) claims that, “across Canada, thousands of alarmed parents have declared war on provincial public education systems which, they maintain, are doing a poor job of teaching their children” (Fennell, in Guppy & Davies, 1999, p. 266). Just like the authors of A Nation at Risk, Fennell refers to international and national literature in order to rank Canadian students unfavourably against those in other nations, saying that “the question of exactly what Canadians want from their schools is at the core of a deep philosophical clash” (n.p.). Ultimately, Fennell places educators as promoters of unpopular ideologies, and parents, employers and students “demanding”, “pushing” and “advocating” for change because “society has decided to make the teacher accountable for poor grades” (in Guppy & Davies, 1999, p. 277). Notwithstanding Fennell’s opinions, there has never been a policy document published in Canada that has galvanized national public views in the same way as A Nation at Risk. Given the limitations of the available literature, this chapter will now proceed with a comparative consideration of Foucault inspired statements concerning discourses of professionalism by turning to scholarship that addresses teacher education reform according  57 to a provincial focus. As a result, the next two sections will consider educators’ professionalism in terms of quality, competence, accountability, and combinations of knowledge, skills, and dispositions (or attributes) in Ontario and Alberta.  3.5.2 The Example of Ontario  Literature examining interconnections between conceptions of professionalism and reform and in Ontario in the 1980’s and 1990’s is plentiful. There was, for instance, a report that proposed changes to teacher education in that province published in the same period as A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986). The Ontario Study of the Relevance of Education and the Issue of Dropouts (Radwanski, 1987) follows lines of thinking that are similar to those found in A Nation at Risk. Radwanski begins by claiming, “education ultimately belongs not to educators but to the community at large” (p. 10). He then links the need for reform to global competitiveness, saying:  to compete effectively in a new knowledge-intensive global economy that relies primarily on human capital, excellence in educating our work force is our single most important strategic weapon ..(1987, p. 10).  However, Radwanski (1987) draws quite different conclusions than those found in A Nation at Risk and Tomorrow's Teachers. He claims that systemic deficiencies in education boil down to “progressivist beliefs, practices, and tendencies” exemplified through curriculum and options for student choice (p. 10). Educators are characterized in  58  Radwanski’s study as implementers of curriculum created by others, and their professionalism is not a matter of concern (p. 11). By 1995, the conversation about educators’ professionalism had changed dramatically in the province. The “common sense revolution,” instituted by the Harris government included extensive changes in the province’s education system shored up by claims about educators’ lack of competence (Portelli, Solomon, Barrett, & Mujawamariya, 2005). Although criteria of “quality” were applied to education rather than educators, the perceived dysfunction of schooling overall was considered election fodder (Rose, 2002, p. 20). For Harris’s administration, “bashing school teachers was perceived as politically prudent, particularly given public concerns about the quality and cost of public education, and the misplaced perception that teachers were overpaid and under-worked” (Rose, 2002, p. 21). During their 1999 re-election campaign, Harris’s party conducted telephone surveys including the question “Would you favor testing to ensure that every Ontario teacher is competent?” (Robertson, 2000, p. 716). According to Glassford (2005) polling figures that “seemed to show the popularity of the policy with the general public” were major justifications for the introduction of a campaign promise to test educators’ competence regularly (n.p.). Elsewhere, Glassford (2007) describes how the Ontario Teacher Qualifying Test was introduced as part of the Quality in the Classroom Act (2001) and lingered on through an ill- fated 3 year-long attempt to institute the testing. The demise of the qualifying test contributed to changing the statements about educators’ quality and competence in Ontario, and the discourse of professionalism in the province overall. This may be in part because a self-regulating Ontario College of Teachers existed concurrently with the attempt to introduce teacher testing, along with a Standards of  59  Practice for the Teaching Profession policy text that Portelli et al. (2005) describe as “quite broad” (p. 289). As Glassford (2007) states, one consequence of the testing debacle in Ontario was that teachers’ unions were able to regain some power and influence over how the College functions and how the Ontario Standards were implemented at the turn of the 21st century (p. 47).  3.5.3 The Example of Alberta  In spite of the absence of a Canadian national accreditation body, reforms in teacher education that include standards based accountability are part of the Canadian landscape. Phelan et al. (2007) point out that a standards-based curricula and assessment system for educators has existed in Alberta for some time (p. 18). In the case of the University of Calgary’s Master of Teaching program, an orientation to professionalism that calls on both Dewey and Aristotle co-exists with an accountability regime administered by way of the Teaching Quality Standard (1997). The text outlines teaching standards constructed on the statement “knowledge skills and attributes” (KSAs). The text, and these KSAs have substantial authoritative force, in that their explicit implementation in teacher education is “the law” (italics in original, Jacobson & Clark, 2000, p. 4). The political backdrop for the University of Calgary’s MT program seems to echo the discourse of a “crisis” in teacher education developed by way of A Nation at Risk. Fenwick (2001) describes the 1980’s as a period defined by “public pressures for greater accountability” in province’s education system overall (p. 402). Barnetson (1997) situates this “pressure” within a governmental context of provincial deficit and debt management,  60  including politically generated rhetoric about spiraling public-sector costs as the prime cause of the province’s financial woes (n.p.). For practicing teachers “restructuring” the province’s education system included pay cuts, a legal strike (2002) phased certification, annual professional growth plans and “evidence based” school centred improvement projects (Fenwick, 2001; Earl, 2000). This being said, Phelan (1996) characterizes her University of Calgary teacher education program as providing “an inquiry model of teacher education” even though she fears “the elimination of an inquiry model of teacher education as a result of provincial policies is a real possibility” in favour of statements such as “competencies, performances, and indicators” (p. 340). In 2000, Jacobsen and Clark report on their approach to developing a framework that unites technology with the same MT program. These authors appear to have melded the ideal of “inquiry communities” with KSA’s, and they are comfortable saying, “we distilled the required learning outcomes of the Alberta curriculum into a competency set…” within an inquiry model (pps. 4-5). Jacobsen and Clark (2000) propose that evidence that satisfies “knowledge, skills and attributes” requirements can construct “professionals-in-themaking” in a fair and inclusive manner (p. 2). A few years later, Phelan (2005) offers provisos. Phelan (2005) concludes that prospective educators may not manage to juggle these divergent statements and discourses before or after graduation. Critically prepared graduates are, she says, “unintelligible as beginning teachers” (2005, p. 71).  61  3.6 Chapter Conclusion In the preceding chapter I have undertaken an historical backdrop for the Standards by placing it within the context of North American teacher education literature. Although the resilience of market driven discourses arising from A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986) may well have allowed them to be referenced by Canadian scholars, there are unmistakable differences between the Canadian sites of reform and the national reform movement in the United States. The penetration of the NCATE (2008) accreditation process, national standards, and large scale testing of graduates in the U.S.A. is unparalleled in Canada. The autonomy of Canadian provinces precludes the funding formulae that have allowed national institutions such a reach into so many aspects of American teacher education as well (Young, Hall & Clarke, 2007). Similarities in discourse elements such as educator “quality” and competence in professionalism alongside the presence of formulations of “knowledge, skills and dispositions (attributes)” are noted. The next chapter of this inquiry examines how these statements and discourses appear in the Standards, and in British Columbia more generally.  62  Chapter 4: ANALYSIS  Introduction  In this chapter I introduce the Standards as an object of study, and carry out an analysis of the text using Fairclough’s three step model of critical discourse analysis. The analysis proceeds in three sections. Section one provides an overview of the Standards text. The second section describes and interprets professionalism according to selected linguistically based criteria. The third section interprets these descriptions by placing them in relation to relevant aspects of discourse production and distribution. The final, explanatory step of the analysis will appear in chapter five. This explanation will draw on the material developed in the chapter that follows, and will also refer to the events, practices, and structures drawn from the scholarship on professionalism explored in chapter three. Section One: An Overview of the Standards  4.1 The Thirteen Standards  The 2004 version of the Standards begins with a six-page introduction that outlines the authors’1 understanding of the context of the text, and a description of how they  1  When contacted by telephone on April 17, 2008, the information desk at the BCCT was not  able to release the names of specific authors.  63 envision the implementation of the Standards will unfold over time. The body of the text that follows has two distinct sections. The first section opens with ten declarations under the heading of “Education and Competence” (BCCT, 2004, p. 9). They are:  1.  Professional educators value and care for all children, acting at all times in the best  interests of children. 2.  Professional educators demonstrate an understanding of the role of parents and the  home in the life of students. 3.  Professional educators have a broad knowledge base as well as an in- depth  understanding about the subject areas they teach. 4.  Professional educators are knowledgeable about Canada and the world.  5.  Professional educators are knowledgeable about the BC education system.  6.  Professional educators understand children’s growth and development.  7.  Professional educators implement effective teaching practices.  8.  Professional educators apply principles of assessment, evaluation, and  reporting. 9.  Professional educators act as ethical educational leaders.  10. Professional educators engage in life-long learning.  The final three declarations are identified as being specifically concerned with the conduct and behavior of educators (BCCT, 2004, p. 15): 11. Professional educators have a responsibility to students. 12. Professional educators have a responsibility to parents and the public.  64  13. Professional educators have a responsibility to the profession. Each declaration includes between four and seven sub-sub points, and a short paragraph that expands on the philosophical and/or theoretical framework for the declaration. The Standards concludes with a five-page bibliography. The analysis undertaken in this chapter considers the dominant meanings of professionalism produced and organized via these thirteen points. However, this inquiry doesn’t follow the thirteen-point “road map” proposed by the authors. Instead, the layers of textual features and nuances of meaning presented in the text will be critically reframed through Fairclough’s (1989, 2003) three step model of analysis, which is described below.  Section Two: Analysis  4.2 Fairclough’s Three Step Model of Analysis  This section introduces the specifics of the CDA analysis model that will be employed to analyze conceptions of professionalism in the Standards. As discussed in chapter two, the goals of CDA analyses are not to unearth perspective free truths. Instead, CDA aims to open up new avenues of understanding by interpreting texts and proposing explanations from specific “subjective” locations. While the results of such analyses are subjective, in this sense, this does not mean that the means of arriving at them are not carefully considered, or that they are not supported by evidence. On the contrary, like many other CDA analysts, I am concerned with ensuring that the interpretive methods I select are both explicit and  65  systematic (Rogers, 2004, p. 250). As a result, this study follows Fairclough’s (1989, 2003) three step analytical model, which is widely recognized for its clarity and thoroughness (Wodak & Weiss, 2003, p. 7). In Fairclough’s (1989) words, his model includes “the linguistic description of the language text, interpretation of the relationships between the productive and interpretative discourse processes and the text, and explanation of the relationship between the discursive processes and the social processes” (p. 97). These multiple levels of interpretation coincide with Fairlough’s (with Chouliaraki, 1999) understanding of discourse, which he derives from Foucault’s (1970, 1972) notion of simultaneous textual, discursive, and social practice (p. 17). 4.2.1 Step One-Description  Faircough’s (1998, 2003) model consists of a sequence of analyses. He suggests that a substantial examination of a text begins with an “internal” investigation that employs linguistic categories (semantic, grammatical, and lexical) drawn from theories of critical linguistics. Most often, Fairclough (2003) adapts Halliday’s systematic functional linguistics in order to detail how texts are constructed (p. 5). Following Austin (1963), Halliday (1978) posits that language is functional, in the sense that language users express themselves in specific ways for specific social purposes. Under the influence of Halliday (1978), Fairlough (2003) rejects Saussure’s closed system of meaning making, and claims that these structures and linguistic choices are neither accidental nor entirely self referential (p. 16). Rather, meanings that are rendered visible at this descriptive level of analysis can always be tied to the social contexts in which the authors’ choices have been made (Fairclough, 2003, p. 16).  66  Fairclough (1992) also draws heavily on Foucault’s archeological and genealogical methods, appropriating Foucault’s conceptions of the statement and orders of discourse (p. 102). 4.2.2 Step Two-Interpretation  At the second level of analysis (Fairclough (1989) introduces elements that reflect the “external” relations of texts (p. 22). This secondary layer of linguistic analysis focuses on discourse practices such as text production and consumption that take into account “other elements of social events, and social practices and social structures” (1989, p. 97). Fairclough formulates these associations by integrating interpretations drawn from sociological theorists such as Foucault, Bernstein, and Habermas (Fairclough & Chouliaraki, 1999). Approaching discourse as discursive practice means that in analyzing all the linguistic structures already mentioned, attention is given to hybridity, coherence, and intertextuality; aspects that link a text to its context. At this level of analysis questions such as “who is asking questions in the text?” and “who is making requests?” can be considered (Fairclough, 2003, p. 27). Fairclough (2003) also connects these sociological concepts recursively back to linguistic theories through the “mediation of an interdiscursive analysis of the genres, discourses and styles which they draw upon and articulate together” (p. 27). Fairclough has consistently claimed that analysts must find a balance of these linguistic and sociological strategies appropriate to their particular objects of study. For example, he sometimes considers the connotations embedded in phrases as noteworthy, but he has also focused solely on the broader level of genre as a means of understanding social practices in other studies (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p. 60).  67  4.2.3 Step Three-Explanation  The third step in Fairclough’s (1989) model of analysis concerns sociocultural practices, and depends on situating texts in their social and political contexts. For Fairclough (2001) discourses “only become real, socially operative as parts of institutional and societal processes” (p. 117). In Fairclough’s (2001) estimation, explanation includes identifying hegemonic and ideological forms of power and systems of power relations (p. 118). At this level of analysis, Fairclough (1989) continues to refer to Foucault’s (1970, 1972) orders of discourse to critique the conditions under which discourses emerge, or are maintained (p. 110). This level of analysis also encompasses examination of social relations or systems of knowledge that may emerge as a result of particular discourses (Wodak & Weiss, 2003).  4.3 A Descriptive Analysis of Professionalism and the Standards  As a first step, this analysis begins by describing how professionalism and professionals appear in the text at the level of propositions or “statements” (Foucault, 1972). A statement or proposition is the “atom” of discourse, but need not be limited to a word, a phrase, or even a group of sentences (Foucault, 1972, p. 80). Statements also do not have to be internally coherent in order to function within a discourse (Foucault, 1970, p. 81). Rather, a statement is differentiated from any other set of words for analysis based on the analyst’s conjecture that it is a unit of representation, classification, or ordering.  68  4.3.1 Statements  The overview of the Standards in section one demonstrates that the text is unmistakably organized as a series of “foundation” declarations that direct readers to order and prioritize the information provided as a cohesive and encapsulating testimony of professional obligations, including ethical obligations (BCCT, 2004, p. 9). Basing the Standards on a list of declarations also provides the text with an authoritative rhetorical structure by repeating “professional educators” at the beginning of each of these declarations. This repetitive device reinforces the presupposition that educators are indeed professionals as a key message of the text. As a set of statements, the content of these thirteen declarations and especially their supporting annotations classify “professional educators” (in the plural) as a vocational and socially-defined collective who coalesce around the “basic values” of valuing and caring for children, and who share these values with children’s families and the state (BCCT, 2004, p. 9-10). The declarations encourage a reading of educators’ relationships with the text as based on mutually agreed upon obligations that are developed through a vocational role in public service and within the framework of a “professional community” (BCCT, 2004, p. 13).  4.3.2 Connotations  A second series of “statements” connotes meanings about educators that function parallel to the reading presented above (Foucault, 1972). Connotation is the ability of words and phrases to carry more than one meaning at a time (Merriam-Webster, 2009, n.p.). The notion that meaning is conveyed through culturally contingent signs, constructed as signifier  69  (literal meanings) and secondary significations, is an axiom of linguistic theory (Saussure, 1916). Connotative meanings about professionals function at numerous levels in the Standards. In the first instance, although the text uses the phrase “professional educators” almost exclusively, the authors also discuss (and address) individual educators through this plural form. This hybridity of address is set into motion in the first page of the Standards by calling on the legislation of the Teaching Profession Act (1987/1996) to speak of educators as “persons who have met standards of qualification and fitness” and “are of good moral character” (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). Here, the legislation is quite clearly speaking of a group made up of individuals rather than a collectivity. Elsewhere, terms such as “role models” and “mediums” which connote the agency of individuals are also framed in a collective vocabulary (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). It should be noted that individual educators can be located in the Standards as well, including directives for “ownership” of the policies underlying the text such as “I am a professional and this is what I can do” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). A third layer of assertions that elides connotations of collective and individual educators can be recognized through a series of statements related to competence and assessment. Again, the authors begin by citing the Teaching Professions Act (1996) and then specify that a “professional educator” in the singular should relate concepts such as “self assessment, professional development and student achievement” to one another (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Competence is elsewhere delimited as a “skill” that an individual “builds” from “attitudes and attributes” to “expertise” (BCCT, 2004, p. 9). Competence later reappears in a trinity statement about the “knowledge, skills and attitudes” that educators should “possess”, which again directs attention to the individual educator (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Attitudes are specifically  70  connoted as pre-existing, as a “prerequisite” and as “basic” in the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 3; p. 10). Although both knowledge and competence are referred to extensively as areas of growth and development through assessment in the Standards, it is less clear how educators’ “attitudes” are related to competence. Other key concepts connoted in the Standards straddle both collectivity and individuality. The notion of “accountability” (which is not mentioned in the section of the Teaching Profession Act cited in the text) is presented throughout the Standards as a collective concept, with connotations developed through linkages with social categories such as students, parents, and society (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). On the other hand, “responsibility” carries connotations of democracy, legality, and governance for various stakeholders at some points in the text, but refers to deeply personal choices such as sexual behavior elsewhere (BCCT, 2004, p.10; p. 16). 4.3.3 Presuppositions  There are also several statements in the Standards that function through presupposition. Like connotation, presupposition works as a mechanism for infusing discourses with meanings beyond the literal planes of semantics and lexical meaning. Technically, presuppositions are unspoken premises or antecedents that support the validity of arguments (Merriam-Webster, 2009, n.p.). More colloquially, presuppositions present intersections of power/knowledge, in that readers are assumed to accept the content of such statements as givens, based on the authority of the authors to make such claims (Foucault, 1972, p. 98). Structurally, presuppositions often appear in texts with either a passive voice or an implied speaker (Wodak, 1989, p. 141). In the Standards, presuppositions define relationships  71  between “the College” “the profession”, “educator(s)”, “the public” and “teacher education” (BCCT, 2004). For example, although the Standards defines “the BC College of Teachers” as an apparatus of legislation with the power to create and amend “standards” for “the profession” in the first sentences of the text, the depth of authority underlying this power are not immediately made obvious (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Later, there is a connection made between the disciplinary relationship between individual educators and the College by alluding to Canada’s judicial system (BCCT, 2004, p. 3; p. 4). It is assumed that readers will understand that the unnamed writers who are employing the euphemism of the federal judiciary is actually the government of British Columbia. On the same page, a previously unmentioned group named as “members” of “the College” are also assumed to have enough influence within this web of relationships to ask “what’s in it for us?”(BCCT, 2004, p. 4). Here, readers are expected to have sufficient knowledge about the mandate of the College to understand that BC’s educators are the members in question. It is also unclear whether these “members” of the College are part of the unspecified “all interested educational partner groups” who appear elsewhere in the text as having been invited to offer feedback on the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). Another significant statement that functions in the Standards through presupposition is that of “the public” (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). The public is called upon when explaining the professional and ethical requirements laid out in the Standards in terms of a “contract with the public” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). Readers are relied upon to connect this contract to phrases such as “a tool for the public good, the Standards are intended to support the goals of our society…” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3).  72 The final presupposition considered in this analysis of the Standards concerns teacher education. The text refers to teacher education only twice. The first instance presupposes that those reading the Standards can understand why a “professional program” may not offer “a professional educator” instruction in the values that underlie professionalism (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). The second mention of teacher education in the Standards declares the implicit acceptance of the text, by teacher educators, who “will use” the Standards as “benchmarks” (BCCT, 2004, p.10; p. 4).  4.4 An Interpretive Analysis of Professionalism and the Standards 4.4.1 Orders of Discourse  Thus far, this analysis has yielded a group of statements that reflect both the structure and content of the Standards. The following section considers these statements according Fairclough’s (2003) second level of analysis. This stage of the inquiry will continue to explore elements internal to the text alongside practices and structures that are “brought into the text” to assist in unpacking the discourse of professionalism (Fairclough, 2003, p. 17). Some degree of commentary has already been applied to the collection of statements laid out in section two of this chapter. As a starting point, the analyst (myself) has determined that these statements are of most interest for examining professionalism as a discourse. The statements have already categorized to a certain extent, as they have been identified according to whether or not they place educators primarily as a collective, or as individuals. The statements will now be considered by means of what Fairclough (2003) calls “orders of discourse”, or a level of analysis that considers how people come to be both represented and  73 excluded by notions such as collectivity and individualism (p. 23). Foucault’s (1972) analytic strategy of “rules of formation” is the intellectual source of this slippery interpretive device (p. 74). When Foucault (1972) writes of “rules”, he addresses not only the surface information that appears unified and historically continuous, but also the gaps and discontinuities that disperse meaning in discourses (p. 31-9). Thinking about “rules” of dispersion as well as continuity leads to questions such as “how is it possible to know that, to think that, to say that?” (Threadgold, 2000, p. 49). The present level of interpretation also engages with Fairclough’s (2003) statement that “texts are not just effects of linguistic structures and orders of discourse; they are also effects of other social practices and structures” (p. 227). I have chosen to examine these effects by imposing two sets of abstractions on the Standards. The first set juxtaposes the unities and discontinuities of professionalism within the text against each other by (re)framing educators (i) as dutiful, (ii) as called, and (iii) as competent. These abstractions are interpretive devices that are intended to assist in thinking about how meaning about educators is dispersed in the Standards (Foucault 1972, p. 36). The second set of abstractions focuses attention on the ways that the Standards may be circulated and represented as ideology (Gramsci, 1971). These are the textual genres of the code of conduct, the manifesto, and the standard. 4.4.2 Genre  Examining genre is a significant strategy for examining discourse in CDA research. In this analysis, genre will be employed to place dutiful, called, and competent professionals in relation to broader social “situations” or contexts (Halliday, 1978, p. 38). Fairclough (1995) further develops Halliday’s (1978) idea of texts as social situations in order to consider how  74  the form and content of a text may constitute a “socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activity (e.g., interview, narrative, exposition)” (1995, p. 14). In this view, genres are dynamic constructions in which linguistic conventions reflect, but also contribute to, social expectations. In other words, certain textual forms come into existence and evolve in order to support the goals and purposes of both authors and audiences. In the case of the Standards, defining genre as language usage associated with particular social activities directs attention to the conventions and particularities underlying presentations of professionalism in the text. What social motives, claims, and concerns are being expressed in the text’s regularities and differences around professionalism? This question will be taken up by considering three genres as examples of typified forms and situations for professionalism. The code of conduct and the standard are explicit in the Standards, as the text is overtly designed and named as both a code of conduct and a standard. The form of the manifesto is implicit, but will be shown to be essential to understanding the goals and purposes that arise in the other two genres.  4.4.3 Intertextuality and Hybridity  There are two analytical tools that are commonly associated with CDA theorizing about genre that are significant for this analysis. The first is intertextuality. Intertextuality assumes that genres and specific texts are socially and historically related, and therefore refer to one another (Fairclough, 1992). Kristeva’s (1967) original popularization of the term posits that the “productivity” of genres and semiotic codes absorb writers/authors into webs of previous  75  discourses (p. 74-75). The version of intertextuality in most use in contemporary CDA adopts Kristeva’s (1984) notion that “any text is the absorption and transformation of another”, but reframes her claims that intertextuality leads to the disappearance of authors into the notion that ideas and textual forms are consciously and unconsciously recycled (p. 35). For instance, Fairclough (1992) blends Kristeva’s notion of the disappearing author with a Foucault inspired understanding that individuals and groups in society are less than fully aware of the social mores and structures that influence their thinking (p. 188). Fairclough (1992) thus uses intertextuality to discuss the ways that ideas rather than authors become absorbed and blended through generations of texts to become unexamined “orders of discourse” (p. 102). This analysis follows Fairclough’s (1992, 2003) approach and employs intertextuality to claim that the values and principles encoded in any given text are not generally originary. Instead, such values comment on other social situations through texts. Rogers (2004) provides strategies for tracking intertextuality according to this perspective. She specifies that engaging with orders of discourse through intertextuality includes examination of textual features such as rhetorical devices, wording, metaphor, and conventions of register, and then linking them to “systematic clusters of themes, statements, ideas and ideologies” (p. 56; p. 240). The second complexity of genre worthy of explanation is hybridity. Hybridity (in Fairclough’s terms “interdiscursivity”) is an aspect of intertextuality that refers to the ways that elements from multiple genres merge in a text to create new nuances of meaning. This is visible at the analytical level of textual features such as register or presupposition. More importantly, such hybridity has implications for the dynamics of the social situations implicated in these blurred genres. According to Fairclough (2003) this is because  76  interdiscursivity in texts presents a hybridity of social practices that reflecting changing social boundaries and the values and ethics that affect such boundaries. If the function of genres is to both solicit and elicit certain expectations, hybridized genres open up new constraints and possibilities for authors and readers (Wodak & Weiss, 2003, p. 7). With these complexities kept in mind, the following section will now apply the genres of the code of conduct, the manifesto and the standard along with the abstractions of educators as dutiful, called, and competent to the Standards.  4.5 The Code of Conduct and Dutiful Educators  Even if the Standards were not explicitly named as a code of conduct, linking this genre to the text would be a straightforward task, as the codification of conduct is so strongly emphasized. It is relevant to note that the Standards refers to educators’ conduct rather than the more common code of ethics. In fact, the only “code of conduct” found in the bibliography has been relabeled as a “code of ethics” on the College of Dental Surgeons of BC’s website (BCCT, 2004, p. 19). Conduct is about behaviors and communication, and it is customary to have codes of conduct that lay out such expectations for groups of non- professionals (such as school children) in many organized social settings. Although “ethics” are mentioned once in the Standards, only conduct is deemed worthy of a definition as the “actions and omissions” of educators in the glossary provided. Lawton (2004) distinguishes between codes of conduct as compliance texts and codes of ethics as based on integrity (p. 94). However, the Standards contains repeated references to educators’ “professional conduct”, so this analysis will refer to conduct rather than ethics (BCCT, 2004).  77  As the bibliography of the Standards shows, many organizations, institutions, and occupational groups create codes of conduct. In these terms, codes of conduct appear to be part of a vast discourse, for which there seems to be no necessary or sufficient criteria that can deny any group the right to have one. Can it be said then, that there are specific issues that a code of conduct seeks to address? In fact, there are several points of view on the purposes and goals of such texts. According to McGraw (2004) codes of conduct are designed to articulate a model of professionalism that is an expression of collective consensus and a commitment to a common set of principles (p. 236). For McGraw (2004) the purpose of codes of conduct is to therefore to connect “expected professional behavior and practice” with a common normative “mission” (p. 236). Further, McGraw (2004) claims that codes of conduct have importance as textual artifacts because they serve as a reference for individuals’ daily decision-making (p. 237). On the other hand, Kultgen (1988) sees codes of conduct more prosaically as “texts that communicate ideas, express attitudes and direct behavior” (p. 218). According to this scholar, the moral consensus identified by McGraw (2004) is not always feasible. Behrman (in May, 1991) offers a third point of view. Behrman (1988) maintains that codes of conduct serve primarily to signal to those on the outside that any given profession is “concerned with the welfare of society” (p. 40). For Behrman, codes of conduct have strictly instrumental purposes. All of these perspectives sidestep an essential feature of codes of conduct. One of the most essential purposes of these texts is to mediate relationships between governments and member run associations in order to delegate the enforcement of legislation that is not crucial  78  to daily government (Bezeau, 2007, n.p.). States and professions have been involved in these symbiotic relationships for centuries, beginning when medieval guilds formed universities and municipal governments (Sox, 2007, n.p.). In addition to this historical interdependence, contemporary governments often claim that devolving authority to such associations is financially responsible because they are both self-funding and theoretically operated by member professionals rather than civil servants (van Nuland & Khandelwal, 2006, p. 137). According to van Nuland and Khandelwal (2006), the members who gain status by participating in such associations also value this status enough to become amenable to representing the policies of the state and therefore help to maintain the optics of an “at arms length” level of supervision by such governments. By this criterion, educators’ professionalism in Canada is determined by provincial governments, when they delegate ethical and fiduciary relationships with “the public” to these associations. Equally, the legitimacy of any provincially mandated profession depends on accepting this quasi-legislative relationship with governments as well as committing to selfregulation through peer review. The association known as the BC College of Teachers has the kind of relationship with the government of British Columbia that has just been described. The Standards text can thus been seen as a symbol of the decentralization that both permits and compels the College to provide professional governance for the province’s educators (Young, Hall & Clarke, 2007). Understanding the genesis of codes of conduct and their import for professionals as a collective provides several entry points for considering statements that appear in the Standards. Foremost, a considerable number of these statements function to construct a characterization of “professional educators” as a collective, built on the implicit aim of  79  establishing new parameters of engagement between educators as dutiful and the BC College of Teachers. As described elsewhere, the very genesis of this text lies in the dilemmas described by Young (2004) and Phelan et al. (2007) about who defines the relationships between the BCCT and its membership. Hence, this emphasis on power distribution in the Standards is predictable. The authors of the Standards thus develop arguments to establish the mandate of the College by attempting to explain to educators that they regulate them and why they have the power to enforce these regulatory schemes. This task is undertaken by claiming that “professional educators” are in a joint relationship with the BCCT according to the orders of discourse located in the abstraction of “the profession” (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). Further, the authors of the text aim to define how educators are dutiful within the framework of “the profession” (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). First, educators are directed to comply with the legal role conferred on “the profession” through a web of governance where authority apparently devolves from the very top of Canada’s judicial system down to their professional association (BCCT, 2004, p. 3; p. 4). Initially, this appeal to the authority of the federal judiciary seems overstated, until it is recalled that decisions by the Supreme Courts of both Canada and British Columbia are pressing concerns for both the BCCT and the province’s educators (Young, Hall & Clarke, 2007, p. 91). The distancing effects of naming “the College” in the third person and the absence of any authorial names further signals this distribution of authority. Having established the gravitas and legal status of themselves and “the profession”, the authors then move to justify the existence of the College, on the grounds that educating deserves the “foundation” provided by a formal regulatory body that can promote (and maintain) the professions’ “stability” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). This is couched in terms of the  80  College’s authorization to “prescribe and proscribe”, because the profession as a whole is communally “responsible” to many others in return for a “level of autonomy and selfregulation” (BCCT, 2004, p. 17; p. 4). The details of this “level” are not specified, but they can be tacitly understood to relate to the “difference between professional regulation and advocacy” mentioned later in the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 18). Here, the authors are again reinforcing the authority of the College as an arm of government that regulates the terms of professionalism in order to maintain the “stability” of society (BCCT, 2004, p. 17; p. 4). Educators are implicitly warned that they must understand how the genre of the code of conduct functions to position them as dutiful to “the profession”, since the legislative underpinnings of such governance depends on their cooperation. Then again, there is another way of reading this appeal to stability that runs alongside governance in the Standards. It is equally possible to consider the order of discourse of “the profession” that emerges in the text through the lens of social structural theories of professionalism that concern collective vocational identity (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996). Social structural perspectives depict occupational groups as holding particular roles in the society, and direct attention to the processes through which occupational groups become (and maintain) these roles (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). The abstracted profession referenced in the Standards can therefore be seen to position educators as a collective who value their place at an elite level of society, where their mutual interactions with other citizens bears traces of the “noblesse oblige” rooted in the aristocratic and male dominated history of professions (Lanning, 1994, p. 468). In addition to a commitment to public service, the connotations attached to this membership include assumptions of:  81 1. specialized theoretical knowledge, 2. management of preparation, 3. certification and/or licensing, 4. autonomy of governance, 5. and an articulated ethical framework (Covert, 1993, p. 429; Hargreaves, 1994, p. 19).  As Freidson (in Kelly, 1995) indicates, these meanings of professionalism originate from specific occupational categories in “the learned professions” of medicine, law, and divinity that are quite different than the guild based ideal of professionals as partners with government (p. 5). Englund (in Kelly, 1995) claims that this combination of social prestige, elitism, and an esoteric (university based) knowledge base continues to provide professionals with a “measure of societal strength and authority” as an occupational group to this day (p. 8). According to Kelly (1995), professionalism as a socialization process for elites is centred on the idea of membership. It is certainly the case that many professions maintain initiation ceremonies that include bestowing visible emblems of membership (such as jewelry) to proclaim publicly who is, and who is not, a member of their club. Members of such professions can be seen as seeking to institutionalize their expertise in order to maintain the prestige of a profession’s esoteric knowledge. In this meaning of dutiful, professionals can be positioned in the Standards as interpreting governance as an apparatus for their collective best interests (Lawton, 2004; Young, Hall & Clarke, 2007, p. 92). As members of an old boy’s network, educators can thus be imagined as partners with government in maintaining their collective social status and earning power. According to this perspective, individual educators shape,  82  and are shaped by, events such as the introduction of the Standards. This meaning of membership in an elite profession has a considerable history that can be located in the genre of codes of conduct, where memberships in professions are often embedded in specifications about who may be allowed into the group. This can be partially understood through the ways that many codes of conduct play on the tensions between individual and collective roles by slipping back and forth between regulatory invocations for professionals as a group and membership invitations for individual professionals (Behrman, 1988). In the case of lawyers, their specialized knowledge has often been employed as a strategy of membership because it has been defined and formalized as part of what differentiates lawyers from everyone else in society (Adler, 2006, p. 6). Kultgen (1988) points to this interplay by framing professional codes as “instruments for persuasion” because they “enhance the sense of community among members, of belonging to a group with common values and a common mission” (p. 212-213). As with lawyers, the persuasive aspects of professional membership through codes of conduct can be viewed in the Standards by appeals to educators’ concerning their specialized knowledge base. I will leave aside the debate about whether “pedagogical content knowledge” is sufficient to qualify teachers as professionals (Hargreaves, 1996, p.129; Shulman, 1986). It is sufficient to note that educators are represented as community linked by “professional knowledge” throughout the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 5; p. 12). Despite the above, can it be said that the Standards emphasizes individual offers for membership not only through knowledge but also through collective instructions tied to membership? This question can be explored through the textual feature of register, or the level of formality or informality of address. Kouletaki (2001) offers a specification of register  83  he calls “tenor” which is helpful in this regard (p. 3). Kouletaki (2001) focuses on how the statuses of textual participants are aligned through expressions of relationships between authors and their audiences (p. 3). In other words, thinking about tenor focuses on how requests and demands are made in texts. One tool of analysis used to understand such demands and offers is an examination of modal auxiliary verbs. Verbs such as “will”, “can”, “may”, and “must” ask for action and therefore structure readers’ agency (Henderson & Higgins, 2006, p. 310). Badran (2001) explains how these elements of grammar can be applied to texts like codes of conduct. Badran (2001) says that when language is viewed as simply carrying information, modal verb usage demonstrates “the continuum of reflecting degrees of certainty” ranging from “possibility, probability, necessity, prediction, and factuality” (p. 4). On the other hand, he postulates that when modal verbs are used to express certain kinds of human relationships they often work from “permission to command including duty, obligation and insistence” (Badran, 2001, p. 4). As with many other codes of conduct, the Standards text is partially shaped by a tenor that frames requests in terms of invitations for membership. For example, educators are invited to inquire about the introduction of the Standards by asking, “What’s in it for us?” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). At the same time these patterns of address are also “deontic” or constructed by means of permission, duty, or obligation (Badran, 2001, p. 3). As an example, commands towards educators are stipulated as “must” 13 times in the Standards. The Standards also applies the grammar of obligation and insistence to compel educators to “act ethically and honestly at all times” to demand that “educators shall behave in a manner that reflects credit on the teaching profession” (Badran, 2001, p. 4; BCCT, 2004, p. 4; p. 17). This level of interpretation has established that professionalism as membership appears  84  as both an invitation and as duty in the text. Since educators cannot earn their living as teachers in British Columbia unless they are “members” of the BCCT, the invitational theories of the profession that have been considered in this section must be balanced with the equally compelling demands for educators’ allegiance.  4.6 The Manifesto and the Called Educator  The Standards text is also interdiscursively inspired by the genre of the manifesto, which Codd (in Hall, 2001) categorizes as “ideological texts that have been constructed within a particular historical and political context” (p. 244). Interdiscursive intertextuality considers how textual elements are distributed between texts in tacit ways (Fairclough, 1995). The genre of the manifesto further draws on overt and covert socially shared traditions arising from oratory, poetry, and spiritual traditions to resonate emotionally with audiences (Yanoshevsky, 2009, p. 267). There are two categories of manifestos (although they may be combined in practice). The first type is a text that makes governmental pronouncements, from the Magna Carta to mundane municipal decrees. The second is a literary form that calls for social change, as in Marx and Engel’s (1848) Communist Manifesto or Haraway’s (1991) A Cyborg Manifesto. The Standards is recognizable as the former variety; an address by a government to its citizens. Both kinds of manifestos are unambiguously focused on inviting, commanding, and persuading readers to take up a particular position or worldview. Wodak and Weiss (2004) state that manifestos also have “certain rules and expectations according to social conventions, and specific social purposes” (p. 232). It can be said that one of the “social purposes” of  85  the Standards is to serve as a mechanism for government communication with educators in BC as individual citizens. Casting each educator as a citizen has value for the BC government, who has already been shown to be an active participant in the power relations percolating in the Standards (Foucault, 1972, p. 138). As Young (2004) has chronicled, the relationships between some educators and the government of BC have been fraught for a number of years. As an example, many thousands of BC’s educators participated in a boycott of the BCCT’s annual fees in 2003. In the aftermath of such events, the text provides a means for the provincial government to persuade and instruct educators about its preferences concerning their rights and obligations. Reading the Standards as a state’s manifesto for re-engaging with educators as citizens directs attention to the emotionally vivid statements used to communicate with individual educators in the text. For instance, the Standards informs each educator that they “hold the public trust” and have a “contract with the public” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). Some educators will recognize these statements as interdiscursive invitations to join in “our constitutional democracy” through the political and philosophical concept of the social contract (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). According to the social contract, citizens are both legally and normatively situated in relationships to government and other citizens, although far from equally (Benhabib, 2003, p. 4). The orthodox Hobbesian form of contractualism makes the claim that “society and other forms of association come about because people decide, from the standpoint of self-interest, to make contracts with others for their own benefit” (Fielding 1996, p. 7). As such, social contracts assume the conscious, rational cooperation of individuals who know what they are getting in return for what they’re giving up. In the Standards, such cooperation is posed as a freely chosen ethical position and also as a natural outcome of membership  86  in the profession. The version of the social contract that seems most applicable to this ethical stance is the one proposed by Habermas. As discussed in chapter two, Habermas’s theory of communicative action focuses on his proposal for generating mutual understanding between equal partners. Habermas (1990) says that “moral decisions are generated from rights, values or principles that are (or could be) agreeable to all individuals composing or creating a society designed to have fair or beneficial practices” (p. 124-125). Habermas (1990) adds that this understanding is different than compromising since the “binding” that occurs is built on mutual tolerance of all points of view (p. 125). Educators are offered an apparently Habermasian bargain at several levels in the Standards. First, each educator is granted agency in ways that are very different than the duty framed vocabulary of “musts” that shape the code of conduct. Educators are offered “ownership of the standards” and the ability to take “pride in saying to the world I am a professional and this is what I can do” (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). In return, educators agree to accept apparently universal norms and secondly to help maintain social solidarity in a role as “mediums” for such “culture and values” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). This Habermasian (1984, 1990) “ideal speech situation” also functions effectively for the provincial government when the thorny issue of sanctioning educators who stray from the social contract arises. Through the mode of the manifesto government disciplinarians can simply wish to “prescribe” more than “proscribe” within “the context of society” (BCCT, 2004, p. 17). The presumption is that a reasoned educator who owns the Standards will surely make choices that all parties can agree with (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). On the other hand, scholars such as Benhabib (1995) have observed that efforts to forge  87 a social consensus one citizen at a time, according to the model laid out by Habermas, faces many points of pressure (p. 118). Like Habermas, the government presenting the Standards assumes that power and knowledge are equally distributed between itself and educators, as well as between individual educators. As Benhabib (1995) remarks, Habermas seems particularly unaware that he creates a “generalized other” in which all individuals are equal, but are also equally indistinguishable from one another (p. 158-9). Elsewhere, she points out that Habermas’s idealized public sphere does not take into account the constraints on consensus and understanding that gender, class and race provoke (1992, p. 37-38). Individual educators are equally impossible to tell apart in the Standards. And, as with membership in the profession of educating, membership as a citizen is presupposed to be a mantle that any rational person would unquestionably take up (Britzman, 2003).  4.6.1 The Social Contract and Vocations  The social contract as presented in the Standards has a further layer that that can be interpreted through the persuasive genre of the manifesto. In this case educators are both represented and construed in the text as having a calling. The authors justify this vision of educating by introducing a heritage that echoes Webster’s (1961) dictionary definition of professionalism that includes mention of a calling (BCCT, 2004, p. 8). In framing educating as a calling, the Standards circulates one of the versions of the social contract most treasured in educational literature and practice (Adler, 1984; Van Manen, 1991). Conceptions of educators as “called” or having a vocation for teaching has long been promoted by scholars such as Hansen (1994), Huebner (1994), and Goodson and Hargreaves (1996).  88  Dik and Duffy (2009) offer a distinction between a calling and a vocation that has some value when teasing out the conception in the Standards. For Dik and Duffy (2009) a calling is:  a transcendent summons, experienced as originating beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds otheroriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation (p. 429).  Although similar, a vocation considers a person’s internal motivations for educating without depending on an external call:  A vocation is an approach to a particular life role that is oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation (Dik & Duffy, 2009, p. 429).  Building on the metaphor of educating as a public service, the College exhorts educators to be individuals who have the other-oriented values and goals of a vocation suggested by Dik and Duffy (2009) but do not include the transcendence of a calling. On the other hand, there is little sense in the text that an educator’s “purpose or meaningfulness” is of much concern to their vocation (Dik & Duffy, 2009, p. 429). Rather, the Standards employs the  89  ideal of a vocation to reiterate the links between “the moral aspect of education” and each educator’s “good moral character” (BCCT, 2004, p. 14; p. 2). The implications of educating as a vocation based on solely on individual morality comes into sharper focus when a detailed list of personal qualities such as “honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and compassion” are considered alongside the directive that educators maintain them “at all times” (BCCT, 2004, p. 16). The dilemma lies in the ways in which these qualities are constructed under the umbrella of “basic values” (BCCT, 2004, p. 11). In the Standards, educators who are professionals adhere to “basic values” including “valuing and caring for children” (BCCT, 2004, p. 11). Although it is difficult to fault caring for children as appropriate for educators (or anyone else), the eliding of caring for children into a general claim that all of the professional, moral, and ethical imperatives in the Standards are what Bok (2002) calls unquestioned “basic values” seems to stretch the boundaries of professionalism beyond reasonable limits (p. 17). This request is very different than asking educators to uphold the previously discussed legalities or social roles of a profession. One of the most challenging features of these “basic values” underlying educating as a vocation is the imperative that each educator construct his/her personal “behavior” according to the related concept of a universalized “reputation” (BCCT, 2004, p. 18). A further hierarchy is established between individuals’ willingness to maintain existing patterns of social behavior via this reputation by acting as a “role model” (BCCT, 2004, p. 15, p. 4). The offer made to an educator to become a “role model” in the Standards thus implies that privileges will be distributed only to those who are safely incorporated into the fold of others with similar “reputation(s)” (BCCT, 2004, p. 4; p. 18). Further, concept of gaining (or losing) a “reputation” is profoundly gendered and may lead readers of the Standards down the road to differentiating educators according to  90  inequitable considerations (BCCT, 2004, p. 15). Carr (2002, 2003) suggests that a vocation may not be well integrated into professionalism as an occupational and social role for reasons that relate to several of the points raised above. Carr (2002b) addresses the fundamental difficulty of determining shared values that can underlie social life, let alone educating (n.p.). As a result, Carr (2003) distinguishes between vocation and profession, saying that while there are many professions oriented to serving the public through the principles of duty (such as I’ve described through codes of conduct and manifestos) a vocation such as educating includes expectations of personal obedience that may include the forfeiture of at least some independent thought and behavior (p. 45). Using the concept of role “continuity”, Carr (2003) goes on to say that a vocation should be understood as a way of life built on “other-regarding concern and commitment” that spills beyond daily employment (p. 45). Carr’s reasoning is that, although it is idealistic to imagine that all educators are so noble, it is still necessary to ask each to aspire to a level of commitment that is not required of other professions (p. 47). Prospective educators may well agree with Carr (2003) that they are taking up a vocation rather than a profession when they sign a mandatory commitment to the Standards in order to be certified (BCCT, 2004, p. 6). These same prospective educators may also presume that educating is more a vocation than a profession when they read that their “basic values” may be innate and not be amenable to formal instruction (BCCT, 2004, p. 10).  91 4.7 The Standard and the Competent Educator According to the authors of the Standards, this text should be understood as an “education standard” on the authority of the only direct quotation in the text, taken from the Teaching Profession Act (1996). The Act is quoted as saying “it is the object of the college to establish, having regard for the public interest, standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). In these terms, the Standards can be interpreted as an unequivocal example of manifest intertextuality, connecting the policies promoted in the text to existing legislation in British Columbia. Counter to this argument, the Standards can also be interdiscursively connected to the genre of policy and implementation texts known as “standards” first introduced in chapter three (i.e. NCATE, 2008). In fact, both readings are legitimate and can be positioned beside each other by considering the evolving meanings of a “standard”. This approach is predicated on the idea that when the Teaching Profession Act (1996) was originally drafted, the dominant meaning of a standard could generally be understood to denote the now controversial “community standards” that were central to the legal disputes between the BCCT and Trinity Western University in 2001 (Young, 2004, np.). Beywl and Speer (2004) explain this meaning of standard etymologically as a “yardstick, norm, (or) rule” that both denotes and connotes with collective values and norms (p. 14). This reading of a standard as a symbol of the collective aspirations of a “professional community” provides a context for standards that links this genre to the layers of social interaction laid out elsewhere both the code of conduct and the manifesto (BCCT, 2004, p. 14). Equally, the hypothesis that such aspirations are equally available to all members of such a community has already been challenged earlier in this chapter (Benhabib, 2003, p. 4).  92  Fullan, Galluzzo, Morris, and Watson, (1998) say that a second meaning of standards has come to the fore in teacher education by way of “the standards movement” (p. 58). This connotation of standards reflects the efforts described in the literature review by policymakers and educators across the U.S. to institute new program accreditation procedures and teacher testing regimes. As mentioned, the presumption behind this “movement” is that linking highstakes assessments to standards motivates educators to higher levels of teaching quality and pupils to higher levels of academic achievement (Tom, 2000). As also shown in the literature, the intentions underlying the term standards at play in these reforms are traceable to a pair of assumptions. First, educators are presumed to be the reason that American students fare poorly in international testing and second, “knowledge has become the most important factor in economic development” worldwide (World Bank, 1998-99). According to Eisner (2001) institutions and governments thus want to ensure that their educational products meet global standards in order that they may compete more efficiently. According to Eisner this orientation towards standardization is the genesis of the second meaning of standard that has become interwoven with standards as “community standards”. Eisner (2001) connects the influence of the International Organization for Standardization, (ISO) on American educational policy to a desire for such comparable rating systems. The ISO is indeed an international management consortium that promotes the concept of standards as a tool of world trade, on the rationalization that all goods and services serve the same purposes around the globe (ISO, 2006). For the ISO a “standard is broadly defined as a publication that establishes accepted practices, technical requirements and terminologies” for industries (ISO, 2006, n.p.). In particular, the ISO promotes the terminology of “quality”  93 “compliance”, “standard”, and “competence” in their standards texts. Eisner (2001) reads this usage of ISO conceptual frameworks and vocabulary into the language of standards in U.S. teacher education policy as creating a culture that focuses on declaring evaluative “definite degree(s)” which educators may fall above or below (p. 3). Questions about whether education overall is being colonized by global market forces lie outside the realm of this dissertation. However, Eisner’s (2001) concerns about market orientations in education have merit. When the term “standards” appears in contemporary educational literature it now orders the discourse of teacher education by dispersing the vocabulary of marketing and commerce, while simultaneously calling on community standards.  4.7.1 Standards and the Standards  Considering the Standards in terms of standards as a discourse formation yields a number of insights. The first revelations concern a number of absences in the text. Most notably, although the (2000) version of the NCATE text appears in the bibliography of the Standards, the international trend toward “recontextualizing” the notion of standards is not emphasized on the surface of the text (Wodak & Weiss, 2005, p. 127). There is also no discussion of educating in terms of markets or trade, nor is there any direct suggestion that educators’ collective deficiencies are a justification for introducing reforms through the Standards. The customary references to the influential reports A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) and Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986) that are found in most standards texts are also absent. As shown in the literature review, the solution for reforming teacher education found in standards texts such as NCATE Standards (2008) and the Interstate New  94 Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Model Standards [ITASC](2002) is to scaffold professionalism on an empirically grounded knowledge base drawn from educational research (NCATE, 2008, INTASC, 2002). There is in fact only one brief mention of any form of research in the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 14). All the same, other tropes of standards based teacher education reform are subtly woven into the Standards. For example, educators are informed that their competence is related to “improved student achievement”, although there is no substantiation offered for deficits in the achievement of BC’s students (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). Yet, this ideal of “improved student achievement” is a mantra of standards based reform texts throughout North America, and has been the major justification for reforms to teacher education since the publication of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). This assumed paucity of student achievement in the province is also coupled with the “quality of teacher education” in the same ways as found in the litany of individual educators as a “problem” in reports such as Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986). And, while the ideological markers of standards based reform may not be explicitly expressed in the Standards, many of the prevalent methods and strategies are apparent. In keeping with the empirical claims common to these texts, standards are designed to be performance based implementation tools that assess individuals according to their competence. It is at this level that the Standards is partially configured in ways that correspond to the characteristics of influential texts such as the NCATE (2008) and ITASC (2002) standards. A marker of standards based reform is the reemergence of the behaviorbased discourse of competency (Raths, 2001). As described in chapter three, competency is  95  an ideological feature of teacher education that predates the present reform movement and the vocabulary of the ISO. It is worth recalling that Thorndike (1918) laid the groundwork for imagining educating in terms of competency with statements such as:  education is concerned with changes in human beings; a change is a difference between two conditions; each of these conditions is known to us only by the products produced by it - things made, words spoken, acts performed, and the like (in Cremin, 1988, p. 234).  The authors of the Standards make some mention of their expectations that the text will be transformed from a vehicle of legislation into a tool for assessing and calibrating individual educators performances through the “acts” that make up “behavior” and “conduct” (BCCT, 2004, p. 6). The challenges presented for assessing educators according to their performances is foreshadowed through the statement made about the “knowledge, skills and attitudes” of educators in the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). Here the BCCT enters into the fray about educators’ “dispositions” that has characterized professionalism through standards elsewhere in North America (Diez & Raths, 2007, p. 86). The related formulation of “knowledge, skills and dispositions” found in the NCATE (2000, 2008) text has generated an entire sub-set of educational literature in which teacher education practitioners wrestle with assessing the interior intentions, beliefs and behaviors of prospective educators as “observable behaviors” and “performances” (Sockett, 2006; Wasicsko, 2007). For example, until recently NCATE guided education faculties by saying “institutions are encouraged to  96 measure dispositions by translating them into observable behaviors” (2006, n.p.). By 2008, this formulation had been amended to “professional dispositions are not assessed directly; instead the unit based on observable behavior in educational settings” (p. 22). In this version of the Standards, the concept of “attitudes” remains a “floating signifier” or a term that has little meaning in itself and depends upon context (Suurmond, 2005, p. 16). Given that the 2004 edition of the Standards has not evolved to include criteria, the present version does not elaborate on what “attitudes” are (other than that they predate expertise). Although behaviors or “conduct” are mentioned they are not directly associated with competence as of yet in the text. Rather, educators’ behavior and conduct are described in terms of character such dignity, credibility and integrity (BCCT, 2004, p. 17). Further dilemmas have unfolded when educators’ professionalism is explained in terms of a public service relationship in standards texts (Hager, 2003, n.p.). In the Standards, an educator’s competence is partially grounded in her ability to “establish and maintain the boundaries of a professional relationship” through being “concerned first and foremost with the welfare of the client” (BCCT, 2004, p. 17, p. 15). Hager (2003) shows that competence can be viewed narrowly as “a series of observable behaviors” where “the same series of observable behaviors will be displayed by anyone competent in a given field” via standards texts such as the 2006 version of NCATE (Hager, 2003, n.p.). If this view of professionalism as competence becomes dominant in the Standards as criteria are developed, it will be difficult to connect an understanding of public service to the terminology of the welfare of the public also used in the Standards (BCCT, p. 15; p. 17). When focusing on educating as a vocation, Carr (2005) argues that a view of educators giving up some moral or ethical autonomy to demonstrate their commitment has merit (p. 43). At the same time he insists that an assessment of any  97 individual’s professionalism “denies codification in any simple technical terms” (p. 43). According to Carr (2003), ranking individual beliefs, behaviors, and conduct according to the kinds of delineation common to the genre of standards is simply not amenable to educating as a moral and ethical enterprise (p. 43). Carr’s (2003, 2005) perspective would seem to be supported in the Standards, even as the authors appear willing to entertain the aforementioned narrow views of competence in the future. The first way of considering this dichotomy is to look at the definition of competence in the text’s glossary. Here, “competence” is defined as “having the knowledge and skills to carry out the duties of an educator” (BCCT, 2004, p. 7). There is no mention in this definition of attitudes or dispositions. The second limitation presented concerning standards is when the authors go to considerable effort to claim that that the creation of “criteria” for competence and “informed judgment” are somehow compatible (BCCT, 2004, p. 5; p. 6). There is yet another view of interdiscursive intertextuality that can be derived from the interplay of these layers of professionalism concerning concepts such as competence and attitudes in the text. It is possible to interpret the Standards as mediating and negotiating with the genre of the standards for particular ends. For example, the authors can be read as challenging the genre of a standard by alluding to the controversies that have dogged the implementation of other standards texts (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). In saying, “one critical question that often accompanies the development of standards is the question of how they will be used in practice” The Standards addresses the concerns that have arisen in scholarly commentary about how many of the ideals included in these texts have been found difficult to quantify or rank according to empirical measures (BCCT, 2004, p. 5).  98 As an antidote to these controversies, there is a discussion about the variations of contexts and conditions that individual professionals encounter, acknowledged as a “disparity in roles and expectations” (BCCT, 2004, p. 6). For instance, educators are informed that they may refer to these criteria when they “contemplate their practice and professional development needs” (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). School based administrators are invited to consider the standards when developing professional development programs. District-based administrators also may set goals for their districts in accordance with the standards. As already noted, teacher educators in university programs are informed that they will use the standards as benchmarks to assess their graduates (BCCT, 2004, p. 5, my italics). And, even while discussing “benchmarks”, and “criteria” the authors of the Standards continue to complicate their expectations of assessment overall by simultaneously describing professionalism as a holistic and multi-layered process calling on professional judgment (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). While still employing explicitly behavioral verbs like “demonstrating”, “act” and “meet” a particular standard, the authors also state that meeting a standard may be “relative”, and loosen the meanings of possible criteria to include “understanding” (BCCT, 2004, p. 6). As a result, statements such as those that direct educators to “act ethically and honestly at all times” and “act with the understanding that they are role models for students” become open to wide interpretation in the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Should these statements be read as persuasive invitations to participate in the social contract, or are they meant to become benchmarked criteria for assessing behavior as has happened with the NCATE Standards (2008)? Readers are left to agree with the College that “the answer is simply not one or the other” (BCCT, 2004, p. 5).  99  4.8 Summary of Stage One and Two of the Analysis  This purpose of this chapter has been to examine the discourse of professionalism by turning to the Standards as an object of study. The chapter has focused on descriptive and interpretive assessments of professionalism according to Fairclough’s (2003) three-stage model of discourse analysis. The final and explanatory level of analysis will be provided in the implications section of chapter five. This section will include discussion of contexts external to the Standards. This chapter proposed and reviewed two orders of discourse located in the Standards. The text has been described through the genres of the code conduct, the manifesto and the standard. Investigating these genres has demonstrated how different versions of professionalism coexist in the Standards. Representations of educators as dutiful, as called, and as competent were also examined in order to illustrate how educators are addressed through these variations on professionalism. Taken together, these interpretive lenses have drawn attention to the distribution of semantic and lexical structures that compose the multiple presentations of professionalism in the text. This summary now aims for further insights about professionalism in the Standards by reading across these interpretations. 4.8.1 Ethics  The analysis provided in this chapter makes the case that “professional educators” are both invited and commanded to take up several worldviews in the Standards (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). Each of these worldviews obliges educators to attach importance to characteristic norms, and to accept ethical stances allied with these norms. For instance, the authors posit  100  that educators’ professionalism is dependent on the trust the public holds for them as social group. Since the College assumes that all educators are granted such trust, all are instructed that they “shall behave in a manner that reflects credit on the teaching profession” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). It can be concluded then, that this text directs educators (collectively and as individuals) to ensure that their values and actions are congruent with some or all of these presupposed ethical positions. Further, the analysis suggests that these multiple ethical positions do not always coalesce with each other. This insight leads to questions about how educators may reconcile the arguments presented to them in the Standards. Professionalism is also represented in the Standards as a process of individual moral development. This imperative is introduced in the text by normalizing an educator’s “ownership” of his/her attitudes (BCCT, 2004, p. 9). Attitudes are described as a “prerequisite” that an educator must hold in order to become a professional (BCCT, 2004, p. 4; p. 10). From this perspective, the presumption that each educator possesses a “good moral character” that includes “honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and compassion” is again equated with the norms held by “our society” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3; p. 15). There is little guidance in the text for educators about how they might develop these attitudes, as they apparently already possess them before undertaking formal studies in education (BCCT, 2004, p. 10). At the same time there are suggestions in the text that educators may be required to demonstrate their competence in the attitudes that underlie these values at some point in the future. Since competence is linked to descriptions of educators’ conduct and behavior as a set of skills in the text, this points to tensions in the Standards concerning professionalism as an  101  individual ethical practice (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). For instance, Carr (2003) claims that such a skills acquisition model for educators’ ethical qualities is misguided because the qualities of human relationships he considers the core of ethics cannot be assessed empirically (p. 264). In addition, my earlier discussion of the Standards as an example of the standard genre concluded that the authors have not yet constructed any feasible means for assessing educators’ attitudes according to the principles of competence. 4.8.2 Governance  The dominant set of arguments structuring professionalism in the Standards privileges governance (not to be confused with Foucault’s (1991) conception of governmentality). In this framing of professionalism, legal and judicial meanings of civil governance overlap with notions of collective social control and personal self-regulation (Foucault, 1977, p. 215; Young, Hall & Clarke, 2007). The authors introduce this argument by reminding educators that all citizens have obligations with respect to “our society”, and more concretely, to the province of British Columbia (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). “Our society” is presented as a cohesive plurality whose mutual goals are fulfilled through democratic participation (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Educators are then directed to connect statements such as: “education is intended to benefit both the individual citizen and society as a whole” to “education is the foundation of a healthy and compassionate constitutional democracy” and finally, “educators are one medium for the transmission and translation of knowledge, skills, culture, and values” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Through linkages such as these, the authors of the Standards imply that only dutiful citizens can become educators.  102 Governance is also constructed in the text according to the collective aspects of teaching as an occupation. Here the Standards functions overtly as a code of conduct, and carries out the governance functions required by both the College and “the profession” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Unsurprisingly, this level of governance lays out a more explicitly dutiful relationship for educators than the citizenship argument above. At this level, educators are autonomous professionals who are in a collective relationship with the state, and are voluntarily regulated through the proxy of the College. In a more complicated manner, the Standards also represents teachers as a collective who are socially self-regulating because they share distinctive “basic values” that differentiate them from other citizens (BCCT, 2004, p. 10). Finally, the Standards connects individual self-regulation to a social “contract with the public” that further structures his or her obligations to the profession and to the College (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). Prospective educators must make this ethical stance concrete by signing “a commitment to” abide by the Standards in order to be licensed (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). 4.8.3 Membership  The authors make several divergent arguments about membership in the Standards. Individual educators are situated as members of society through citizenship, but are also distinguished from their fellow citizens due to their vocational and social status. According to the messages provided in the text, every educator should understand that this status rests on their ability to impart the values shared by the profession to students and their parents. Each member of the profession volunteers for this cultural and social reproduction work through their behavior as much as by sharing what they know (BCCT, 2004, p. 16).  103 The assumed voluntary qualities of these aspects of membership are further complicated by the terminology of the Teaching Profession Act (1987/1996) which calls educators members of the College. It cannot be assumed that all educators will understand the legislative and quasi-legal relationship that this membership signifies. Mandatory membership in the College is equivalent to a license to practice in BC. On a very different plane, the authors argue that educators can recognize themselves through membership in what Carr (2000) calls the “high church” version of professionalism (p. 11). In this view, the persuasive vocabulary of the manifesto serves to represent educators as metaphorical group of ethical persons who have a calling or vocation. For better or worse, this membership as a vocation intertwines educators’ collective social roles with their individual motivations for educating. Educators with a vocation share “basic values”, but each educator also maintains a personal “reputation” according to the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 3; p. 18). In this way, membership functions in the Standards on the assumption that convincing individual educators to emulate others who “act ethically and honestly at all times” will provide a basis for implementing peer reviewed discipline (BCCT, 2004, p. 9).  4.9 Chapter Conclusion  This final layer of interpretation has shown that there are continuities in the professionalism presented in the Standards as well as dissonances. Educators are expected to be governed and also to regulate themselves as citizens, as members of a profession and as individual moral persons. They are also presumed to be members of a social group whose values are worth transmitting throughout society. On the other hand, their personal ethical  104 development is in question and may not be easily cultivated by engaging with the Standards. In the following and final chapter of this dissertation, the implications of these interpretations will be explained and critiqued according to the third stage of Fairclough’s (1989, 2003) model of CDA analysis.  105  Chapter 5: EXPLANATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction  The final chapter in this inquiry has three sections. In the first section, I will utilize the explanatory stage of CDA to complete the analysis initiated in the previous chapter. According to Fairclough’s (1989, 2001) model, CDA based studies use the term explanation to encompass discussions of implications, which may include suggestions for application or practice. In this study the explanation phase will begin by discussing the second research question presented in chapter one, which asks, “how can the tensions between aspects of professionalism be historically and socially contextualized in light of the current climate of education in BC?” The second section of the chapter responds to the third research question by applying a “thought experiment” pertaining to the professional obligations that have become manifest in the Standards. The question asks, “in the context of competing discourses of professionalism, how can this examination help prospective come to a more perspicous understanding of their professional obligations, including their ethical obligations?” In response, the “thought experiment” aims to provide prospective educators with tools for reaching “critical and informed judgments” about accountability and responsibility as discourses related to professionalism in the Standards (Giroux & McLaren, 1987, p. 286). The third section of the chapter reviews the limitations of this study and offers suggestions for future study. The final pages of the section reflect on my growth as a inquirer throughout the research period.  106  Section One: Explanation  5.1 The Structure of the Explanation  The explanation that follows will be carried out in two stages. In the first section, a discussion of context will situate professionalism in the Standards in relation to the interpretive categories that have emerged from chapter four, which are governance, membership, and ethics. Specifically, this section will provide conclusions for my second research question, which is:  How can the tensions between these aspects of professionalism be historically and socially contextualized in light of the current climate of education in BC?  5.1.2 CDA and the Explanation Stage of the Analysis  Fairclough (1989) calls the concluding stage of CDA both an “explanation” and a “critique” (p. 113). Fairclough (1989, 2001) reminds analysts that the critical strength of CDA lies in moving beyond interpretations of the structures of texts to situate the significance of linguistic interpretations at the level of worldviews, or ideologies. One way to carry out this explanatory task is to relate meanings deemed significant at the level of discourses to the broader social practices and systems that contextualize such worldviews or ideologies (Rogers, 2004). At the same time, I also recall Fairclough’s (2003) caveat about the subjective nature of context. Fairclough (2003) warns that analysts need to  107  distinguish between “construction” and “construal” (p. 4). He says that although we “may textually construe (represent, imagine, etc) the social world in particular ways” it does not necessarily follow that “our representations or construals have the effect of changing its construction” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 4). Following Fairclough (2003), the critique that follows will not attribute simple causality from the Standards to other contexts. Nor will I claim that a particular feature of the Standards will automatically lead to particular effects on educators’ understandings or behavior. Instead, I will sum up and explain the conditions under which professionalism in the Standards has been produced and circulated, in order to draw attention to a number of the consequences that these conditions have wrought elsewhere (Fairclough, 2001, p.118).  5.2 Professionalism and Teacher Education Reform in BC  In chapter one, I asked whether the appearance of Standards might act as a point of intersection between discourses of “teacher education reform” active elsewhere in North America and policy developments in BC. Over the course of this research I have developed the argument that an influential variation of the international movement known as “teacher education reform” is both explicitly and implicitly represented in the Standards. This variation of reform in teacher education has been shown to be widespread in the United States since the 1980’s, when reports such as A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) reoriented folklore about educators’ role in society from moral exemplars to a source of failure (Cochran Smith, & Fries, 2005; Larabee, 1992). Based on my reading, I have claimed that A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) faulted educators for inadequately preparing students for successful  108  participation in a global marketplace. The literature reviewed also indicated that A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) was particularly influential in bringing the idea of a “crisis” of public confidence about educators’ abilities and characters into public discussion in the United States (Mitchell et al., 2001). Authors such as Cochran-Smith and Fries (2001) were cited as saying that this crisis mentality has served as a key premise for change in U.S. teacher education policy, research and curriculum development over the last 25 years. I can now conclude that Standards text is an example of North American teacher education reform writ large on several grounds. For instance, the features of technical rationality underlying American reform outlined earlier in this chapter are recognizable in the discourse of professionalism running through the text. For example, a significant rationalization for teacher education reform has been the need to improve student achievement. This has meant that any means of raising pupils’ measurable success justifies controlling both the ends and means of teacher education. The need for “improved student achievement” is cited in the Standards, although no studies relating to the achievement of students in BC are referenced (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). The linking of student achievement to teacher education in the Standards appears to be a direct rhetorical importation of the discourse of teacher education reform from elsewhere. The need to improve student achievement in the text is also related to a call to enhance the “quality” of teacher education (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Claims about the “problem” of teacher preparation echo reports such as Tomorrow's Teachers (Holmes Group, 1986). As shown in chapter four, the genre of the Standards text is also referenced through performance based criteria such as “demonstrating”, “act as” and “meet” that allude to a technical rational view of reality (NCATE, 2008; BCCT, 2004, p. 4). On a more direct level, the Standards’ bibliography lists  109  NCATE’s (2000) standards text as an intertextual source of inspiration. Thus, the authors are clearly aware that teacher education reform is functioning in other jurisdictions in North America. At the same time, the analysis in chapter four has shown that while professionalism in the Standards includes the jargon of technical rationality, educators are offered little guidance about implementing standards in the present iteration of the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). This absence is in contrast with the detailed discussion of issues concerning educators’ governance and membership in the Standards. In addition, while there is referential interplay between the contexts of reform in British Columbia and the United States in the text, there are several areas of distinctiveness in the Standards. First, one of the primary features of the ideology of teacher education reform elsewhere in North America is its presentation as a response to a “crisis” due to educators’ professional limitations. The Standards makes no overt claims for such a crisis as a justification for policy change. In fact, the authors of the Standards offer no motivations at all for the appearance of the text other than a general wish to provide a stable “foundation” for educating as a profession (BCCT, 2004, p. 4). The body of the Standards text contains one glancing reference to educational reform, but does not suggest that educators are responsible for failing to prepare students for global realities. Nor are BC’s educators implicated as contributors to political or economic failures, instead, the authors identify the Standards simply as an interpretation and codification of the existing Teaching Profession Act (BCCT, 2004, p. 2). It also possible to conclude that there are distinctive legal and legislative contexts for the policies driving the Standards. For instance, the analyses in chapter four substantiates the  110  view that the BCCT was under significant pressure to redefine and realign its relationships with educators, unions, and faculties of education when the Standards text was first drafted in 2003. In addition, the provincial government’s activities in legislating changes to the Teaching Professions Act (1996) clarified the BCCT’s governance role as focused on educators at the point of certification and beyond. Without a doubt, the BCCT was also motivated by legal judgments to frame new ways to share power with multiple “partners” (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). In particular, the BC Supreme Court ruling in 2003 directing the BCCT and teacher education programs in the province to redistribute who determines “how teacher education programs are administered or taught” can be seen as a major factor in determining the emphasis on governance and membership in the Standards (Young 2004, np.). As detailed in chapter four, there are also substantive tensions at work in the Standards because of the dated terminology that arises from the Teaching Professions Act itself (1996). However, the above legislative and legal issues are intertwined with broader political contexts that are entirely absent from the surface of the Standards text. What is left unsaid is that the origins of Standards can be at least partially explained by an order of discourse about regulating and governing educators that is specific to BC. Specifically, these legal rulings contested both the content and the implementation methods of the BC College of Teachers mandate. In 2002, the British Columbia Court of Appeal provided a crucial legal clarification of the College as a “creature” of the provincial legislature (Southin in Young, 2004). Madame Justice Southin then instructed the provincial legislature to legislate an end to a period of “skirmishing” between the primary administrators of educational policy in British Columbia (Southin in Young, 2004, np.). In 2003, the provincial government restructured the  111  College and revised the Teaching Profession Act in response to Southin’s decision. The education minister of the time is on record as positioning the Standards as a means of providing government and citizens with “increase (d) accountability at every level of our public education system” as a response to both legal and labour challenges (Clark, 2003, p. 6962). Clark (2003) explicitly framed the Standards as an instrument for redistributing regulatory power back to the BCCT by saying “developing standards of competence for the profession of teaching is the mandate of the BC College of Teachers” (p. 6962). Clark (2003) also changed the composition of the College’s decision makers. The Standards text at the heart of this dissertation is the reorganized BCCT’s answer to Clark’s instructions. The introduction of the Standards text in 2003 also coincided with several other changes in the relationship between the BCCT and educators. As of that year, all public school educators in B.C. were required to be fee-paying members of the College (and consequently abide by the Standards) in order to be granted the teaching certificate that is required to practice in the province. The College specified that failure to pay its annual membership fee could lead to the suspension of an educator’s certification to teach. Notwithstanding a protracted engagement between the BC teacher’s union (the BCTF) and the reorganized College in 2003-4, this requirement remains in effect today. As well, those entering the profession are now invited to become members of the College through a distinctive relationship with the Standards text. Schools of Education in BC traditionally sent the BCCT a list of students who completed teacher certification requirements. As of 2003, each graduate must also forward an application for certification that includes an initial annual fee and a signed commitment to honour the Standards.  112 In conclusion, the Standards is a unique articulation of professionalism that to some degree replicates those found in teacher education reform elsewhere in North America. However, the policies underlying the text are also a response to local issues concerning educators. As a result, educators in BC (and particularly prospective educators) must grapple with a discourse of professionalism that is unlike those discussed in the majority of the available academic literature. The implications of applying this unique conception of professionalism provided by the Standards will be taken up in the next section of this chapter.  Section Two: Professional Obligations and the Standards  5.2.1 Contextualizing Professional Obligations  In the previous section, I drew conclusions and provided a critique of the social contexts of professionalism and the Standards through institutional and systemic dimensions. This portion of the chapter turns attention to the more human scaled implications of the analysis, in order to reach conclusions about the ways in which prospective educators may place the claims for professionalism as ethics, membership, and governance in the Standards in context. Accordingly, this section of the chapter will address the third research question, which asks,  In the context of competing discourses of professionalism how can this examination help prospective come to a more perspicuous understanding of their professional obligations, including their ethical obligations?  113  First, I want to establish some specific parameters for the following exploration of professional obligations. I am not suggesting that prospective educators’ characters will be improved if they locate their understanding of professionalism according to any one philosophical school. Neither will I provide pragmatic strategies to assist prospective educators in being able to better account for their “attitudes” (BCCT, 2004, p. 5). Instead, I propose that educators may wish to make “critical and informed judgments” about some of the ethical aspects of professionalism located in the Standards by taking into account the challenges and possibilities that have arisen throughout this study (Giroux & McLaren, 1987, p. 286). Ethical inquiry is typically a philosophical enterprise and includes the language of values as well as facts (Wittgenstein, 1965, p. 5). For the purposes of this discussion, I shall focus on ethical inquiry about professional obligations as “activities of judging and deciding” (Giroux & McLaren, 1987, p. 286). The emphasis in this section will therefore fall on possible criteria for judgment, and will focus on proposing a set of tools that may assist educators in clarifying their professional priorities as they sift through the accounts they read in the Standards. The belief that such a set of tools is appropriate and necessary follows from my conclusion that professionalism in the text is a discourse composed of multiple and not necessarily compatible, layers of meaning. Vokey (2001) offers one such set of tools for examination and deliberation. In conversation with MacIntyre, Vokey (2001) contends that educators should recognize that balancing rival and even incommensurable perspectives is a lifelong ethical project (p. 77). As a rationale for this perspective, Vokey (2001) proposes that the complexity of contemporary issues requires thoughtful deliberators to take on points of view that diverge from their own,  114  at least temporarily (p. 77). Vokey (2001) refers to the current discussions within the ethic of care as an example of such a situation, where Gilligan’s critique of Kohlberg has encouraged scholars to try out many hybrid and provisional responses (p. 77). In the same way, I propose that professionalism as a discourse encompasses a variety of points of view that can be held provisionally in order to test their merits and deficiencies. To be explicit, the approach I am suggesting gives preferentiality to providing parameters for discussion over providing solutions or formulae. Following Foucault (1970), I begin by stressing seemingly irreducible points of departure of the respective versions of professionalism under review. For instance, Vokey (2001) details one way to critically consider multiple points of view, when he suggests considering how complementary, rival and contradictory claims are initially constructed and then expressed. He outlines several types of claims that can be helpful when thinking critically about how claims are related to discourses (in my vocabulary). I will utilize three of these kinds of claims to discuss the obligations of professionalism in this chapter. First;  Claims are compatible when they can be integrated within a coherent theoretical framework. Some claims might be logically deduced from others, they might all be stipulated first principles, they might be conclusions of related sets of premises, or they might be empirically-supported propositions (p. 74).  115  Alternatively;  Claims are related obliquely when they are neither logically compatible nor logically contradictory, and yet concern the same domain of experience. Claims expressed in the incommensurable terms of schemes formulated to serve different interests are related in this way (italics in the original, p. 75).  Vokey (2001) further specifies that these “different interests” may be the result of antagonistic relationships between worldviews. Thus;  Claims are related antagonistically when they (a) are expressed in incommensurable terms, (b) concern the same domain of human experience, (c) are formulated to serve the same or very similar interests, and (d) represent pragmatically irreconcilable perspectives (italics in the original, Vokey, 2001, p. 76).  With Vokey’s distinctions between different kinds of relationships between claims in mind, we can now consider whether the discourse of professionalism as represented in the Standards can provide educators with new or different tools for ethical deliberation. This thought experiment provides an opportunity to return to a pair of “higher order” claims that are paramount to each prospective educator as he/she moves beyond considering what professionalism “is” in the Standards to deciding what he/she believes it “ought” to be. The principles in question are responsibility and accountability.  116  I have taken pains throughout this study to emphasize that the issues under contention in professionalism are not limited to individuals’ choices. Nevertheless, prospective educators may wish to reach at least provisional decisions about their personal level of commitment to the principles and policies underlying the Standards. It is particularly important to recall that graduating teacher education students are required to make such judgments, since they sign a promise to adhere to the Standards as a condition of their initial licensing. Reconsidering professionalism through responsibility and accountability utilizing Vokey’s (2001) categories for relationships between claims will allow us to recognize more clearly what issues and dilemmas are most at stake in such judgments. 5.2.2 Responsibility and Accountability  Let us begin by citing and summarizing some arguments about the distinctions between responsibility and accountability. Carr (2000) provides a useful précis of responsibility that will suffice for this discussion. For Carr (2000) responsibility begins within individuals, and helps explain any one person’s relations with others (p. 198). Specifically, Carr (2000) claims that responsible educators are able to rise to professional challenges because they have knowledge of possible ethical options as well as a personal commitment to comparing the relative merit of these options for their practice (p. 212). Moreover, Carr (2000) connects both of these individual conditions with a shared “ethical sensibility” that is nurtured through an individual’s initiation into a social group such as a profession (p. 198, p. 9). In contrast, Heim (1995) says that accountability concerns systems of delegated authority that are external to educators, but are nonetheless based on the disclosure and defense of their individual actions (p. 2). Heim (1995) declares that contemporary usage of  117 the term accountability in educational research, policy, and practice is thoroughly “muddled”, since the bases for the aforementioned authority emanate from four sources: legal, professional, political, and market-based. As discussed earlier in this chapter, many scholars attribute reform in teacher education as a whole to neoliberal discourses that combine these bases of authority. All the same, it can be ascertained from current literature that accountability as it applies directly to individual educators has been primarily translated elsewhere in North America into a performance-based model of assessment measures involving personal consequences and/or incentives (Bales, 2006, p. 396). In this regime of accountability, educators’ agency in making judgments is constrained because accountability requires them to function as part of an assessment bureaucracy. According to Bales (2006), an important feature of this bureaucratic accountability pertains to equivalence; accountability assumes that all participants are judged by the same criteria, and that their outcomes will also be the same (p. 402). Of course, educators may also be constrained when they participate in the social rulefollowing tradition espoused by Carr (2000) but I shall put this complication aside for the moment. Armed with these definitions, let us now consider how responsibility and accountability are presented in the Standards. 5.2.3 Arguments for Responsibility and Accountability  It has emerged from the analysis in chapter four that educators are presented with three different claims about responsibility in the Standards. First, educators are presented with claims involving their personal responsibility to the state. Second, educators are represented as being exceptional citizens with unique responsibilities toward their fellow citizens. Lastly, educators are advised that they are responsible for adhering to a worldview that is consistent  118 with declaring a vocation such as teaching. In the following section these three claims for responsibility will be placed beside several (less explicit) claims for accountability that emerge in the Standards. As noted in chapter four, claims for educators’ responsibilities to the state are phrased as social contracts, and presume educators’ familiarity with democratic governance and in particular, with the duties of citizenship. It is assumed that educators understand that “the goals of our society” equate to British Columbia’s legal and social systems. These claims for responsibility therefore presuppose that educators’ self-regulation as citizens will prevail over their membership in a profession (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). At this level of political rhetoric (as a manifesto), the Standards thus assumes that responsibility is synonymous with the ethical requirements expected of any adult residing in the province. To say that educators are being persuaded to be citizens first is consequential if Carr’s (2000) definition of responsibility is taken to be true, because it assumes that educators will in some way be initiated into their role as citizens before they begin to explore their roles as professionals. Educators may wish to sort through the oratory in the Standards to consider why the text declares the responsibilities of citizenship to be of paramount importance to teaching, and where they are presumed to have learned about such responsibilities. A question now arises. Are there connections between arguments for citizenship as a prerequisite for educating in the text and those that address both responsibility and accountability? To reiterate, Heim’s (1995) and Bales’ (2006) criteria for accountability include externally mandated justifications of actions, and assessments attached to consequences and incentives. It seems self evident to say that the liberal model of democratic citizenship qualifies as a site of accountability according the terms presented by these  119 authors. Citizenship as a balance of rights and obligations supported by accountability systems such as laws is very standard fare in literature on citizenship (Schugurensky, 2003, p. 3). At this level of argument then, responsibility and accountability when interpreted as citizenship are not only compatible, but are also synonymous in the Standards. In other words, it appears that citizenship and educating are part of a coherent theoretical framework that function together in a harmonious web of internally motivated obligations and externally directed conventions (Vokey, 2001, p. 81). However, I have gleaned a very specific blend of responsibility and accountability that functions on an implied voluntary and egalitarian form of citizenship from Carr’s (2000), Heim’s (1995), and Bales’s definitions (2006). While this combination of responsibility and accountability may be attractive in the abstract, educators will want to consider numerous concerns about interpreting citizenship in this form before accepting such claims as a basis for professionalism. For instance, Benhabib (1996) questions whether all citizens have been equally equipped to negotiate the exchanges of their individual responsibility that come in return for political and social change. Benhabib (1996) proposes that “no modern society can organize its affairs along the fiction of a mass assembly carrying out its deliberations in public and collectively” (p. 73). Although she maintains that all people can participate through different modes of such mass deliberations, Benhabib (1996) also recognizes that constraints to public deliberation turn on individuals’ ability to articulate “good reasons in public” (p. 72). Educators may wish to ask where and when they can deliberate their good reasons for citizenship according to the terms set out in the Standards. The Standards makes reference to “stakeholders” and “consultation”, but the terms for such deliberations are not spelled for the educators who are the motivation for the creation of the text (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). Educators  120 may therefore wish to attend to Kymlicka’s (2008) comments about the distinctions that can limit citizens’ participation in public conversations (p. 111). Kymlicka (2008) notes that the relationships between citizens and governments are fraught with tacit power differentials around the concerns that can be aired, the ethical traditions that can be referred to, and finally, what counts as justifications for participation (p. 111). A second layer of responsibility that accrues to educators in the Standards occurs when they are collectively characterized as exceptional citizens. In chapter four, I outlined how this argument for social and professional status is conveyed in the text. Specifically, educators’ professional commitments are fashioned in terms of specialized knowledge about “the basic values of society” that are assumed to be beyond the understanding of the average citizen (BCCT, 2004, p. 3). When expressed in these terms, educators are expected to appreciate that this claim for collective responsibility is oblique, or built on premises that serve different interests than arguments about their role as regular citizens (Vokey, 2001, p. 75). This argument is intended to communicate to educators that their membership in a group that has a “contract with the public” is the result of their possession of kinds of knowledge that gives them the ability to pass judgments on other citizens (including each other) (BCCT, 2004, p. 10). Here the Standards functions as a code of conduct, defining educators’ vocational responsibilities in ways that are reminiscent of Carr’s (2000) notion of an “ethical sensibility” shared by professionals of all stripes (p. 198). Educators may wish to note that Carr (2000) claims that this sense of responsibility is fostered during the experience of the ethically grounded education he believes should be common preparation for joining all professions. Although both Carr (2000, 2003) and the Standards frame educators’ collective responsibility as a means of distinguishing them from their fellow citizens, these arguments for  121 universal and unique citizenship are also relatively compatible. The ideal of responsible citizens who have equal access to public participation integrates well with a model of responsible educators as universally exemplary guides of others. Yet, Carr’s (2000) assertion of an “ethical sensibility” encouraged by the shared experience of professional education contains within it another argument; that although responsible educators may be part of a vocational and social collective they are first ethical individuals (p. 198). This is the third argument for responsibility found in the Standards. Carr (2003) links each educator’s learned expertise to tenets of personal responsibility that are directed towards a vocation for supporting “the common good” (p. 178). Carr (2000) then makes tight connections between educators’ personal responsibilities when they take up teaching as a vocation, “the common good”, and educating as a public service (p. 178). For Carr (2000) professional education (as opposed to technical training) can inform and nurture the specialized and privileged knowledge of social norms and value systems I have claimed are central to professionalism (p. 199). These paths of responsibility from individual to collective ethics, and then to public service clearly resonate with the authors of the Standards. The links between educators’ responsibilities and public service are supported through the themes of individual and collective governance in the Standards, and are particularly utilized to justify claims about the interests of the College as a body that clarifies and mediates educators’ professional development (BCCT, 2004, p. 3, p. 6, p. 10). However, critical educators will wish to consider whether Carr’s (2000) principle of a shared “ethical sensibility” and associated assumptions of ethical distinctiveness is an entirely appropriate path for all who choose to pursue teaching (p. 199). As Foucault (1977) maintains, all communities unavoidably advance specific ethical and political perspectives  122 that are “shared” unequally. Educators may wish to ponder if unreflectively assuming the mantle of professionalism as a shared responsibility and social role may lead them to re-enact asymmetrical relationships of power. Equally, prospective educators may wish to contemplate why the professional education Carr (2000) believes can cultivate such a sensibility receives such scant mention in the Standards. Finally, educators may wish to enquire whether the authors of the text explain well enough how educators as public servants are personally responsible to the College. Is there a place for arguments about accountability alongside these claims for responsible educators as exceptional citizens? Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik (1990) say that this depends on how accountability is interpreted (p. xi.). These scholars state that since educating is “fundamentally a moral endeavor” educators should strive to reframe accountability in moral terms as well (1990, p. xii). One way to interpret Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik’s (1990) proposal is to imagine blending educators’ personal responsibility with external systems and performances concerning their service to the public. However, such a model of accountability as a “counter policy” is considered by many to be a position with little “room to maneuver” at this time because notions of “the public” and “service” have become so diffused and dichotomous (Wallace, in Tomlinson, 2004, p. 442). The notion of accountability with a goal of “public service” is scarcely imaginable in Heim’s (1995) definition of accountability as systems of delegated authority, and Bales’s (2006) description of performance based assessments involving “one size fits all” consequences and incentives (p. 396). Rather, these latter definitions solely concern the meaning of accountable in the technical rational sense of justifying the efficient use of funds or resources. In other words, Heim’s (1995) and Bales’ (2006) definitions are examples of  123 how accountability has been “reconceptualized” in teacher education so that the ethics of public service have become substantially muted in the current policy and practice conversation (Wodak, 1996). As I have also described, accountability in this reconceptualized sense is also evident in the Standards. In Vokey’s terms then, it can be said that the arguments for a reconceptualized version of accountability in the Standards are oblique in that they serve different interests. At the same time, it is also feasible to frame accountability in the Standards (and in versions of teacher education reform that focus on accountability) as not only different, but as rivals. This view considers accountability and responsibility as constructed on antagonistic claims, since arguments for efficiency and the ideal of public service “represent pragmatically irreconcilable perspectives” on the same realm of experience (Vokey, 2001, p. 76). Vokey (2001) proposes that one way of wrestling with antagonistic claims is to consider whether the strengths and weaknesses of apparently irreconcilable arguments can be balanced, to produce a “satisfactory” point of view which can “accommodate and explain” all positions (p. 37). In this spirit, let us see if the claims for responsibility and accountability in the Standards can coexist, as part of a repertoire of possible perspectives that may be utilized when engaging with the text (Vokey, 2001, p. 78). One such perspective is to envision that responsibility will follow accountability. This accountability-led view sees educators’ development of responsibility (as citizens, professionals, and persons) as a secondary result of an assessment process. Such an approach would presume that systems of external monitoring are likely to lead educators to be more active citizens, more collectively cooperative professionals, and more ethically grounded persons-as a side effect. This line of reasoning is popular with many of the scholars who  124 support the NCATE (2008) assessment model. For instance, Sternberg (2009) suggests that the strengths of an accountability-leads-to-responsibility perspective lie in the opportunities for practicing and prospective educators to juxtapose the professional criteria considered “good enough” in standards with their personal conceptions of the responsibilities inherent in teaching and learning. Sternberg (2009) further believes that even intelligent, well-educated people need clearly defined rules and penalties in order to understand what constitutes individual responsibility (n.p.). As outlined in chapter three, proponents of an accountability before responsibility approach tend to separate and itemize elements of responsibility into distinct dispositions that they believe can be replicated and/or extrapolated to multiple situations. As Goodlad, Soder, and Sirotnik (1990) note, the fundamental weakness of an accountability first approach lies in the allure of this replication principle (p. xi). Once an emphasis on cataloguing specific ethical criteria becomes entrenched, it is exceedingly difficult to reconfigure the pieces into holistic ideals such as citizenship and professionalism (Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990, p. xi). The other, and apparently irreconcilable, view asks whether a reconceptualized vision of accountability can be held in a secondary position to responsibility. This is the position taken by Carr (2000, 2003) and Goodlad (1990b) and can also be located in the Standards text itself. The primary premise underlying the position that accountability should be secondary to responsibility is that accepting a social role (such as teacher), engenders personal ownership of a shared worldview and its attendant responsibilities. From this responsibility- led perspective, accountability is fostered through critical engagement with ethical traditions and the people who espouse them (Zeichner & Listen, 1990). In other words, educators would participate as citizens, cooperate collectively as professionals, and express articulate  125 ethical views because they would be accountable to what is generally called a “belief system” or world view that supplied them with internally held guidelines. According to such a position, external systems of accountability are not necessarily unwelcome, but do not concern the same aspects of life as responsibility (Carr, 2000, p. 191). According to Strike (2004) the vigor of a responsibility first approach lies in the very holistic nature that is so hard to attain in standards-based accountability regimes; a coherence that arises from a shared ethical vision and a shared language of both responsibility and accountability. The major weaknesses of the responsibility first view of accountability relate to the same issues illuminated by the analysis in chapter four that pertain to the discreet elements of responsibility. Claims for universally shared worldviews that can be recognized in terms such as educators’ “reputation” and community standards offer little space for non-conformity, change, and resistance (BCCT, 2004, p.18). It would seem then, that accountability-first and the responsibility-first approaches presented in the Standards are indeed incommensurable. In addition, neither can offer an adequate account of either responsibility or accountability on their own. Is there a third perspective? Is it then possible to conclude the Standards text as a whole should be discounted because claims for professionalism according to responsibility and accountability are antagonistic? This is not a practical position. For one, a considerable percentage of educational policy in North America is equally incoherent and generally “lack(s) a considered conceptual framework” (Hopkins, 2001, p. 197). Dismissing or minimizing any single policy text because it functions as a part of a discourse and is therefore ambiguous or incongruent with readers’ perspectives merely helps maintain distance between readers and those informing them of what they ought to do (Apple, 2004). As Cochran Smith and Fries (2001) also make  126 clear, avoiding critical engagement with educational policies that are not well understood within a given reader’s worldview only leaves a discursive vacuum that others will surely fill. Given these dilemmas, Vokey’s (2001) final position for working with enigmas in claims and arguments is welcome. Vokey (2001) suggests that, when evaluating the strengths and limitations of any claim and its underlying worldview, inquirers should approach questions that test their preconceptions by “accepting the necessity in certain contexts of adopting two or more incommensurable conceptual frameworks”, since it might be necessary to explore both avenues of enquiry further (p. 79). As the Standards becomes part of the vocational, educational, and policy conversation in British Columbia, Vokey’s (2001) either/both approach and the specifics of his distinctions for claims offer concrete tools for wrestling with the paradoxes of professionalism.  Section Three: Conclusion 5.3.1 Limitations of the Study  Having presented what I consider the important implications and possibilities arising from this study, I now wish to outline the ways in which these conclusions may have been constrained by the limitations of my research design. There are limitations in every enquiry. In this study, some limitations were anticipated, while others gradually unfolded over the course of the research process. Several of myself imposed limitations proved to be wise decisions. In chapter one, I proposed that although carrying out an exegesis of a single text might be considered a  127 limitation, the significance of the Standards warranted this kind of careful attention. The Standards proved to be a very noteworthy object of study. The text was sufficiently complex to motivate a targeted literature review, and also to justify a detailed examination of the arguments presented. I also anticipated that the volume of scholarly literature available would support limiting the focus of this inquiry to professionalism in the North American context. This proved to an accurate prediction, as the quantity of literature on both professionalism and teacher education reform available was vast. To broaden the object of this inquiry to concepts other than professionalism, or to include literature relevant to other parts of the world, would have resulted in either a very long or much diluted literature review. However, it is imperative to acknowledge that there are drawbacks to extrapolating interpretations and explanations about professionalism and teacher education strictly from the standpoint of the Standards. As I have said, the Standards text is somewhat unique in both its content and in its context. As a result, the conclusions of this study are not only contextspecific but also contestable, and will remain perennially subject to reinterpretation and debate. In the end, this study is valuable not for its finality, but for its insights on professionalism “at this time, [and] in this situation” (Hostetler, 2005, p. 20). 5.3.2 The Challenges of Utilizing CDA  As stated earlier, some research limitations are unanticipated. For example, I encountered several theoretical and methodological challenges when carrying out the critical discourse analysis at the centre of this inquiry. After completing the literature review, it became clear that a descriptive rendering of professionalism in the Standards would provide an  128 incomplete picture of the policies underlying the text. I realized that I also needed to develop a critical analysis of the reasons why teacher education reform was such a dominant preoccupation elsewhere in North America, but appeared to be under acknowledged in the Standards. As described in chapter two, I also came to this research with a desire to continue an ongoing conversation with Habermas’s and Foucault’s divergent but fascinating theories of discourse. Given these requirements, CDA seemed an appropriate methodological choice. The CDA model of inquiry included an established body of critically oriented work, a familiar research vocabulary, and an array of well-rehearsed methods. As it happens, many CDA scholars also cited Foucault’s theorizing as a cornerstone of critical educational research (Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 2000; Graham, 2005). A reasonable proportion of CDA studies also referenced Habermas. On the other hand, there seemed to be a remarkable amount of commentary and critique about CDA available. As it turned out, the contributions made by a number of these critics were helpful in avoiding tendencies that could undermine a research project such as this one (Slembrouck, 2001; van Dijk, 2001; Widdoson, 1998). To begin, determining where this study fit within the critical continuum of the “shared research perspective” that defines CDA was a significant challenge (van Dijk, 2001). van Dijk (2001) says that a critical orientation is exceptionally slippery to define in practice, because analysts appeal to a wide range of epistemological assumptions when claiming that their foundations are “critical” (p. 300). van Dijk (2001) notes that, as a general rule, CDA analysts are concerned about the role of discourse in the (re)production of dominant power relations concerning marginalized social groups (p. 300). However, the modernist flavour of this advocacy component of CDA troubles both van Dijk (2001) and Slembrouck (2001),  129 since they believe that the majority of CDA analysts also claim to be writing from a poststructural perspective. Slembrouck (2001) claims that poststructuralism is profoundly non-normative and therefore cannot make any claims for judging what value laden terms like dominance or marginalization mean (p. 42). For Slembrouck (2001), it follows that the ideal of an ideological critique that can uncover what is hidden and thereby reveal “truth” about repressive power relations contradicts understandings about the socially constructed nature of “reality” that underpins poststructuralism. As Patterson (1997) restates, “the idea that something resides in texts awaiting extraction, or revelation, by the application of the correct means of interpretation is precisely the assumption that poststructuralism sets out to problematize” (p. 427). This position leads Slembrouck (2001) to a secondary problem. If discourses need to be explicated by an analyst, he wonders how we can be sure that any CDA inquiry is not simply a reiteration of the analyst’s personal emancipatory project (Slembrouck, 2001, p. 43). The issue of whether it is possible to hold an emancipatory and a postststructural view simultaneously is beyond the scope of this project. However, Patterson (1997) Slembrouck (2001) and van Dijk’s (2001) arguments persuaded me to develop a critical position within the CDA field that rested on three claims. The first was to acknowledge, in answer to both van Dijk (2001) and Slembrouck (2001) that the critical perspective that has been developed over this research project is more modernist than poststructural, since my arguments and conclusions are unabashedly normative. In answer to Slembrouck’s (2001) second complaint about the extent of what a “critical” stance can encompass, this inquiry limited claims for emancipation to presenting educators with tools for “critical and informed judgments” (Giroux & McLaren, 1987, p. 286). In response to Slembrouck’s (2001) final point, I reiterate  130 my belief that his desires for researcher objectivity are misplaced in any form of research. Like the majority of contemporary qualitative researchers, I believe that an analysis that is not evocative of its author is neither an appropriate goal nor even a possibility. 5.3.3 CDA and Interdisciplinarity  According to Rogers et al. (2005), the critiques leveled against CDA can be fruitfully viewed as concerns about interdisciplinary research overall. Several methodological puzzles arose during this inquiry that can be related to the interdisciplinary nature of CDA. For instance, Foucault (1970) argues that if we are to understand how discourses and power are produced and circulated it is necessary to blend together multiple perspectives, since no single theoretical lens can fully explain the conditions for the emergence of particular sets of ideas and forms of knowledge (p. 316). I have considered CDA as interdisciplinary in Foucault’s terms because it integrates theories, concepts techniques, and tools from two or more disciplines “to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline or field of research practice alone” (COSEPUP, 2004). Professionalism proved a discourse compatible with interdisciplinary investigation, as its concerns cut across a range of disciplines, including linguistics, philosophy, and sociology. However, interdisciplinarity makes difficult demands of inquirers. The interdisciplinary researcher must connect the dots for readers as to why the questions discussed have relevance across disciplines, as well as how particular tools chosen function to successfully serve all perspectives (Meyer, 2001). Widdowson (1998) objects that CDA analysts are wont to cite multiple theoretical perspectives and theorists when trying to fulfill these requirements, but sometimes provide limited explanations of why such theorists or schools of thought are  131 relevant to the object of their study. This inquiry could be seen to face such similar critiques, since it relies on a potentially disparate combination of Foucault, Carr, Vokey, Habermas, and Benhabib for theoretical support. However, these are all ethical inquirers who critique the structures that mediate between individuals and systems of social, economic, and political power. In this study, the conversations between these theoretical sources (and often, their debates with each other) are united by two shared beliefs: that the conditions of knowledge and power are not self-evident, and the importance of rationality as an object of study. The final limitation of this study concerns vocabulary and argumentation style. Like all interdisciplinary inquiry, CDA not only requires a balancing of perspectives from multiple disciplines but also reconciliation of styles of argumentation. Some CDA researchers favour the vocabulary of a single discipline, while others invent a new vocabulary that can synthesize communication across disciplines. Either approach presents challenges, since implicit constraints of specialized jargon or argument structures in any given discipline are based on modes of thinking associated with particular worldviews. In the case of this dissertation, the vocabulary and argumentation structures of philosophy gradually superseded others, and therefore some conclusions and implications emphasize what can be fruitfully considered through the window of this discipline.  5.4 Avenues for Future Research  Given the limited scope of this study, future research is needed to establish broader connections between teacher education reform in British Columbia and the rest of the world. Reform in teacher education has proven to be a global phenomenon with many unique  132 contexts and concerns. For instance, there is a substantial body of literature that reports on reforms to educators’ professionalism in Britain that has not been addressed in this inquiry. There are also several scholars carrying out comparative studies concerning reform in Canada and elsewhere that promise to deepen understanding of the relationships between professionalism and reform overall (Hall & Schultz, 2003; Young, 2004). Similarly, it seems important to turn inward as well, and further examine the factors that promote and constrain the implementation of educational policies such as those exemplified by the Standards in the province of British Columbia. This study was not concerned with interpreting which readings of professionalism are more or less in harmony with the programmatic structures and goals of any of the teacher education programs currently operating in BC. Future research could include examining mission statements and planning texts available related to the Standards. In addition, a third version of the Standards is now available, and warrants careful review and comparison with the edition examined in this study. My dissertation also suggests that text based research that is explicitly focused on reports, legislation, and other policy instruments has much to offer. On a very grand scale, larger corpus studies that compare standards documents from different jurisdictions worldwide would be beneficial for understanding how policy and social trends drive reforms in teacher education across locations. Finally, this study cannot provide even an inkling of what it means to be an educator who is being guided towards professionalism. Understanding how this document is becoming part of the lived experience of teachers, teacher educators and prospective teachers requires further research that involves observing and speaking with these persons.  133 5.5 Final Words  This dissertation contributes to the literature on educator professionalism in the context of North American teacher education reform on four levels. First, the literature review draws together research on Canadian and American understandings and enactments of professionalism in ways that provide readers with new connections and comparisons between the two sites. Second, this enquiry reports on the context of the Standards as a moment in the evolution of professionalism that has particular import for educators in BC. In addition, the finely grained CDA analysis of the text describes, interprets and explains specific elements of the discourse of professionalism located in the Standards. Finally, the study proposes a means for attempting critical decisions and judgments about professionalism based on Vokey’s (2001) distinctions between different ways in which truth-claims (and, by extension, worldviews) can be related. Carrying out this project has also contributed to my growth as a researcher. In chapter one, I described how I grappled with the complexities of teaching with (and around) discourses of the successful Canadian in my practice as an adult educator. I explained how powerless I felt to affect change in my classroom, because I lacked the conceptual tools to even understand the complexities of social constructed messages, let alone have an impact on the status quo. Having completed this dissertation, I can now reflect on how I have learned to engage with intellectual tools such as critical discourse analysis, Foucault’s and Habermas’s discourse theory, Carr’s analysis of professionalism, Benhabib’s critiques of participatory citizenship, and Vokey’s epistemology. However, the sum of my learning includes more than a greater exposure to theorists, or mastering a methodology well enough to analyze a text. I believe I have also learned to be more reflexive, and therefore how to become a more critical researcher.  134 As this study unfolded, I included directions from key scholars about what stances characterize critical inquiry. This guidance has offered me opportunities for reflection as I develop my own position. I recall Foucault’s (1970) advice that it is the critic’s task to reorganize what counts as knowledge for readers, but not to determine what is rational (p.387). Foucault’s (1970, 1972, 1977) contribution to contemporary understandings of the quixotic role of the researcher as a “professional” creator of knowledge cannot be underestimated. In the absence of thinkers like Foucault, concepts such as “reflection”, “reflexivity” and “researcher stance” would not be possible. On the other hand, I remember Wodak’s (2001) counterclaim that being critical includes a desire to “demystify” meanings, and therefore determine their purposes and functions (p. 10). Looking back on the research process, I can recognize that these contradictory impulses have contributed to what I have included, and left out, of the previous pages. I have also recognized the value of Benhabib’s (2003) critique of Habermas’s discursive space, and yet still concluded that attempting to make “critical and informed judgments” is worthwhile if consensus is not the sole goal (Giroux & McLaren, 1987, p. 286). It does seem then, that another layer of potential insight and perspective has arisen from this research process. Apparently being critical equates to being powerful, at least on paper. On the other hand, I have noted Fairclough’s (2003) repeated proviso; that even though being critical offers the privilege of imagining or representing the lives of Others, I cannot assume that my construals will change their world (or mine)(Fairclough, 2003, p. 4). I conclude that incorporating a layer of reflection and rethinking about emulating critical inquirers has enhanced my research as a discursive practice. I look forward to applying this learning as I enter a new phase in my development as a teacher and as a researcher  135  References  Apple, M. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-Liberalism, Neo-Conservatism, and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18, (1). 12-44. Retrieved August 7, 2008 from DOI: 10.1177/0895904803260022.  Appleby (1999). Benchmarking and threshold standards in higher education. (53-70). In H. Smith, M. Armstrong, & S. Brown (Eds). Benchmarking and threshold standards in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Retrieved September 25, 2009, from http://books.google.com.  Badran, D. (2001). Modality and ideology in translated political texts. Nottingham Linguistic Circular,16. 47-61. Retrieved December 24, 2006, from http://wwwnottingham. ac.uk/english/nlc/badran.PDF.  Bales, B. (2006). Teacher education policies in the United States: The accountability shift since 1980. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, (4). 395–407. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://journals.sfu.ca /ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/view/42/25.  Ball, S. (2005). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen Ball. Routledge. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from http://books.google.com.  136  Barnetson, R. (1997). Changing definitions and off-loading responsibility in Alberta’s postsecondary system. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5, (22). Retrieved August 2, 2001 from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v5n22.html.  Beck, C., Hart, D. & Kosnik, C. (2002). The teaching standards movement and current teaching practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 27, (3). 175-194. Retrieved August, 16, 2006, from ww.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE27-2-3/CJE27-2-3beck.pdf.  Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. London: Routledge. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://books.google.com.  Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of Democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 95120). Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Benhabib, S. (1996). Introduction: The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference. in S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 3-18). Princeton: Princeton University Press.  137  Benhabib, S. (1997). The generalized and the concrete other: The Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy and moral theory. In D. Meyers (Ed)., Feminist Social Thought: A Reader (pp. 736-756). New York: Routledge.  Bentz, V., & Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful enquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved September 25, 2009 from http://books.google.com.  Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1997). The manufactured crisis: Myths, frauds and the attack on America’s public schools. New York: Longman.  Beyer, L. (2002). The politics of standardisation: Teacher education in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 28(3), 239-245.  Bezeau, L. (2007). Educational administration for Canadian Teachers [7th ed.]. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from http://www.unb.ca/education/bezeau/eact /eactcvp.html.  Beywl, W., & Speer, S. (2004). Developing standards to evaluate vocational education and impact research. Third report on vocational training research in Europe. Retrieved December 23, 2006, from http://www.univation.org/download/BgR1_Beywl.pdf.  Bijeikien V. (2008). Critical discourse analysis: An overview and appraisal. Respectus Philologicus, 13, (18). Kaunas: VU Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas, pp. 104-113.  138 Bohman, J. (2005). Critical theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 12, 2008, from http://plato.stanford.edu.archiveespr2005/entries/critical-theory/7.  Bowles, D. (1973). Competency-based teacher education? The Houston story. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_197303 _bowles.pdf.  Bracey, G. (2003). April foolishness: The 20th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk”.Phi Delta Kappan, 84, (8) Retrieved February 15, 2006http://wwwfrom.pdkintl.org/ kappan/k0304bra.htm.  British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT), (2004a). Annual report & strategic plan. Retrieved January 8, 2006, from www.bcct.ca/documents/annual_mtg.  British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT), (2004b). Standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia. Retrieved February 1, 2005, from http://www.bcct.bc.ca. Brown, B. (2009). Standards-based education reform in the United States since “A nation at risk” Retrieved September 16, 2008, from www.boe.k12.hi.us/.../FINALHistory%20of%20 Standards-Based%20Education%20Reform.pdf  139 BC Ministry of Education. (2004). 2004/2005-2005/2006 service plan. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2004/sp/educ/ default.htm.  BC Teachers’ Federation. (2002). Chronology of education legislation and actions by the BC Liberal government since 2001. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://bctf.ca/uploadedb Files/Public/Advocacy/Campaigns/ChronologyOfLegislation.pdf.  Britzman, D. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach, (2nd ed.). New York: State University of New York Press.  Bullough, R., Clark, D., & Patterson, R. (2003). Getting in step: Accountability. accreditation and the standardization of teacher education in the United States. Journal of Education for Teaching, 29 (1), 35-51.  Carnoy, M. (1999). Globalization and educational reform: what planners need to know. UNESCO. Retrieved June, 10, 2006, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/001 2/001202/120274e.pdf.  Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. London: Routledge. Retrieved January 12, 2006, from http://books.google.com.  Carr, D. (2002b). Moral formation, cultural attachment or social control: What’s the point of values education? Educational Theory on the Web. 50, (1). 49-62. Retrieved February 18, 2006, from doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00049.  140  Carr, D. (2003). Making sense of education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.  Carr, D. (2005). Personal and interpersonal relationships in education and teaching: A virtue ethical perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 53, (3). 255–271. Retrieved February 18, 2006, from www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00294.  Carr, D. (2009). Contribution to symposium on philosophy of education. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/6201.pdf.  Chilton, P. 2005. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.). A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (19-51).  Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.  Cochran-Smith, M. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28, (7), 15-23. Retrieved December 10, 2006, from DOI: 10.1080/15476880600820136.  141  Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30 (8), 3–15. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download.  Cochran-Smith, M. (2001a). The outcomes question in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,17, (5). (527-546). Retrieved October 30, 2005, from linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0742051X0000129.  Cochran-Smith, M. (2001b). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice and pitfalls. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9, (11). Retrieved October 30, 2005, from http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa.  Cochran-Smith, M. & Fries, M. (2005). Researching teacher education in changing times: Politics and paradigms. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.). Studying teacher education. (pp. 69-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Cochran-Smith, M. (2006). Teacher education and the need for public intellectuals. The New Educator, 2. 181–206. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from DOI: 10.1080/1547 6880600820136.  Codd, J. (1983). Educational Research as Political Practice. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from http://www.aare.edu.au/83pap/83_2_4.pdf.  142  Cole, A. (2000). Toward a preliminary understanding of teacher education reform in Anglophone Canada. McGill Journal of Education, (Spring). Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3965/is200004/ai_n8890 690/pg_12.  Cornbleth, C. (1983). Ritual and rationality in teacher education reform. Educational Researcher, 15, 4. 5-14. Retrieved June 16, 2007, from DOI: 10.3102/0 013189X015004005.  Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www. nap.edu/books/0309094356/html.  Coulter, D., Coulter, D., Daniel, M., Decker, E., Essex, P., Naslund, J., Naylor, C., Phelan, A., & Sutherland, G. (2008). A question of judgment: A response to standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of educators in British Columbia. Educational Insights, 11, (3). Retrieved August 25, 2009, from http://www .ccfi.educ.ubc.ca/publication/insights/v11n03/pdfs/coulter.pdf.  Cukier, W., Bauer, R., & Middleton, C. (2004). Applying Habermas' validity claims as a standard For critical discourse analysis. in B. Kaplan, D. Truex, T. Wood-Harper & J. DeGross (Eds.). Information Systems Research Relevant Theory & Informed Practice, (233-235). Norwell, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers.  143  Culler, J., (1982). On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1999). Teacher recruitment, selection, and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality of teachers. In L. Darling-Hammond, and G. Sykes (Eds.)., Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A., & Klein, S. (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Devenney, M. (2004). Ethics and politics in contemporary theory: Between critical theory and post-Marxism. Routledge. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from http://books.google.com.  Dik, B., & Duffy, R.. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37. 424-450.  Diez, M., & Raths, J. (2007). Dispositions in teacher education: Their nature, development, and assessment. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishers.  Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (1983). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  144  Eisner, E. (2001). Standards for schools: Help or hindrance? In W. Hare & J. Portelli (Eds.), Philosophy of education: Introductory readings (3rd Ed.), (pp. 387-398). Calgary: Detselig Enterprises.  Earl, L. (1999). Assessment and accountability in education: Improvement or surveillance? Education Canada, 39 (3), 4-6.  Erwin, T. (1999). The United States perspective on and experience of performance indicators and threshold standards—how Is quality determined? In H. Smith, M. Armstrong, & S. Brown (Eds.). Benchmarking and Threshold Standards in Higher Education, London: Kogan Page.  Faircough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.  Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Fairclough, N. (1992b). Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 3. 193-217.  Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4, (2). 133-168.  145  Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold.  Fairclough, N. (1999b). Language and Power. London: Longman.  Fairclough, N. (2001b). Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.  Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge. Retrieved from July 7, 2009 from http://books. google.com.  Fielding, M. (1996). Beyond school effectiveness and school improvement: Lighting the slow fuse of possibility. The Curriculum Journal, 8(1). 7-27.  Fennell, T. (1993). What’s wrong at school? Maclean's (January 11, 1993). Retrieved August 25, 2006 from Canadian Reference Centre database http://web.ebscohost.com.  Fenstermacher, G. (2002). Reconsidering the teacher education reform debate: A commentary on Cochran-Smith and Fries. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 20-22. Retrieved June 6, 2003, from https://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals _and_Publications/Journals /Educational_Researcher /3106/3106_ Fenstermacher.pdf.  146 Fenwick, T. (2001). Teacher supervision through professional growth plans: Balancing contradictions and opening possibilities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3 (3), 401-424. Retrieved July 12, 2005, from http://eaq.sagepub.com/cgi/ content/abstract/37/3/401.  Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Habermas and Foucault - thinkers for civil society. British Journal of Sociology, 49,2. 210-233. Retrieved September 9, 200, from http://www. esnips.com/doc/53cb498b-9c9b-438f-addd-53f855e393a4/Flyvbjerg,-Bent--Habermas-and-Foucault---thinkers-for-civil-society-281998-British-Journal-ofSociology.  Fraser, N. (1981). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. Praxis International, 1(3), 272-287.  Fullan, M., Galluzzo, G., Morris, P. & Watson, N. (1998). The Rise and Stall of Teacher Education Reform. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Retrieved March 27, 2007, from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_9899/11_98.pdf.  Fullan, M. (1998). Education reform: are we on the right track? Education Canada, 38,(3). Retrieved August 24, 2006, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did= 413122921&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=6993&RQT=309&VName=PQD.  147 Furlong. J. (2002). Ideology and reform in teacher education in England: Some reflections on Cochran-Smith and Fries. Educational Researcher, 31 (6), 23-25.  Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.  Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. (A. Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books.  Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.  Foucault M. (1980). Body, power. in C. Gordon, (Ed.). Power/Knowledge:Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. NY: Pantheon Books.  Gardner, M., Doyle, C., Dibbon, D., Goodnough, K., Strong, E., & Ciszewska-Carr, J. (2005). Developing a conceptual base for a “fifth approach” to teacher education. Paper given at the Teacher education for the schools we need conference, May 13-14, 2005, Toronto. Retrieved May 26, 2005, from http://conference.oise.utoronto. ca/papers/GardnerMpaper.pdf.  148  Gee, J. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. Reading Online, 4(3). Retrieved October 12, 2006, from: http://www.readingdiversitypedagogy. com/.weblocgonline .org/articles/art-index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook /gee/index.html.  Gee, J. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Giroux, H. (2002). The corporate war against the higher education workplace (5), 1. Retrieved August 6, 2008 from http://www cust.educ.ubc.ca/workplace/ issue5p1/giroux.html.  Giroux H., & McLaren, P. (1987). Citizenship, public philosophy, and the struggle for Democracy. Educational Theory, 37, (2) 103-120. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/20655489/giroux-citizenship-public-philosophy-and-and-the-struggle-for-democracy.  Glassford, L. (2005). A triumph of politics over pedagogy? The case of the Ontario teacher qualifying test, 2000-2005. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 45. Retrieved September 6, 2006 from http://www.umanitoba.ca/ publications/cjeap/ articles/glassford.html.  149  Glassford, L. (2007). Quality assurance or election fodder? The politics of teacher testing in Ontario, 1999-2003. Historical Studies in Education/Revue d'histoire de l'éducation (Spring). Retrieved August 12, 2008, from http://library.queensu.ca/ojs/index php/edu_hse-rhe/article/viewArticle/276.  Goodlad, J. (1990b). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Goodlad, J. (1990). The occupation of teaching in schools. In J. Goodlad, R. Soder, & K. Sirotnik (Eds.). The moral dimension of teaching, (pp. 3-34). San Francisco: JosseyBass.  Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal: Better teachers, better schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Goodlad, J., Soder, R. & Sirotnik, K. (Eds.) (1990). Preface. The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). Teachers’ professional lives. London: Falmer Press.  Graham, L. (2005). Discourse analysis and the critical use of Foucault. Paper presented at Australian Association for Research in Education 2005 Annual Conference, Sydney. Retrieved Aug 10, 2008, from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/2689/1/2689.pdf.  150  Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.  Grimmett, P. (1998). Reconceptualizing the practice of teacher preparation: on not throwing out the concurrent model with the reform bathwater. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 44,(3). Retrieved September 1, 2006, from http://proquest.umi. com/pqdweb?did=390556051&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=6993&RQT= 309&VName=PQD.  Guppy, N., & Davies, S. (1999). Understanding Canadians’ declining confidence in public education. Canadian Journal of Education, 24, (3). 265-280. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/Full Text/CJE24-3/CJE24-3-Guppy.pdf.  Guthrie, J., & Springer, M. (2004). A Nation at Risk revisited: Did “wrong” reasoning result in “right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education 79, (1). 7-35.  Habermas, J. (1968). Technology and science as “Ideology”. Toward a Rational Society; Student Protest, Science, and Politics, (J. Shapiro, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Retrieved August 1, 2009 from http:// books.google.com.  Habermas, J., (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalisation of the society (Vol. 1). Cambridge, Polity Press.  151  Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. lifeworld and systems: A critic of functionalist reason ( Vol.2). Cambridge, Polity Press.  Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.  Habermas, J. (1992). Further reflections on the public sphere (T. Burger, Trans.). In C. Calhoun (Ed.). Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 421-461). Cambridge: MIT Press.  Hall, C., & Schulz, R. (2003). Tensions in teaching and teacher education: Professionalism and professionalisation in England and Canada. Compare, 33, (3). 369-383. Retrieved Sept 7, 2005, from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledge/com /2003/0000 0033/00000003/art00007.  Hall, S. (2001) Foucault: power, knowledge and discourse. In Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. Discourse theory and practice: a reader. London: Sage, 72-81.  Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.  Hammersley, M. (1997). On the foundations of critical discourse analysis. Language and Communication,17. 237-248.  152  Hansen, D. (1994). Revitalizing the idea of vocation in teaching. Philosophy of Education. Retrieved December 22, 2006, from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PESYearbook /94_docs/HANSEN.HTM.  Hartsock, N. (1990). Foucault on power: A theory for women? in L. Nicholson (Ed.). Feminism/Postmodernism. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall.  Heim, M. (1995). Accountability in education: A primer for school leaders. Pacific Resources for Education and Learning. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from http://www.prel.org/products/Products/Accountability.htm.  Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from http://www.holmespartnership.org/publications.html.  Hopkins, D. (2001). School Improvement for Real. Routledgefalmer.  Hostetler, K. (2005). What is “good” education research? Educational Researcher, 34 (6). 16-21.  Huckin, T. (2002). Social approaches to critical discourse analysis. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from exchanges.state.gov/education/engteaching/pubs/BR/functional sec36.htm.  153  Huebner, D. (1999). The Lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne Huebner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.  International Organization for standardization (2006). Overview of the ISO system. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://www.iso.ch/iso/.  Jacobsen, M. Clifford, P. & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: Creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher, 2(3). http://www.citejournal.org/vol2 /iss3/ currentpractice/article2.cfm.  Johnson, D., Johnson, B., Farenga, S., and Ness, D. (2005). Trivializing teacher education: The accreditation squeeze. Rowman & Littlefield.  Kelly, P. (1995). Teaching as a profession? Retrieved April 2, 2005 from http:// education.boisestate.edu/pkelly/webpages/920PPR.html.  Kerr, D. (1983). Teaching competence and teacher education in the US. Teachers College Record 84, 525-52.  Koller, V. (2003). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society, 16. 199-218. Retrieved December 12, 2007 from http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/2/199.  154  Kouletaki, E. (2001). Actors in lexical choice. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from http://cswww.essex.ac.uk/cluk/kouletaki.PDF.  Kultgen, J. (1988). Ethics and professionalism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.  Kymlicka, W. (2008). Immigration, citizenship, multiculturalism: Exploring the links. 195208.The Political Quarterly Retrieved June 16, 2009, from http://cultural cubo.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/will-kymlicka_immigration-citizenshipmulticulturalism-exploring-the-links.pdf.  Lazar, M. (2005). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse. (Ed.). London: Palgrave.  Larabee, D. (1992). Doing good, doing science: The Holmes Group Reports and the rhetorics of education reform. Teachers College Record, 93. Retrieved July 10, 2006 from transactionpub.metapress.com/index/4JJY3GVC0XW5UQ42.pdf. Labaree, D.(2004). The trouble with Ed Schools? New Haven: Yale University Press. LaFever, K. ( 2008). Interdisciplinary teacher education: Reform in the global age. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://www.ohio link.edu/etd/view.cgi?acc_num=miami1228748083.  155  Lawton. A. (2004). Developing and Implementing Codes of Ethics. Vie_Oji Politika Ir Administravima, 7. Retrieved August 12, 2009, from http://internet.ktu.lt/lt/ mokslas/zurnalai/vpa/ z7/1648-2603-2006-nr7-94.pdf.  Lloyd, M. (2003). An Introduction. in Mackenzie, I., Eccleshall, R., Finlayson, A., Geoghegan, V., Kenny, M., Lloyd, M., Wilford, R. (Eds.). Political Ideologies: An Introduction [3rd Edition]. Routledge, London.  Lunenburg, F. (1998). Revolution in the teaching profession. College Student Journal, 32 (3). 400–405.  Mahon, M. (1992). Foucault's Nietzschean genealogy: Truth, power and the subject. Binghamton: SUNY. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://books.google.com.  McGraw, D. (2004). A social contract theory critique of professional codes of ethics. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from http://www.ethicstechconference. org/papers/mcgraw.doc  156  McKenna, M. (2009). Examining teacher candidates' perceptions of teachers' professional dispositions. In M. McKenna, P.LeBlanc, & N. Gallavan (Eds.) Affective teacher education: Exploring connections among knowledge, skills, and dispositions (136149). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.  Merriam-Webster ( 2009). Connotation. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from www.aolsvc .merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/connotations.  Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. in R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds). Methods of critical discourse. London: Sage.  McLeod, D.., Stake, R., Schappelle, B.., Melissinos, M., and Gierl, M. (1996). Setting the standards: NCTM’s role in the reform of mathematics education. In S..Raizen & E..Britton (Eds.), Bold Ventures, Volume 3: Case Studies of U.S. Innovations in Mathematics Education (pp. 15–130). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.  Mitchell, K., Robinson, D., Plake, D. & Knowles, K. (2001). Testing teacher candidates: The role of licensure tests in improving teacher quality. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.  157  Motter, P. (2008) The role of the media in educational policy formation and legitimation in Brazil: 1995-2008. Unpublished dissertation. http://www. planejamento.gov .br/secretarias/upload/Arquivos/seges/EPPGG/producaoAcademica/ Tese_PaulinoMotter.pdf.  National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). An open letter to the American People-A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Retrieved April 2, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.  National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education , (2008). Professional standards for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions.  Niewolny, K. & Wilson, A. (2007). A critical discourse analysis of adult agricultural education. Proceedings of the joint international conference of the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC). Retrieved August 10, 2009, from www.oise.utoronto.ca/./AERC%20CASAE%20Niewolny%20Wilson-2007.pdf.  Olson, L. (1995). Standards: Standards times 50. Education Week. (April 12, 2005). Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1995 /04/12/29st50.h14.html ?qs=Standards:+Standards+times+50.  158  Patterson, A. (1997). Critical discourse analysis: A condition of doubt. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3). 425-435. Phelan, A., Erickson, G., Farr Darling, L., Collins, S. & Kind, S. (2007). The filter of laws: Teacher education and the British Columbia College of Teachers teaching standards. In L. Farr Darling, A. Clarke & G. Erickson, (Eds). Collective improvisation in a teacher education community. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer Academic Publishers.  Phelan, A. (1996). “Strange pilgrims'”: Disillusionment and nostalgia in teacher education reform. Interchange, 27, (3 & 4), 331-348. Retrieved July 18, 2006 from www. springerlink.com/index/H7561366588468QK.pdf.  Phelan, A. (2005). On discernment: The practice of wisdom and the wisdom of practice. In G. Hoban (Ed.). The missing links in teacher education: Developing a multi- multilinked conceptual framework (pp. 57-73). Netherlands: Springer. Poole, W. (2007). Neo-liberalism in British Columbia Education and Teachers’ Union Resistance. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 11(24). Retrieved January 15, 2010 from http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca%7Eiejll.  Portelli, J., Solomon, R., Barrett, S., & Mujawamariya, D. (2005). Standardized Teacher Testing Fails Excellence and Validity Tests. Teaching Education,16(4 ). 281 – 295. Retrieved April, 6, 2007, from DOI:10.1080/10476210500345482.  159  Portelli, P. & Vilbert, A. (2001). Standards, equity, and the curriculum of life. Analytic Teaching, 22, (1). Retrieved April 6, 2007 from http://www.viterbo.edu/analytic /table2.htm.  Popkewitz, T. (1993). US teacher education reforms: Regulatory practices of the state, university and research, (pp. 263 – 302). in T. Popkewitz (Ed.). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.  Queen's Printer, British Columbia (RSBC, 1996). Teaching profession act. Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/T/96449_01.htm  Rabinow, P. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.  Repko, A. (2008). Interdisciplinary research: Process and theory. California: Sage.  Robertson, H-J. (2000). In Canada: Par for the course. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(9), 716-17, Retrieved August 28, 2006 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct = true&db=aph&AN=3078398&site=ehost-live.  Rogers, R. (Ed.). (2004). Critical discourse analysis in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.  160  Rogers, R., & Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, E., Hui, M., Joseph, D., & O'Garro, G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416  Rose, J. (2002). The assault on school teacher bargaining in Ontario. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 57, (1), 100-128. Retrieved August 28, 2006, from findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4388/is_200201/ai_n15293987.  Russell, T., McPherson, S., & Martin, A. (2001). Coherence and collaboration in teacher education reform. Canadian Journal of Education, 26, (1), 37–55. Retrieved August 21, 2004, from www.csse.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE26-1/CJE26-1-Russell.pdf.  Saussure, F. (1916). Course in General Linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth, 1983.  Schon, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.  Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  Scott, D. (2003). Curriculum Studies: Boundaries : subjects, assessment, and evaluation Retrieved April 19, 2009, from http://books.google.com.  161  Schulte, L., Edick, N., Edwards, S., & Mackiel, D. (2004). The development and validation of the teacher dispositions index. Essays in Education Online, 112. Retrieved April 10, 2005 from http://www.usca.edu/essaysvol1/2winter2004.html.  Schugurensky, D. (2003). The tango of citizenship learning and participatory democracy. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/tlcentre/conference003 /Proceedings/sw.pdf.  Shaker, P. (2001). Teacher testing: A symptom. Teaching Education,12. (1). 65-80.  Sherman, S. (2006). Moral dispositions in teacher education: Making them matter Teacher Education Quarterly, Fall). Retrieved July 6, 2007, from http:// www.teqjournal.org/backvols/2006/33_4/11sherman.pdf.  Slembrouck, S. (2001). Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analyses of discourse. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1). 33-57.  Smythe, S. (2006). The Good Mother. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from http://www.nald.ca/l ibrary/research/goodmthr/cover.htm.  Sox, H. (2007). Medical professionalism and the parable of the craft guilds. Ann Intern Med.(11). 809-10. PubMed PMID: 18056668.  162  Sternberg, R. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Strike, K. (2004). The ethics of teaching [4th Ed.]. New York : Teachers College Press.  Stoddard A. (1937). The unique function of education in American democracy. Educational Policies Commission, the National Education Association of the United States. Retrieved October 14, 2009 from http://www.archive.org/details/uniquefunction of027956mbp.  Strydom, P. 2001. The Problem of Triple Contingency in Habermas. Sociological Theory 19(2): 165–8.  Suurmond, J. (2005). Our talk and walk: Discourse analysis and conflict studies, CRU Working Paper 35, The Hague, Clingendael Institute, October.http://www. clingendael.nl/publications/2005/20051000_cru_ working_paper_35.pdf.  Taylor, C. (1986). Foucault on freedom and truth. In D. Hoy (Ed.), Foucault: A critical reader (pp. 69-102). London: Blackwell.  Taylor, R., & Wasicsko, M. (2000). The dispositions to teach. Retrieved July 18,2003, from http://www.education.eku.edu-Dean-The Dispositions to Teach.  163  Tom, A. (2000) Teacher education reform in the United States: Thrusts, assumptions, and implications. Address at the International Symposium on Repositioning Teacher Education (Sydney, Australia, January 27-28, 2000).  Thomas, S. ( 2004). Reconfiguring the public sphere: Implications for analyses of educational policy. Retrieved August 6, 2007, from 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2004.00265.  University of British Columbia (2008). Appendix: Guidelines for assessing BC teacher education students: Meeting certification standards (in UBC, Attainment of Standards Report, (February 2008).  University of British Columbia, Faculty of Education (2007). Attainment of standards report. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from educ.ubc.ca/about/standards/standards-report.doc.  van Dijk,, T. (1997). Mediating racism. The role of the media in the reproduction of racism. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, Power and Ideology , pp. 199-226. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  van Dijk, T. (1998a). Critical discourse analysis. in D. Tannen (Ed.) Discourse Analysis Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.hum.uva.nl/~teun/cda.htm.  164  van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. (pp. 95-120). London: Sage.  van Dijk T. .(2004). Politics Ideology and Discourse. Retrieved June 16, 2006, from http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html  Van Leeuwen, T.( 2005). Three models of interdisciplinarity (3-18). In R. Wodak & P. Chilton (Eds.). A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (19-51).  van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; London, Ont.: Althouse Press.  Van Nuland, S., Khandelwal, B.P., Biswal, K., Dewan, E.A., Bajracharya, H.R. (2006). Ethics in education: the role of teacher codes in Canada and South Asia. IIEPUNESCO: Paris Retrieved January 6, 2007, from unesdoc.unesco. org/images/0014/001490/149079e.pdf.  Vokey, D. (2001). Moral discourse in a pluralistic world. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.  Vokey, D. (2009b). Daniel Vokey. http://www.edst.educ.ubc.ca/faculty/vokey.html.  165  Wallace, M. (2004). Collaboration among schools and colleges in a competitive climate. In H. Tomlinson, (Ed). Education Management: Major Themes. Retrieved June 16, 2008 from http://books.google.com.  Wasicsko, M., Callahan, C., & Wirtz, P. (2004). Integrating Dispositions into the Conceptual Framework: four a priori questions. KCA Journal,23 (1), 1-8. Retrieved June 16, 2006, www.educatordispositions.org/dispositions/fouraprioriquestions.pdf.  Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (2002). Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity, (Eds). Palgrave Macmillan.  Wetherell, M. (2001c). Themes in discourse analysis: The case of Diana In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. London: Sage.  Weiner, H. & Cohen, A. (2003). Dispositions in teacher education programs: An opportunity for reform. Paper Presented at the Second Annual National Conference on Teacher Dispositions, November 19, 2003 at Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond Kentucky. Retrieved May 12, 2005, from http://www. education.eku.edu/ dispositions/resources /Dispositions ProceedingsSessionK.doc.  Wenzlaff, T. (1998). Dispositions and portfolio development: Is there a connection? Education, (Summer). Retrieved May 12, 2005, from www.findarticlcles com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199807/ai_n8801035.  166  Widdowson, H. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.  Wise, A. (2006). A statement from NCATE on professional dispositions. Retrieved October, 12, 2006 from http://www.ncate.org/public/0616_MessageAWise.asp?ch=150  Wittgenstein, L. (1965). A lecture on ethics. The Philosophical Review, 74, (1).  Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.  Wodak, R. (1996) Disorders of discourse. Real language series. Longman, London.  Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2001). (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.  Yackulic, R., & Noonan, B. (2001). Quality Indicators for Teacher Training in Canada. Paper presented at the 2001 Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium: Teacher Education/Educator Training: Current Trends and Future Directions (May 22-23, 2001, Quebec City). Retrieved June 6, 2005, from www.cesc.ca/ pceradocs/2001 /papers/01Yackulic_Noonan_e.pdf.  Yanoshevsky, G. (2009). Three decades of writing on manifesto: The making of a genre. Poetics Today, 30(2) 257-286. Retrieved August 12, 2009 from DOI:10.1215 /03335372-2008-010.  167 Young, J. (2004). Systems for educating teachers: Case studies in the governance of initial teacher education. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 32. Retrieved June 10, 1009, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/ publications/cjeap/ articles/noma/systems.young.html.  Young, J., Hall, C., & Clarke, A. (2007). Challenges to university autonomy in initial Teacher education programmes: The cases of England, Manitoba, and British Columbia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 81-93.  Zeichner, K., & Cohran-Smith, M. (Eds). (2005). Studying teacher education: The Report of the AREA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1990). Traditions of reform in U.S. teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 3-20.  Zeichner, K., & Gore, J. (1990). Teacher socialization. In R. Huston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: Macmillan.  Zollers, N., Albert, L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). In Pursuit of social justice: Collaborative research and practice in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 22 (2). 1-12.  168  Appendix Appendix One: Standards for the Education, Competence and Professional Conduct off Educators in British Columbia. (BCCT).  .  for the Education, Competence and Professional Conduct of Educators in British Columbia  BC College of Teachers Second Edition May 2004  169  Standards for the Education, Competence and Professional Conduct of Educators in British Columbia BC College of Teachers  Second Edition May 2004  170  TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .………………………………………………………………………………………3 The Purpose and Meaning of the Standards in Practice ......................................................4 Understanding the Context of Standards .............................................................................6 Commitment to the Standards..............................................................................................6 Next Steps: Development of Criteria……………………………………………………….6 Definitions............................................................................................................................8 Standards for the Education and Competence of Educators in British Columbia………………11 Standards for the Professional Conduct of Educators in British Columbia…………………17 Bibliography…… …… ……… ……… …… .…… ……… …… ……… ……… …… ……… . 19  171  INTRODUCTION The BC College of Teachers is the professional body for the majority of educators in British Columbia, and is directed through legislation to set standards for the profession. Section 4 of the Teaching Profession Act (TPA) articulates this. It is the object of the college to establish, having regard to the public interest, standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members, persons who hold certificates of qualification and applicants for membership and, consistent with that object, to encourage the professional interest of its members in those matters. Section 25 of the TPA also requires that the College admit only those persons who have met "standards of qualification and fitness" and are of "good moral character." In October 2003, the College approved standards for the education, competence and professional conduct of its members and certificate holders, including classroom teachers, principals, superintendents and other educators in the public, independent and First Nations school systems in BC. In the development of the Standards, the College examined education and other professional standards and codes of conduct from English-speaking countries around the world including Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, and Wales. As well, articles and books by authors such as Linda Darling-Hammond, Michael Fullan and Charlotte Danielson were referenced. While the materials provided excellent perspectives on the commonalities of professional standards, the Standards are "made in BC." A complete bibliography is appended to this document. Following the adoption of the Standards the College embarked on a six-month review process. The College met with all interested educational partner groups to discuss and receive feedback on the Standards. The Standards were reviewed and revised based on this feedback as well as on feedback received through the College website. The May 2004 version of the Standards is the result of this consultation process. It is expected that the Standards will continue to evolve over time and will require ongoing updating and modification. This process will involve further consultation with educational partner groups. Each year the College will identify three Standards that will be the focus of examination by the educational community and the public. Representatives of partner groups as well as individuals will be invited to attend sessions that will focus on these three standards. The College invites feedback at any time from individuals throughout the province via e-mail to communication@bcct.ca. The reviews will assess whether the Standards continue to be ethically sound, publicly responsible, professionally acceptable, legally defensible, and administratively feasible. This schedule of formal review will ensure that the Standards are assessed in their entirety every five years without imposing the heavy burden of having to review all 13 Standards at once. The College looks forward to continuing the provincial dialogue around the Standards.  172  Introduction The Purpose and Meaning of the Standards in Practice The Standards for the Education, Competence and Professional Conduct of Educators in British Columbia are intended to honour and advance the profession by highlighting the complex and varied nature of educators' work. They articulate the knowledge, skills and attitudes that professional educators should possess as well as the responsibilities that accrue to them as professionals who hold the public trust. In doing so, the Standards contribute to a safe and high-quality learning environment for students and provide a basis for professional leadership. Taken together, the Standards define the professional attributes and expertise that educators bring to bear for the benefit of children and society. As a tool for the public good, the Standards are intended to support the goals of our society by helping to support the education of citizens to live productive and fulfilled lives. Educators who embody these Standards should be able to relate intellectually, pedagogically and ethically with children as they teach the specific subjects and curriculum of BC. In developing the Standards and in consultation with partner groups to revise them, the College based the Standards on the following values: Education is a moral activity intended to benefit both the individual citizen and society as a whole. Education is the foundation of a healthy and compassionate constitutional democracy. Educators are one medium for the transmission and translation of knowledge, skills, culture, and values. Educators are role models. Educators are responsible for students and are accountable to them, their parents, and the society at large. Educator competence is directly related to the quality of teacher education and to student achievement. Educator competence is positively affected by the congruence among educator self-assessment, professional development and student achievement. Educators, like students, must be continual learners.  “Educators acknowledge their professional obligations to the well-being and educational growth of students. Educators shall behave in a manner that reflects credit upon the teaching profession. Educators recognize the public trust of their positions and respect the privileged nature of their relationship with students”. BC College of Teachers 1993  Standards are a profession's way of communicating to its members and the public the description of the work of professionals - what they know, what they are able to do, and how they comport themselves as they serve the public. The Standards provide the foundation and stability on which the profession can grow, articulating both the values and characteristics that distinguish the profession. Professionals enter into a contract with the public that provides the professionals with a level of autonomy and self-regulation in return for an agreement that the profession will place the interests of the public above individual interests. Professionals agree to be accountable to the public, and the Standards serve as a touchstone for this accountability.  173  Introduction  Members of the College may ask "How will having standards influence our work? What's in it for us?" To be truly useful, members should clearly see themselves and their work reflected in the Standards for the profession. As members contemplate their practice, the Standards can provide direction for their professional development, enriching practice in all aspects of members' work. A classroom teacher, an administrator, or a curriculum coordinator should feel ownership of the standards and take pride in saying to the world, "I am a professional and this is what I can do." One critical consideration that often accompanies the development of standards is the question of how they will be used in practice. As with any set of standards, such as the learning outcomes contained in the Instructional Resource Packages (IRP) for each provincially approved course in the K-12 system in BC, there are questions about whether standards are absolute requirements or aspirations for which an individual professional may strive. The answer is not simply one or the other. One value that supports Canada's judicial and quasi-judicial systems, of which the College is a part, is informed judgment rather than rigid rules. Using this principle, the first ten standards, in particular Standards 7 to 10, are not meant to replace judgment when determining the qualification or competence of an educator. Rather, the Standards are intended to support those judgments and important decisions that educators and organizations such as the College must make. The College designed the Standards for the Education and Competence of Educators within a context of professionalism that is grounded in reflective practice rather than in a narrowly focused or inflexible set of rules. Such a philosophy implies that professionals are lifelong learners within their craft. The nature of professional knowledge (education) and skill (competence) is complex and layered. It is in an holistic sense that the Standards for the Education and Competence of Educators support assessments in these areas. The practice of education is an ongoing journey of growing understanding and developing skills. The notion that a professional can attain perfection in practice flies in the face of the notion of continual learning and suggests that "meeting" a standard can be relative. The question should not be "Has the Standard been met?" but "To what extent has the Standard been met for the particular context in which the educator is preparing or working?" A deficit in a single standard is not necessarily a fatal flaw that destroys professional competence, though in certain substantive circumstances it may be. Even the most eminent and competent professionals will continue throughout their careers to learn about and build their repertoires in pedagogy and subject area knowledge. The College hopes that the Standards will be used in ways that help the individual educator and the profession as a whole to grow and develop, with the goal being improved student achievement and selfactualization. Educators may use all of the Standards as they contemplate their practice and professional development needs. School-based administrators may refer to the Standards as they work collegially with their staffs to develop plans for individual or school-wide professional development. District-based administrators may refer to the Standards as they set goals for their districts. Teacher educators in university programs will use the Standards as the benchmarks to assess their graduates and recommend them to the College for admission to the profession.  174 Introduction The Standards can provide confidence to the public and parents that educators are themselves well-educated, that they are competent and skilled in carrying out their duties and that they are fit and proper persons to be working with the children of BC. Parents and the public may also use the Standards as a means to understand the complex roles played by, and the expectations of, educators in their children's schools at all levels of the system. Employers may use the Standards as a guide to help assess educator applicants or continuation of employment. The College will use the Standards as it creates bylaws and policies for the practice of educational professionals as it relates to the interests of the public. Professions are called "practices" because those who work within them are developing their professional knowledge and skill throughout their careers. The College acknowledges that the context within which educators work is critically important to the attainment of professional standards. The College further recognizes that the Standards cannot guarantee that educators will be good at their jobs, only that they have demonstrated that they have the prerequisites that the profession believes are necessary in order to achieve excellence.  Commitment to the Standards The College believes that the Standards are a positive force for educator professionalism that will honour the profession and benefit the children and people of BC through supporting higher student achievement and social development and an informed citizenry. As new professionals enter the profession, they will be asked to sign a commitment that their professional practice will be governed by the ethics and principles as outlined in the Standards document. By agreeing to abide by the Standards, a professional educator enters into a contract with the public in which parents can confidently send their children into an educator's care.  Next Steps: Development of Criteria Over the next few years, the College will work with educational partners to develop the criteria that further describe each Standard. While the Standards convey an overarching image of the work of professionals, they do not provide a clear picture of what a standard looks like in practice. Criteria are more detailed descriptors that bring the Standards to life and form a basis upon which professional educators can assess their own or others' capacity to meet the Standard and upon which the College can make decisions. As professional educators learn through practice and perform different roles within the school systems in BC, there is a need to develop criteria for various groups within the profession. Experienced educators can be expected to "meet" a Standard at a more developed level than a beginning educator, for example. Similarly, administrators may be required to demonstrate some Standards in different ways than classroombased educators. Because of the disparity in roles and expectations of professional educators, the criteria will be categorized to best describe various educational roles within the profession. It is in the criteria that professionals and the public will be able to see the work of educators come to life. However, criteria must not be so prescriptive as to remove the professional judgment of educators as they determine how best to serve students and the society. Within the boundaries of the Standards, professional educators must exercise their professional knowledge and skill to make choices that benefit students' achievement and social development. The criteria in the areas of education and competence will be developed in ways that ensure that they are flexible enough to allow for a diversity of ways in which they can be demonstrated. Therefore, the criteria should not define particular teaching or assessment strategies to be adopted by individual educators. As an example, a criterion might be that educators promote critical thinking in students. This criterion may be accomplished in a number of ways, Provided the methods chosen to meet such a criterion do not run afoul of other standards or criteria, professional  175  educators must have the ability to make those choices in the best interests of their students. The College looks forward to engaging with others in the creation of these criteria and will include these criteria as they are developed in later versions of the Standards. A reader who is familiar with the November 2003 version of the Standards may notice that there are fewer standard statements in the May 2004 version. The statements have not been lost but were determined through reflection and feedback to be more appropriate as criteria. The statements may be included in the criteria when they are developed.  176  Definitions Authority: • a society incorporated under the Society Act a corporation incorporated under the Company Act or a private Act a person designated, by regulation, as an authority that operates or intends to operate an independent school  Board: •  a board of school trustees constituted under the School Act  Children: •  all children and youth regardless of whether they are students enrolled in a school  Community: •  all those who live in an area served by a school or school district  Competence: •  having the knowledge and skills to carry out the duties of an educator  Conduct: •  the actions or omissions of an educator including such actions or omissions both within and outside of an educator's professional role  Criteria: •  those descriptors that provide detail for each Standard  Student: •  a person enrolled in a K-12 educational program provided by a board or authority and for whom a professional educator has responsibility.  177  Definitions  Parent (in respect of a student or of a child): • the guardian of the person of the student or child the person legally entitled to custody of the student or child the person who usually has the care and control of the student or child  Profession: A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive preparation including instruction in skills and methods as well as in the scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying such skills and methods, maintaining by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct and committing its members to continued study and to the kind of work which has for its prime purpose the rendering of a public service. Webster's Third New International Dictionary  Professional educator or educator:  •  one who is a member of the BC College of Teachers or holds a certificate of qualification from the BC College of Teachers  Society or public:  •  all those persons residing in BC or Canada  178  Education and Competence  The Standards in this section define the education and skills necessary to be a professional educator in BC. They are presented in a sequence that builds from attitudes and attributes in the early standards to knowledge, skills and professional expertise in the latter Standards. Foundation Statements: Standards for the Education and Competence of Educators 1. Professional educators value and care for all children, acting at all times in the best interests of children. 2.  Professional educators demonstrate an understanding of the role of parents and the home in the life of students. 3. Professional educators have a broad knowledge base as well as an in-depth understanding about the subject areas they teach. 4. Professional educators are knowledgeable about Canada and the world. 5. Professional educators are knowledgeable about BC's education system. 6. Professional educators understand children's growth and development. 7. Professional educators implement effective teaching practices. 8. Professional educators apply principles of assessment, evaluation and reporting. 9. Professional educators act as ethical educational leaders. 10. Professional educators engage in life-long learning.  179  Education and Competence STANDARDS FOR THE EDUCATION AND COMPETENCE OF EDUCATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA  1.  Professional educators value and care for all children, acting at all times in the best interests of children. Professional educators: 1.1 treat all children in ways that convey respect, warmth and freedom from domination 1.2 act within ethical and legal boundaries for the benefit and protection of all children 1.3 show commitment to principles of inclusion by treating all children equitably 1.4 intervene where possible if others fail to value and care for all children  1.5 Valuing and caring for all children is an essential prerequisite in the development of a professional educator, and one that may not necessarily be learned within a professional program. With this important moral perspective, the society can have confidence about the motivation and practice of an educator. Standard #1 speaks to the basic values that are prerequisite to the knowledge and skill necessary to be an educator.  2.  Professional educators demonstrate an understanding of the role of parents and the home in the life of students. Professional educators: 2.1 recognize, in planning for instruction and interactions with students and parents, the importance of the home environment and differing family values  2.2 respect the role of parents as co-educators of children and work to provide an educational environment that is supportive of that role 2.3 communicate openly, effectively, sensitively and in a timely manner with parents 2.4 seek involvement and input from parents to support students Education in a democratic society is a shared responsibility of the family and the state. The school systems, whether public or independent, represent establishments that are built on the values of a particular body - either the society as a whole for public schools or a particular group within society that establishes an independent school. No matter in which context professional educators work, the fact that parents and society entrust their children to the care of professional educators must be recognized. Standard #2 speaks to the role of the professional educator within this partnership.  180  Education and Competence  3.  Professional educators have a broad knowledge base as well as an in-depth understanding about the subject areas they teach. Professional educators: 3.1  are literate, numerate and fluent in either English or French  3.2  understand the core concepts and structures of the subjects they teach  3.3  understand how knowledge in subject areas is created, organized and linked to other disciplines  3.4  command a depth of subject area knowledge that goes beyond the particular curriculum  3.5  access and communicate subject area knowledge and connect it to the curriculum and the world beyond the school  Professional educators require, as a prerequisite to the act of educating others, a level of subject knowledge that can support the demands of the curriculum and the curiosity and questions of students. Further, professional educators must be able to communicate effectively in English or French in order to carry out their duties. Standard #3 requires that professional educators are competent to teach subjects and be understood by students and parents. 4.  Professional educators are knowledgeable about Canada and the world Professional educators:  4.1  have a general knowledge of Canadian history, geography and culture  4.2  understand, encourage and uphold the rule of law  4.3  are knowledgeable about the theory and practice of our constitutional democracy  4.4  understand the contributions of diverse cultures to Canadian society  4.5  have a general knowledge of world history, geography and cultures  Students must develop their knowledge and understanding of the history, geography and cultures of the nation and the world if they are to be sensitive to the larger context in which life is lived. Standard #4 describes the need for professional educators to be translators of Canadian and world societal values, enabling children to become participatory citizens.  181  Education and Competence 5.  Professional educators are knowledgeable about BC's education system. Professional educators:  5.1  understand the principal features of the BC education system  5.2  have a working knowledge of the relevant legislation that governs the profession and its work  5.3  understand the differing views regarding the goals of education  5.4  understand the history and context of education in BC and Canada  5.5  are aware of the current debates in education  5.6  understand the role of education in developing informed citizens in a constitutional democracy  As professionals, educators make decisions about the welfare of students. Many of the decisions are informed by holding a working knowledge of the philosophies and history that have shaped the current education system in BC. Professional educators also need to understand the legal context within which they work and have responsibilities, whether it is the public system, the independent or the First Nations systems. Standard #5 speaks to the importance of professional educators having a working understanding of the larger context of their work from both legal and political perspectives.  6.  Professional educators understand children's growth and development. Professional educators:  6.1  understand and apply relevant theories of human development including demonstrating an understanding of individual learning differences and special needs  6.2  understand and apply relevant theories that explain children's behaviour  6.3  focus on developing children's potential and love of learning  6.4  respond to specific situations in ways that respect children's dignity  Professional educators require knowledge of how children develop as learners and as social beings. This knowledge is used to inform the decisions that educators make about curriculum design and establishing relationships with children. Standard #6 speaks to the need for all professional educators to have the basic knowledge that supports appropriate skill development in the education of students.  182  Education and Competence 7.  Professional educators implement effective teaching practices. Professional educators:  7.1  create an environment that supports learning for all students  7.2  design, implement and monitor learning experiences to benefit student achievement  7.3  provide learning experiences in which students understand and develop their own role and responsibility in the learning process and as life-long learners  7.4  work collaboratively with educators, support staff, professional support staff, parents and others to improve student achievement  7.5  recognize when additional support and expertise is required to meet the specific needs of students and work collaboratively within these contexts to benefit students  Professional educators must have the knowledge and skill to make the subject matter accessible to all students. The previous six standards are, in a way, prerequisite to the seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth standards, which add the pedagogical knowledge and skill that transform an educated person into an educator. Standard #7 sets out the skills necessary for educating children.  8.  Professional educators apply principles of assessment, evaluation and reporting. Professional educators:  8.1  understand the strengths and limitations of specific assessment, evaluation and reporting tools  8.2  regularly assess and evaluate the intellectual achievement and social development of students  8.3  use assessment and evaluation to plan further teaching and learning experiences  8.4  work with colleagues to ensure a common interpretation of learning outcomes and evaluation results  8.5  maintain accurate and comprehensive records of student achievement  8.6  report regularly, accurately and informatively, to administration and parents, the intellectual achievement and social development of students  Understanding and implementing effective assessment and evaluation strategies, as well as recognizing what relevant information these strategies provide, is critical to student achievement. Assessment and evaluation practices have the potential to motivate students to greater success or to create barriers to their success. Standard #8 is intended to provide the appropriate benchmarks for professional educators as they determine the best methods of assessment and evaluation.  183  Education and Competence 9.  Professional educators act as ethical educational leaders. Professional educators:  9.1  act within legal boundaries for the benefit of students, the education system, and society  9.2  establish and maintain constructive, professional relationships with students, colleagues, employers, parents, the profession and others  9.3  accept, and assign others to, teaching or administrative positions for which the professional educator has the relevant knowledge and skills  9.4  are accountable to students, parents, employers, the profession and the public  9.5  develop and refine personal philosophies of education, teaching and learning that are informed by theory and contribute to practice  9.6  work collaboratively with educators, support staff, professional support staff, parents and others to improve the effective functioning of the school and district  9.7  support collaborative partnerships with parents, community, universities, government, social and business agencies for the benefit of students  The moral aspect of education requires that educators act ethically and with integrity. Education as a profession is based on the concept of public service and is concerned first and foremost with the welfare of the client, both individual students and society as a whole. Standard #9 is intended to provide appropriate professional expectations within a public- service context. 10.  Professional educators engage in life-long learning. Professional educators:  10.1  model their interest in, commitment to and enthusiasm for learning  10.2  keep current with subject area and pedagogical knowledge and skill  10.3  share their professional knowledge and expertise with the profession and others in the community  10.4  employ reflective practices that enhance their understanding and skills  The practice of education is not stagnant. It is impacted by research, technology, creativity and interactions with others. A hallmark of professionalism is the concept of professional growth over time. Professionals are not finished learning when they graduate from university or receive a certificate. Instead, they are embarking on a journey of learning that must continue throughout a career. Standard #10 is intended to guide professionals as they continue to develop in their particular areas of expertise within education.  184  Professional Conduct  The Standards in this section define expectations of educators' behaviour. Whether on duty or off, professional educators are seen as role models and as such must exhibit the highest qualities of character, including honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and compassion. The Standards for Professional Conduct are presented as expanding sets of responsibilities from those closest to the daily work of a professional educator to those who are involved more globally. Standards for the Professional Conduct of Educators 1. Professional educators have a responsibility to students. 2. Professional educators have a responsibility to parents and the public. 3.  Professional educators have a responsibility to the profession.  185 Professional Conduct STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF EDUCATORS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA . 11.  Professional educators have a responsibility to students. Professional educators:  11.1  respect the privileged position of authority, trust and influence that they hold with students  11.2  act in the best interests of children at all times  11.3  act with the understanding that they are role models for students  11.4  establish and maintain the boundaries of a professional relationship  11.5  do not engage in any sexually related behaviour with a child or student, with or without consent  11.6  provide students with an emotionally, intellectually and physically safe environment  11.7  treat all students with dignity and respect  Professionals provide a public service - in the case of education, the primary clients of that service are students. Therefore, an educator's personal needs must not supersede the needs of students. Professional educators are responsible, first and foremost, to students. The "best interests of children" must be defined within the context of society. Standard #11 is intended to prescribe and proscribe in broad terms the relationships that must exist between educators and students. 12. Professional educators have a responsibility to parents and the public.  Professional educators:  12.1  act ethically and honestly at all times  12.2  understand that they are viewed as role models by parents and society  12.3  ensure that the interests of students and the public supersede any responsibility to another educator or institution  12.4  behave at all times in ways that reflect positively on the public's confidence and trust in the education system  12.5  understand that professional autonomy is balanced by professional responsibility and accountability to the public  Parents and the larger society have a vested interest in the work of professional educators. The standards to which educators are held are not limited to when they are acting in their professional capacity. Rather, like all professionals, educators are expected to uphold the values of the profession and to act at all times in ways that maintain confidence in the education system. Standard #12 is intended to guide educators in their relationship with parents and the public to the benefit of individual students and the society as a whole.  186  Professional Conduct 13.  Professional educators have a responsibility to the profession. Professional educators:  13.1  exemplify behaviours that maintain the dignity, credibility and integrity of the profession  13.2  support the profession by providing mentorship or encouragement to other educators and those preparing to enter the profession  13.3  understand the difference between professional regulation and advocacy  13.4  ensure that all communications maintain a high standard of professionalism  13.5  cooperate in an investigation or inquiry conducted pursuant to the Teaching Profession Act  The Standards help to shape the individual and shared professional identity of educators. Each educator's actions reflect not only on that individual's reputation but on the integrity of the profession as a whole. Standard #13 is intended to provide guidelines with respect to the role an individual educator plays within the larger professional community.  187  BIBLIOGRAPHY Alberta Ministry of Education, (1997). Teaching Quality Standard Applicable to the Provision of Basic Education in Alberta. American Medical Association, (2001). Declaration of Professional Responsibility: Medicine's Social Contract with Humanity. Architectural Institute of BC, (2002). Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC, undated. Prime Values. Association of Teacher Educators, undated. Standards for Teacher Educators. Bailey, D. and Helms, R. (2000). The National Board Certified Teacher. PDK Fastback 470. Berkowitz, D., undated. How to Recognize a Good Teacher When You See One. Binning, B., (1998). Characteristics of a Recognized Professional Organization. College of Business Administration, University of Central Oklahoma. Board of Registered Social Workers in BC, (1994). Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice. British Columbia Institute of Agrologists, undated. Code of Ethics. British Columbia Teachers' Federation, (2003). Members Guide to the BCTF 2003 - 2004, policies 31.B.02 and 31.B.06. British Columbia Veterinary Medical Association, undated. Code of Ethics. BUROS Institute - American Federation of Teachers, National Council on Measurement in Education, National Education Association (1990). Standards for Teacher Competence in Educational Assessment of Students. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education (1997). California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Canadian Medical Association, Code of Ethics. Certified General Accountants Association of BC, undated. Code of Ethical Principles and Rules of Conduct. Chartered Accountants of BC, (2003). Rules of Professional Conduct. College of Dental Surgeons of BC, (2000). Guidelines for Promotional Activities and Ethical Conduct. College of Dental Surgeons of BC, (2000). Code of Conduct. College of Nurses of Ontario, (1995). Guidelines for Professional Behaviour. College of Nurses of Ontario, (1998). Reference Guide to Standards of Practice for Nurses in Ontario.  188  College of Nurses of Ontario, (2002). Professional Standards. College of Occupational Therapists of BC, (1983). Code of Ethics. College of Opticians of BC, undated. Code of Ethics. College of Pharmacists of BC, undated. Code of Ethics. College of Pharmacists of BC, (2003). Framework of Professional Practice. College of Physical Therapists of BC, undated. Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, undated. Code of Ethics. College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, undated. Medical Professionalism in the New Millennium: A Physician Charter. College of Physicians and Surgeons of BC, undated. Guidelines to the Practice of [developed for each specialty]. Connecticut State Department of Education, undated. Connecticut's Common Core of Teaching Connecticut State Department of Education, (2002). Common Core of Teaching Table: A Performance Continuum. Danielson, C., (1996). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA Darling-Hammond, L., (1998). Investing in Teaching. Education Week. Darling-Hammond, L., undated. Standards and Assessments: Where We Are and What We Need. TCRecord.org Darling-Hammond, L., (2001). Standard Setting in Teaching: Changes in Licensing, Certification, and Assessment in Handbook of Research on Teaching, Fourth Ed., American Educational Research Association. Darling-Hammond, L., (2002). Defining "Highly Qualified Teachers": What Does Scientifically-Based Research Actually Tell Us? Educational Researcher. Delaware Department of Education, (1997). Focus on Teacher Standards (The): States Raise the Bar on Teacher Standards (2003). www.educationworld.com. Fullan, M., (2001). Dimensions of Teacher Professionalism, Presentation to the BC College of Teachers' Conference. Fullan, M. and Miles, M., (1992). Getting Reform Right: What Works and What Doesn't. PDK. General Teaching Council of Scotland, (2002). Code of Practice on Teacher Competence. General Teaching Council of Scotland, undated. Professional Code for Registered Teachers.  189  General Teaching Council of Scotland, undated. The Standard for Full Registration. General Teaching Council of Scotland, undated. Code of Practice: TeacherCompetence. General Teaching Council of Scotland, undated. Professional Standards and Illustrations of Practice. General Teaching Council of Wales, undated. Professional Code for Teachers. Georgia State, (2000). Georgia Professional Standards: Educator Preparation. Gooler, D., Kautzer, K., and Knuth, R. (2000). Teacher Competence in Using Technologies: The Next Big Question. Guyton, E. and Byrd, D. ed. (1999). Standards for Field Experiences in Teacher Education, Association of Teacher Educators. Hay Group, (2000). Raising Achievement in Our Schools: Professional Characteristics for Effective Teaching. Idaho State Board of Education, (2000). Idaho Standards for Initial Certification of Professional School Personnel. Idaho State Board of Education (2002). Idaho Standards for Middle School Teachers (Draft) Illinois State Board of Education, (1996). Illinois Framework for Restructuring the Recruitment, Preparation, Licensure, and Continuing Professional Development of Teachers (Proposed). Illinois State Board of Education, undated. Illinois Professional Teaching Standards. Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (1992). Model Standards for Beginning Teacher Licensing, Assessment, and Development: A Resource for State Dialogue. Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, (2002). Ontario Public Accounting Qualifying Body Toughens the Rules. Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand, (2002). Code of Ethics. Iowa Teaching Standards and Model Criteria (2002). Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board, (1994). Experienced Teacher Standards for Preparation and Certification. Kohn, A. undated. Rescuing our Schools from "Tougher Standards." www.alfiekohn.org Law Society of BC, (2003). Professional Conduct Handbook. Licensed Practical Nurses of BC, undated. Standards of Practice. Maryland Teacher Performance Standards, (2003).  190  Massachusetts Department of Education, undated. Professional Standards for Teachers. Medical Council of New Zealand, (2001). Education, Training, and Supervision for New Doctors. Moss, J., (1996). The Standards of Quality: A Reaction. University of Minnesota. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards undated. What Teachers Should Know and Be Able to Do. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, (1998). Professional Teaching Standards. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, (2000). Professional Standards for Accreditation of Schools, Colleges, and Departments of Education. National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (2000). Content Knowledge in the Public School Classroom: Past, Present, and Future. Presentation to the Annual Meeting of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission, undated. Core Standards for Teachers in North Carolina. New Jersey Department of Education, (2002). New York State and the National Evaluation Systems (2003). New York State Teacher Certification Examinations. New Zealand Council for Educational Research, (2000). The Proposed New Zealand Education Council: A Commentary. New Zealand Teachers Council, (2002). Standards for Qualifications that Lead to Teacher Registration. Ombudsman, Province of British Columbia, (2003). Acting in the Public Interest? SelfGovernance in the Health Professions: The Ombudsman's Perspective. Ontario College of Teachers, undated. Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession. Ontario College of Teachers, undated. Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession. Ontario Education Act, Regulation 437/97. Professional Misconduct Ontario Institute of Agrologists, undated. Personal Professionalism and Ethics. Ontario Teachers' Federation, (2000). Response to the Ontario College of Teachers' Document Draft Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession.  191 Quebec Ministry of Education, undated. Teacher Training: Orientations: Professional Competencies. Queensland Board of Teacher Registration, (2002). Professional Standards for Graduates and Guidelines for Preservice Teacher Education Programs. Queensland Government, Education Queensland, (2002). Professional Standards for Teachers: Guidelines for Professional Practice (Pilot). Registered Nurses of BC, (2000). Standards for Nursing Practice in British Columbia. Regulation of Connecticut State Agencies, undated. Connecticut Code of Professional Responsibility for Teachers. Reynolds, A., (1995). The Knowledge Base for Beginning Teachers: Education Professionals' Expectations versus Research Findings on Learning to Teach. The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 95, Number 3. University of Chicago. Schulman, L., (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, from a speech to AERA, 1985. Schulman, L., (1998). Teaching and Teacher Education Among the Professions. 38th Charles W. Hunt Memorial Lecture. Society of Ontario Adjudicators and Regulators, (1996). Code of Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. Stout, R., (1996). Staff Development Policy: Fuzzy Choices in an Imperfect Market. Education Policy Analysis Archives, Arizona State University. Sussex Consortium for Teacher Education and Research, undated. Standards for the Award of Qualified Teacher Status. Wassermann, S. and Eggert, W., (1976). Profiles of Teaching Competency: A Way of Looking at Classroom Teaching Performance. Canadian Journal of Education, 1:1. Wilson, S., Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. (2001). A Case of Successful, Teaching Policy: Connecticut's Long-Term Efforts to Improve Teaching and Learning. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Wisconsin Standards for Teacher Development and Licensure, undated. Wise, A., (1994). The Coming Revolution in Teacher Licensure: Redefining Teacher Preparation. National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Wyoming Professional Teaching Standards Board, (2002). Handbook for Portfolio Certification.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0069214/manifest

Comment

Related Items