The Politics of Teacher Education and the Curse of Complexity

By Cochran-Smith, Marilyn | Journal of Teacher Education, May-June 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Politics of Teacher Education and the Curse of Complexity

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, Journal of Teacher Education

Some policy and political analysts assume that ambiguity, conflict, and competing goals are inherent in human societies. From this perspective, politics is a "creative and valued feature of social existence" (Stone, 1997, p. x) and the "process by which citizens with varied interests and opinions can negotiate differences and clarify places where values conflict" (Westheimer, 2004, p. 231). Following from this conception of politics, education (and with it, teaching and teacher education) are inherently and unavoidably political in that they involve the negotiation of conflicting values about curriculum, accountability, the role of schools in society, the children deemed eligible for particular services, and the persons and structures that govern and regulate all of these.

This view of the politics of education is quite different from the view that "being political" about education (or teacher education) is equated with being partisan about it and, thus, is a barrier to improving the processes of teacher preparation. Following from this latter conception of politics, it is assumed that it is possible--and desirable--to create a system of education that is politically neutral, value free, and above or outside of disagreements about educational means and ends (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). From this perspective, public dissent and the acknowledgement of ideological differences are regarded as obstacles to policies leading to educational improvement, not to mention as threats to truth and patriotism (Ross, 2004).

This editorial is rooted in the premises of the first position elaborated above--that politics is an inevitable characteristic of human society and social institutions involving contested notions about public and private interests and the role of education in society. The editorial focuses on two ideas that are useful in unpacking the issues involved in the contemporary politics of teacher education: the rhetoric of teacher education reform and the "curse" of complex understandings of teaching, learning, and schooling.


During the past 10 years, reforming teacher education has become acutely politicized. Deborah Stone's The Policy Paradox (1997) is particularly helpful here. In her theory of public policy, Stone rejected both the market model of society and the production model of policy making, which, she suggested, are the cornerstones of much of contemporary public policy analysis. Stone argued instead for a model of society as a political community and a model of policy making as the struggle over ideas:

   Each idea is an argument, or more accurately, a collection
   of arguments in favor of different ways of
   seeing the world ... there are multiple understandings
   of what appears to be a single concept, how
   these understandings are created, and how they are
   manipulated as part of political strategy. (p. 11)

Stone suggested that from a market model of policy making, the definition of policy problems is mistakenly regarded as a simple and straightforward matter of "observation and arithmetic" (p. 133)--the statement of a clear and fixed goal accompanied by an assessment of how far the status quo is from that goal. To the contrary, Stone posited that goals and positions are never fixed and problem definition is never a simple matter of arithmetic. Rather it is a matter of the strategic representation of situations wherein advocates "deliberately and consciously fashion their portrayals so as to promote their favored course of action" (Stone, 1997, p. 133).

One of the central ways groups, individuals, and government agencies promote their particular definitions of the problems of teacher education (and seek, ultimately, to control policy) is through the "rhetoric of reform," which includes how they use metaphor and analogy (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), emblematic language and recurring arguments forwarding their own positions and discrediting the positions of others (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001), and symbols, stories, and literary devices (Stone, 1997).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Politics of Teacher Education and the Curse of Complexity


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?