In the U.S., “ed reform” refers to a set of policies and practices intended to “fix” the “broken” education system consistent with a neoliberal, market-based approach (Apple, 2005; Hursh, 2007; Sleeter, 2009). The key premises are: educational success is key to economic success; the schools are failing; and, school—rather than social—factors produce academic outcomes, which should be measured by tests (Mehta, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to analyze the key components of “ed reform” that apply to initial teacher education. This paper combines two theoretical frameworks. Grounded in social movement theory, frame analysis highlights the rhetorical strategies reformers use to connect their positions to the “common sense” of their audiences (Davies, 2002; Entman, 1993; Gamson, 1988). Social network theory emphasizes the webs of relationships through which information, ideas, and resources flow (Carolan, 2014; Daly, 2010). Together, these frameworks afford identification of the predominant frames that are altering teacher education and assessment of the ties among their advocates. Applying these frameworks to current policy, media, and political documents, this paper identifies four reforms that are redefining U.S. teacher education: (1) alternative teacher certification; (2) initiatives to evaluate teacher preparation programs using students’ test scores; (3) the National Council on Teacher Quality’s annual review of teacher education programs, published in US News and World Report; and, (4) the edTPA performance assessment, managed by Pearson Education, Inc. The paper argues that these reforms are redefining teacher education’s goals and expectations as well as teacher educators’ and candidates’ ideas about equity, social justice, and educator agency. Moreover, the analysis reveals that these reforms are not distinct initiatives. Rather, most are linked together through a loose coalition of reform organizations that have emerged since the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and that share funders, neoliberal ideologies and tactics.

Apple, M. (2005). Educating the 'Right' way. New York: Routledge. Borgatti, S., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview. In A. Daly (Ed.), Social Network Theory and Educational Change . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carolan, B. (Ed.). (2014). Social Network Analysis and Education. LA: Sage Publications. Daly, A. (Ed.). (2010). Social Network Theory and Educational Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP. Davies, S. (2002). The Paradox of Progressive Education: A Frame Analysis. Sociology of Education, 75(4), pp. 269-286. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), pp. 51-58. Gamson, W. A. (1988). A Constructionist Approach to Mass Media and Public Opinion. Symbolic Interaction, 11(2), pp. 161-174. Hursh, D. W. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980-2001. AERJ, 50(2), 285-324. Sleeter, C. E. (2009). Teacher education, neoliberalism, and social justice. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 611-624). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis. Snow, D.A. and R.D. Benford. (1988). 'Ideology, Frame Resonance and Participant Mobilization,' International Social Movement Research 1:197- 219.