Cited by 78Global Educational Policies and ReformsTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesEducation Pedagogy and Practices

Teacher education and the GERM: policy entrepreneurship, disruptive innovation and the rhetorics of reform

Open access
Ellis, Viv, Steadman, Sarah, Trippestad, Tom Are·2019·Educational Review

Abstract

This article addresses the question: how do a new cadre of teacher education providers in England, imbued in the discourses of the Global Education Reform Movement, construct the problem of a supposedly “failing” existing teacher education system associated with universities; what solutions to this problem do they propose and on what grounds; and how sound are their arguments? We make a rhetorical analysis of publicly available discourse from a “new rhetorical” perspective. We focus on one case in England: the Institute for Teaching (IFT), an organisation that has grown out an influential Multi-Academy Trust (MAT) and that models itself on independent Graduate Schools of Education in the USA, such as Relay. We examine the emergence of the IFT as a case of policy entrepreneurship, capitalising on a travelling policy idea to create a market for its provision of “practice”-based teacher education programmes. We show how the IFT has rhetorically constructed its policy window using typical neo-liberal, reformist explanatory frames, allowing them to present themselves as disruptive innovators capable of solving societal challenges. Although apparently sophisticated in presentation and rhetorically adept, we argue that, ultimately, the IFT’s rhetoric is instead sophistic, presenting fallacious arguments in plausible ways about complex educational and social problems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00131911.2019.1522040

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 'accountability agenda' visible in ITE reforms in England is also visible in Australia and the United States.

    “For example, the 'accountability agenda' visible in ITE reforms in England (Ellis et al., 2019;Mutton et al., 2021;Towers et al., 2023) are also visible in Australia (Alexander & Bourke, 2021) and the United States (Fuller & Stevenson, 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis, V., Steadman, S., & Trippestad, T. A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Western Norway University of Applied Sciences (NO)
Corresponding author
Ellis, Viv
Venue
Educational Review
Published
2018-11-13
Volume
71
Issue
1
Pages
101-121
ISSN
  • 0013-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3397
OpenAlex
W2901668186
Cited by
78
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
23.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Educational Review (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education Pedagogy and Practices
Keywords
teacher professional development, Global Education Reform Movement, policy entrepreneurship, disruptive innovation, multi-academy trusts, graduate school of education, policy windows, neoliberalism, practice-based teacher education, England

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review