Datafying Teacher Training: Data, Metrics, and Standards in U.S. and Australian Teacher Preparation Programs

• In Event: The Enactment of Accountability, Learning Standards, and Data Use Policies in Education: Global Perspectives

Abstract

Objectives
The purpose of this paper is to examine new modes of standardization, datafication and evaluation in teacher preparation programs (TPPs) in the USA and Australia. In the paper, I map the emergence and evolution of data practices within these national contexts, while showing how the two countries have come to incorporate data into their TPPs in similar and yet different ways.

Perspectives
Contemporary thinking around datafication suggests an increased emphasis on data, standards, and test-based accountability has significantly changed the way schools operate and how teachers are trained, developed, and evaluated (Author(s), 2018; Bradbury, 2018; Roberts-Holmes & Bradbury, 2016; Lupton & Williamson, 2017; Selwyn, 2015). While much of the datafication literature has focused on practicing teachers (Author(s), 2019; Bradbury, 2019; Hardy, 2018), less attention has been paid to TPPs, which are also implicated in the datafication of schooling.

Methods and Data Sources
To map the varied and evolving uses and effects of standards, data and metrics in TPPs, I collected policy documents (e.g., federal accountability policies), TPP artefacts (e.g., brochures, websites, course listings), and program accreditation materials (e.g., standards, assessment tools, performance reports). For the analytical process, I drew on content and discourse analyses (Bacchi, 2000; Foucault, 2002) to problematize: (1) new data practices within TPP priorities, practice, and accreditation; and (2) data feedback-loops that link TPPs to school outcomes, which are then used to inform TPP evaluation and modification.

Findings
The analysis shows that there are many similarities, but also significant differences, between data-use in US and Australian TPPs. While both countries’ major TPP-accreditation bodies have required TPPs to demonstrate “impact on student learning”, the expectations for how this is to be done differs across the contexts. In the US, for example, “impact” is to be measured via student achievement tests (when available); while in Australia, “impact” evidence is not required to include standardized test results. Despite these differences, however, both systems are nonetheless subjects of “datafication”. For example, new requirements around data-driven assessment and modification of TPPs creates a recursive effect in terms of how and to what ends programs prepare their graduates. Analysis of annual accreditation reports, program descriptions, and course listings show that training pre-service teachers to be data-users and data-producers has become a key priority of TPPs. Then, data about the graduate teachers (and their impact) are collected, reported, and fed back into TPPs for modification purposes. This creates conditions whereby: (1) narrow, measurable conceptions of “teaching” are taught and reinforced in TPPs, and (2) data feedback-loops create an increasingly tight link between TPPs and schools. This has implications for the role and authority of TPPs and for teacher subjectivity and practice.

Significance
As data-centric priorities take precedence in teacher preparation and accreditation, we must question how this changes the purpose and function of TPPs and their role in education more broadly. We must also examine the effects of data feedback-loops that force a strict alignment between TPPs and schools, which is also addressed in this paper.

Author

• Jessica Holloway, Australian Catholic University