Who stays? Who leaves? Evaluating the Impact of the Marketization of Teacher Education and Recruitment Policy in Taiwan

Author(s):

Li-yun Wang(presenting / submitting)Ming-yin Li(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

10. Teacher Education Research

Format:

Paper

Session Information

10 SES 05 D, International Issues in Teacher Education

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-11

11:00-12:30

Room:

A-105

Chair:

Dubravka Knezic

Discussant:

Aud Berggraf Sæbø

Contribution

Background

Teacher quality is an important concern in education. International comparison shows that different countries prepare and recruit their teachers differently. In the U.S., the supply of teachers is not carefully controlled whereas in Finland, careful prediction on the demand for teachers is conducted by the state (Wang, 2011).

Interestingly, Taiwan has experienced two systems of teacher education. Before 1994, the supply of teachers was carefully monitored and planned by the state. Only a few selected teachers colleges or normal universities were allowed to offer teacher education program. After 1994, after the enactment of Teacher Education Act, the system moved from a regulated, planned system to a competitive market. These changes were mainly driven by the market-oriented reforms aiming to diversify teacher education. It was widely believed that governing teacher education and teacher supply systems through market principles would be more efficient and effective in promoting teachers. With the availability of Taiwan Teacher Education Database (T-TED), we will be able to evaluate if such assumption holds true after nearly 20 years. Ten years later, evidences about the outcomes of marketization have accumulated to some extent and fairer comments can be made about the effectiveness of bringing in market force into teacher education.

The success of large-scale education reform depends on the decision and behavior of individual actor. Can the market-driven teacher education policy keep those who have the will and ability to become teachers or drive them away? Who choose to stay and who choose to leave in a time of oversupply of teachers? Answers to these questions determine the effectiveness of market-driven teacher education policy.

Research Questions

Describe the characteristics of the stayers and the leavers in terms of their ability and will.
Explain the decision to stay or leave by individual characteristics, motivation to teach, and one’s employment ability.
Evaluate the accomplishment of market-driven teacher education system via individual decision to stay or leave the teacher market.

Method

The research questions will be addressed via quantitative analysis using Taiwan Teacher Education Dataset (T-TED). Four teaching decisions were made among these graduates: obtain teaching jobs, failed to obtain teaching jobs but will keep on trying, failed to obtain teaching jobs and will give up, and never apply for any teaching jobs. The first and second types of students were classified as stayers (71.4%) whereas the last two types were leavers (28.6%). The research variables that will be examined is employability which is composed of respondents answers to two questions: If I do not work as a teacher, I can find other better jobs / I have strong employment competitiveness in other field. The decision to stay or leave is used as the dependent variable. Descriptive analyses were conducted to explore the characteristics of the stayers and leavers. Logistic regression analysis was then conducted to predict the likelihood of stay or leave via individual’s will to teach and their self-evaluated employability.

Expected Outcomes

The market force works in selecting student teachers that have strong will to teach. However, it is unable to maintain those that have strong employability. Market force did not work perfectly in Taiwan. The rush to create teacher education programs after the deregulation of teacher education created the problem of oversupply of teachers. With the clear signal from the teacher employment market, able students chose to leave for other career opportunity. Some of the stayers eventually will get jobs and stay till their retirement. Compared to the regulated teacher market in the past, supply and demand is not perfect, but satisfactory. Able students were kept because they were sure about their career future. Policy makers seem to be over optimistic about the influence of marketization on teacher quality. Employment sectors compete for able workers. Given the current employment conditions, it is less likely for teacher market to recruit teaches with strong ability and will to teach.

References

Chen, S.F., Din, C. Z., & Hong, L.Y. 1995, Examining the System of Teacher Preparation and Professional Development, Taipei: Advisory Council on Educational Reform. Currie, J. & Vidovich, L. 2000, Privatization and Competition Policies for Australian Universities, International Journal of Educational Development, 20: 135-151. Fwu, B. J. & Wang, H.H. 2002, From Uniformity to Diversification; Transformation of Teacher Education in Pursuit of Teacher Quality in Taiwan from 1949-2000, International Journal of Educational Development, 22:155-167. Gintis, H. 1995, The Political Economy of School Choice, Teachers College Record, 96(3): 492-511. Jongbloed, B. 2003, Marketisation in Higher Education, Clark’s Triangle and the Essential Ingredients of Markets, Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2): 110-135. Kwang, J.2000, Introduction: Marketization and Privatization in Education, International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 87-92. Ministry of Education, 1995, Report on Education in Republic of China—Educational Visions in the Twenty-first Century, Taipei: Ministry of Education. Lim, L. & Tan, J. 1999, The Marketization of Education in Singapore: Prospects for Inclusive Education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 3(4): 339-351. Lin, W. Y. & Wang, C. W. 1995, Regulating, Normalizing, or Distorting Taiwan’s Education? －The Principle of Deregulation. Taipei: Advisory Council on Educational Reform. Mok, K.H. 1997, Retreat of the State: Marketization of Education in the Pearl River Delta, Comparative Education Review, 41(3): 260-276. Sevenson, T. 2002, Globalisation, Marketisation and Power; The Seedish Case of Institutional Change, Scandinavian Political Science, 23(3): 197-229. Struyven, L. & Steurs, G. 2005, Design and Redesign of a Quasi-Market for the Reintegration of Jobseekers, Journal of European Social Policy, 15:2/3. Wolf, C. 1993, Markets or Governments: Choosing Between Imperfect Alternatives, MA: The MIT Press. Whitty, G. & Power, S. 2000, Marketization and Privatization in Mass Education Systems, International Journal of Educational Development, 20: 93-107

Author Information

Li-yun Wang (presenting / submitting)

National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan, Republic of China

Ming-yin Li (presenting)