The worldwide emergence of master’s-level accreditation in teacher education since the midst of the 20^th century can be viewed from two perspectives: one that views it as an integral part of the changes which occurred in higher education (HE) and the other that views it as a way to upgrade the teaching profession through continuing professional development.

From the first perspective, the appearance of master's-level programs in teacher education is related to an academization process that resulted from the expansion, diversification and stratification of HE systems. In many countries traditional research universities which used to be the exclusive type of HEI gave way to a variety of new, less selective academic institutions that differ from the research universities in their administrative structure, academic orientation and prestige. This process led to power struggle between the first-tier research universities striving to maintain their hegemony, and the second-tier less selective academic institutions (Meek et al., 1996; Trow, 1984; Shavit, et al., 2007). Academic colleges of education are an example of second-tier institutions which went through the academization process.

According to the second perspective, the master’s-level programs in teacher education are centered on offering continuing professional development to teachers as a way to raise the quality of the teaching workforce and the status of the profession (Bailey & Sorensen,2012; Burton & Goodman, 2011; Simola, 2006; Uusiatti & Maatta 2013). Professional development of teachers can be viewed in light of two ideologies regarding the nature of the teaching profession. One that perceives teaching as a classical profession based on scientific and generic knowledge and another that views teaching as a reflective practice based on situated, contextual and practical knowledge. While the first ideology requires a long period of academic study, usually through a “transmissive” model of learning, the second ideology calls for practice oriented studies through  a “transformative” model of professional development (Kennedy, 2005, 2014).

In Israel too, the launching of master programs (M.Ed) in 2004 was the result of the academization process and the need to professionalize the teaching occupation (Hofman & Niederland, 2012). The M.Ed was already the second phase of this process which began in the early 80s. Until then, the teacher colleges were regarded merely as teacher seminars  subordinated to the Ministry of Education (ME). The approval of master programs within academic teacher colleges was part of a major academization reform of many other non-research academic colleges led by the Council of Higher Education (CHE). In order to maintain the universities' hegemony as research institutions, a distinction was made between “research” vs. “studied” master degrees and the CHE approved only “studied” master degrees to be implemented in the new academic colleges including the colleges of education. The studied degree was defined as an applicative type intended to solely expand teachers' knowledge to be used in practice but not to create new knowledge via research. This type of applicative degree, much in line with the transmissive model of teacher development, was warmly embraced by the ME. However, in contrast to the CHE, the ME perceived this degree as an opportunity for teachers to inquire their own work through research methodologies such as action research and self-study, much in line with the transformative model of professional development.

The unexpected convergence between the CHE and the ME created a situation of dual subordination to these two governing bodies which held different messages regarding the nature of the master’s programs. The purpose of the current research was to analyze the impact of these different views on the nature of the M.Ed programs as perceived by the programs' graduates.  

Bailey, M. & Sorensen, P. (2012). Reclaiming the ground of master’s education for teachers: Lessons to be learned from a case study of the East Midlands in Masters Teaching and Learning. Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(1), 39-59. Burton, D. & Goodman, R. (2011). The Master of teaching and Learning: A revolution in teacher education or a bright light quickly extinguished. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 51-61. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.‏ Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development; a framework for analysis. Journal of in-service education, 31 (2), 235-250. Kennedy, A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: the need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688-697. Routledge. Hofman, A. & Niederland, D. (2012). Is Teacher Education, Higher Education? The politics of Teacher in Israel, 1970-2010. Higher Education Policy, 25, 87-106. Meek, V.L.L., Goedegebuure, O., Kivinen & Rinne, R. (Eds.) (1996). The mockers and the mocked: Comparing Perspective on Differentiation, Convergence and diversity in higher Education. IAU Press. Pergamon. Shavit, Y., Arum, R. & Gamoran, A. (eds.) (2007). Stratification Higher Education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford university press. Simola, H. (2006). Professional and rationalism of hope: Outlining a theoretical approach for a study on educational discourse. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 3(2), 173-192. Trow, M. (2010). From Mass Higher Education to Universal Access: The American Advantage. Research and Occasional Paper Series. Center for studies in Higher Education. BC Bokeley. Uusiautti, S., & Maatta, K. (2013). Significant trends in the development of Finnish teacher education programs (1860-2010). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(59), n59.‏