ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: PRIVATIZED FROM THE INSIDE: A NETWORK ETHNOGRAPHY OF BRAZILIAN TEACHER EDUCATION POLICY UNDER THE WORKERS’ PARTY Stephanie Michelle Hall, Doctor of Philosophy, 2019 Dissertation directed by: Professor Steven Klees, Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education The theory of a globally structured education agenda interrogates the political and economic systems that influence how states take on policy ideas. One way that globalizing processes may take place is through network governance, or via networks of people, ideas, researchers, governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies, etc. This study explores how power plays a role in the proliferation of particular policy ideas about teacher education in such networks. Brazilian education expanded greatly since the 1990s as did the demand for teachers of higher qualifications. Via network ethnography, this study examined the people, organizations, and ideas that influenced teacher education policy since the mid-1990s. Network ethnography is an emerging method and framework in international education research, and this study builds on what is understood about the role of corporations and other private enterprises in education policy. The results of this network ethnography revealed two primary coalitions, each of whose power over teacher education policy shifted with federal regime changes. One coalition, centered around the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education, frames teacher training and schooling as places to foster participatory democracy and build citizens. The other coalition, centered around the All for Education Movement, frames teacher training as a set of apolitical technical skills that should be provided in so-called proven and fiscally efficient ways. In light of these results, I argue that the dominant coalition, led by the All for Education Movement, which is backed by the business and financial sectors, steadily and consistently worked to solidify its place in the federal education policymaking arena throughout the time period under study and as a result governs teacher qualification and teacher training issues. PRIVATIZED FROM THE INSIDE: A NETWORK ETHNOGRAPHY OF BRAZILIAN TEACHER EDUCATION POLICY UNDER THE WORKERS’ PARTY by Stephanie Michelle Hall Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, International Education Policy 2019 Advisory Committee: Professor Steven J. Klees, Chair Professor Mark B. Ginsburg Professor Nancy Shapiro Professor Nelly Stromquist Professor Jennifer Danridge Turner © Copyright by Stephanie Michelle Hall 2019 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 THE CHALLENGE FOR BRAZILIAN TEACHER EDUCATION ........................................................................................... 1 PROFILE OF BRAZILIAN TEACHER EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 4 POLITICAL CONTEXT: THE WORKERS’ PARTY ........................................................................................................ 7 A GLOBAL POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................. 8 Teachers as Global Policy Foci ............................................................................................................. 11 Global Policy and Private Sector Involvement in Brazilian Teacher Education .................................... 13 THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: BRAZIL IN THE GLOBALIZED WORLD .......................................................................... 16 From the Global Education Policy Field to Policy Networks ................................................................ 20 A Globally Structured Education Agenda ............................................................................................ 24 RESEARCH DESIGN OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................... 29 Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 30 ORGANIZATION OF THIS DISSERTATION .............................................................................................................. 31 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE TEACHER EDUCATION LITERATURE ..................... 32 TEACHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL ....................................................................................................................... 32 A Historical Overview of Brazilian Education ...................................................................................... 34 STATUS OF TEACHERS .................................................................................................................................... 36 Professionalism, Professionalization, and Proletarianization ............................................................. 37 The Political Nature of Teacher Education .......................................................................................... 39 TEACHER EDUCATION FRAMEWORKS ................................................................................................................ 43 Locating Teacher Education ................................................................................................................ 46 Defining Teacher and Teacher Education Quality ............................................................................... 48 A CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEXUS OF TEACHER EDUCATION UNDER GLOBALIZATION ................................................... 49 CHAPTER 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH DESIGN ..................... 51 Critical Political Economy & Critical Policy Analysis ............................................................................ 52 NETWORK ETHNOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 55 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 57 Research Sites ..................................................................................................................................... 58 Participant Selection ........................................................................................................................... 59 Data Collection .................................................................................................................................... 62 Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 65 Researcher Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 68 Validity ................................................................................................................................................ 70 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 72 RESULTS OF THE PARTICIPATORY NETWORK DESIGN ............................................................................................ 72 POWER AND POLICY COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................. 74 Non-profits and NGOs: In Name Only? ............................................................................................... 82 Ministry of Education .......................................................................................................................... 91 National Education Forum as a Site of Power Struggle ....................................................................... 97 State and Municipal Leaders as Coalition Spanners. ..................................................................................... 105 The Post-Workers’ Party MEC ........................................................................................................... 111 The All for Education Movement and Coalition ................................................................................. 114 Infused Global Influence. .............................................................................................................................. 123 The “Davos of Brazil.” .................................................................................................................................... 130 A Favorite Talking Point: The Distance Between Theory and Practice .............................................. 137 CHOICES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR: LULA’S BALANCING ACT ...................................................... 141 Parallel Expansion of Higher Education ............................................................................................ 146 Synchronized and Coordinated Efforts by the Neoliberal Third Sector .............................................. 150 RETURNING TO THE QUESTION OF CIVIL SOCIETY: CORPORATIONS WITH THE MASK OF CIVIL SOCIETY ......................... 152 Moving Beyond Teacher Credentials ................................................................................................. 153 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ................................................................... 157 ADDRESSING THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................... 157 THE GLOBALLY STRUCTURED EDUCATION AGENDA IN BRAZIL .............................................................................. 167 REFLECTING ON CRITICAL POLICY ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY ...................................................... 173 POLICY IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 176 AREAS FOR FUTURE INQUIRY ......................................................................................................................... 178 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 179 APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................................................ 182 APPENDIX 2: EXAMPLES OF CODED TEXT .................................................................... 184 REFERENCES: .......................................................................................................................... 186 List of Tables Table 1: Profile of Brazilian teachers by education level, 2016 ………………………2 Table 2: Key legislation on teacher education …………………………………………3 Table 3: Traditional routes into the teaching profession ……………………..............4 Table 4: Interview participants ……………………………………………………….60 Table 5: Data sources ………………………………………………………………….65 Table 6: Name and description of organizations …………………………………….79 List of Figures Graph 1: Network visualization results by node type ...……………………………..77 Graph 2: Network visualization results by communities ...………………………….78 Graph 3: ABONG and connections …………………………………………………...83 Graph 4: GIFE and connections ………………………………………………………84 Graph 5: Unfiltered network visualization …………………………………………...89 Graph 6: Undime and Consed as boundary spanners ……………………………...106 Chapter 1: Introduction The Challenge for Brazilian Teacher Education The best way to provide for education—publicly or privately or some combination of both—is central to many debates in education (for a review of arguments for and against private sector participation in public education, see: Patrinos, Barrera- Osorio, & Guágueta, 2009). Since the turn of the 21st century, the private sector has become an increasingly stronger force in global education efforts (Adrião et al., 2015; Ball, 2012; Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2017). Brazil has experimented extensively with the use of the private and public sectors, and sometimes partnerships between the two, in its teacher education efforts. The country’s teacher policy process therefore serves as a prime space to examine how public and private sector forces influence education reform. In Brazil, the federal Ministry of Education (MEC) oversees policy across its elementary, secondary, and tertiary subsectors. In 2016, there were just over 2 million P- 12 teachers in Brazil (see Table 1). 77% of those had a post-secondary degree of some sort and 73% were licensed in the area they were teaching. These figures have grown steadily since 2009, when 67% had attended higher education and 30% of teachers had a high school level education. Teacher qualifications vary enormously across the country. In some parts of the north and northeast, the regions with the lowest Human Development Index (HDI, a measurement used by the United Nations, accounts for life expectancy, education, and income), the number of teachers working without a degree or licensure or working with high school level training approaches 70%. Teacher education level also varies by grade level and subject area. About 20% of all elementary level 1 teachers were working with a high school diploma, and again this number changes if we look within one region or state. 34% of elementary teachers in the northeast had a high school diploma, compared to 7% in the high-HDI federal district of Brasília. The qualification problem appears to be lesser at the high school level (7% of high school teachers nationwide possess a higher education degree and licensure) until we examine by subject area. The last analysis available at this level was 2009 which revealed disciplinary-specific teacher licensure to be severely lacking in the sciences. 22% of high school physics teachers, 45% of chemistry teachers, 59% of biology teacher had a degree and licensure in their field. In sum, the Brazilian teaching supply is and has historically been divided between non-graduate or unofficially trained teachers, and graduate teachers (Bento, Coelho, Coelho, & Fernandes, 2013; Coutinho, 1992; Dove, 1986). Table 1: Profile of Brazilian Teachers by education level, 2016 Region Total Highest Highest Highest Higher number of education education education education teachers completed: completed: completed: + elementary high school higher Licensure school education Brazil 2,196,397 6,043 488,064 1,702,290 1,606,889 North 194,142 1,022 54,116 139,004 133,869 Northeast 628,315 2,399 219,692 406,224 389,400 Southeast 876,669 1,282 139,131 736,256 687,536 South 337,150 934 55,201 281,015 267,788 Midwest 161,030 406 19,976 140,648 129,123 Source: Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais (INEP), 2017 To address what it sees as a need for increased teacher qualifications, for the past twenty years, Brazil has experimented with public and private sector provision of teacher education but has especially grown its private and for-profit education sector (Barreto & Leher, 2003; Leher, 2009; Leher & Vittoria, 2016; McCowan, 2004; McCowan, 2007). Since 2000, Brazil has encouraged teachers to complete their training by offering things 2 like priority student loan financing at private colleges, free access to private universities, and degree completion and upgrading options at public institutions. There are various federal laws dealing with teacher education (see Table 2), though for this study, the focus was on the National Education Plan. Brazil sets goals for education through the development and implementation of National Education Plans (NEP). A 2001 NEP aimed to have 70% of all teachers possess university level education by 2011. An interim action plan for education was established in 2007, which also included goals for increasing post-secondary level training of teachers across all subsectors. The current, 2014 NEP contains a goal for all teachers to be highly qualified via a university-level degree and licensure course that matches what they teach. Table 2: Key legislation on teacher education Name Year Significance Constitution 1988 Education is a universal right. National Education Guidelines 1996 Mandated secondary level teachers be & Framework trained at the tertiary level. Additional 1999 guidance established the Higher Institutes of Education, mentioned below National Education Plan 2001 Aimed to increase the number of teachers with post-graduate degrees; set a 70% target for undergraduate level training. Education Development Plan 2007 Encouraged a rubric system for evaluating teacher training needs with regard to proportions of teacher possessing (or not) higher education. National Education Plan 2014 Called for all teachers of all levels to have higher education level training in the specific area and discipline in which they teach. 3 Profile of Brazilian Teacher Education Because of legislative changes that have affected requirements for teachers, there are various routes into the teaching profession in Brazil (see Table 3). Pre-service teacher training encompasses what a future teacher learns before starting a teaching job. In-service training takes place on the job. Brazil's NEP places responsibility on universities for pre-service teacher training and on school systems for in-service training. That being said, university teacher training is varied and diverse within the nation. Those interested in gaining a teaching credential can attend a federal or state (public) university or a private one. Private universities themselves are enormously varied, from traditional institutions maintained by the Catholic or other churches, to schools run by non-profit education organizations as well as schools run by for-profit education companies (McCowan, 2004). Quality in teacher credentialing is an issue due to the divide in quality between federal universities with competitive admissions and the smallest for- profit colleges that tend to be open-admission (McCowan, 2007; Saraiva & Nunes, 2011). The NEP increased demand for a product that was already in short supply in the country: post-secondary level pre-service teacher education (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016; McCowan, 2007). Table 3: Traditional routes into the teaching profession Traditional routes into the teaching Description: Notes: profession: Magistério High school level preparation This option was to be gradually (Magistrate) for early childhood and phased out after 1996 but is still elementary teachers. available in some regions. 4 Licenciatura University based program to (Licensure, prepare secondary teachers, teaching taken alongside a disciplinary diploma) bachelor’s degree. Pedagogia University degree covering (Pedagogy) preparation for early childhood, elementary, and secondary teachers. Normal Superior Higher education training program of shorter duration, created in 1996 for those already teaching without a post-secondary credential. Higher Institutes Appeared after 1999 and These institutes were short-lived, of Education offered a tertiary level but some remain open and serve magistrate course, licensure, other purposes. One reason was pedagogy, in-service, and the 2014 NEP called for all teacher graduate training. training to be located in universities. In this context and in response, the Brazilian government created specific programs, and in some cases leveraged others, to try to upgrade the teaching force in tandem with the expansion of its higher education sector. These programs included: • Proformação, a distance education program that ends in a secondary school diploma equivalent meant to upgrade unqualified teachers; • FIES, a private finance program for low income students which featured special interest rates for education majors who attended private colleges; • ProUNI, a scholarship program to send low-income students to private colleges given with fewer restrictions to unqualified teachers; • the Open University of Brazil, a federally maintained, tuition-free online university which gives priority to teachers; 5 • PARFOR, a tuition-free upgrading program aimed at teachers for completing their bachelor's degrees in person or online; and • Universidade do Professor (The Teacher's University), which would allow an unprecedented amount of unqualified teachers into public universities to complete bachelor's degrees. Teacher education policy development emanates out of the federal level Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC), and programs in support of policy have oscillated between use of the public and private education sectors (Adrião et al., 2015). The NEP and the previously mentioned programs altogether represent federal teacher education policy and programming. A useful example of the contrasting involvement of the public and private sectors is to compare ProUNI and the new Teacher’s University. ProUNI is a scholarship program that provides full and partial tuition to low income students attending private colleges. Public school teachers working without a degree are eligible for the scholarship no matter their family income. The scholarships are offered by participating private colleges, and in return the colleges receive tax burden exemptions. While ProUNI created a requirement for all nonprofit institutions to offer the scholarships in order to maintain tax-exempt status, it created an incentive for for-profit colleges to participate. The program has been in place since 2004, and consequently, the number of for-profit colleges has doubled since then (Catani, Hey, Gilioli, 2006). The NEP highlighted ProUNI as a route to making teacher credentialing easier, and the growth of the private college sector was therefore encouraged (MEC, 2011). The vast majority of people studying for teacher licensure are enrolled in private, for-profit colleges. In contrast, the 6 Teacher’s University promises to grant access to tuition-free public, typically higher- quality universities to the same population of unqualified teachers. Unqualified teachers will have the option to attend the public university nearest them, pending empty spaces or to attend the Open University of Brazil (online), which leaves questions as to differences in the quality of teacher preparation which might occur between rural and urban zones (Louzano, 2011). The strength of the private education industry’s lobby has been well- documented (Cottom, 2017; Knobel & Verhine, 2017; Redden, 2015), so the development of ProUNI and growth of the sector was expected, but the announcement of the Teacher’s University came as a surprise to many and it represents a development in teacher education policy that would be instructive to those studying global education reforms. Specifically: what, how, and who was involved to in developing contrasting programmatic responses to this policy dilemma? Political Context: The Workers’ Party This study examines policy decision-making and governance of teacher education over an approximate twenty-year period (1996-2018). A focal point is the political party in federal power for the majority of the era in question, the Workers’ Party. This party was born out of opposition to the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, has a center-left platform based on workers’ rights, is self-described as socialist, and rose to federal prominence with the election of President Luis Inácio “Lula” da Silva in 2003 (Branford, S., Kucinski, B., & Wainwright, H., 2003; Hunter, 2010; Keck, 1992; Samuels, 2004). President Lula campaigned unsuccessfully three times prior to the 2003 election and finally gained federal power for his party by building a coalition government that included other parties and offered a favorable set of promises to both the public and the 7 private sector (Branford, S., Kucinski, B., & Wainwright, H., 2003; Hunter, 2010; Samuels, 2004). A second Workers’ Party president, Dilma Rousseff, was elected in 2011 and again in 2015. President Dilma’s second term was cut short as she was impeached on the basis of “mismanagement” in 2016. Dilma’s impeachment followed a string of corruption scandals and public outcry over government waste surrounding the World Cup and Olympics and general lack of satisfaction with cost of living and public services (Romero, 2013). Vice-president Michel Temer took over and also faced massive public opposition, from groups who saw the impeachment process as illegitimate. In 2016, President Temer quickly put forth a number of political projects, including a 20- year public spending cap that would greatly alter ongoing efforts to meet education investment targets found in the National Education Plan. Federal court processes on long-standing corruption accusations against ex- President Lula went forward, and a federal judge sent him to prison in early 2018. During the research process, a new round of federal campaigns and elections took place. The Workers’ Party’s plan to run ex-President Lula on its ticket was stopped by a federal court ruling that he could not run while in prison. Former Education Minister Fernando Haddad, the minister who ran the federal education office during the era of focus, became the Workers’ Party candidate. In October 2018, he lost his presidential bid to a far-right candidate, Jair Bolsonaro. Further down the 2018 ballot, many candidates Bolsonaro endorsed won, signaling an official end to the Workers’ Party era. A Global Policy Context The influence of neoliberal theory or ideology on Brazil’s governance and economy has been strong since the 1980s thanks to involvement of the World Bank and 8 the International Monetary Fund (Cassagrande, Pereira, & Sagrillo, 2014; Carvalho & McCowan, 2016; Ramos & Dri, 2012; Robertson, 2012b). Throughout this dissertation, I refer to neoliberalism and market principals. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, in the context of education policy reform, neoliberalism and market theory refer to the use of the principals of a liberalized economy in all spheres (Klees, 1999; MacEwan, 1999; Rizvi, 2017; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Neoliberal, market- oriented policy takes the principles of a commercial market – that unregulated competition and supply and demand will improve performance – and applies them in all areas (both public and private sectors) of modern life including education systems (Klees & Qargha, 2014). Though neoliberalism and globalization are not always synonymous, they often have overlapping agendas (Klees, 1999; Klees, 2008a; Rizvi & Lingard, 2000) and those agendas are an important part of the global context of this study. The logic of neoliberal globalization has made its way around the world, and it spreads the message that unregulated markets lead to better economic outcomes over time (MacEwan, 1999). Markets using public monies are also promoted for their potential to drive efficiency. Proponents of these forms deny alternatives such as direct redistribution of resources, direct control over public goods, or direct provision of necessities by a government to its people. Brazil is a part of the globalized world. One way that it joined in is through the receipt of loans and programming from the World Bank for development-related projects. Education and teacher education policies have then been highly influenced by the World Bank, whose main interests in the topic stem from belief that teachers are fundamental in training the labor force (Darling-Hammond & Rothman 2015; Ginsburg, 2012; Ramos & 9 Dri, 2012; Robertson, 2012a). Continuing education, or the training received by teachers while on the job, has been a primary focus of the Bank’s efforts (Ramos & Dri, 2012; Santos, 2002). Perhaps the greatest force for global education policy spread is the World Bank. For its part, the Bank acts as something of an education ministry for lesser developed countries (Leher, 2009). The World Bank has been dispensing education advice since the advent of the human capital theory in the 1960s (Klees, 2016). Human capital theory drives reformers to see investments in education and health as equivalent to investments in other forms of physical capital – meaning the motivating force for such investments is to receive a certain rate of return to the economy and to the individual (Bullough, 2016; Klees, 2016). The Bank’s use of this framework has greatly influenced the nature of education spending around the world (Heyneman, 2003; Klees, 2016). In this globalized context, other multilateral, international organizations are involved in Brazilian education policy. United Nations (UN) organizations include: the United Nations Education Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Program for Development (UNPD), and the United Nations Childhood Fund (Unicef). Brazilian education goals have been tied to global goals set via these bodies, including the Millennium Development Goals (2000) and now the Sustainable Development Goals (2015). Also, Brazil was an original signatory of the 2000-2015 Education for All goals and continues to tie its national goals to the Education 3030 Agenda (MEC, 2014). This agenda can be broadly captured in Sustainable Development Goal 4 (United Nations, 2015) which aims for equity and quality in education and 10 lifelong learning opportunities for all (MEC, 2014). The development and use of the previously mentioned National Education Plan supported these goals. Brazil also participates in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its studies on teacher and student performance. The OECD produces reports comparing Brazilian teacher education, its teaching profession, and student performance to the Latin American region and to the world (OECD, 2011). Teachers as Global Policy Foci As global education goals have been set, teachers and their training have received greater attention from policy makers (OECD, 2005; UNESCO, 2006). This has resulted in, among other things, increased scrutiny of teacher education curricula and teacher professional associations or unions, the development of alternative forms of educator preparation, and the placement of more responsibility for student learning outcomes on teachers. Teachers are also a policy focus because of huge teacher shortages found in the most populous regions of the world (Darling-Hammond & Rothman 2015; UNESCO, 2006; Robertson, 2012a). A number of nations around the world are faced with a crisis of maintaining a quality supply of teachers (Darling-Hammond & Rothman 2015; OECD, 2005). UNESCO has estimated that 1.7 million additional teachers will be needed to achieve global, universal primary education (EI, 2010). As with other facets of education, both public and private entities have stepped forward to address this need. The study examined teacher education policy in Brazil, with attention to federal and state involvement and public and private sector influence, and responses to increased demand for teachers and demand for improved teacher quality. 11 Teachers are likely the strongest school-based factor affecting student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; EI, 2010; OECD, 2005; Robertson, 2012a; Verger & Altinyelken, 2013). The logic behind improving teacher quality is sound: Linda Dove (1986) used the term "multiplier effects" to describe the impacts that improved teacher training could have on whole school systems. A similar concept was termed “simultaneous renewal” by John Goodlad (1994) which means schools can only improve with improved teacher education and vice versa. Simply put, quality teachers lead to improved student performance, and improved student performance leads to a quality teacher pipeline (Imig, Wiseman, Wiseman, & Imig, 2016). A 2005 OECD investigation across member nations found educator preparation programs to be disconnected from the elementary and secondary schools and the schools’ needs where teacher candidates eventually work. The disconnection between theory and practice and training and reality is also a common theme across the literature on Brazilian teacher education (Burns & Darling-Hammond, 2014; Louzano, 2011). Furthermore, many OECD countries’ school systems lacked induction programs that might help bring new teachers on board and get them effectively accustomed to meeting the demands of the work (OECD, 2005). Teachers have been placed at the center of global education reform as the key to student achievement at the school level and economic growth at the state level (Robertson, 2012a; Verger et al., 2013). Robertson's (2012a) review of teacher policies from a global governance standpoint revealed that groups from the World Bank to the Gates Foundation to the OECD still promote policies which focus on benchmarking and accountability measures based on student performance. The OECD in particular has 12 aligned the status of teachers and education with what they have coined "knowledge- based economies" (Robertson, 2012a, p. 593). What is taught, how it is taught, and how teachers are expected to conduct themselves is of great concern to those interested in global economic growth and global governance. Global Policy and Private Sector Involvement in Brazilian Teacher Education World Bank recommendations to Brazil with regard to education reform and teacher education have consistently focused on specific, targeted reforms aimed at efficiently distributing educational resources (Moreira & da Silva, 2016). For example, the Bank recommended in 1995 to increase the student-teacher ratio as a cost-effective measure. As time went on, the focus in global policy shifted to ‘quality’ and thus the focus on teachers as the input that determines quality output. The Bank published a document in 2005 outlining what it saw as sound policy for teachers that would lead to educational quality across the system. Moreira and da Silva’s (2016) analysis of this document with the previously outlines Brazilian legislation like the National Education Plans and the National Education Guidelines & Framework found Brazilian law and policy to be “in symphony with the World Bank” (p. 59). Other studies of the World Bank’s involvement in Brazilian teacher education have problematized the insertion of the logic of a financial institution into a public good (Pansardi, 2011). Pansardi argued that the emphasis on efficiency leads the country to undervalue holistic teacher development while moving entire systems to rely on short-term trainings, distance education training, and in-service training, in general. Pansardi called these practices “pseudo-training” (p. 138). The Bank has received no shortage of criticism of its use of 13 neoliberal and market logic in the education space, but the focus here is on how the effects have impacted teacher policy. The Bank’s involvement in education, especially where alternatives to an “inefficient” public sector are privileged, is likely connected to the growth in companies doing education business in Brazil. Education in Brazil is an increasingly a marketable and profitable commodity (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016; Leher & Vittoria, 2016), a concept that was reinforced in 1995 by the inclusion of education as a tradeable service as part of the General Agreement on the Trade in Services (GATS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). One can look to higher education for proof: there are 2,391 institutions of higher education in the country, and 2,090 of these are private (Leher & Vittoria, 2016). 87% of all higher education institutions are private, and 75% of all enrollments are in such institutions (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016), and the for-profit side of this private sector has grown faster than all others (Carvalho, 2015; Knobel & Verhine, 2017). According to Carvalho and McCowan (2016), for-profit education companies in Brazil increase their profit margins by cutting staffing costs, hiring professors with lesser degrees, emphasizing distance-learning over face-to-face instruction, and using government funding from programs like FIES and ProUNI to maximize enrollment. In 2016, the first, third, and sixth largest education companies in the world were headquartered in Brazil (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016), and the Brazilian education conglomerate, Kroton-Anhanguera, was the largest higher education company in the world with a $5.8 billion dollar market value (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016). The private sector in multiple forms, including private foundations, NGOs, and more, has become a key provider of education services and support (Adrião et al., 2015). 14 The business sector solidified its role through partnerships (Krawczyk, 2005), so private providers for continuing education funded by local education authorities, for example are now the norm, though teachers often are unaware of which type of institution they are participating in (Ramos & Dri, 2012). One company, the Positivo Group was present in all 26 Brazilian states and played a large role in shaping the nature of continuing education for teachers (Ramos & Dri, 2012). Other global education for-profit companies like Pearson are also involved in teacher training, having been contracted by various municipalities to provide training for early childhood and elementary teachers (Adrião et al., 2015). Company-developed and provided trainings tend to be standardized and have thus been criticized for neglecting to take into account local contexts (Adrião et al., 2015; Ramos & Dri, 2012). Finally, the primary form that private sector involvement has taken in Brazilian public education has been public-private partnerships (Barcelos & Rodrigues, 2018). My project focused on the development of teacher education policy since around the year 2000, with the goal to specifically examine how the public and private sector actors influence education reform. I began with the year 2003 in mind because it was the start of the Workers’ Party’s federal era and it was a time of significant expansion of the private education system, which seemed contradictory to the Party platform (Leher & Vittoria, 2016). During data collection, I expanded my era of interest to begin around 1996, as informants provided a strong case for doing so, which I explain in subsequent chapters. Brazil has served as a hotbed of experimentation with the use of the private sector in education reforms, though there appears to be resistance to privatization (Adrião et al., 15 2015). The results of this study will hopefully be instructive for governments as they seek quality in their education systems while sorting out options between the public and private sectors (Ball, 2012; Leher, 2009). As such, the study fits squarely within the global debate over private and public organization of education and its governance. Theoretical Foundations: Brazil in the Globalized World In the 1990s, many Latin American countries, including Brazil, adopted what was known as the Washington Consensus, which was a phrase representative of economic structural reforms that were in line with fiscal discipline, tax reform, liberalization of foreign direct investment, public investment in areas thought to yield high returns, and deregulation in general (de Sousa Santos, 2006). In this context, and even since that era, Brazil has been advised to move away from its tuition-free higher education system in which the state is highly coupled through financial support and research and development priorities, and to move toward a system more connected to the market, where students pay fees or finance their enrollment and attendance (Leher, 2009). Neoliberal education policy proliferation across Latin America can be seen in the development of public- private partnerships for education in Brazil, in the cessation of free education in Chilean public institutions, and in the modification of the part of the Mexican constitution concerned with education as a right, which since 1994 views education as a service that is negotiated in the market (Leher, 2009; MacEwan, 1999; Robertson, 2012b; Verger, 2011). The line between public and private is not a clear one, and this often works to the advantage of private institutions. In Brazil, a public-private partnership for higher education provides tax breaks to private institutions that provide free or discounted 16 admissions spots to students, on the justification that the institution, though private, is providing a public good (Barcelos & Rodrigues, 2018; Leher, 2009). Education companies now need not worry about being seen as philanthropic, because they are by definition, “service providers” – a designation that justifies the receipt of, and in most cases, profiting from public funds (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016; Silva & Tavares, 2016). The climate which has allowed private education companies to flourish is striking in numbers: 2,090 of the 2,391 institutions of higher education are private and the vast majority of them are less than ten years old (Leher and Vittoria, 2016). This growth has been encouraged by the government, despite the fact that the private education sector has not been found to be more effective (Lubienski & Lubienksi, 2016) and it grew in an unregulated climate that initially excluded any form of accreditation or quality reviews (Louzano, 2011). Both Leher (2009) and Silva and Tavares (2016) point to the contradictory nature of the spread of neoliberal education policy in/by the Workers’ Party. They explain how the Party was elected on a platform of pushing against a neoliberal agenda and instead of fully doing this, Lula signed an agreement of structural adjustments with the IMF, in order to secure what were perceived as needed loans, and sought advice from the World Bank on university reform. The actions were more of a compromise than anything (Silva & Tavares, 2016). As the World Bank and the IMF pushed its structural reforms and agenda onto countries in need of resources, the wave of economic changes and interdependency became labeled globalization (Fischman, Ball, & Gvirtz, 2003; Rizvi & Lingard, 2000). Globalization tends to be framed as an inevitable process, one that countries would be 17 best trying to fit into (Leher, 2009). Global neoliberalism has meant that education is a tool for economic growth, and teacher education serves to develop children (and teachers) for capitalistic purposes, i.e., the labor market (Hill, 2007; Robertson, 2012b). Hill provided three ways capitalism interacts with education: capitalism has plans for education—by developing a workforce, capitalism has plans in education–by making profits out of education, and capitalism has plans for education corporations globally—by encouraging settings that help “edubusinesses” to profit from international-scale privatization of education. Aspects of neoliberal education policies include low public spending, privatization of things that were once public, the setting up of markets, deregulation, increasingly differentiated service provision, school management that mimics corporate norms, and cutting labor costs through deregulated labor practices (Hill, 2007). In teacher education, a result of neoliberal policy proliferation has been a lack of deep critique of teacher training and an acceptance of the status quo even though things are constantly being “reformed” (Hill, 2007). This is the result of neoliberal and neoconservative ideologies being taken as “common sense” after sustained and consistent efforts to normalize them through school structures, among other parts of life (Hill, 2007). With these theories of globalization and global neoliberalism as a foundation, I studied the impact of the private sector on setting teacher education policy – a policy arena technically located in a public space, the Ministry of Education, and inherently connected to public schooling. Teachers have enormous power to organize for impact – 18 as has especially been evidenced in Brazil and is discussed in Chapter 2 – and they are important keys to ideological production and reproduction (Hill, 2007). The newness of globalization is itself a topic of debate amongst scholars who center their work on the topic. Some see the 1980s and 1990s as marking major changes in the connectivity of the global economy, thanks to fast and ongoing advancements in transportation and communication (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005; Mundy, 2005; Mundy & Ghali, 2009; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Other researchers find logic in considering different turning points like 15th century European exploration or the period just before World War I (known as the Gilded Age in the United States) (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). What is certain is that the nature of the globalized economy shifted since the late- 1980s to one where market logic was infused into sectors previously devoid of such (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Market logic assumes that reliance on competition and rejection of state regulation produces the best results. In fact, this form of logic is synonymous with neoliberal ideology – it sees the market as a way of organizing not just the economy, but all of society. While competition and light regulation may have produced the best results for corporations, these ideas in sectors like agriculture, health, and education are at best, still largely experimental, though a great many critics would argue they have proven to be problematic. The key criticism is of the limited scope of globalization under neoliberalism (Rizvi, 2017), which is often limited to concern for the free flow of commercial goods (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005; de Sousa Santos, 2006; Tomasevki, 2005), even while the flow or migration of labor is restricted and regulated. The results of globalization’s interaction with education can be seen the innumerable state entities that seek to plug pre- 19 set education reforms directly into their contexts in hopes of driving up education (and economic) performance (Mundy, 2005; Stromquist & Monkman, 2000). Many analyses of globalization fail to consider that the nation-state takes on an active role in transactions and networks and instead assume the nation-state is less powerful than, or even victim to, the forces of globalization itself (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). In other words, most studies of globalization see state governments at the mercy of incoming “flows of people, ideas and capital, and subnational challenges to its authority” (Edelman & Haugerud citing Sivaramakrishan & Agrawal, 2003, p. 42). Further, the transactions that are in sum globalized, neoliberal phenomena tend to be viewed as “impersonal flows” (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005, p. 22). As some contemporary writers on the subject have said, “globalization is not a process without a subject. Rather, it involves a range of actors” (see for example Macpherson, Robertson & Walford, 2014, p. 12). My analysis therefore intentionally considers the role of the people working on behalf of the Brazilian state – in the formation of national education policy – in a highly globalized climate. Importantly, the state during the time period of interest at the center of this study was led by a party that was historically opposed to neoliberal forms of globalization (and to unregulated capitalism), so I intend to pay close attention to the state’s role in moving a neoliberal project forward. From the Global Education Policy Field to Policy Networks Global education goal-setting and subsequent policymaking influenced by profit- seeking entities has led to widespread use of neoliberal education reforms across the world (Kronholz, 2013). Noted educator and researcher Pasi Sahlberg's tongue-in-cheek term for what the world is witnessing is GERM, or the Global Education Reform 20 Movement. In this movement, reform is organized based on market principles like choice, competition, and quality. As the GERM gains momentum and spreads through globalization processes via particular institutional or individual actors, policy adoption or policy transfer takes place. The GERM spreads through the global education policy field. This field has been characterized by policy mobility, where policy travels and ideas are held and spread within, between, and among networks (Ball, 2016; Gulson et al, 2017; Peck & Theodore, 2010). The field consists of philanthropic entities, global foundations, advocacy networks, multinational corporations, transnational organizations, multilateral banks, and more (Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2017). Many of these types of actors within the global education policy field are above or beyond the scale of the nation-state and often have the ability to exercise power through the state or over the state, if necessary. Where the government of a nation-state previously held authority in agenda and policy-setting, the government moved to sharing that authority with non-state actors (often not part of local or national civil society), and in many cases relinquished governance to a network. The idea of network governance is that governance is heterarchical (as opposed to hierarchical), interactive, and the network is capable of steering and setting directions as well as influencing the behavior of the nation-state (Ball, 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2012). A potential explanation for the rise in network governance is the changing nature of government managers’ work. Where government executives previously managed people and programs, they increasingly have to manage resources that belong to other (namely, private) entities, with the end goal of producing a public benefit. Jessop (2002) called this trend denationalization, an idea I relied on in my analysis. This is especially true in 21 places with shrinking public budgets which have resulted at least in part from structural adjustments and other neoliberal reforms and where governments look for innovative and “creative responses” to complicated problems (Eggers, 2008, cited in Ball & Junemann, 2012, p. 2). Network ethnography, which is both a theoretical framework and a methodological guide, studies the processes of globalizing localisms and localizing globalism (de Sousa Santos, 2006; Jessop, 2002). The theory behind the processes of localized globalisms consist of policy ideas that come from a global agenda but are mediated by the local context in which they land. While network ethnography as a method is covered in great detail in Chapter 3 of this dissertation, I present the theory- side of it and the idea of using a “toolbox of theories” mostly derived from Stephen Ball (2012, 2016, 2017; Ball & Junemann, 2012) throughout this section. Network ethnography is meant to map the form and content of policy relations in a field as well as to ethnographically analyze governance in action (Ball, 2012, 2016, 2017; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Howard, 2002; Knoke, 1990). In that sense it is both geographic and ethnographic in nature. As a framework, it emphasizes how policy flows or is mobilized, making it a good fit for a policy analysis that is concerned with both the global and local context of a policy. Network ethnography is meant to reveal the micro as an expression of the macro and to understand the way parts of a policy network are interrelated or arranged. Globalization tends to be portrayed as a process of “impersonal flows” which negates the existence of people involved in creating policy flows (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005, p. 22), so a network ethnography aims to reveal the context and nature of the social relationships surrounding a policy problem or policy process. In sum, 22 network is both an analytic device for revealing aspects of relationships as well as a conceptual device to reveal the institutionalization of power relations. Network ethnographies on global education policy have found synchronized influences from global philanthropic and social entrepreneurs and organizations who have linked themselves and their activities around the world. Ball’s (2012) network study of the libertarian Atlas Research Foundation revealed connections to Brazilian education policy, specifically to lead individuals from the corporate and financial sector that founded the All for Education Movement, the country’s largest education NGO. Shiroma (2014) conducted a network ethnography using publicly available documents and found rising business interests in Brazilian education policy, though the State remained equally important. Adhikary and Lingard (2018) mapped the network of actors responsible for bringing the Teach for America / Teach for All model into Bangladesh. Their study highlighted the importance of the locally-based Teach for Bangladesh leaders who served as a “boundary spanner” between the global program and its local implementation. Ball (2016) mapped what he called the Indian Education Reform Movement and named boundary spanners “glocal actors” (p. 553). These actors were important for spreading a singular, consistent message about inefficacy of the state and solutions via public-private partnerships. Similarly, Sugiyama’s (2008) multiple case study on how policy models spread across decentralized governments in Brazil found left-right political ideology explained when policies were or were not transmitted through a network. Finally, in recent network ethnography focused on Brazil, Avelar and Ball (2017) found that a new organization, founded by the same wealthy corporate and financial individuals mentioned above, had become a de facto policymaking space for 23 promoting and legitimizing a controversial curricular reform. Network-focused research has looked at education businesses, education technology companies, foundations, philanthropies, social enterprises, and policy entrepreneurs, because these types of actors in the global education policy field have received less attention from international education policy researchers who tend to focus on international organizations (Ball, 2012). To address this gap and to add to what we know about globalization and network governance, I sought an understanding of how each of the various types of actors are present (or not) – and the roles they played – in the Brazilian teacher education policy field under study here. A Globally Structured Education Agenda I hypothesize the existence of convergence around the treatment of teacher preparation worldwide to be the result of a “globally structured educational agenda” (Dale, 2000). What this means is standardization (Grewal, 2008) appears to be happening, in that a given standard for the activity of teacher preparation is pushed globally. However, rather than frame globalization as a process that happens because of open borders, I considered how the processes happen via individuals and nations exercising their agency (Stambach, 2016). The push happens via networks of people, researchers, educator preparation programs, NGOs, education companies, and a host of institutions which may claim a stake in education outcomes. The resulting education policies appear to be voluntarily taken up or devised by nations but may represent a coercive side to global neoliberalism. However, the coercive nature of global policy setting is not necessarily to be seen as victimization. In education and other sectors which make up the globally connected economy “the costs of choosing anything other 24 than the dominant standard are so high as to induce compliance, whether or not that compliance may be conceived of as voluntary” (Grewal, 2008, p. 114). Therefore, rather than conducting this study with a purpose of critiquing the way global forms of neoliberalism manifest themselves in education systems, I aimed to find the network and determine its power in proliferating education policies that are a part of the globally structured educational agenda (GSEA). Dale (2000) suggested that those exploring globalization’s effects on national education policy identify: 1. “the nature and force of the extranational effect” (p. 427), 2. what is affected, and 3. what the changes look like or how they occur. The objective of my study encompasses this guidance: I will be identifying people, organizations, and ideas which influenced teacher preparation initiatives and taking a deep dive into their characteristics, power, and impact(s). Further, following Ball’s (2012) practices for conducting a network ethnography, I considered a toolbox of theories including policy mobility (Larner & Le Heron, 2002) and denationalization (Jessop, 2002; Sassen, 2003). Larner and Le Heron (2002) identified the spaces where policy and policy ideas move from one person to another as “globalizing microspaces.” Denationalization is where the state is no longer the key designer in policy solutions, even if the state must be the approving body (Jessop, 2002; Sassen, 2003). On the ground, this appears in the form of private and social enterprise solutions to problems and a “structural coupling” of institutions (Jessop, 2001). Structural coupling is when private providers, or some other form of non-State participants permanently join with the State in 25 some part of the policy process. This is such a feature of globalization that States have ceded some powers and some control over education agendas to supranational entities (Dale, 2000). A further result of this is that the State is not the only mediating factor in globalizing processes (Dale, 2000). Denationalization can also happen at the subnational level, where localities take on some part of the global agenda with the help of NGOs, international organizations, other nations, and perhaps private partners (Sassen, 2003). In explaining GSEA as a theoretical anchor for my data collection and analysis, it is important to note what it is not. As explained above, studies and theorizing in globalization are numerous but diverse in characteristics. Dale’s (2000) GSEA theory is not that nation after nation picks up on a dominant or prevailing way of doing things and adopts it so as to earn legitimacy (internal or external legitimacy). “States have educational systems and curricular categories because other states have them” (Dale, 2000, p. 442) is a commonly accepted truth among researchers who ground their work in theories of globalization. This can be captured in the idea of a “common world education culture.” Common World Education Culture is a theory of the effect of globalization on education that aims to show the existence and effect of universal models of education on nation-states. It helps provide a macro-level explanation of how States are influenced by a dominant culture made up of universal (Western) norms. These Western norms are focused on modernity and the development of the State and individuals as well as western ideals of economic and political progress. The starting point for common world education culture theory is the world polity or universal level, where there is a universal culture based on Western values that is spread. Ways of organizing education systems are expressions of that culture and of those values, but the theory is less concerned with 26 the “how” or to what extent nations or individuals exercise agency in a globalization process. Both Common World Education Culture and Globally Structured Education Agenda theories are concerned with external forces and their relation to national education policy. However, the two theories differ on how they conceptualize globalization in general. Common World Education Culture sees globalization as a reflection of Western culture and is concerned with documenting its existence, and GSEA sees globalization as a political-economic way of organizing the global economy in order to maintain a capitalist system and is concerned with documenting how the processes happens and to what effect. Individuals or a nation might opt in out of self-interest. GSEA sees the global economy as a capitalist system that is more powerful than one or any set of nations, even if some nations appear to be central. Dale (2000) emphasized that capitalism persists because it has been able to survive in – even while it may shape – different cultures, under different governments, religions, and family structures. In other words, capitalism is flexible by nature; it will adapt to maximize profit potential. The GSEA theory of globalization, education, and how the two relate were key to data collection and analysis. In GSEA, the ‘global’ is theorized as a set of interdependent levels of actors which could include localities, the State, or the global. I theorize that the contradiction of teacher education program characteristics with government type can be explained by (or analyzed through) GSEA (Dale, 2000) where there are global forces affecting each nation’s policy goals and agendas. To explain how GSEA helps explain contradictions, power has been handed over from nation-states to certain global bodies (in this study in particular, I hypothesized that these were international education 27 corporations and international NGOs). Under GSEA, education systems or education policy solutions are contradictory because the nation-state is balancing demands coming from global bodies which are usually tied up in a financial interest (whether it be profit- seeking or the terms of a grant or loan) with solutions that must address a real need. For example, the nation’s role under neoliberal/capitalist globalization is to facilitate the accumulation of private profit while also making whatever system being used for such accumulation appear legitimate to the people. Addressing these demands would likely result in contradictory policy choices, and this dynamic is especially prevalent in education systems (Dale, 2000). Finally, Dale further complicated the analysis by pointing the researcher or theorizer to remember that international NGOs and similar entities that are seen as supranational or as part of the world polity were themselves created by States. Where Common World Education Culture theory sees these international organizations as carriers of that world culture, GSEA considers the agency of the State or its actual relationship with the international organizations. Policies do not simply transfer wholesale from one place to the other, thus, the usefulness of the term “glocalisms” (variations on which are found in Ball, 2016; Jessop, 2002; de Sousa Santos, 2006). Jessop’s work is an important contribution to a study of globalization’s impact on education because he reminds us that globalization is not a single definable item that can be identified as a cause. The global is a “hugely extended network of localities” (Jessop, 2002 citing Czarniawksa and Sevón, p. 114) that can be multiscalar, multidimensional, multicentric, and so forth. Actors involved “coordinate their activities with others in order to produce global effects” (p. 115). 28 A process of globalization identified by Jessop – destatization – happens where economic ties are made between local areas and/or regional groupings; these ties bypass national authority, but also usually have the nation-state’s sponsorship or approval. It is worth noting that nation-states do not necessarily reflect the interests and will of the population in general, but often are more beholden to national or local economic elites. Destatization can take a downward or upward direction. Specifically, “political or ideological functions previously performed by states have been transferred to or shared with other actors, institutional arrangements or regimes” (p. 199). This transfer of responsibility implies a rise in centrality of other types of entities like NGOs, corporations, and other private enterprises, as these are who the state – at any level – tends to partner with. Lines between public and private, and further, between types of private interests disappear in such partnerships. Destatization is the moment at which government moves to governance. Finally, governance (over government) may also be a strategic move away from pure popular-democratic decision making to the extent such existed previously, because of the number of decision makers that become involved in governance who are at least in theory not beholden to the public either by way of elected office or in the function of a public servant. Research Design Overview My primary line of inquiry for this study examined the federal teacher education policy process in Brazil. In examining this, I hoped to uncover who or what has been involved and how have they influenced choices between public and private forms of teacher education. The following specific research questions guided my study: 29 1. Which people, organizations, and ideas are involved in the development of teacher education policies? a. What are the ideological and geographical origins and current support structures of these people, organizations, and ideas? 2. How do the people and organizations involved view teacher education? 3. What have been the factors affecting the choice of public versus private approaches to teacher education policy? Question 1, in particular the “ideas” vein of it, allowed me to explore in detail the unique nature of teacher education in Brazil and the influence this has on current policy. For example, a discourse on the proletarianization and professionalization of teachers appeared to be more common in the Brazilian literature than elsewhere (a topic discussed further in Chapter 2). Questions 2 and 3 helped me to understand the role different sectors and organizations take in developing policies and how those roles result in particular policy decisions. Significance of the Study Research on global education policy networks via network ethnography is relatively new, though the concepts and theories are not. As a method and framework, it has the potential to reveal corporate influence over teacher education policy, an area that has received less specific attention (Ball, 2012). Similar to recent international education research utilizing network ethnography, this study presents a high-level description of a network with a deep dive into the details of how decisions were made between public and private sector execution of policy and programs. 30 As the study is centered on teacher education policy choices, the results contribute to what we know about how the teaching profession is framed among different types of actors found in the modern policymaking space, what goes into decision-making about teachers and teacher training, how different parts of the network react to action taken by another, and how best to describe the way the teacher education is governed. Organization of this Dissertation The following chapter presents an exploration of relevant literature and frameworks from the teacher education field. Chapter 3 reviews the methods used to conduct the research. Subsequently, that chapter has more discussion about network ethnography as a method. Guidance I used from critical policy analysis and perspectives I take regarding critical political economy are also explained in Chapter 3. The answers that I obtained in relation to the research questions are addressed in Chapter 4 and 5. Chapter 4 provides deep description of the network and the results of the analysis and Chapter 5 interprets those results in light of the theories already described and the literature presented in Chapter 2. 31 Chapter 2: Review of the Teacher Education Literature Teacher Education in Brazil In 1998, Brazilian educator and philosopher Paulo Freire wrote in his final text, Pedagogy of Freedom, about the need for transformative work to both denounce injustice and announce a new way forward. A plan for a political-pedagogical strategy – that is, a strategy whereby teaching is a political process and must be used as such – should incorporate both criticisms of and alternatives to the status quo. Paulo Freire’s legacy can be seen in many places around Brazil and the world – in the use of his name for organizations and institutes as well as in the infusion of his ideas in teacher education curricula. Proponents of Freirean critical education see it in opposition to the banking view of schooling, where teachers deposit or transmit knowledge to students through simple transactions. The nature of Brazilian education and teacher preparation today reflects both the influence of the country’s progressive educationalists like Freire as well as the continuous approach of and more recent struggle against neoliberal education reforms like those highlighted in the first chapter. An understanding of public reception to those reforms is important for a discussion on the context of Brazilian teacher education. Brazilian society recently expressed marked public mobilization and resistance to neoliberal and market-based reforms to its public sectors, education included. This mobilization was continuous from 2013 when millions of people took to the streets to protest public spending on World Cup preparations (Romero, 2013) through 2015. Then, in 2015 a movement of secondary school students, supported by their parents, teachers, and communities, emerged to occupy thousands of individual schools all over the 32 country, in protest of a variety of issues including school reorganization, school closures, under-resourcing, and policies aimed at outlawing political discourse by teachers (Bernardes, 2016). Students occupying their schools organized care of the grounds and each other as well as programmatic planning for continued education. Students plugged into a larger, global resistance community by leveraging social media, a phenomenon De Sousa Santos (2006) called insurgent cosmopolitanism. Learning continued in the occupied schools, with lessons given by students themselves, their teachers, and community members. Perhaps most importantly, students collectively controlled the nature of the school day and the content of their education. Freire believed education should question society’s institutions, and that such questioning must include the people who currently benefit the least from the institutions (Gandin & Apple, 2002). The current wave of public demands, especially as evidenced by the school occupations, is an example of communities demanding a more democratic structure, control of their resources, and control of their content. It seems as though Brazilians have made “the pedagogical more political and the political more pedagogical” (Giroux as cited in Hill, 2006, p. 127). The remainder of this chapter provides a brief history of education in Brazil, followed by a discussion of the status of teachers including the role of teachers unions. I also review some important teacher education frameworks and explain the evolution of teacher education spaces over time. I close with an explanation of how teacher quality is determined from different perspectives. The literature shared in this chapter is directly relevant to Brazilian teacher education policy. Global notions of teacher education and quality are certainly relevant for understanding the perspectives of the network members 33 under study, and many of those notions originated in the United States. However, I felt it was important as a critical policy analysis to be mindful of the extent to which I included, and thus examined the results against, references to US-specific teacher education practices and notions of quality. A Historical Overview of Brazilian Education Brazil’s education systems have historically mirrored other parts of society: schools are unequal across racial, income, and regional lines (Carnoy, 1974; Coutinho, 1992; Leher & Vittoria, 2016). Through most of its history, segregation was also the result of divisions in geographic access to schools and low prioritization of extending school systems to rural areas (Dávila, 2003; Meade, 2010). The urban-rural divide was steep in 1950 when just 36% of the population lived in urban zones and has declined since the 1980s (Krawzcyk & Vieira, 2012). By 2004, over 80% of the population lived in urban areas. Until the 1990s, the public education system served a small minority of the population. Literacy rates reveal the effects: in 1950, half of the population was still illiterate, by 1980 about one-fourth, and by 2004, 11% (Krawczyk and Vieira, 2012). Through the final years of the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, 38% of school age children were out of school, and just 2.9% of the Gross Domestic Product was invested in public education (Gois, 2018). By 2002, 12% were out of school and investment had grown to 4.7% of an expanded GDP. 1990s era reforms included a decentralization effort aimed at improving these figures (Wong & Balestino, 2003). In the post-dictatorship, re-democratization period of the 1990s, the country undertook an educational reform project aligned with the universal education promise 34 found in the 1988 Constitution. The expansion of schooling was difficult and riddled with problems. Grade level repetition and dropout rates were high through the 1990s (OECD, 2010). In 1996, a series of funding equalization measures were undertaken including a constitutional amendment to make school funding more equitable between cities and rural areas and the receipt of a loan from the World Bank to provide grants to states to expand high school education (Krawczyk and Vieira, 2012). The end of the dictatorship also meant the opening of the Brazilian economy to world trade and greater influence from the World Bank, occurrences that were blamed for inflation and persistent poverty. Some education projects emerged to counter the World Bank’s influence. The Citizen School, which originated in the southern city of Porto Alegre had an explicitly anti-capitalist, nonconformist, and emancipatory objective. In this project, citizens were convened and involved in all steps of an ongoing process of goal-setting and monitoring for their community’s schools. The process also required the municipal secretary of education and the communities to learn how to engage with each other and enact schools that represented the true will of the people. Constituent Congresses were formed from community members from all of the city’s elementary schools and set normative goals for their project, including the “radical democratization” of management, access to the school, and access to knowledge (Gandin & Apple, 2003, p. 264). The formation of these congresses echoed Freire’s idea of “parliamentarization of the participants” which he used to signify the democratic engagement of everyday citizens (Freire, as cited in Gandin & Apple, 2003, p. 129). Citizen Schools of Porto Alegre were an exemplary model of democratization of schooling and the policy process. 35 According to Krawczyk and Vieira (2012), the legacy of the re-democratization era was the development of two antagonistic streams of thought and action for Brazilian education: one was a continuous struggle for democracy and the other was a struggle to tie Brazilian education to international trends in hopes of innovating and “modernizing the country” (p. 57) to make it more competitive within the global capitalist economy. When it came to school management, these two streams emerged as technocratic management and participative democracy. Status of Teachers According to Labaree (2008), teacher education’s legacy of low status can be attributed to a number of factors including: (1) high demand for teacher production at the expense of quality, (2) the people most associated with mass schooling (the poor and women), and (3) the hidden difficulty of the work of teaching. Teacher status is also tied up with teachers' own “ability” or academic achievement as students when they are recruited into the profession. In places where teachers typically earn a higher salary, high achieving students are more likely to aspire to be teachers (Park & Byun, 2015), though the school or occupational climate can serve to deter people from entering or staying in the profession (Gray & Taie, 2015; Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005; Kidd, Brown, and Fitzallen, 2015; Struyven & Vanthournout, 2014). In low-income countries, high pay for teachers is rarely the case. Mussucato and Azevedo’s (2011) review of the literature on the early childhood profession in Brazil found that the social standing of teachers was quite low. They attributed this to a lack of technical training coupled with an absence of or failure of policies that might remedy the deficit. Mussucato and Azevedo were critical of the 36 insertion of ‘market logic’ in the educational space, where they claim the state valued efficiency and job-market preparation over teaching or the legitimate improvement of teaching. Mussucato and Azevedo argued for a more comprehensive training of kindergarten teachers under the reasoning that the job involves deeper skills than are being given to the current early childhood workforce. Similarly, Soczek and Soczek (2015) wrote about what they called the distance between policy and reality. In this case, they argued that the State has a powerful role in its responsibility to guarantee the right to quality education. Soczek and Soczek went on to explain that teacher quality had been a policy issue in Brazil since the 1950s. Since then, the myriad of policies, laws, and opinions written on upgrading teacher requirements was a source of anxiety for teachers who were already working without the proper qualifications, especially if structures are not put in place to provide the required or new training. Soczek and Soczek’s review of the research on teachers in Brazil found a convergence of themes on the status of teachers and on the need for holistic teacher training that develops the teacher as a professional and a citizen. Professionalism, Professionalization, and Proletarianization The status of teachers in different places around the world depends largely on their sociopolitical context. An underlying philosophical debate which informs the status of teachers as workers is centered around professionalism. On one hand, considering teachers professionals means to assume the role requires a certain level of critical thinking and creativity, both of which would come with the use of professional judgment entrusted by a society to the individual teacher who is assumed to have acquired necessary skills. On the other hand, teachers can be viewed as technicians who are 37 trained to carry out certain processes; this view carries distinctly unprofessional connotations. Bottery (2009) presented these opposing views in light of professionalism being the more desirable view to take. In the teaching profession, a unique blend of individual professionalism as characterized by a client-services model, where teachers are given creative license to work and collective bargaining for pricing these services might be ideal. Without this balance, according to Kablay (2012), individual contract teachers find themselves un- or under-employed, competing against each other, and out-pricing themselves. According to Flores and Shiroma (2003), professionalism is the nature of someone’s work, while professionalization is to give an occupational group the status of professional with certain recognition status, and power/autonomy. Vallaint (2005) saw tension between worker and professional as identities for teachers, and found that teacher-union activism was more often rooted in a union framing teachers as workers. At the same time, Vallaint pointed out that unions are centers of protest and debate, and that a focus on professionalization does not necessarily mutually exclusive from arguing against certain, market-based, reforms as a worker. In their critical analysis of Brazilian and Portuguese policy documents, Flores and Shiroma (2003) found the professionalization idea aligned with competitiveness and a market-based education system. This paradox was linked to an effort to re-define professionalism in terms of increased requirements for teachers to do a larger range of tasks that are more complex in the same amount of time. The scenario is also known as proletarianization (Bullough, 2016). This managerial version of teaching bureaucratizes teacher learning and teachers’ work. In this view, teachers are expected to know more 38 and do more, under the same title, for the same pay and with relatively little control over their work. This is proletarianization in that teachers are a part of a greater division of the work required and they are taught to perform high level tasks in a routine way (Bullough, 2016; Flores and Shiroma, 2003; Vallaint, 2005). Emphasizing “technical skill and autonomy” in teachers leads them to individually identify with the workplace and to then produce based on motivation and discipline (Flores and Shiroma, 2003, p. 14). This view of the profession has led to many educator preparation programs to teach only what is functional and useful in the classroom, and so professionalization in this regard means the worker is “as efficient as s/he is neutral” (Flores and Shiroma, 2003, p. 14). The Political Nature of Teacher Education Teacher education has power over social reproduction and politics (Bowles, 1975; Ginsburg, 1988; Kumashiro, 2008). What this means is that teachers and school administrators are mediums for passing down societal norms and therefore stand to reproduce or disrupt practices and potential injustices in the social structure (Ginsburg, 1988). A contemporary example of teachers as political actors is in the case of Teach for America which explicitly seeks to move its alumni, who usually do not come out of pre- service teacher education programs, into leadership roles in its organization and in other policy and government arenas (Kronholz, 2013). The political nature of teachers' work can also be seen in the endorsement of political candidates by teachers’ unions across nations. Historically, those with political hopes in former colonial nations entered teaching as a first step up the civil servant or government official ladder (Dove, 1979). Likewise, teaching was historically a stepping stone on a path of upward mobility. Earning a teaching degree provided a middle class or better credential that might open up 39 doors or simply give job security. As education opportunities and job markets have expanded, this is no longer the case (OECD, 2005) as there now exist different options for moving up socially, economically, or politically, particularly for women. While the political nature of education is evident from the brief history given above, it is important to consider the political side to educator preparation as a discreet force in shaping policy. Brazilian teachers and their place in society and politics have been conceptualized quite uniquely: as Countinho (1992) put it, teachers tend to play a “broker’s role between the elites and the masses” (p. 49). Nóvoa (1992) went further in describing teachers as being located between the people and bourgeois, between the poor and the rich, and between public workers and private professionals. Schools are representative of the stratification in society, and teachers are located at their core; because people place their hopes for mobility in schools, teachers are therefore, cultural and political agents (Nóvoa, 1991). In developing countries, teachers hold even more potential as “brokers,” because they tend to be the largest civil service group (Vallaint, 2005). Latin American teachers’ unions tend to be composed of public school teachers, and so they are a logical and primary opponent to privatization (Gindin & Finger, 2013; Vallaint, 2005). Teachers unions, depending on their size and resources as well as government laws and policies, negotiate working conditions for their members, aim to increase their scope of influence over policy, and sometimes serve as a site for teacher training (Vallaint, 2005). Many unions in the region are autonomous, though most are part of confederations. Brazilian teachers’ unions are linked in a confederation. Their power to negotiate with governments depends on their structure and their links to other 40 politically powerful people or groups. Education policy originates from teachers’ unions in some countries, or some kind of negotiation framework is used between union and government in setting policy, while in some countries policy is set with no input from organized teachers. Gindin and Finger’s (2013) review of the literature on Latin American teachers’ unions, which provided background information for UNESCO’s 2013 Education for All Global Monitoring Report, concluded that unions and teachers should be formally included in the policymaking process and that unions should be supported in their efforts to professionalize teachers . Vallaint (2005) categorized types of union demands or grievances in three ways: the first as economic-cooperative, having to do with wages and work conditions, the second as political-ideological, being explicitly against privatization, and the third as political-cooperative, taking place when a union wanted control over a policy content area. In Latin America, throughout the 1980s and 1990s, unions filed grievances over wages, working conditions, and reform design and implementation (Vallaint, 2005). Some researchers equate teachers’ unions with interest groups that are only as influential as their ability to affect the electorate, and so in this view, they have sway over political candidates, while other research, and this is especially the case in Latin America, sees teachers’ unions as social movements that promote public education (Gindin & Finger, 2013). During the military dictatorship, labor laws were suspended. During re- democratization, which began in 1988, Brazilian teachers were allowed to unionize (Gindin & Finger, 2013). However, as I have pointed out in previous sections, the re- democratization era coincided with increasingly neoliberal-oriented governments that 41 aimed and continue to aim to deregulate labor (Gindin & Finger, 2013). Under pressure from international agencies, Latin American countries have tried with varied success to transform teacher education into something that produces teachers who are “creative [in implementing policies and curriculum determined by others] without being critical and who are able to work in teams as long as they do not participate in collective bargaining nor promote union organisation. In other words, they should be technically more competent and politically less active…” (Flores and Shiroma, 2003, p. 15). The most recent iteration of efforts to separate politics from teaching was found in Escola Sem Partido (Non-partisan School) legislative bills introduced around various Brazilian states in 2015 and 2016. Such laws would prohibit teachers from discussing – and especially from expressing opinions of – politics. Thus far, these laws have been found unconstitutional thanks to a clause which calls for a plurality of ideas in the school setting and because it is already illegal for teachers to indoctrinate students or to oblige them to participate in political movements (Moreno, A.C., Tenente, L., & Fajardo, V, 2015). Unsurprisingly, according to Vallaint (2005), the trajectory of power of Brazilian teachers’ unions in the 1990s was downward, though Gindin and Finger’s (2013) more recent review of literature on the region’s unions found that their influence had grown since the 1990s. A wave of anti-neoliberal sentiment did move through the region through the 2000s, which could be seen in the decades-long Worker’s Party majority rule in the federal government and in many states (Hill, 2006). Union resistance also led to failure of at least one major global trend in teacher education: the implementation of a Teach for America/Teach for All project. The organization installed an operation in the 42 city of Rio de Janeiro, failed to fully gain momentum and closed for business in 2011 (Friedrich, 2016; Straubhaar, 2014). Brazil’s National Confederation of Education Workers is one of the largest in Latin America and includes primary and secondary level teachers’ unions. Brazilian teachers’ unions are independent from political parties. Brazilian teachers’ union protests in the 1990s hold the record for being the second longest lasting in the Latin America (Vallaint, 2005). The main conflicts of that era were primary school teachers’ training and wages. More generally, these unions have protested when they perceived not being consulted on reforms and sometimes in direct protest to the work of the World Bank (Vallaint, 2005). Brazilian teachers’ unions were integral in the development of the 1988 constitution, where they advocated for and won a minimum funding clause for education and for the democratic management of schools (Gindin & Finger, 2013). Another instance of a union successfully confronting neoliberal education reforms took place in the state of Paraná, where the government took over the selection of school principals, which had previously been a democratic process (Gindin & Finger, 2013). The teachers’ union took this case to court, where it was ruled unconstitutional. Finally, teachers’ unions in Brazil have been found to positively affect the attraction to and retention in the profession, and to be an integral part of the policy process, providing research and policy advocacy in many cases where there would be none otherwise (Gindin & Finger, 2013). Teacher Education Frameworks Teacher education is conceptualized in phases. The first phase of teacher learning is the teacher’s own experience as a student, also called the apprenticeship of observation 43 (Lortie,1975; Schwille and Dembélé, 2007). Prospective teachers learn about the job by watching and experiencing school for themselves as elementary, secondary, or college students. This phase is often neglected as a research area, though the logic of what is known as the P-20 education framework emphasizes the importance of effective P-12 teachers to keep the pipeline of effective prospective teachers healthy (Dove, 1986). The next phase of teacher learning is usually pre-service and takes place before the teacher begins work. Fieman-Nemser (2008) has written extensively on the fragmented nature of pre-service teacher training in the United States. The experiences teachers go through in this phase tend to be disconnected from each other and replete with practices known to be less engaging and less impactful on student learning (Fieman- Nemser, 2008). Across countries, researchers have found a “sink or swim” kind of dynamic among all types of pre-service programs, whereby new teachers are essentially meant to learn from or fail as a result of their mistakes (Schwille and Dembélé, 2007). Sometimes, this dynamic is purposeful and other times it is a result of schools trying to meet teacher training needs on limited resources. Another phase of teacher education is the induction period (Schwille and Dembélé, 2007). Teachers undergo induction formally or informally, depending on what is offered upon hire, but in general, it is the period where the new teacher adapts to his or her role. As with other phases of teacher preparation, there is no consensus within or across countries in terms of the preferred or existing nature of teacher induction. The 25- country OECD (2005) study Teachers Matter found that just 10 nations had structured, mandatory induction programs, while 8 had no such programs at all. 44 The final phase of teacher education is called in-service training or professional development (PD), which ideally lasts to retirement. In the US, this phase is characteristically marked by short-term training workshops with little follow up and typically is not planned in consideration of a larger scheme. Research has found that isolated workshop style PD does not influence change in teaching practice; strongly held ideas, beliefs, or attitudes formed over a lifetime as a student and teacher are not likely to be changed by one-time workshops (Elmore, 2002; Feiman-Nemser, 2008). The study of teacher learning is intersectional in that it encompasses many research and theoretical areas including theories of learning, studies of teacher preparation along the continuum, as well as theories about school change and teacher culture. Based on theories and major findings, Fieman-Nemser (2008) conceptualized teacher learning around four themes: thinking, knowing, feeling, and acting like a teacher. According to Fieman-Nemser, knowing like a teacher involves understanding how children learn, how culture and language affect learning, as well as pedagogy and assessment practices. Feeling like a teacher involves one’s emotions and identity and how they interact with manifestations of intellectual authority. A useful conceptualization of teacher learning could be to unite Schwille and Dembélé’s phases with Fieman-Nemser’s themes. For example, beliefs can influence what teachers do or do not learn during their time in formal pre- and in-service education. In other words, one’s ability to think like a teacher could be either positively or adversely affected by preconceived notions about how students learn. Therefore, crossing Fieman- Nemser’s thematic conceptualization of teacher learning with Schwille and Demebele’s concept of teacher learning across a continuum means that intentional learning 45 opportunities centered around influencing teacher beliefs could counteract (or reinforce) what teachers learn about teaching in their own time as a P-12 student during the apprenticeship of observation phase. Locating Teacher Education Given the potential political nature of teaching (Gandin & Apple, 2002), states tend to want control over the meaning of professionalism within teaching. This is accomplished by transferring responsibility for teacher education to schools states do control: the P-12 schools, as opposed to typically autonomous universities (Flores and Shiroma, 2003). University-based training is seen as more professional in a traditional sense, where the teacher learns a body of knowledge on which they will be trusted to make decisions, and teacher preparation located on the job that focuses on a quick review of practices the teacher will be expected to replicate is seen as de-professionalizing (Flores and Shiroma, 2003). The oscillation between academic and practical settings has been a characteristic of teacher training for all of its history (Nóvoa, 1991). Nóvoa (1991), a Portuguese teacher education researcher who is a key reference in Brazilian education, called for moving past the academic-practical dichotomy and developing professional models based on university and school partnerships. Interestingly, the Brazilian National Education Plan of 2014 called for just that (National Education Plan of Brazil, 2014). Until the early 20th century, teachers received little to no formal training, but earned their position via exam (Figueiredo & Cowen, 2003). Later, normal schools, or teaching colleges, grew in number Brazil between the 1930s and 1960s (Figueiredo & Cowen, 2003; Santos, 2002). The original normal school model in Brazil resulted in a 46 high school level diploma which certified graduates to teach elementary school. Through the 1960s and 1970s, the military regime emphasized technical skill over critical thinking (Coutinho, 1992, Rodríguez-Gómez & Alcántara, 2003). Under advice from the US government in the 1960s, Brazil developed a short-term technical teacher training model which led to quick credentialing (Coutinho, 1992). Later, in the 1990s, the World Bank focused its resources on in-service teacher training, especially aimed at teachers with no post-secondary education (Santos, 2002). These programs were considered to earn the highest social rate of return, as compared to targeting training at other points in a teacher’s or aspiring teacher’s career (Santos, 2002). The location of teacher training in Brazil has been somewhat scattered across a series of places, and this is in part due to rapidly changing policy (Sokolowski, 2015). Brazilian universities introduced a pedagogy major for elementary and a licensure route for secondary teacher in the 1980s (Santos, 2002). Then, the 1996 National Education Guidelines & Framework Law (Lei da Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional) mandated all teacher training happen in post-secondary institutes – which were categorically different from universities (Santos, 2002; Sokolowski, 2015; Vallaint, 2005). Lay teaching (teaching without training) and high school level normal school traditions continued as well (Coutinho, 1992). The post-secondary institutes established by the 1996 law faced opposition because the courses were thought to be exclusively technical and lacking in exposure to theory and research (Santos, 2002). Further criticism of these schools included that they functioned as a sort of finishing school for the poor rather than a teacher preparation 47 institution; indeed, more than half those who attended never taught and instead entered into domestic service for wealthy families (Coutinho, 1992). Souza and Abreu (2016) analyzed the teacher career entry policies of twelve Brazilian states and found a wide variety of practices despite federal and local laws governing such. The debate over whether a high school level teacher training certificate should be accepted has cooled in the most recent years with the passage of the 2014 National Education Plan which required, or rather reiterated, a postsecondary level training for all teachers (Souza & Abreu, 2016). However, states continue to hire and retain high school level certified teachers for lack of other options. The most recent goal setting through the National Education Plan adjusted the target date of having a majority of teachers trained at the postsecondary level to the year 2024 (Souza & Abreu, 2016). With the requirement clarified and a longer time period to reach it established, Souza and Abreu suggested that the federal and state governments have new priorities to set their sights on. These included the need for incentives to attract and retain new teachers, the need to integrate higher education institutions with the public schools, and the need to create an induction program for new teachers’ first few years on the job. Defining Teacher and Teacher Education Quality According to Imig et al. (2016), teacher quality can be conceptualized in a number of ways. Often it is based on inputs like faculty or student characteristics or the number of research publications or grants associated with an institution that trains or educates future teachers. Other quality measures take into account exit scores on examinations of program graduates, while some determine quality simply based on whether a program is face-to-face or online. Measuring quality is just as tricky, even if a 48 definition of quality has been reached. Graduate assessments, voluntary program accreditation, institutional rankings, teaching portfolio assessments, and changes in graduates’ students’ standardized test scores are commonly relied upon methods for gauging teacher quality in the US and abroad (Imig et al., 2016). According to Kumashiro (2008), teacher quality under the contemporary reform regime in the US is defined by possession of teaching strategies and skills that have been proven effective at raising student test scores. Many other countries have also adopted similar, narrow methods of defining and evaluating teacher quality based on student performance (Goe & Stickler, 2008). Proponents of the global education reform movement, like the World Bank, focus their definitions of quality around effectiveness. In its extensive frameworks for helping countries develop sound teacher policies, the World Bank has outlined general policy priorities and promoted policy ideas thought to incentivize quality, like pay for performance (Bruns, Evans, & Luque, 2012; Vegas et al, 2012). Darling-Hammond and Lieberman (2012) captured the international debates on teacher quality well by explaining the main opposing approaches: one being a marketized, deregulated university-based training, the other located in the academy and focused on professionalism. Those in favor of abandoning traditional teacher training claim there is no evidence that it leads to teacher quality. A Contribution to the Nexus of Teacher Education under Globalization Research on the work of Brazilian teachers and their career paths is limited (Souza & Abreu, 2016). This study will expand understanding of the ever-evolving requirements placed on teachers and the origins of these requirements. From the teacher education literature, there are those who view a well-prepared teacher as one who is 49 professionally entrusted to think analytically and to make decisions as a part of their work. There are others who view teachers as people who can be trained to perform particular tasks, and that those tasks can be done without thinking critically about them. These concepts were explored by asking which influences were strongest in making the relevant policy decisions. In other words, a contribution of this study is to understand how the previously mentioned concepts relate to each other and to policy outcomes. This study contributes to our understanding discourses of professionalism in the context of a place with historically strong labor organizing. By exploring the pressure found within the teacher education policy process, this study will produce a comprehension of policy decisions made in light of what is often framed as two opposing side: teachers’ unions and corporate or private sector education businesses. The presence of these corporate actors and private sector organizations also contributes to our understanding of the intersection of globalization and education policy and the nature of education governance in such a climate. 50 Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework and Research Design I approached this study from a perspective that policy analysis is interpretive, deals with the value-laden, and often involves the consideration of ideologies (Diem & Young, 2015). The sociopolitical and economic climate in Brazil at the time of this research could be described as unstable, making inherently appropriate the use of a critical political economy perspective (Caporoso & Levine, 1992; Klees, 2008b) and a critical policy analysis lens (Marshall, 1997) appropriate – though these approaches are equally called for in times of stability. As outlined in the first chapter, this study is underpinned by theories of how neoliberal globalization and education interact, ideas of network governance, and thus guided by a research design termed network ethnography (2012, 2016, 2017; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Knoke, 1990). This chapter presents an explanation of the study’s conceptual framework and research methods. The Research Questions were: 1) Which people, organizations, and ideas were involved in the development of teacher policies and teacher upgrading initiatives since 2003? What are the ideological and geographical origins and support structures of these people, organizations, and ideas? 2) How do the people and organizations involved view teacher education? How do these views interact with the development of teacher upgrading initiatives? 3) What have been the factors affecting the choice of public versus private approaches to teacher upgrading initiatives? In framing my conceptual approaches, I took Ravitch and Riggan’s (2012) view that concepts hold together a study’s importance, its related literature, and theoretical orientations. Ravitch and Riggan said, “how you execute a study is a product of how you 51 think about it” (p. 42). As a critical policy analysis, theory and method should be fundamentally linked (Ball, 2012; Diem & Young, 2015), so though this chapter reviews the methods used, the theoretical foundations are a constant reference point. Taking neoliberalism’s global influence on public policy as a foundation, I investigated the nature of Brazilian teacher education policy networks since around the year 2000. To gain these understandings, I inquired about who had influenced decision making, what motivated these people and their respective organizations, and considered how these things might have changed over the past two decades. Given Brazil’s left- leaning government for most of the time period in question, I also wanted to understand the seemingly contradictory nature of some neoliberal policies created during the era. I approached these lines of inquiry using the following concepts. Critical Political Economy & Critical Policy Analysis Theories in the political economy (PE) tradition address the space between the political and the economic (Caporoso and Levine, 1992). Approaches to PE determine how one views that space and how the two spheres relate (or do not relate) to each other. Power-centered approaches to political economy see politics as power and the economy as inherently political. This approach challenges the classical notion that the economy is a system of voluntary exchanges, by framing the economy as a system of power. Using this approach, I consider the presence of conditioned power whereby a social order is preserved by misleading a group (the labor/working class, for example) into thinking a certain set of goals are theirs when those goals really only or mostly serve the ends of the capitalist classes. Examples of this include when democratically empowered electorates vote for politicians whose policies have led or will directly lead to something detrimental 52 to them. A limitation to taking a power centered PE approach is that it does not consider the labor class's agency. This limitation was balanced by the Globally Structured Education Agenda (GSEA) theory which takes into account agency as a key element of its analytical framework (Dale, 2000). Since producing the GSEA framework, Roger Dale and colleagues have expanded on it to provide for an analysis of globalization and education that considers cultural and political projects that have fueled the expansion of global forms of education (Robertson & Dale, 2014). While I consider these ideas in the discussion of findings, this study was primarily guided by GSEA which itself theoretically starts at political economy, “rather than culture or economy” as a route to interpreting the structure of the global education policy field within and/or because of the capitalist economy (Robertson & Dale, 2014, p. 159). This study seeks to fill a need in understanding the role of corporate education actors and other private enterprises like “transnational business practices” (business that moves across nation-state boundaries but does not necessarily involve or originate from State agencies) on education policy (Ball, 2012, p. 93), so the product of the study is a visual and descriptive political economy of a teacher education policy network. As teacher education is assumed to be a post-secondary endeavor and the post- secondary sector has increasingly moved toward a marketed good (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016), it is crucial to mind the boundaries between the State, universities, and corporate powers (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Critical political economy, then, provides guidance and helps address the importance of this study: What are the boundaries between the State, higher education, and corporate powers? Is there tension between public goals and private interests (Caporoso & Levine, 1992)? 53 This political economy tradition considers class and other structures like race and patriarchy, and their role in maintaining some organization of power in society (Klees, 2008b). The critical policy analysis framework joins well with power-centered political economy in that it actively questions who should be at the center of a policy analysis (Diem & Young, 2015; Marshall, 1997). Traditional policy analysis accepts that there exists a rational and reasonable process to identifying policy problems and solutions (Diem & Young, 2015). Traditionally, problems are named by those already in a position of power (in terms of influence or resources), and subsequent analyses and solutions are taken as legitimate because of their origin (Marshall, 1997). Critical policy analysis is centered on acceptance of complexity – of problems, their contexts, and potential solutions. The founder of the policy studies field, Harold Laswell, recognized this complexity and the need for perspectives and methods to match (Diem & Young, 2015). Critical policy analysis seeks a policy’s intention and its effects, as well as its stated intentions which might be different. Traditionally, policy issues are made logical and rational, or “clean” and free from power issues. “Power, bias and values are embedded in institutions…in ways that affect what we do and do not see as problems; some become ‘areas of silence’” (Marshall, 1997, p.4). Analysts need a larger view of policy – one that goes beyond measurable and tangible (“fixable”) problems and one that addresses the areas of silence. This echoes the idea of power centered political economy, which challenges the idea that the political and the economic are separate, free from power imbalances. Defining certain issues as public and certain as private determines what is political and what should be addressed publicly or through policy and what remains an area of silence. In other words, a critical analysis 54 may see near equal weight in what is stated and not stated in a policy or by policymakers. I understand how and why traditional analyses are conducted and the constraints under which most of what we consider policy analysis takes place, but as a critical policy analyst, I aimed to emphasize the importance of position/power and interpretation. Network Ethnography and Social Network Analysis This study is a qualitative policy analysis, guided by Ball’s network ethnography which, as a method, calls for coupling network analysis with ethnographic methods (Ball, 2012; Ball, 2016; Ball & Junemann, 2012). Therefore, it is the ethnographic analysis of a network. Ball (2012) theorized that state education as we knew it had ended because of new heterarchies: structures for networks where lines are blurred between public and private and where there may be many new actors involved. Networks are the vehicle by which policy and its associated discourses and ideologies move and change, and they are “always under construction” (p. 3, Ball, 2017). Chapter 1 reviewed theories of network power or network governance, while this section focuses on the use of network in my research methods. Using policy networks as an analytic device, I explored how such networks represent Brazilian teacher policy processes by attempting to “follow” policy (Ball, 2017, p. 4). Network ethnography as a method is aligned to my goal of understanding who was involved in the policy process and the nature of that involvement. A key component to network ethnography is mapping the actual network of people, organizations, documents, and even events that surround the issue. Social network analysis (SNA) is a method for mapping relationships (Howard, 2002; Serrat, 2010) and producing a “sketch of an interaction (Ball & Junemann, 2012, p. 13). It is “participative and interpretive” 55 and can show who knows whom, who shares what information with whom and which communication methods they use (Serrat, p. 3, 2010). Ideally, social network analysis reveals who influences whom (Knoke, 1990). Modern network studies date back to the 1930s and have been applied in sociology, anthropology, communication, political science, organizational behavior, business and marketing, and program evaluation (Knoke, 1990; Lazer, 2011; Serrat, 2010). Network analyses are useful to many audiences, because they can indicate strengths and weaknesses in communication channels, opportunities for relationship building, and proximal threats toward meeting goals. A typical social network analysis involves the use of closed-ended questionnaires to gather information about relationships from people identified in a defined group (Howard, 2002). Questionnaires ask individuals to indicate who they know (or who they have communicated, worked, or collaborated with, depending on the purpose of the study). Collated responses are used to draw a sociogram, or map of the network, in recent years increasingly using a computer- based social network analysis tool. These tools map the network using nodes for the individuals or organizations (nodes can also be events or objects) and edges for the ties between nodes. Computer-based SNA tools can also calculate measurements about the network. As a result, sociograms indicate attributes like categories or centrality of the actors involved and the nature of their ties (direction or distance, for example). Since SNA is useful for mapping relationships or communication channels, ethnographic methods are a natural complement for an inquiry into a policy network’s members, ideas, and ways of working (Howard, 2002). Where SNA can show density and proximity of network members, ethnography provides thick description of exemplary 56 interactions. Since this dissertation is a network ethnography, I relied on elements of social network analysis for data collection and analysis, which I explain in detail in subsequent sections. Research Methods Taking methodological guidance from network ethnographers already studying the global education policy field (Ball, 2012; Ball, 2016; Ball & Junemann, 2012), I outline the steps in the order taken for conducting this research and will refer back to them in my descriptions of site and participant selection and data collection and analysis: 1. I conducted “extensive internet searching” to identify people and organizations and to get background information from their Internet presence (Ball & Junemann, 2012, p. 12). I started this identification process based on findings from recent, relevant research (Adrião et al., 2015; Adrião & Garcia, 2014; Ball, 2012; Klees & Edwards, 2015; Silva & Tavares, 2016). I created a preliminary list of organizations that made up the network and identified potential informants. From this point forward in this chapter, I use the term ‘organizations’ to mean any sort group involved in the policy network in question. An organization here could be a government agency, a non-profit organization, a professional association, or a for-profit corporation, etc. In Chapter 4 I explain in detail the types of organizations involved in the network as a result of the analysis. 1. I conducted in-depth interviews and observations to expand the preliminary network list, indicate connections, and to get in-depth information that might address my research questions. I wrote memos following most interviews. 2. I used the completed network list to visualize it using Gephi network visualization software (Bastian, Heymann, & Jacomy, 2009). 57 3. I analyzed the qualitative data I collected in an ongoing manner. I used NVivo to save all webpages, documents, research memos, and interview transcripts included in the analysis. Research Sites This fieldwork took place between March and August 2018 across multiple sites including virtual spaces, Washington, DC, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the Brazilian cities of São Paulo and Campinas. As previously mentioned, the network analysis took into account how organizations presented themselves online, so virtual space is included as a research site. Washington is home to international organizations that have been involved in Brazil’s education systems as well as other experts on education regulation, in general. Cambridge was selected because of an event, the Brazil Conference at Harvard and MIT. This annual event bills itself as the “Brazilian Davos” in reference to the World Economic Forum where the world’s most economically and politically powerful meet to talk about solving – or at least identifying and addressing – global problems. While at the Cambridge-based Brazil Conference, I recruited participants for in-depth interviews and observed a portion of the proceedings. In the neighboring Brazilian cities of São Paulo and Campinas, I conducted in- depth interviews across a variety of locations including the offices of private foundations and businesses, university campuses, and other public spaces. I also observed one political event in São Paulo. I selected the São Paulo region as a site because of its status as hub for business, non-profit organizations, research, and policy. The vast majority of the organizations identified in my preliminary version of the network have a presence in 58 São Paulo. Further, my personal and professional connection and gatekeeper into this hub lives in São Paulo. Finally, I conducted some interviews over the phone or video- conferencing in the event that I was unable to connect in person. Participant Selection In the first stage of data collection, I examined the websites of global and local organizations that were involved in teacher education policy in Brazil based on previous, recent studies (Adrião et al., 2015; Adrião & Garcia, 2014; Ball, 2012; Klees & Edwards, 2015; Silva & Tavares, 2016) and analyzed their web presence for how they presented their own connections and to predict who might make up the network at the heart of my study. I shared this list with a primary gatekeeper to get feedback and to begin searching for opportunities to connect with informants for interviews. I already knew that government agents, politicians, interest groups, policy advocates, and researchers interact regularly and may have shared understandings and ways of framing the issue (Marshall & Gerstl-Pepin, 2004). Thinking critically, I considered the possibility of other groups with a stake in the issue that may have been left out of the policymaking process or those voluntarily not engaging with it. In an effort to capture any potential range of variation (Maxwell, 2013), I aimed to recruit from all dimensions of the political and economic spectrum. In sum, participants were identified purposefully and recruited via a snowball method. Some parts of the network I was interested in were harder to get access to than others, an issue I discuss in subsequent chapters. Later, I also discuss the inter-connected nature of the network, which is hinted at in the multiple affiliations of interview participants (see Table 4). 59 Table 4: Interview Participants Participant Affiliation(s) (Pseudonym) Gabriela Vetor Brasil Lemann Fellows Teach for America Stanford Graduate School of Education State Secretary of Education Goiás Ana ANFOPE (National Association of Education Professors) MEC (Ministry of Education) – CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) University of São Paulo Amanda UNESCO Undime (Union of Municipal Directors of Education) Consed (Council of State Secretaries of Education) Ayrton Senna Institute Carlos Chagas Foundation State Education Council SP Fernanda University of Campinas ANPAE (National Association of Education Policy and Administration) ANPed (National Association of Education Research) UNESCO Carlos Chagas Foundation Julia Abed (Brazilian Association of Distance Education) GGTE (Education Technology Directors’ Group) University of Campinas Beatriz MEC – CAPES ANFOPE University of Campinas Mariana University of Campinas Larissa MEC – PNAIC (National Literacy Pact) University of Campinas Camila Devry State Secretary of Education SP – Center for the Improvement of the Teaching Degree University of Campinas Lucas SEMESP (Association of Owners of Private Higher Education Institutions) 60 Pedro Unibanco Institute São Paulo Municipal Assembly Comunidade Educativa FMU (Laureate International) University of São Paulo Municipal Secretary of Education Franco da Rocha Municipal Secretary of Education São Bernardo do Campo Victoria Unibanco Institute MEC – SEB (Secretary of Basic Education) Felipe Ayrton Senna Institute Insper Ipea (Institute for Applied Economic Research) Daniel Ação Educativa CNDE (Campaign for the Right to Education) ABONG (Association of Brazilian Non-Governmental Organizations) Bruno Todos Pela Educação State Secretary of Education SP Arthur World Bank Stanford GSEA – Lemann Center John Public advocate United States Government Executive Branch Center for American Progress Catarina World Bank Carol UNESCO World Bank Inter-American Development Bank Lemann Fellows Stanford GSEA Harvard University University of São Paulo Lynn Undime Municipal Secretary of Education São Bernardo do Campo Raquel MEC – CAPES University of São Paulo Sabrina MEC Undime SM Foundation Marcela CNTE (National Confederation of Teachers Unions) State Education Council Santa Catarina Jane United States Department of Education Natalia Inter-American Development Bank Lemann Fellows Stanford GSEA 61 Data Collection Data were collected from publicly available webpages, in-depth interviews, documents or other text-based items provided by informants, and observations (see Table 5). I began the study with a list of organizations I hypothesized were involved in formulating teacher education policy based on previous, related research. This list originated from my line of inquiry about teacher education policy since 20003 – the date which marked the entrance of the Workers’ Party at the federal level. I used this year to mark a time period of interest and to seek the likely network members (Knoke, 1990). I collected publicly available information on the web that showed how organizations presented themselves as connected, or not. For each organization, I sought an official website and its listing of partnerships or sponsorships. I saved each webpage that had this information using NVivo. As a result of interviews and observations, I searched for additional web-based items to confirm or get more details on connections and events, so the total number of web-based artifacts analyzed is the result of what was an ongoing process. I also created a matrix of organizational connections and updated this in an ongoing fashion. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, I made contact with representatives from some of the organizations of interest and observed presentations and conversations about teacher education policy while a key policy and networking event was taking place (the Brazil Conference). This conference can be only be attended by application or invitation, and the publicized target audience is the sizeable group of Brazilian undergraduates in the Boston region, so it was not surprising that my application to formally attend was denied. While I was not able to attend the presentations, I did meet with informants on-site at the 62 event, observe the atmosphere in the lobbies outside of presentation halls, and observe the panels and speeches via a live feed. I also made crucial contact with informants I was able to meet with in Brazil. I obtained the in-depth interviews and other items for analysis from informants in Brazil, Boston, Washington, and in online conferencing spaces. Interviews were semi- structured, meaning participants could go in depth on topics at will at any point. I expected participants to talk about different approaches to the same issue, so I used an interview protocol based on key questions. Interviews were open-ended but topic- focused (Bogden & Biklen, 2007; Kvale, 1996) with the objective to prompt the revelation of details about the development of policies and programs aimed at under- prepared teachers. The interview questions aimed to elicit information from specific events in hopes of bringing out details rather than generalizations or abstractions (Maxwell, 2013). I developed this interview protocol with government officials, teacher educators, and representatives from non-profit and corporate organizations in mind, using guidance from other network analysis and ethnographic researchers (Ball, 2016; Ball & Junemann, 2012; Knoke, 1990; Serrat, 2010; Spradley, 1979) and content from the literature and theory guiding my study (see Appendix for interview protocol). Finally, interviews were designed to be a mode of participatory network design. In each interview, I asked participants to provide feedback on the list of organizations I had hypothesized were involved, to tell where their organization(s) might be connected to others, and to add or delete items from the list. In some cases, participants shared aloud what they perceived to be network connections and I made notes, and in other cases, participants used extra paper to draw network maps while talking: 63 When participants gave permission, I recorded interviews. Immediately following most interviews, I created a research memo. I reviewed the notes I had taken in the moment and wrote down additional thoughts, reflections, reactions, and impressions. During interviews, I took notes by hand, and my review and “preliminary jotting” process was done on my computer, when possible (Saldaña, 2016). I transcribed audio verbatim, removed identifying information, and deleted audio recordings, in accordance with my IRB-approved process. I conducted 25 interviews, at which point I reached the notion of theoretical saturation (Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014). Specifically, certain similar ideas and insights emerged in a critical mass of the interviews. Depending on how a person or their 64 organization identified on the political spectrum, I had expected to hear wide-ranging views that would not co-exist easily or logically, but instead I heard agreement among network actors even in instances where they believed they themselves had hardline differences. I stopped recruiting interview participants once I understood where and why there were – or were not – variations among participants’ perceptions. I reflected on when I had reached my capacity to capture the “complexity and variation” of the network and the issue within the bounds of this study (Sandelowski, cited by Maxwell & Chmiel, 2014). At that point, the data made sense and addressed my research questions. Table 5: Data sources Source Number Web-based artifacts 53 In-depth interviews 25 Documents 19 Observations 2: Brazil Conference: April 6-7, 2018 Political Party Event: May 19, 2018 Data Analysis I used a coding process on all qualitative data that was iterative and based on theory (Saldaña, 2016). While collecting data, I engaged in pre-coding (Saldaña, 2016). I noted “codable moments” as I heard them in interviews and as I reviewed audio files. Codable moments are big ideas or examples of theory in action (Saldaña, 2016). I then printed interview transcripts and made notes directly on them, focusing on first impressions. This round of codes and the pre-codes fell into a mix of what Saldaña would call code types, including in-vivo codes or participants’ exact words, process codes, concept codes, values codes, and versus codes. These code types are straightforward and signify their nature or purpose. Process codes focus on a process, 65 concept codes capture bigger conceptual insights, values codes fell onto examples of participant discussion of such, and versus codes came if participants spoke in terms of comparisons. After reading through each transcript in this way, I returned to the document I had created for preliminary jottings immediately after the interview took place and added what Saldaña called an analytic memo. These memos were important for organizing my thoughts when moving on to other rounds of coding. I wrote all of the codes on notecards and physically arranged them in different groupings to review where I was and what direction the analysis was taking. Physically laying them out helped me to review: Was I missing something? Was I leaving out some facet of analysis that would be essential to addressing my research questions? At this point, I turned to NVivo to continue coding. I reviewed the codes and collapsed them (“lumping”) into categories and potential themes and considered these against the research questions. After this stage, I reflected again: Were any facets of the research questions neglected in inductively collapsing them into categories and themes? Then I looked at what assertions could be made or if theory could be built upon or what Saldaña called “the shapes of the data, the sorts of things represented” (p. 14). In a subsequent round of coding, I used provisional & hypothesis coding (Saldaña, 2016) by starting with list of codes drawn from my frameworks. For example, I was looking to elaborate on GSEA, which not only asks about people, sectors, political and economic arrangements, but also considers ideas of compliance, coercion, voluntarism, and victimization. The final round of coding was “elaborative,” where the codes were collapsed into themes. This round helped confirm assertions and think more 66 about what had come to the surface that might talk back to the theory or concepts I was most concerned with (Saldaña, 2016). See Appendix for a sample of coded text. While reviewing transcripts, memos, and other documents shared by participants, I further completed the policy network list and matrix of organizations’ connections. Each interview was a participatory form of network analysis, so I combined details shared by participants to draw the network. In some cases, participants shared details of their networks by naming other organizations or giving examples of partnership projects, and I returned to organizational websites to review and confirm those details. After I had a complete list of organizations and a matrix of their connections, I used Gephi to visualize the network (Bastian, Heymann, & Jacomy, 2009). The list of organizations became a list of policy actors, documents, and events. For the network visualization process, I refer to them as nodes. The network graph that resulted from my analysis contained 69 nodes with 236 connections. I go into detail on the nodes, their categories and communities, and the ethnographic findings gleaned from informants in the next chapter. Gephi is a software program for social network graph visualization that uses what are called force-based algorithms, meaning linked nodes attract each other and non-linked nodes are pushed apart, producing a visual interpretation of a network structure. There are many algorithms to choose from depending on the purpose of the visualization. For example, analysts can visualize a network based on the direction of relationships, clusters formed by nodes, and geographic location of node-actors. My purpose was to produce a simple visualization of the network based on the experiences and perceptions shared by my participants (Ball & Junemann, 2012), so I chose the ForceAtlas2 visualization 67 algorithm within Gephi that matched these needs. This algorithm is native to Gephi, meaning it was created by Gephi developers, and its usefulness for my purpose was that a “position of a node cannot be interpreted on its own, it has to be compared to the others” (Jacomy, Venturini, Heymann, & Bastian, 2014). Using network visualization software as opposed to drawing the network by hand allowed me to see where communities within the network appeared and to compare this with perceptions shared by participants. The software uses mathematical algorithms based on the matrix table of connections between organizations to discover communities within a network. Another value to using graph visualization software is that it accurately measures which nodes have more control over the network in terms of how many other nodes “pass through” it. This measure of betweenness centrality is a measure of influence; it indicates if a node has local or global influence within the network (Knoke, 1990). The visualization confirmed much of what I heard in interviews and what I perceived from other qualitative evidence. In the final chapters, I share how the graph confirmed and deepened these insights. The results of my analysis are narrative with a visual representation of how my participants and their organizations were related to each other and the strength of those relationships relative to policy outcomes. Researcher Positionality My research interests in Brazilian teacher education policy stem from my experience as a high school teacher in the private school sector there. I arrived in 2008 during what is now seen as a golden age for the country. The period included an economic boom and the creation of a new middle class. I left Brazil in 2014 at the start of that year’s World Cup – an event whose preparations triggered massive 68 demonstrations revealing discontent with public services, among other things. Since leaving Brazil and beginning doctoral studies, the country has seen more unrest and major political turnover. I have personal and professional connections with Brazilians that span most categories of class, race, and identity, and I have considered the impact of those perspectives on both my access to and processing of information (Dubois, 2016). I previously taught both public and private secondary school to students from a diverse range of identities and statuses. The students and families I served over my teaching career included people living in extreme poverty, middle class families, and people living on inherited wealth. Some schools I worked in were internally diverse, and a couple of schools were homogenous. From my experience as a teacher and my experience as a student of public schools, I have my own thoughts and beliefs about teaching and teacher education. I personally support the expansion and better resourcing of public schools and the regulation of private schools according to the same standards. I also think teaching involves particular skills but requires philosophical, cultural, and political reflection beyond the technical. However, I did not take my own positions as a starting point (Dubois, 2016). The purpose of this research was to describe the nature of a policy network and how that network had influenced choices in teacher education policy over time; it was not to make judgements about the network or its actions. In Chapters 4 and 5 I aim to lay out the evidence and my interpretation of it against the theory that grounded the study. 69 Validity Given my outsider status as a non-Brazilian studying a Brazilian space, I recognize that my interpretation of the data is dependent on the preconceptions and the theories I bring to the study (Maxwell, 2013). Rather than attempt to make negligible my preconceptions, I aimed for integrity in data collection, analysis, and conclusion drawing (Maxwell, 2013). As a qualitative study, it is inappropriate to characterize validity as an objective truth. In concrete terms, this meant being upfront with myself, my participants, and my readers, and finding ways to counter and test potential validity threats. One way I did this was to recruit a broad range of participants (Maxwell, 2013), including some from the for-profit sector that I have been openly critical of. This was a key feature of my study design, guided by principals from Stephen Ball mentioned in previous sections. Memo-ing and pre-coding early in the collection process and even while transcribing were also methods to ensure trustworthiness of my process. I also maintained contact with many informants throughout this process and checked my developing interpretations with them (Saldaña, 2016). After I finished the network visualization, I shared the graphs with a range of participants to ensure that the network looked the way they perceived or the way they had conveyed to me in the interviews, and to see if the network matched their impressions of and experiences as a part of it (Maxwell, 2013). I aimed for credibility and trustworthiness in the data collected and subsequent conclusions or key assertions (Maxwell, 2013; Saldaña, 2016). I also countered validity threats in the data collection process by seeking rich data by way of intensive interviews, transcribed verbatim and actively looking for discrepant evidence through my participant recruitment design and data collection processes 70 (Maxwell, 2013). Finally, as mentioned above, I collected data in the form of interviews and other qualitative artifacts. Creating a visual representation of the overall policy network as a result of what was spoken in individual interviews and what was presented on organizational websites provided some confirmation to the assertions I found in the data as a form of triangulation. In this way, I tried to find evidence that supported or countered contradictory information as it came up, but perhaps more importantly, I sought complementary ways of understanding the issue (Maxwell, 2013). 71 Chapter 4: Findings The study was participatory in nature in that the network was drawn in consultation with informants. Interviews sought in-depth details on parts of the network and its members’ actions. I will refer to the results of the participatory network analysis throughout this chapter to address the research questions: 1. Which people, organizations, and ideas were involved in the development of teacher policies and teacher upgrading initiatives since 2003? What are the ideological and geographical origins and support structures of these people, organizations, and ideas? 2. How do the people and organizations involved view teacher education? How do these views interact with the development of teacher upgrading initiatives? 3. What have been the factors affecting the choice of public versus private approaches to teacher upgrading initiatives? Results of the Participatory Network Design There were many things happening in the education arena during the era of interest, 2003-2016, and these were not seen as discreet occurrences or items by informants. The volume of connected topics was a theme that emerged early in conducting interviews and it affected the ongoing analysis. Early in the data collection process, it also became apparent that I needed to back up my original time frame to 1996. With each participant, I asked about the set of programs developed to upgrade teacher qualifications since around 2003. This was the year that the Workers’ Party came into federal power and the programs appeared to symbolize a contradictory inclusion of the private sector in the public education space. I had been aware that the policy idea at the 72 heart of these programs was that all teachers should have a university level degree in the specific field in which they teach. This idea appeared prominently in the most recent National Education Plan: Guarantee, in a collaborative manner between the Union, the States, the Federal District, and the Municipalities, that all basic education teachers possess specific higher education level training, obtained in a licensure course for the discipline in which they teach. (Brazil, 2014) This NEP became law in 2014, though it was approved and originally slated to go into effect in 2010. The internal debates and struggles over the NEP’s contents lasted longer than many expected. I found the origin of those debates to be more important than sorting out who had been involved with particular programs, though considerable overlap exists, making the exploration of a network even messier than expected. The teacher upgrading programs were answers to the ideal of a highly qualified teacher which had been placed into policy, but when considering who and what was involved, I learned that I needed to look to 1996 and other events that preceded the 2014 NEP debates to better understand the scene. 1996 was the year of the Law and Guidelines for National Education (LDB). This federal law moved teacher training to the post-secondary level, to be located in universities or what were known as higher education institutes (tertiary level teaching institutions that were not classified as universities). Further, it framed teacher education as the “training of education professionals” (Brazil, 1996). As one researcher who spent her career studying the location and nature of teacher training the Brazil told me, professionalization was a reason the idea of a fully-higher-education trained teaching 73 force took off. The LDB was signed into law by former-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. President Cardoso was widely cited as a positive force for education advances of the time, even by people critical of his party and/or loyal to the party that replaced him. His education legacy of course came with criticisms. It was the same LDB which reinforced the participation of private and for-profit education institutions. Turning back to the LDB and its impact on teacher training, a program which resulted from the 1996 law was called Profa. Participants cited this as what many other programs evolved from, including the ones I entered my study concerned with. Another landmark change in education that pre-dated my initial era of focus was the beginning of real affirmative action measures in higher education student admissions. In 2002, higher education quotas first appeared. Affirmative action policies sped up the rate at which higher education – and changes to it – were demanded. For these reasons, the results of the analysis described below include considerations of how the developments of 2003 represented a continued trajectory from political eras that came before. Power and Policy Communities The network graphs are the visual result of analyzing in-depth interviews and how organizations presented themselves online or in other documents. Graphs 1 and 2 show the same network. In Graph 1, node colors indicate the type of organization or item and in Graph 2 colors indicate communities that appeared. A corresponding table that describes the organizations follows the graphs (see Table 6). In social network analysis, communities are identified by their internal connectedness, or how groupings of nodes that are connected to each other. In both graphs, the size of the node indicates how many other nodes pass through it. The larger the node, the wider the influence across the 74 network. According to principals of social network analysis, the largest nodes have global influence, in this case, global means across the entire network. The benefit of coupling this network analysis with ethnographic methods is that we can inquire as to what the influence looks like in practice. Influence over what or whom, and in what arenas is the influence exerted? As an analytic goal, I was concerned with determining if there is in fact network governance (Ball, 2012) around teacher education. Network governance is a concept that implies a network of connected entities governs, as opposed to the government as a singular body governing (Ball, 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2012). Network governance is thought to be heterarchicial (rather than hierarchical) where the network is capable of steering the behavior of a nation-state (Ball, 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2012). As I moved through my analysis, I considered whether the communities visible in Graph 2 could be considered policy coalitions. Deep description from informants helped to address this consideration. After a brief word on the history of non-profits and non-governmental organizations in Brazil, I dive in to the results of my analysis starting with the Ministry of Education (MEC), the yellow node in the center of Graph 1. I spend the remainder of the chapter providing details on other parts of the network, highlighting key coalitions and organizations that span them, and describing important events where these coalitions solidified their ties. I found that explanations of group and coalition dynamics apply across education policy topic areas, that is, the controversial common core and high school reform projects, and a part of this write up reveals that. I explain ways teacher education policy was directly impacted by the network according to informants. This 75 chapter also addresses how the network functions and what that has meant for choices between public and private sector teacher upgrading initiatives. This chapter presents a deep dive into the network, so it is quite complex. In Chapter 5, I bring this complex description into perspective by reviewing the research questions and the results in light of the guiding literature. 76 Graph 1: Network visualization results by node type 77 Graph 2: Network visualization results by communities 78 Table 6: Name and description of organizations Name Organizations in the Network Year Founded Ação Educativa NGO focused on education and youth rights, 1994 democracy, and social justice. ABMES: Assoc. of Association unifying owners of private, for-profit 1982 Owners of Private higher education institutions. IHEs ABONG: Assoc. of Association unifying NGOs focused on rights and 1991 NGOs public goods. Abril Media conglomerate that includes print, digital, 1950 and TV. ANFOPE: Assoc. of Movement of teachers and teacher educators. 1970 Teacher Educators Ayrton Senna Private institute focused on education and 1994 Institute development, founded Viviane Senna, sister of the acclaimed Formula 1 driver. Brazil Conference Annual conference of Brazilian college students 2013 studying in the Boston region. CAPES: Federal Federal coordinating office for post-secondary 1951 Office for the improvement; housed in the MEC. Improvement of Postsecondary Education Ceará State Dept of State department of education. N/A Education CNDE: Campaign Rights-focused movement made up of NGOs 1999 for the Right to focused on the right to education, formed ahead Education of a 2000 World Education Forum event. CNTE: National Unifying body for the various teachers’ unions in 1979 Confederation of the country. Teacher Unions CONAE: National National education conference that takes place N/A Education every 4 years for deliberation and articulation of Conference policy. Consed: Assoc. of Unifying body for state-level education leaders. 1986 State Secretaries of Education Conselho NacEdu: National level education board. 1994 National Education Council FGV: Getúlio Private higher education institution. 1944 Vargas Foundation FNE: National Unifying representative body for planning N/A Education Forum national conferences. 79 Name Organizations in the Network Year Founded Fnesp: National National conference event for private IHEs. N/A Private Higher Education Forum FNPE (Alt-FNE): An alternative national education forum created 2016 National Popular in protest of the post-Workers’ Party MEC. Education Forum Fundação Carlos Private foundation conducting education research 1964 Chagas and evaluation. Fundação SM Private foundation focused on P-12 education and 1977 teachers. Fundação Vitor Private foundation focused on P-12 teachers. 1985 Civita Fundação Vivo Private foundation focused on education and 1999 innovation. GIFE: Institutes Association unifying private social investors. 1991 Foundations & Businesses Group Globo Media conglomerate that includes print, digital, 1965 and TV. Harvard University Private IHE in the United States. 1636 IADB: Inter- Intergovernmental membership organization, 1959 American largest source of financing in Latin America. Development Bank ILUMNO For-profit network of schools, previously known 2005 as Whitney International University System. Instituto C&A Private institute focused on transforming working 1991 conditions in the garment industry. Instituto Canoa Private institute focused on teacher training at N/A for-profit IHEs. Instituto Natura Private foundation focused on education. 2010 Instituto Unibanco Private foundation focused on education. 1982 Itau BBA/Unibanco Largest private Bank in Southern Hemisphere. 2008 Itau Social Private foundation focused on education 1993 Lemann Foundation Family organization focused on education. 2002 MEC: Ministry of Federal ministry of education. N/A Education Movimento Pela Unifying movement of NGOs and individuals 2013 Base promoting the national common core. OECD: Intergovernmental membership organization. 1961 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 80 Name Organizations in the Network Year Founded PDE: Education Federal education plan with targeted goals for 2007 Development Plan improving education. (2007) PNE: National National education plan with targeted goals for 2014 Education Plan improving education. (2014) Universidade São For-profit IHE 1971 Judas SEMESP: Assoc. of Unifying body for private institutions of higher 1979 Private IHEs education. Stanford Graduate Private IHE in the United States. 1891 School of Education Stanford Lemann Center within the Stanford GSE focused on 2011 Center training Brazilian graduate students. Teach Like a Book by US-based author Doug Lemov. 2010 Champion Teach for All-Brazil Global network of organizations that work along 2007 the same mission as Teach for America. Teach for America US-based NGO focused on recruiting talented 1989 teachers and leaders for public education systems. TPE: All for Movement of business and academic leaders 2006 Education focused on improving education and economic Movement outcomes. United Nations Intergovernmental membership organization. 1945 organizations Undime: Assoc. of Association unifying municipal education leaders. 1986 Municipal Education Leaders UNESCO: UN UN organization focused on cooperation across 1945 Education, Science education, scuence and cultural fields. and Cutural Oranization UniBH For-profit IHE 1964 UniJorge For-profit IHE 1999 UVA: Universidade For-profit IHE 1971 Veiga Almeida Vetor NGO focused on recruiting talent into the public 2014 sector. World Bank Intergovernmental membership and lending 1944 organization. World Social Forum Annual meeting of civil society organizations 2001 focused on countering neoliberal globalization. 81 Non-profits and NGOs: In Name Only? National associations, governmental organizations, international and inter- governmental organizations, for-profit education companies and colleges, other corporations, financial institutions, and US and Brazilian universities all play a role, but the most prevalent organizations in the network are non-governmental. The network graphs also include key events and documents. These were items or places cited by network members as important to their work. The prevalence of NGOs is important for understanding an organizing feature of the network. Though it may not be evident from the network visualization (see Graph 1), and the potential reasons for that follow, two groups can be identified around two centralized associations to which NGOs and non-profit organizations belong: the Institutes, Foundations, and Businesses Group (GIFE) and the Brazilian Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (ABONG). GIFE and ABONG are both non-profit associations that organize or unify other non-profits and NGOs. In other words, they are associations for organizations claiming to tackle social work outside of the State and outside of the market. However, ABONG and GIFE differ greatly in their origins, members, strategies, and rhetoric. Graphs 3 and 4 are of the same network visualization in Graphs 1 and 2, but they zoom in to GIFE and ABONG. A benefit of getting broad participatory input about the network is that it explained why the network visualization downplayed ABONG’s contribution to this particular policy scene. 82 Graph 3: ABONG and connections 83 Graph 4: GIFE and connections 84 The history of non-governmental and non-public entities doing work in Brazil is long and complicated. The participation of non-governmental entities in education has evolved overtime and is rooted in religious and colonial legacies. Religious organizations from the liberation theology tradition1 have long been involved in expanding rights, and religious universities also have a strong tradition of teacher training. Though the graph portrays ABONG as a less influential part of the network, it has a long and important history to the work of human rights in the country. As an informant told me, during the 1964-1985 military dictatorship, religious work was a viable route to expanding human rights, since any form of protest or resistance to the government was dangerous: Because of liberation theology and the pastoral work was almost the only work possible to do under the political situation. And this organization [ABONG] was born to give support to these pastoral workers, for political training, popular education, and participative research. And, it was always done with international resources and international Catholic, Protestant, or lay agencies that supported projects in the third world as it used to be called. Then, there was a type of cooperation that was done above the education dimension of these agencies, which was to give money in solidarity to Latin American countries that were discontent with the military dictatorships during the 1970s. They supported our 1 Brazilian liberation theology is rooted in the Catholic Church which historically provided for the poor and marginalized during times of political repression (Meade, 2010). 85 popular organizing work. Many ONGs were born because of this type of stimulation, because of cooperation agencies, mostly Dutch, German, and French, that have a model of support that taxes churches but explicitly use that tax money for social work, in and outside of their countries. (Daniel, Ação Educativa) The role of religious organizations in bringing about radical work in solidarity with the people, in a clear vein of liberation, is important to highlight. Mostly originating from northern European democracies, these religious organizations sought cooperative relationships within Brazil and supported the creation of nongovernmental organizations that would – and still do- work for political training, participative research, and labor organizing. In the 1990s, with the new constitution and the re-democratization process, the number of these organizations multiplied dramatically. The organizations remained true to their original missions through the re-democratization process. To further explain, these organizations were movements in the pure sense, and they worked directly with indigenous groups, marginalized people in urban centers, residents of quilombos2, rural towns founded by descendants of enslaved people, regardless of or rather than awaiting State action. ABONG was born in this era to “organize the organizers” (Daniel, Ação Educativa), so that the international organizations that sought to enter the country to provide more support, assistance, or resources had a central way to be received. Global 2 Quilombos are communities organized by enslaved people and their descendants. In some cases, the communities were created by people who had escaped slavery, so many outdated definitions called them “fugitive slave settlements.” The 1988 Brazilian Constitution recognized residents and their right to land titles. 86 influence and input into ABONG and its affiliates came from international organizations like the Ford Foundation, Save the Children, the Open Society, and Oxfam. On what could be considered the other side of the spectrum, private foundations, financial institutions, corporations, and mass media are associated with each other. Many corporations have devoted some part of their financial resources to social projects, where they show they are producing for the public good or creating something that the public sector (like education) can use. The Institutes, Foundations, and Businesses Group (GIFE) as it is literally called unites “social investors” (organization website). The organizations associated with GIFE have financial power and well-established channels for pushing agendas, because mega-media corporations Globo and Abril are affiliated. The financial power behind GIFE-affiliated non-profits does not readily appear, as the large companies behind them are not always the face of the non-profit work. In some cases, the corporate or family name is removed from its non-profit, but not always. For example, Instituto Unibanco is a social impact organization created by the bank Itaú Unibanco, while Instituto Inspirare is a social impact organization created by the high- wealth Gradin family. In social network analysis visualization, you can filter out nodes by how many minimum connections you require for the node to appear in the network. The visualizations in Graphs 1 and 2 show nodes that had at least four connections. Before applying that filter, some of the world’s wealthiest people and/ or their corporations, financial institutions, or family foundations appear, such as: the Odebrecht Company (the largest engineering and construction company in Latin America, implicated in multiple corruption and bribery scandals), the Gerdau Corporation (largest steel company in the Americas), and Roberto Marinho (founder of the mega-media 87 conglomerate Globo). Later in this chapter, I refer to organizations associated with GIFE (see Graph 4) as the neoliberal third sector. The third sector is a phrase referring to the part of society that is neither government nor corporate. I call GIFE affiliated organizations the neoliberal third sector because of their explicit connections to private companies, banks, and high-wealth individuals. 88 Graph 5: Unfiltered network visualization 89 Corporate influence was a line of inquiry in the study and the network visualizations shows where corporate or other forms of private financial resources were connected to the social-oriented work of private foundations and other corporate- founded/funded NGOs. However, these connections only appear in Graph 5 that does not filter out any nodes. This is because corporations, banks, and other high-wealth people that make up the network because of their founding, funding, and continued backing of such organizations, only appear to be connected to one other node in the network, which is usually the NGO they founded and fund(ed). Two self-professed coalitions that were working directly on teacher education policy, but not necessarily working together, were clustered around the National Campaign for the Right to Education (‘the Campaign’) and the All for Education Movement (‘the Movement’). In Graph 2, the Campaign and its coalition appears on the left side of the image, in the color red. The Campaign is connected to the previously described ABONG along with other organizations that identify as progressive or politically left-leaning, like the teachers’ union (CNTE), the Association of Teacher Educators (AFOPE), and an education NGO called Educational Action (Ação Educativa). Also in Graph 2, the Movement appears to the center-right in the node labeled “TPE” (Todos pela Educação, All for Education) and it and its coalition members are colored blue. The Movement is connected to GIFE, the country’s largest media conglomerate (Globo), and many private foundations that are funded by large banks. The Lemann Foundation and its coalition appear in the bottom-right of Graph 2, in purple, though this coalition is a strong ally and extension of the Movement. The Movement and the Lemann coalitions share resources, attend the same events, promote each other’s work, 90 and individuals/members of each pass through both coalitions during their professional careers, so I argue that together, they form a super-coalition. At the time of this study, the Movement was positioned more powerfully than the Campaign in terms of meeting its particular policy goals and had more securely placed itself inside the official policy making space. However, the Campaign was present in most states and had the support of a cohesive coalition of organizations that shared a mission around the right to public education. The Campaign has influence, but its evolution overtime and the political climate at the time of this study impacted how it can be described on its own and in comparison. These ideas are explained in detail throughout this chapter. This section provided an overview of the history of NGOs in Brazil and how two membership associations, ABONG and GIFE, exemplify the two different types of NGO work happening in Brazilian teacher education. I discuss this idea more as I describe the two main coalitions working on teacher education: the Campaign and the Movement. In the next section, I describe the Ministry of Education and its characteristics and work on teacher education during the early years of the Workers’ Party. Ministry of Education A striking feature of the graphs is that the Ministry of Education (MEC) and the Lemann Foundation are roughly the same size, indicating they have about the same amount of influence. In network visualization, this influence is measured by how many other nodes pass through the it, meaning the larger nodes are influential beyond the nodes they are directly linked to. I return to the Lemann Foundation’s influence later in the chapter but begin with issues relevant to the MEC. 91 The Ministry of Education has been traditionally connected to the academic policy area. That said, who holds political power determines the choice of the academics asked to serve in or collaborate with the MEC by lending their ideas, imagination, skills, or connections to it. That connection means the academy and associations devoted to professions or causes have typically enjoyed a continuous dialogue with the MEC. The nature of the dialogue during the Workers’ Party years was firmly focused on growing public education: This dialogue was strong because of the personal characteristics of people that were there and of the people of the institutions, unions, etc, of the educators. In parentheses, these educators came from a position strongly focused on enlarging public schools. (Ana, National Association of Education Professors) For most of the time period of interest in this study, the types of associations and labor unions described by Ana participated regularly and were the main partners in developing policy and programs, because the academics working within MEC were more likely to use the rhetoric of education as a right, as a public good, and as something to be shielded from “invasion” (Mariana). Most of these rights-minded individuals thought of neoliberal education policies as ideas that came from the outside, hence the use of the word invasion. In 2006, the MEC website described the Incentive Program for High School Teacher Ongoing Professional Development as having: the objective to enroll higher education institutions public and non-profit in the effort to expand in-service learning courses for teachers working in public school systems. 92 The extremely public nature of who was included in this and other partnerships was in contrast to what was an eventual large-scale inclusion of the for-profit sector in MEC. However, at this point in 2006, when private higher education institutions were included, they were to be non-profits. The Workers’ Party years in which the MEC arguably accomplished the most were under Minister Fernando Haddad. Haddad is a professor and politician (and during the latter time of the research, was a presidential candidate in the 2018 election). He was minister of education from 2005 to 2012, where his legacy was increased access to higher education. Public higher education expanded in the form of 14 new federal universities and more than 100 regional, public higher education centers. Haddad also penned and passed into federal law the University for All Program (ProUni) that gives scholarships to low-income students to attend private institutions and an accompanying private finance system, also for low-income students to take personal loans to pay for attending private institutions. His administration also replaced a fragmented college entrance exam system with a national exam that was meant to streamline and ease access. Among these advancements, students – and the private education sector – gained a lot of ground during Haddad’s tenure. These accomplishments under Haddad mirrored the 2003 Workers’ Party presidential campaign. As a candidate, Lula promised to create a business-friendly climate in his management of the government, and in keeping that promise, public- private partnerships dominated the era. However, since the Workers’ Party had a theoretically left-leaning platform, the rate of growth of the private (and especially for- profit) college sector as a result of the ProUni program was met with criticism. The MEC 93 framed rhetoric around the growth of the sector carefully. For example, the MEC website in 2006 promoted ProUni as a complement to the expansion of the public system and as a way to democratize higher education: The implementation of ProUni, together with the creation of 9 federal universities and 36 new campuses, significantly increases the number of places in higher education, internalizes free public education and tackles regional inequalities. All these actions meet the goals of the National Education Plan, which foresees until 2011 at least 30% of the population aged 18 to 24 in higher education, now restricted to 9%. The ProUni - University for All Program thus contributes with the commitment of the Federal Government to democratize access to higher education, representing a public policy of expanding vacancies, stimulating the process of social inclusion and generating work and income for Brazilian youth. It is the Federal Government democratizing access to higher education and building a country for all. Even so, ProUni has been seen as a cause for problems including runaway growth of the for-profit sector, the trend toward full distance-education programs, and predatory marketing to minoritized student groups. In general, though ProUni is praised by outsiders and students as a positive development in Brazilian education because the fact remains: hundreds of thousands of students have accessed higher education that would not have under normal circumstances. The presentation of the private sector as essential to the public sphere, and further, of the profit-driven sector as producing a public good is an important theme to emerge from the analysis, and I turn back to the role ProUni and for-profit colleges in later sections. 94 Haddad’s entrance into the role of minister coincided with a requirement for all executive cabinet members to submit an action plan for developing their sector to the president. The timing of Haddad entering the ministry with this deadline (he was not the first education minister under President Lula) set the path that MEC has been on and the partnerships it has been involved in, since. The group called the All for Education Movement (‘the Movement’), dominated and funded by prominent business owners but also included academics, NGOs, as well as elected and appointed public servants, was organizing itself and producing its ideas of what it wanted for education at the time of Haddad’s entrance. The principal stakeholder of Itaú, the largest private bank in the Southern Hemisphere, led the mobilization and presented Haddad with Movement’s plan for education. This plan included goals and an accountability scheme. Critics perceived that the plan had been devised without consulting other parts of the education sector or public, while the Movement’s website memorializes the plan as, “created in conjunction with education managers from the federal, state, and municipal levels, establishing goals for Brazilian education” (organizational website). Haddad’s MEC essentially submitted the Movement’s plan as its federal action plan and it was entered into law, titled: The Plan for the All for Education Commitment. Later, the Movement’s plan also evolved into the previously mentioned National Education Plan. That the initial federal action plan took on the actual name of the All for Education Movement, for some, was Haddad signaling a clear orientation of his MEC. However, the private sector’s participation was framed as speeding up the process of democratizing the education system, and “building a country for everyone” (MEC website, 2006). 95 Most insiders perceived the All for Education Movement’s federal action plan as impossible to be turned down by the MEC, because Haddad stepped into the Minister role at the same time a plan was due. The main criticism of the plan was that it was not devised in a democratic fashion as stakeholder groups that were usually consulted, were not. Even critics of the Movement coalition conceded that Haddad was pressed to accept the plan, though. Further, the Workers’ Party had already signaled it would partner with and maintain a climate that was agreeable to the private sector. Now, twelve years later, Haddad’s time in MEC is seen as a critical point in the trajectory toward the even more neoliberal and market-focused agenda of the contemporary MEC, which I move on to describe later in this chapter. The All for Education Movement’s mission looks to the year 2022, by which “all children and youth receive quality, basic education” (organization website). Their work is goal and data-driven, a reflection of their composition which includes the business and financial sectors. An important feature of their 2006 federal action plan was the creation of the Basic Education Development Index. This Index of K-12 schools, towns, and states is comprised of scores on the national Brazil Exam and the relation of student age to grade-level. The introduction of this Index was deeply influential on policy and governance, and it has a continued effect on education policy at all levels. Multiple insiders described this effect as governing without changing policy. By this, they meant pressures to enact reforms were created by the index. Schools and local government leaders responded to these index-derived pressures by making decisions despite other potential needs in their systems and without engaging in a typical policy-change process. When I turn to a deeper description of the post-Workers’ Party MEC, I describe the All 96 for Education Movement in greater detail. I also will return to the theme of governance by standardization in the second half of the chapter. Characterizing the MEC and understanding its views of teachers and teacher education depends on the year and who holds official power. The MEC’s agenda is affected by the political climate. In the contemporary, post-Workers’ Party era (August 2016-present), academics appointed to or working in MEC are more aligned to the right side of the political spectrum. As one informant said, the “leftwing segments” (Mariana) were outside of most major power stations. They continued to work, debate, and make plans, but they had no formal inroads for action at the time of this study. Even further, some parts of the political left voluntarily decided not to engage with the formal negotiation channels after the impeachment of the second Workers’ Party President, Dilma Rousseff. In fact, a restructuring of a key deliberative body, the National Education Forum, by the post-Workers’ Party MEC ended in the inclusion of the All for Education Movement and the exclusion of some traditional labor unions and associations. The National Teachers’ Union pulled out of participation in the National Education Forum in response to what they saw as an “invasion of neoliberal policies in institutions” (Marcela, National Confederation of Teachers Unions). National Education Forum as a Site of Power Struggle For the rights-focused coalition (centered around the National Campaign for the Right to Education and named ‘the Campaign’ throughout this dissertation) identified in the network, the National Education Forum was historically a space for debate and democratic problem solving between public and private sectors: 97 The public and private sectors were always in the National Education Forum and in the Conferences. The correlation of forces was constant, and the teachers’ union always took on the issue of defending public budgets for public education and for the regulation of the private sector in the same way public schools and universities are regulated. (Marcela) The National Education Forum is a body of organizations that represent people with an interest in education. The Forum conducts its business through regular conference meetings. Education organizations that made up the Forum took turns electing each other to be responsible for Forum and related conference organization in terms. Up until President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment in 2016, the national teachers’ union was set to coordinate the upcoming Forum work. However, the new administration’s MEC quickly restructured Forum membership and tossed the coordination election back for old and new member organizations to decide. In its online statement, the MEC justified the new Forum as more plural in its composition of: members of various sectors of civil society, not just those who are traditionally from the area of education. The teachers’ union saw this as particularly undemocratic and arbitrary. A union which represents professors from federal universities was excluded from membership while some private sector entities including the All for Education Movement were included, triggering the teacher union to remove itself. The union, in general, rejected the 2016 post-Dilma government and saw the restructuring of the Forum as un-democratic. This notion is found in the teachers’ union’s justification for refusing to engage: 98 As a result of the institutional coup [impeachment], this Forum was reduced, and its management was concentrated in the Ministry of Education, removing the lead role of society .... For this reason, the teachers’ union and several other progressive entities have withdrawn from the Forum. Historically, the union has always defended democratic management in education, and it has not failed to participate in debates with democratic governments that have established channels of dialogue with society. (Marcela, National Confederation of Teachers Unions) The teachers’ union praised the Workers’ Party administrations for hosting various forums and workgroups dedicated to thematic areas like teacher training, teacher appreciation and compensation, per-student spending, and national education systems. Further, to clearly characterize the teachers’ union and its allies or coalition partners, it is important to note its explicit opposition to the “neoliberal vision” because its contrasting nature to other members and coalitions that normally made up the National Education Forum: Throughout its history, the teachers’ union has been working with Parliament and the Federal Executive Branch to guarantee the public offering of vocational training to workers in education, overcoming the neoliberal vision implanted especially in the 1990s, when the workers were required to finance their initial and continuing training. Beginning in 2003, with the governments of Lula and Dilma, the Brazilian State began to offer free initial and continuing training to teachers from public school systems, through public universities and institutes of education and also through educational credits in the private network by the 99 Government, with vocational training as the central policy for the quality of education. (Marcela, National Confederation of Teachers Unions) It was around the rupture in the National Education Forum that the Campaign coalition formed an alternative forum in early 2018, called the National Popular Education Forum as a response to what was seen as exclusion of civil society from a public process. This coalition includes the teachers’ union, the Association of Teacher Educators (ANFOPE), and other more progressive entities. Some of these fully withdrew from participating in spaces sponsored by the federal government. The teachers’ union viewed the usual National Forum as a space intentionally outside of the MEC to provide a check to State power, so any Forum that was directly managed by the government was perceived to be corrupted: The National Education Forum is a historic achievement and a space for dialogue between civil society and government, provided for in Law, which provides for the National Education Plan, a reference for the management and mobilization of Brazilian society. By legal definition, it is the coordinator of national, plural and democratic education conferences, and one of the monitoring and evaluation bodies (teachers’ union website) The teachers’ union’s involvement in federal teacher education policy had been primarily through the National Education Forum and related conferences, the official spaces where policy ideas are proposed, debated, and eventually accepted into record. From outside of these spaces, the union has always produced a great deal of knowledge about issues they see as problematic to teacher training and they produce their own teacher education and professional development materials. By 2016, the union’s position in the network and 100 with regard to teacher education policy was not one that is directly connected to official spaces nor was it actively addressing the quality of training found in the higher education sector as evidenced by the recent power struggle over the National Education Forum. The union was producing what it viewed as more legitimately democratic spaces to cope with and counter an illegitimate government. This is not to say union leaders were not participating in the mainstream political arena, as many were running for office on public education platforms in 2018. The National Popular Education Forum (the alternative Forum) coalesced around certain policy directions with regard to the National Education Plan (NEP), the main source document for teacher education guidance and targets. Nearly all organizations or coalitions involved in the teacher education policy network had the NEP as a reference point, but they differed in how they prioritized it, interpreted its intentions, or took action because of it. The alternative Forum looked to the NEP for its potential impact on democratic, inclusive, and participatory expansion of the right to education: It is vital to ensure the democratization of access and retention for children, young people, adults and the elderly. The guarantee of the expansion of quality basic education (its stages and modalities) and higher education, at the levels predicted in National Education Plan (2014-2024), is fundamental for the construction of a democratic and inclusive society. (alternative Forum Reference Document) Not only was there a potential impact on education, but to the alternative Forum, the NEP implied and required democratic access to education. The 2016 Ministry of Education justified restructuring the National Education Forum by explicitly promoting two controversial reforms: the proposed national common 101 core curriculum and the high school reform. The Brazilian common core proposal is a set of national standards by which students will be evaluated. The common core represents a shift from the use of general guidelines in the past. The high school reform makes some disciplines mandatory (math and Portuguese) and others optional (natural sciences, social sciences, technical training) and increases the time students spend in school to a format similar to a full-time work week (traditional public schools in Brazil historically run on half-day school days). Neither the teachers’ union nor the Association of Teacher Educators (ANFOPE) have supported either reform. According to the MEC, the restructuring was motivated by the hope for more practical and fewer ideological debates. The 2016 MEC’s framing of the issues reveals a lot about the nature of the different coalitions within the network and the Forum, the contrasts I turn to throughout this chapter: For a while, they were treating the forum as an ideological issue. Today, not only from the new composition, but from the forum's systematic approach, we want it to play its true role: to discuss the most urgent themes of education, such as the National Curricular Common Core (BNCC), high school reform and teacher training policy. (MEC online statement) ANFOPE had positioned itself against these reforms because of what it saw as potential negative effects on teachers and teacher education. ANFOPE was involved in what it saw as a struggle for complete teacher development that is theoretical, practical, and interdisciplinary. In terms of its more recent rejection of the national curriculum, ANFOPE questioned who had been involved in developing it, pointing out that it was not teachers: 102 The influence of private agents in the construction of the common core. Although in the mainstream media we have heard of such a national curriculum for a relatively short time, there is obviously a history of discussion that preceded it and left its traces. In this history, the so-called "partners" are present with the public agents. These are financial institutions, corporations, foundations, and philanthropic institutions, usually funded by tax shifting from large corporations. Another key element is the role of teachers in basic education, who make up the curriculum but who were disregarded in the construction of the common core. (ANFOPE document) In the teacher education network, ANFOPE is one of the most progressive or farthest left on a political spectrum, as evidenced by its positions against proposals developed by MEC and its willingness to remove itself from the National Education Forum. Its position against a national common core curriculum is rooted in the rejection of any movement toward a system to rank and compare schools (and thus, teachers and students), actions that are necessary to create a competitive market out of K-12 schools. They see the emergence of this kind of climate as de-professionalizing to teachers. It is important to note that ANFOPE critiques but also offers alternatives. ANFOPE suggested an alternative to standardizing and ranking would be to strengthen existing initial and ongoing teacher training programs, especially those located in colleges of education in public universities. In other words, ANFOPE advocated for a focus on inputs rather than outputs to achieve quality. According to ANFOPE, quality teacher training happens in public universities. The teachers’ union also defends traditional, university-based pre-service training so long 103 as it balances theory and practice and is conducted face-to-face. Face-to-face instruction is associated with other inputs from traditional universities the union believes lead to quality, like full-time faculty, research, and democratic management of the institution. At the height of the Workers’ Party presidencies, from the mid to late 2000s, university- based teacher educators from ANFOPE/the Campaign coalition worked from appointed positions in the MEC to create and expand in-service teacher training programs that were in partnership with 72 colleges of education. While university-based teacher educators recognized the “multiple logics” and “theoretical clashes” the teacher training field is subject to, they framed sound teacher training as based in theory and practice, so they rejected programs with a narrow focus on practice that were short in duration. For the Campaign coalition, the idea of more holistic teacher preparation was tied up with similarly holistic policy positions. Teacher development, pre- or in-service, must be considered in conjunction with all other issues affecting teacher quality like teacher pay and conditions on the job. This part of the network saw this as a key problem at the heart of the struggle found within the Forum event. As one former MEC official stated: You have an undervalued profession in Brazil today, the national professional salary minimum ... is not met in all municipalities, nor from the point of view of the value that is still low nor from the point of view of which it has established that one third of the time of 40 hours is intended for evaluation, planning, study, improvement and such. (Beatriz, Ministry of Education) This view of teaching and of how teachers should be trained, and how policy treatment of the teaching career is tied up in that, is different from the view other key parts of the 104 network take. These differences of views between the two main coalitions in this study are a contributing factor in communication barriers between the groups. State and Municipal Leaders as Coalition Spanners. Because of these communication boundaries, it is significant when someone or an organization in a network is able to communicate across communities or coalitions. Boundary spanners is a phrase used in social network analysis to signify nodes that literally span across communities or coalitions within a network. The boundary spanners in this network are the National Council of State Secretaries of Education (Consed) and the National Association of Municipal Education Directors (Undime). Both of these unify local level school and school system leaders. Undime manages to participate across political lines that have been drawn as well as between private foundations, NGOs, and advocacy groups form other coalitions, and an impressive demonstration of this was its participation in both the National Education Forum and the alternative Forum. Graph 6 zooms in to Undime and Consed. 105 Graph 6: Undime and Consed as boundary spanners The local level of education is where resources are crucial; it is the implementation level. Undime unifies local-level leaders and its mission is to “mobilize and integrate municipal education leaders to build and defend quality, public education” (Undime website) by supporting the leaders of all 5,570 municipalities in the country. Given regional differences in political and economic history across Brazil’s geographic territory, there was unsurprising variation in local-level policy and implementation choices. In some parts of the country, there has been widespread experimentation in school management and teacher training. The state of Ceará is a prime example where state and local leaders have been open to piloting projects, with the usual aim of improving student outcomes. Projects there have come in from different coalitions and types of organizations in the network. Undime’s role in this kind of work was to connect 106 potential partners. Later, I talk more about why some places have seen more experimentation than others, especially from international organizations. In its institutional statements, the main network that Undime claims membership in is the National Campaign for the Right to Education. The Campaign coalition includes other direct partners of Undime, like Unicef, UNESCO, and the teachers' union. However, some have the impression that Undime is under greater influence of the previously mentioned Lemann Foundation. As one member of the Campaign coalition said about the Lemann Foundation: I'd say it's not even the Lemann Foundation is behind Undime, the Foundation is ahead of Undime. It drives Undime. (Beatriz, Ministry of Education) The truth of this statement depends on the perspective of the municipal leader in search of guidance and resources. State and municipal education leaders have a more complicated reality than most policy agendas take into account. As a former state secretary of education shared with me, the local level leaders have competing demands when considering hiring teachers or providing them with in-service training. A one-size- fits-all approach, which is how some characterized the MEC, simply does not work for state and local leaders. One former president of Undime stressed the importance of international organizations because of their ability to collate local level data for the whole country and create internet platforms to help local education leaders understand how many school aged children in their regions were enrolled or not. Also, the incentive for states or municipalities to pilot such programs is high. Besides resources, the local leader may also achieve positive publicity for themselves and their schools. It is difficult to say with 107 certainty whether subnational education leaders span coalitions out of a desire to facilitate public-private partnerships or because they are approached by prospective partners who also have recognition to gain, or both. An informant with leadership experience in Undime and with deep insider experience in the MEC at the time of Minister Haddad had this impression of the Movement and its coalition partners: It was very good, because they brought new ideas and Minister Haddad, he had a clarity that in the bureaucracy ... in the middle of the bureaucracy everyone has little time for creation. In the third sector, they can create more, but the third sector has no ability to reach the whole of Brazil. So what Haddad did at the beginning was to listen a lot, get to know a lot of third sector initiatives and try to give the third sector a national scale. (Sabrina, Ministry of Education) The Lemann Foundation is a major actor in the neoliberal third sector made up of private financial and corporate foundations, international organizations, and international thought-leaders. The Lemann Foundation itself benefits from its original funding source: multi-billionaire businessman Jorge Paulo Lemann. The Lemann Foundation and most of its partners and collaborators frame their work around school and teacher quality experimentation. Inside what I argue is a super-coalition formed by the Movement and the Lemann Foundation coalitions, teacher quality is thought to be a silver bullet for providing quality education. It is an immense topic of focus, and traditional modes of teacher training tend to be viewed as too slow, too costly, and impractical. I go into more detail later on the nature of All for Education’s influence on teacher education policy but note their connection here because they are also a direct partner of boundary-spanning 108 Undime. In fact, Undime’s status as a boundary spanner is underlined by its partnerships with both the All for Education Movement and the Campaign for the Right to Education. In framing teacher education, there is not one approach that Undime might take, but the people who make up its operations team and participate on its behalf influence the partnerships that are created. Some members of Undime see initial teacher training as a problem. In this view, teachers leave university and enter their own classroom unprepared for the day-to-day responsibilities. This view breaks from the view taken by Undime’s rights-focused partners like the teachers’ union that advocates for a more holistic approach. An informant with experience as a municipal secretary of education and contributing to the MEC defended this view because it kept the work clear: You get more results when everyone claims one objective, and everyone gets behind that objective. (Lynn, Undime) The theme of connectedness of the multitude of issues that could combine to produce quality education is important. Each coalition in the network emphasized that theme, but each managed their work around it differently. The Campaign coalition advocated for reforms that were broad and would affect multiple issues and inputs at once, while the Movement coalition focused on sharp, teacher-quality centered reforms that would in theory address a multitude of issues. On the ground the contrast might be seen between a proposal to increase funding to schools that would raise teacher salaries, provide professional development, and improve facilities all with the goal of better serving students, versus a proposal to recruit teachers from the top college graduates under the assumption that their capacity to teach would bring up student performance. 109 Undime is an important case in the network because it exemplifies how complicated it can be to understand who contributes to a policy process. A former municipal secretary of education, for example, when describing how the MEC sought partners for input on topics said: the three largest partners in the debate on teacher training, at that time in 2007, 8 and 9 were Undime representing the municipal secretaries of education with 5580, and Consed representing the state secretaries of education who are 27 and the teachers’ union which would be the trade union representation. So, these three actors were the main interlocutors of the ministry when discussing politics of valuation and formation of education. (Sabrina, Ministry of Education) While this is true, the neoliberal third sector (NGOs, non-profits, and other private foundations) was certainly also present. The third sector also accomplishes its agenda through direct partnership work with associations like Undime. The National Education Forum was a space of contention and power struggle between the MEC, the Campaign coalition, and the Movement – Lemann super-coalition. The rupture over who should make up the National Education Forum was really a debate over how to define civil society. Groups that left the National Education Forum claimed real civil society lost its standing, while the MEC said it included “diverse members of civil society” by adding the All for Education Organization. The question of how to define civil society is an essential theme to emerge from this research. As it signaled in restructuring the National Education Form, the 2016, post-Workers’ Party MEC took on a broader conception of civil society. 110 The Post-Workers’ Party MEC Individuals appointed to the post-Workers’ Party MEC in 2016 also attended traditionally left-leaning, elite, public institutions. However, they arrived to their MEC roles via different routes compared to those who served during the Workers’ Party years. For example, at the time of this study, some MEC officials were or had been stakeholders at financial institutions and for-profit education companies. Private sector and outsider experience was valued by powerful individuals and organizations in the network that were interested in particular types of reform in the public sector. These views permeate the way teaching and teacher education are viewed. The post-Workers’ Party Minister of Education, Rossieli Soares, was previously a secretary of education for the state of Amazonas and was lauded for the being a part of the biggest improvement in student outcomes on PISA in the country. The value placed in accountability by large-scale assessment by the contemporary MEC goes hand in hand with the Movement coalition’s views of the teaching profession and teacher and education quality. Soares also worked on the development of the national common core curriculum and high school reform projects, previously cited in this chapter for their controversial nature. It is notable that these projects and a desire to implement them was why the contemporary MEC restructured the National Education Forum in the first place. The movement toward accountability, standardization of curriculum, focusing on efficiency, and seeking support from corporate leaders on school management and teacher training has been steady since well before the contemporary MEC was put in place. However, the dominant coalition (the Movement coalition) with these ideas and resources has found even less resistance within the MEC as time went on. 111 International organizations that are a part of the dominant coalition also have a more prominent role with this MEC than with previous MECs. Whereas many projects financed by international or multilateral development banks have been executed between banks and states or municipalities, the contemporary MEC entered into agreements with both the Interamerican Development Bank and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank). In early 2018, the federal government accepted a $250 million loan from the World Bank for the implementation of the high school reform project. The reform and the loan were approved based on criteria for accountability throughout the implementation phases. The financial resources will be deployed to localities as they show they have met some goals set in a new scheme called Program for Results. The financial resources mean implementation should become a reality, and a leader from the boundary-spanning National Council of State Secretaries of Education (Consed) said the reform: requires more qualified teachers and managers in the construction of these curricula, and this specific resource is necessary for the execution of this project. The Consed has not measured efforts with the state and municipal secretariats in this sense ... because this is a partnership between MEC, Consed, Undime and all professionals in education. (Amanda, UNESCO) Finally, in advertising and announcing the receipt of loans from international-scale development banks, the MEC pointed to the alignment of the bank(s) to MEC’s, and therefore everyone’s priorities, citing the National Education Plan: In its strategy, it emphasizes the coverage and quality of education, its integration with the labor market and the improvement of the hiring and training of the 112 teaching staff - in compliance with the goals defined by the National Education Plan (PNE) until 2024. (MEC online statement) All of this is to highlight the permeability of the contemporary MEC with regard to international or global influences. A way to characterize the dominant coalition and thus the post-Workers’ Party MEC is “globalized.” The Lemann Foundation, its partners, the international universities where individual future-leaders enter the coalition, and the national and international corporations backing the coalition are all connected to, supporting, supported by, or working with particular international organizations and ideas. These connections have certainly influenced the way the contemporary MEC views teachers and teacher education as the subsequent section will show. To bring a short answer as preview, the post-Workers’ Party MEC places more blame on teachers for education outcomes than it focuses on developing sound pre-service teacher training systems. This was exemplified in this 2016 headline published on the MEC website: Low college graduation rates reveal weak high school, Minister says. Rather than look to the higher education system in which over 80% of future teachers are enrolled in for-profit institutions that do not provide student support toward retention or completion, the contemporary MEC used the statistic to justify a controversial high school reform project. The implementation of the project will impose an accountability regime on states, towns, schools, and teachers that will likely lead to an emphasis on in-service training over pre- service development and is not likely to consider career ladders or compensation. I turn now to a deeper description of the Movement Coalition. 113 The All for Education Movement and Coalition Since this study looked at a nearly 20-year time period, we can see a shift in the nature of the organizations that were primary partners of the MEC over that time. A central moment in the two decades of interest was when the MEC was headed by Fernando Haddad, as outlined earlier. Haddad’s tenure coincided with the change in power differentials between the previously outlined rights-focused coalition, centered around the Campaign for the Right to Education, and the All for Education Movement coalition which is more aligned to the global education goals that are focused on quality and accountability. The differences in power held between the Campaign and the Movement can be explained by differences in their proximity to the government upon each’s founding. To explain, the Campaign was founded in 1999 by and remains composed of explicitly non-governmental entities out of a continued re-democratization struggle to hold the government accountable and to expand rights to education found in the 1988 Constitution. The Movement was founded in 2006 by a group primarily made up of bank and business leaders. The focus of this section is to describe the Movement and surrounding coalition. By 2018, the Movement was a fully operating policy advocacy organization staffed by individuals who are seen as education policy leaders. These individuals in 2018 were technically removed from the banking and business leaders who founded the Movement, though those particularly high-wealth individuals were certainly still involved at financial and organization governance levels. The Movement’s focus has been on improving the quality of education in Brazil as a means of improving the productivity of the workforce. To tackle what it framed as a quality problem, it analyzed student and school performance data and created a set of 114 goals. I reviewed earlier how the Movement’s first goals were adopted by the MEC and evolved into the National Education Plan. The Movement justifies its pursuit of quality education in terms of learning outcomes on knowledge and skills measured by international and national standardized tests because of its purported link to economic growth, decreased corruption, and lowered crime rates. Its website promotes that: “for every 100 points on the PISA, a country’s GDP grows on average two percentage points per year” (organizational website). The Movement acknowledges that children have the right to learn but still positions itself as different from the Campaign. A major difference between the Movement and the Campaign coalitions is that they hold different notions for defining quality education. The Campaign is partners with the teachers' union, which views quality teacher development as encompassing knowledge, skills, theory, and justice, as well as progressive compensation. Likewise, quality education according to the Campaign’s coalition involves more than satisfactory test scores. The Movement coalition on the other hand, would define a quality teacher as one who gets results. These results would be progress on learning assessments. Further, the Movement and its partners have taken great care to understand, from their perspective, what is essential to teach a future teacher and to understand during which year in a teacher’s tenure you might know whether he or she will be effective. One director of an organization that recruits “talented” people to public service using the same model as Teach for America shared matter-of-factly: The first year of a teacher is completely random. It doesn't predict anything about what this teacher will be in the next years. The second year is better, then you can predict if this person's going to be a good teacher or not. (Gabriela, Vetor Brasil) 115 Furthermore, nearly everyone in this coalition conforms to and states in almost the same terms: I think that much more important than the degree, than the education that they had before going to school, is the development that they had during the time that they are teaching. (Gabriela, Vetor Brasil) Insider perceptions on how the Movement coalition contrasted with the Campaign’s revealed why these two groups rarely, if ever, work together. As has been touched on repeatedly, those inside the Campaign coalition were firmly aligned to the idea of education as a human right. Though this may not sound like an extreme or radical position, in the Brazilian education scene, it is a signal that an organization is more likely to reject forms of neoliberal, market-creating reforms or experiments. Individuals and organizations in the Campaign coalition identify as left or far-left on a political spectrum. On the other hand, the Movement sees itself as non-partisan, centric, and unifying, but within limits: That's part of our DNA. There's a joke that sometimes we see happen is that the left and right thing, it's a bit of a mess. What is left? What is right? I'm sure you're a little bit aware of this. But, folks from say quote, the "left" think we're from the right, and folks from the right think we're from the left. In a way, it's a challenge, and in a way it's good. It shows that we really try to bring along different players from the debate to really have proposals that are stronger. We believe that from that diversity, what comes out of here in terms of advocacy work will become stronger. In order for you to come up with a proposal that brings folks from 116 different segments, there is an effort to try to build some sort of consensus with different folks. Do we involve absolutely everyone from the debate? I'd say no, because the extremes, both extremes very seldom are very open for dialogue. From the alphabet ... We tried the extremes but they're not open for dialogue. Sort of brings, from C to X. A and B, and Y and Z, it's tough. We've tried, it's not something that we don't want to. The truth is it's proven to be a successful strategy. (Bruno, Todos Pela Educação) The Movement sees itself as a technical advocacy organization and contrasts this idea to organizations that advocate for a particular agenda. While its documents consistently advocate for improved quality based on narrow learning outcome evidence, which certainly is a specific agenda, individuals on the inside insist that they have no set agenda and that they instead build proposals and work with governments to advance them: In the proposals that we advance, we are very much keen on, "Is there evidence? Is there data that shows that this will really provide an improvement of quality?" If not, we don't advance it. (Bruno, Todos Pela Educação) What the Movement counts as evidence, where it looks for it, and what kinds of proposals it has been open to can be traced to who or what other organizations it relies on most. Its partnerships reveal that the Movement wants to advance broader evidence- based, “common sense” reforms throughout the education system. One of the Movement’s key technical advisors is a former education director for the World Bank. The Movement also engages in regular discussions with the OECD. Specifically regarding teacher education, the Movement acknowledges that the for-profit colleges 117 enroll upwards of 80% of all pre-service teacher candidates and are therefore stakeholders in the work, but they are not direct partners, only beneficiaries of the policies that have been promoted. According to an insider in the Movement: A lot of what will be probably be advanced is not in their interest, because again much of what we’re going to try to propose is changes to the regulation system. (Arthur, World Bank) The Movement insists its focus is on improvement of the quality of education, that students learn more, and they only have an interest in partnering with those who share that interest. Groups with an interest in protecting teachers or even considering holistic development of teachers and groups with an interest in increased enrollment at their institutions are seen by the Movement as part of the extremes that are difficult to work with. That being said, informants from the Movement have participated in discussions with the teachers’ union, because the union holds significant power over implementation, acceptance, and legitimation of school and teacher training reforms. Finally, the Movement appreciates that it can look at the experience of other countries who have tried the reforms it is interested in: That is the good thing about being so far behind. Then you can actually look at policies, you can actually look at what some countries have done for 10-20 years and learn with their mistakes. Again, that's the good thing about being so far behind in some of these debates that in the U.S. or other countries around the world, they had these sorts of debates 20 years ago or 30 years ago. (Bruno, Todos Pela Educação) 118 In other words, the Movement is not interested in abandoning results-based, accountability-driven school management or teacher education modes that are tied to it. Rather, it and its coalition partners appear to double down on such ideas. Whether they hope to advance better versions of reforms based the other countries’ experiences or present the same ideas in a different way based old debates is not clear. A characteristic of the Movement coalition is that its baseline view of education is that the Brazilian system lacks quality, and this could be tackled by increasing the quality of teaching. Further, teacher and school quality can be improved by teaching school managers to focus on efficiency and results. Individuals in this coalition have shared common life experiences that contributed to these baseline views. These experiences include living in the United States and earning graduate degrees from US institutions like Stanford, Yale, and Harvard. Many individuals working in the Movement coalition also studied or worked with US-based alternative teacher training programs like Teach for America. With an eye to innovation and entrepreneurship because of these experiences, most individuals in the Movement coalition believe the silver bullet is convincing “talented” people to become teachers (or to work in the public sector in general). I previously briefly touched on an influential organization that collaborates with the Movement coalition: the Lemann Foundation. This foundation runs a fellowship, through which many of the individuals in the super-coalition gained their US-based graduate school and education reform experimentation experience. Many of the fellows spend time within the Teach for America organization. The Lemann Fellowship program’s one-line descriptor is: “Professionals with leadership spirit who want and are transforming Brazil” (organizational website). The founder and funder, Jorge Lemann 119 has also spread his wealth and desire to transform Brazil through other programs. For example, at Stanford University, the Lemann Center for Educational Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Brazil is another place where enterprising young professionals get time and resources to develop experimental programs aimed at improving education quality for Brazil. There is a clear pipeline from the Lemann Fellowship or the Lemann Center to social entrepreneurship via the Movement coalition in Brazil. It is not a coincidence that individuals in this coalition have continued to look for ways to export Teach for America’s foundational ideas into Brazilian teacher development projects. In 2018, the global arm of Teach for America, Teach for All, began its second attempt at importing the model into the country, under the leadership of a Lemann alum. Lemann Fellows return to Brazil and serve as policy entrepreneurs carrying ideas for improving the efficiency and efficacy of education and teacher training. Another project spearheaded by the Lemann Center and Lemann Fellows exported the Stanford Teacher Education Program (STEP) into teacher education programs at some for-profit colleges in Brazil. At Stanford, the STEP program is an intensive one-year experience that involves academic and theoretical work with a simultaneous year-long clinical placement. The Stanford program emphasizes an intentional fusion of theory and practice. The exported STEP program developed by the Lemann Center trains teacher educators and institutional leaders from the biggest for-profit colleges based on the STEP model in hopes of improving math instruction in the country. The Lemann Fellow who helped develop the program also created an education organization in Brazil that now has a formal partnership with the Lemann Center to implement the training each year. An informant close to the program explained why they targeted the for-profit colleges: 120 We could try to do it at USP [University of São Paulo] but didn’t want to because they don't have volume. We want to try to change how the big networks of private universities teach because they have more scale, so the impact is bigger. (Gabriela, Vetor Brasil) The Lemann Center’s name lists entrepreneurship ahead of innovation, and the impression that the Movement coalition gives is that individuals do what they do out of a combination of altruism and self-interest. Many high-wealth individuals have used education as a cause to create a foundation or to donate money to decrease their personal tax burden, which is why the sheer number of non-profits surrounding GIFE is so high (see Graph 5 on page 84). That being said, the exported-STEP program impressed upon me that some individuals in close proximity to the for-profit college portions of their network are concerned with the low quality of these institutions. The Movement and its coalition are outward-facing and plugged into the global education reform efforts. The Movement’s members and financial supporters are professionally linked to international banks and corporations. The Movement has also relied on direct support from intergovernmental organizations like the Interamerican Development Bank (IADB). In 2012, the Movement and a private institute called Natura, founded in 2010 by a direct-marketing cosmetics company of the same name which has the goal to “unite forces and improve education results” (organizational website), partnered to receive a loan from the IADB to implement the Movement’s plan. The purpose of the financing was to put forth a “new education policy agenda” (IADB document). 121 A key theme to emerge from this research was the global-reform-connected entities saw a need to step in to the public education space to provide direction and to point the sector to what it should be focusing on. Further explaining this theme, these entities were also most likely to see the traditional sector and its entrenched servants as lacking focus and lacking understanding of the correct course of action. In this way, global entities and their coalition partners within Brazil (like the Movement and the Lemann Foundation) viewed their role as one to circumvent the centralized structures if needed, in the name of the greater good. This was exemplified by a director of a Brazilian-based non-profit that is a part of the Movement coalition when discussing what some viewed as intentionally low expectations from the federal government: For example, they [MEC] had to adapt goals for the state, for the local governments, and for the schools, but they never updated the goal of the schools [over time]. If I had a school that only had the four-hour school day, and I change it to seven hours per day because it's now the law in Brazil, MEC wouldn't update their [the school’s] IDEB [performance index] goals. Then the school would say, "Oh, I met my goals imposed by MEC." That's not ... I don't care about it, I have different goals for you 'cause now we [the coalition] invested a lot of money there. (Gabriela, Vetor Brasil) The theme also came out of a conversation with a World Bank country-leader. One of his main concerns for teacher quality was a “lack of continuity across the states” and he saw the MEC and the autonomous nature of federal universities as a reason why there was “no focus on results” and a lack of unity in terms of policy direction. Finally, in the most recent country strategy report from the World Bank, in its discussion of improving 122 learning and completion rates for elementary and secondary students, the circumvention of the federal level was entered into record: There is a disconnect between federal level outcome indicators and the Bank’s subnational implementation program. Nationally, learning outcomes are stalling and most of the gains in terms of efficiency have already been achieved. Considerable experience gained by the Bank in subnational education operations has not so far translated into a coherent national policy platform, particularly in reforming secondary education. (World Bank Brazil strategy report) This approach means private and international entities were reaching out to state and local education leaders more often than to federal leaders, reinforcing the notion of the municipal leaders’ and state superintendents’ associations as important boundary spanners. As the post-Workers’ Party era goes on and the MEC remains open to new or larger scale configurations of partnerships with these private partners and/or global finance programs, these network dynamics will certainly change. If the most recent World Bank Brazil strategy document quoted above is any indicator, organizations that have been relegated to the “subnational” level will present what their experience has taught them and make a case for an infusion of reforms on a larger scale and from a more centralized angle. That being said, for what was captured in this analysis, the international organizations worked in a diffused manner over the past twenty years to spread their agenda around Brazil. Infused Global Influence. The analysis revealed international partnerships in both of the key coalitions. The entry point of an international entity’s influence depends 123 on who holds formal power in different levels of the government. As I explore in this section, the international organizations have priorities that do not always match official national priorities. The Campaign coalition members have received support from or forged partnerships with the Ford Foundation and Unicef, for example. In contrast, the Movement’s coalition members have ties to a greater number of international organizations and to US-based institutions. The Movement’s main international partners include global development finance institutions like the World Bank and the Interamerican Development Bank. Though these are financial institutions, each has its own history of work in the education field. For most of the time period this study was concerned with, the World Bank’s strategy in Brazilian education was to work at the local (i.e., state and municipal) level. Informants close to the Bank’s work stressed that they lent a supporting role and that they spent the past eight years (2010-2018) only working within particular states. This work was and is done in partnership with state or municipal governments along with private foundations and other private providers. The Bank provides financial resources and what it perceives as management expertise, foundations provide other resources often in the form of technology infrastructure and teaching materials, and the state and local level leaders and schools receive and implement a program which the Bank in turn evaluates for impact. They are not a team of educators, rather they perceive their role as planners and managers, helping educators “leave the normal behind” (Arthur, World Bank) and innovate. Bank leaders based in Brazil try to influence education with evidence by creating spaces for “experience- sharing.” In its most recent Brazil strategy document, the Bank acknowledged that for at 124 least the past five years, its “interventions in the [education] area were not always targeted at supporting national outcomes." One experience the Bank has worked hard to promote is a US-based policy entrepreneur’s vision for classroom management: Doug Lemov’s work, which is distilled in his book Teach Like a Champion. Lemov’s education career in the US has been with in the charter school management sector. His book is required reading for most Teach for America (and outside of the US, Teach for All) participants. The book reviews 49 habits for teachers to practice that build a very controlled classroom environment. Critics of the book say it is an approach that de-professionalizes teaching by implying that anyone can do it by reading a short manual. These critics point out the emphasis on habits to control student speech and student movement are not complemented by habits that consider the whole child. Lemov’s work inspired the design of a classroom management program for Brazilian teachers. In partnership with the World Bank, the Lemann Foundation designed a program for schools in the high-poverty state of Ceará, where teachers and school leaders received the book, leaders received “expert coaching” via Skype, and teachers received targeted observation feedback. The basis of the experiment was that improving the way teachers used class time would result in improved student outcomes. The Bank has tested and encouraged the use of a targeted observation feedback tool that gathers data on teacher time-use, and Lemov’s book of techniques appears to many to be the ideal set of learning inputs for teachers being evaluated based on how they use their time. An evaluation of the program, sponsored and conducted by the World Bank (coincidentally by individuals connected via the Lemann Center), found positive preliminary results. Lemov’s suggested teaching habits continue to make their way 125 around the world because of the World Bank’s diffusion. This is notable because outside of the World Bank’s efforts, Lemov’s manual has primarily gained traction with reformers interested in charter school management and short-training routes into teaching. It is fair to speculate that the Brazilian teachers’ union would take issue with the use of the book’s practices in conjunction with an observation-assessment tool. Finally, Lemov’s work also makes its way around Brazil, thanks to the Lemman Foundation’s influence. The Brazilian Association for Private College Owners promoted Lemov’s teaching habits to its members, most of whom are for-profit colleges, as foundational for teacher training and that its member colleges should use it to rise above the dysfunctional teacher preparation programs in public institutions, where: Colleges have only 5% to 10% of all content focused on teaching methods and practices and internship experiences, provided by law. And even then, it does not happen, or content and time is lost on bureaucratic issues. (association website) Like nearly all of its coalition partners, the World Bank perceives a lack of continuity across the states in terms of an education agenda or a focus on a clear objective. The Bank perceives the autonomy of universities and governments as problematic. From their view, this autonomy is why there is no focus on results and a lack of unity in policy direction. Because the Bank frames autonomy as the thing it is working against, it makes sense that it has sought inroads through decentralized structures and alongside other private non-governmental providers. In its most recent strategy paper, the Bank addressed the National Education Plan goals and how these goals created a high demand for teachers that could not be met by municipalities. The Bank’s solution to this is to prioritize private investment and public-private partnerships. 126 The Bank’s identification of this particular dilemma and potential contribution to a solution also shows what the Bank would prioritize and how it would seek to influence the nature of the sector if it is a part of the solution. For example, the 2018 strategy paper refers to what it saw as issues in early childhood education that needed to be addressed like: lack of measurement of children's development, poor qualification of personnel, no curriculum, and no system of quality assurance (World Bank Brazil strategy paper) Finally, the document also hinted at how the Bank hopes a larger scale, centralized impact will come from their diffused strategy up to now: considerable experience gained by the Bank in subnational education has not so far translated into a coherent national policy platform, particularly in reforming secondary education (World Bank Brazil strategy paper) Until that impact comes, the Bank planned to continue implementing "new methods of public sector management" in "selected" subnational governments. The Bank’s 2018 strategy paper was written after the Workers’ Party no longer held the executive branch and the MEC, and it recognized that the new federal government in place was committed to results-based management but lamented it would have to convince states and municipalities to take up the reforms. Further, with another election in 2018, the Bank was still uncertain the extent to which its agenda could be promoted if, for example, the teachers' unions held their influence over candidates in state and local elections: 127 These efforts may be hindered by the approaching election season if the results- based approach to funding is jettisoned in exchange for political support at the state and municipal levels. (World Bank Brazil strategy paper) The Bank’s strategy for promoting results-based management will be to provide its own services, outside of lending agreements, usually in the form of analysis and technical advice: to inform the public debate related to improving the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of delivery of education services (World Bank Brazil strategy paper) Results-based management is not a new concept for the Bank or anyone else in the Movement coalition to promote. In fact, a comparison of web content from the Bank’s website over time shows consistent emphasis on innovation, results, impact, and competitiveness (World Bank 2003 Internet Archive; World Bank 2017 Internet Archive). Something that has changed over time is the number and types of groups the Bank consults as it develops its Brazil strategy documents. For the Brazil strategy document that was released in 2003, the Bank claimed to have consulted with federal and state governments, social and environmental movements, trade unions, the private sector, international agencies, donors, academia, youth and religious groups. By the time the 2018 strategy document was released the list was reduced to “federal and subnational governments, the private sector, civil society and academic experts." It is unclear who is a part of the category of civil society, and this is an important theme I turn to again at the end of this chapter. The World Bank is not the only international actor in the Movement coalition, but their change overtime is representative of the nature of international involvement and 128 influence in the development, implementation, and in some case circumvention of education and teacher policy in Brazil. It is also important to highlight again the role of the state and municipal education leaders as boundary- or coalition-spanners that help the global ideas find their way into school systems. Earlier in this section, the impoverished state of Ceará was mentioned. By Gross Domestic Product measurement, Ceará is one of Brazil’s poorest states but has been ranked relatively high on the national education index since 2013. Ceará’s human development index (which takes into account education, income, and life expectancy) is also high. Improvements in education and human development in general have mostly occurred since 2000. This progress may be because the state has been a hotbed of experimentation by both coalitions identified in this analysis. The Campaign and its connected human rights organizations and even older historical connections to relief agencies have implemented programs aimed at education and alleviating poverty. Likewise, as demonstrated above, the Lemann Foundation and World Bank have experimented with school and teacher management there. Ceará is a great example of the state and municipal leaders working across coalitions to bring in necessary resources. The World Bank’s report on its teacher observation and coaching program gave an approving nod to the state’s governments for being progressive and effective. The purpose of this section was to provide some description of the way the global organizations have worked in Brazil and in or around the MEC, but I want to reiterate that this globalization is the result of a trajectory the MEC has been on since the turn of the century. Even under a Workers’ Party president in 2015, the MEC was publicizing its connections with Yale University and the Lemann Foundation when the then-minister 129 traveled to participate in an event about leading education reform. Individuals in the All for Education Movement coalition are connected by shared experiences and values, as highlighted by the central Lemann Foundation node. This coalition became more and more embedded in partnership with the MEC as time has gone on, and that has sped up with the exit of the Workers’ Party from federal power. This coalition is into data-based decision making, entrepreneurial problem solving, and getting results; they are all similarly versed calling out problems they see with teacher education as it is (institutional autonomy and impracticality) as well as when naming the surefire solution (investing in in-service training). I turn now to a brief description of where this coalition, or globalized community physically maintains its connections, publicizes its policy ideas, and legitimizes its work on the world stage. The “Davos of Brazil.” Individuals who founded, preside over, and work in the Movement coalition organizations gather at various events in Brazil and in the US throughout the year. Some of these events focus on education in particular, like the March 2018 event that brought together the Lemann Foundation, Teachers College, and a new Center for Excellence and Innovation in Education Policy, that is led by a former director of education for the World Bank, to discuss the controversial Brazilian common core initiative and its potential effects on pre- and in-service teacher education. At this event, the Lemann Foundation and Teachers College also announced its new partnership that would fund Teachers College faculty to explicitly study Brazil’s common core initiative. At this point, looping back to the post-Workers’ Party MEC’s inclusion of these sorts of actors in the National Education Forum to the exclusion of others is important. 130 Another event that the Movement coalition members participate in is called the Brazil Conference at Harvard and MIT. This event happens annually and is organized by and for Brazilian university students studying in the Boston-region. The event itself has an air of exclusivity, as hopeful attendees go through a screening process before being invited to register. The purpose of the event is to bring together leaders from all sectors to discuss challenges facing Brazil. Former presidents from both Brazil and the US, the world’s wealthiest individuals, and top-grossing pop stars have all made appearances. The media has dubbed the event, “the Davos of Brazil” in reference to the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, which is also a highly exclusive space for discussion of the world’s problems. Two of the Brazil Conference’s main financial supporters are the Lemann Foundation and AmBev, which are both owned by Jorge Lemann. Aside from the notable type of people already mentioned, leaders from the private foundations, government agencies, corporations, non-profit and non- governmental organizations, attend to the event. The vast majority of the members of the Movement coalition have attended the event or attend annually. At the Brazil Conference, the rhetoric used when talking about the public sector in general and the public education system in particular was framed around the idea of “talent.” If the sector is ineffective or inefficient, it is because it lacks talented workers within it. To solve this problem, one only needs to figure out how to recruit talented people into public service. Two panels had titles that perfectly exemplified this: “Boosting talent in the public sector!” and “Innovation in the public sector: new ideas, people, and practices.” Innovation, renovation, and quality were dominant themes, as was inclusion and equality. If the conference session titles are any indication, the elite 131 youth of Brazil as represented at the Boston Conference are concerned with social justice alongside economic growth and effective governance. The All for Education Movement hosted a session called “Education Now! To change Brazil for the better.” In Portuguese, the phrase “Education Now!” is “Educação Já!” which is a direct reference to the mid-1980s popular movement that pressed for and won direct elections in the country (“Diretas Já!” or “Elections Now!”), essentially transitioning Brazil out of military rule. The Elections Now movement was widely supported, by people from a range of political parties. The All for Education Movement appears to have co-opted the phrase for its demand for education, implying that it is past time to provide education and that until now education has not been provided. In one sense, the Movement’s appropriation of this phrase conveys how it considers itself to include nearly all perspectives, like an informant shared, they include perspectives found from “C to X” (Bruno, Todos Pela Educação). However, in another sense, the phrase seems contradictory to the Movement, because of its explicit lack of collaboration or partnership with the Campaign for the Right to Education. The Movement and the Campaign share a concern for the right to education but regard the nature of education and the means to identifying and reaching solutions differently. Even though the Campaign’s allies have been explicitly critical of the inclusion of the Movement in policy deliberation spaces, the Movement does not in turn explicitly speak against the Campaign. To illustrate, one informant close to the Movement acknowledged the Campaign as the other big advocate organization at the national level. We have a lot of partner issues with them, and often times we're in a lot of the same forums but not 132 something structured in terms of partnerships and articulation. (Bruno, Todos Pela Educação) At the Education Now! Session, the Movement brought in the CEO of Teach Brazil (the country’s new Teach for All affiliate) and two teachers from the public system who participated in Teach Brazil as an introductory discussion before hearing from a group of education specialists from other organizations from the network. The distinction between the teachers and the specialists from other organizations was stark. The Teach for All program was first and foremost presented as competitive: 13,000 applicants from the top universities in Brazil vied for 70 positions. This framing served two purposes: one was to indicate to the young, elite Brazilian audience that this program could be an option for themselves, and to indicate to the audience that the education reformers before them were working with a certain version of quality in mind. One of the teachers described his school which is located in a converted, former-grocery store: “We can give a quality education in any environment.” The majority of the short discussion with these teachers was surface level and about what they were learning from their teaching experience. They said believing in students and having high expectations helped overcome challenges associated with working in an “unorganized” school, undesirable student behavior, or the sometimes-problematic presence of or lack of parents. The teachers did not share the details or examples behind these lessons. The only portion of the Teach Brazil panel that went into a bit of depth was when one of the teacher-participants described how she grew up in what many in Brazil call the “periphery.” This word can mean the outskirts of town, the poor rural regions, or even the under-served, under-developed neighborhoods and communities identified by some as 133 favelas (slums). She told the audience how she was proof of the impact of quality education and how the first time anyone in her family traveled outside of Brazil was in fact herself, for the Brazil Conference. She was sad that her students could not be there, too. She posed a critical question directly to the audience: “We are here today talking about education but are we talking about education for the periphery?” Teach Brazil literally deploys recent graduates to schools in the periphery, but the teacher was aiming her question at the education specialists from other organizations who would be taking the stage in the next part of the session. This question was quickly tempered by the CEO of Teach Brazil who concluded that portion of the session by explaining to the audience that Teach Brazil does not see its role as polarizing but rather as bridge-building. Pointing to her two teacher-participants, she said, “They are bridges, not walls.” In that moment, the Teach Brazil CEO exemplified the Movement’s (and its coalition’s) concern for being a part of the calm, rational source of policy solutions that nearly everyone “C to X” could agree with. The specialists who took over the on the panel talked about how to meet education goals despite economic crises and political uncertainty. An education economist from one of the coalition organizations also went on to explain his (and the coalition’s) view of what ails the Brazilian education system: How can a country that prioritizes education, that spends more and more on it, not seem to improve it? How do we answer this? I think the problem in our country is governance. In what sense? First, we don’t work through the lens of replication. … Some respond to this with, “But every school is different.” Okay, every school is different, and then others will respond, “But every person is different.” Okay, 134 every person is different. … Why don’t Brazilian schools replicate [what works]? … MEC doesn’t want to learn [from the towns] it wants to teach [the towns what to do], because we have an education system that tries to be “top-down” by which I mean, “I know; I teach you because you know nothing,” … but if you have a de-centralized system (municipalized) you can experiment and learn better ways of doing things. Sure, there are many towns doing silly things, but many are doing fantastic things! We already have one of the most well-regarding education monitoring systems in the world [National Institute for Education Studies and Surveys]. … Okay, so what would good governance look like? Identify what works well, document what works well, and share these experiences. … You will see this in any industry in the world. If they have found what works, people are all doing that thing. But not in education; everyone is doing something different and that includes holding on to things that don’t work. What we need to do is document what works and replicate it. And when you try something and it doesn’t work, abandon it. (Felipe, Ayrton Senna Institute) This panelist captured the essence of what the Movement sees as its role in improvement education quality, recalling that it looks for evidence of what works and creates proposals around those things, only. There was a strong appeal by the panel to the audience (of young, elite Brazilians) to get involved in these issues. Besides researching and searching for evidence for what is good education, the country needs “more people like you involved in the work defending public education policy” and “to hold the government accountable to implementing the same policy in the periphery” (Felipe, Ayrton Senna Institute). In this call and in the thesis on Brazil’s top-down governance 135 stymying its capacity, had the panel been fully considering schools and children on the periphery? The Movement’s coalition means to hold all schools and teachers accountable. The economist’s dismissal of school and student peculiarities as determining factors in success or failure expressed that even with these differences, if the local schools were free to experiment and given a way to share what they learned, then quality and efficiency could be raised. As the specialists know, local leaders are free to accept partnerships and resources from many sources. What was really being called for then, was structural and systemic support for these configurations and for documenting and sharing results. The economist’s description of his ideal situation matched perfectly with how the World Bank saw its role in the network. To close this section describing spaces where the Movement coalition tests out ideas, networks, and maintains connections, I want to question apparent parallels between this dominant part of the network and the Campaign coalition. The Movement has called for an organizing system for more effectively putting schools and partners together in the name of education quality. This is precisely why the rights-based groups joined together under ABONG to create an infrastructure for receiving support and aid from international donors. Also, the Movement coalition’s framework is centered on a particular definition of quality, but the Campaign is also concerned with ensuring the right to this quality educational experience is met. The specialists on the panel at the Brazil Conference included an award-winning teacher who founded an organization that presses for education as a means to racial and social justice in the country. He spoke about the need for more than access and for policy makers to realize that a quality school is one that changes Brazil for the better. I share this to consider whether the Movement really 136 includes this perspective or whether they included this specialist as a token figure on the panel. Why might he have been a token? Because those notions of quality can’t necessarily be measured in Brazil’s renowned monitoring/indexing system. How would the Movement, which only promotes ideas that are evidence-based, reconcile this? It does not seem either coalition would cede particular ideas about what is best and how to press for it. One must remain obedient to the desire for efficiency and better use of public resources; the other is obedient to its struggle for expanded, guaranteed rights. A Favorite Talking Point: The Distance Between Theory and Practice Returning to the reality where the Movement and the Campaign coalition co-exist, at best, it should be clear by this point that the Movement coalition has neoliberal ideas for improving schools and teacher education. Diagnosing problems by assessing students, teachers, and schools, ranking and standardizing them, creating competition among them, and taking action or re-training “management” based on performance are all par for the course in the coalition’s wheelhouse. This neoliberal portion of the network has a limited imagination when it considers teaching as a profession. It is a fallback option for high achievers, and something only low-achievers plan to do. The typical, entrepreneurial-minded young professional in this coalition cannot imagine that there may be teachers who entered the profession through a traditional route that aspired to be there on purpose. The organizations with political and financial resources in this coalition have invested heavily in creating new organizations that focus on recruiting “talented” people for teaching and for public service. It takes as a baseline assumption that the sector has not yet recruited talent. 137 This part of the network, unsurprisingly, sees the country’s traditional teacher training systems as lacking practicality. In actuality, the rhetoric is more often framed as universities providing an excess of theory in their pre-service teacher programs. This is perhaps the most common talking point by individuals in the Movement coalition defending their ideas, or the ideas they wish to import for the reform of teacher education. As an informant from an organization that is a major partner in providing in- service training for teachers and school leaders for state and municipal systems said: It's [in-service training is] a wasted investment. This is a policy design error. The second is that the courses are extremely theoretical, they are not a practical entry point to problem solve solution for future school management. (Pedro, Unibanco Institute) The time period of this study begins in the late 1990s with a national interest and emphasis on improving teacher quality via higher education level training, but these organizations appear to be backing off of that, citing that they have realized a university degree actually does not guarantee quality. Moreover, the critics of university-level teacher education cite the boundary-spanning work of the municipal education leaders and the advancements they have made for their own schools as proof that traditional teacher training is an unnecessary model: So, we have that problem there that deep down we spend money to train in the undergraduate level and then spend money to train in continuing education and in- service, because the undergraduate training is not working. There are many problems. But we're already late, we already missed the tram. It is already bad. The problem is very much that of the school systems, especially the municipal 138 systems, which are the most deprived of personnel. I'm not talking about the big cities. The municipalities of medium and large size, they have conditions to do a lot of continuous training. But small townships, they have difficulties actually developing and training their teachers. And they are the majority, they are the majority. (Amanda, UNESCO) This particular position does not consider whether a lack of physical access to universities by people in remote towns is a contributing factor, or the extent to which the municipal leaders are approached by private and international partners willing to bring resources and professional development to them. Multiple informants with experience leading at the municipal level shared these views, though one informant wished for teacher education that balanced theory and practicality (as opposed to diminishing or neglecting theoretical training in whole): the curriculum of the pedagogy degree is very disconnected from what is necessary to teach, then several teachers pass in the public examinations but do not understand what a classroom is, the periphery, the big city and we thought a lot about making a discussion of a curriculum more ... more dialogue with practice, having theory but also having practice. (Sabrina, Ministry of Education) A leader in a spin-off organization that advocates for the controversial common core curriculum published a book calling for a shift to practical teacher training. His views are representative of the post-Workers’ Party MEC and signal a likely future-call for a return to separate training institutes for teachers. These institutes would still be considered post-secondary, so proponents do not have to back off of the call for higher- educated teachers, but they would be outside of traditional universities. Recall that 139 traditional universities are seen as problematic because of their autonomy. In a promotional piece for his new book, the author reminisced about how these types of courses already existed in Brazil: The training courses in the [outmoded] high school level and also the [outmoded] Institutes of Education varied in quality, but they were very practical. Because they were a kind of technical course, they were designed to enable the student to immediately enter primary education classrooms and teach the content immediately after graduation. Even higher education courses, which formed specialist teachers, such as mathematics, had the same tendency of objectivity. Before turning to the next section which will address choices between the public and private sector, I want to re-cap the key findings thus far. • Two coalitions emerged from the analysis. One is centered around the National Campaign for the Right to Education, and the other is a super-coalition composed of the All for Education Movement’s and the Lemann Foundation’s networks. • The Movement – Lemann super-coalition is the dominant coalition and it moved into that position throughout the time period of interest. Haddad’s tenure in the MEC was critical in that process because of how his administration framed the private sector as essential to the public sphere and to producing and improving public education. The Movement coalition’s trajectory toward permanency in the federal policymaking space sped up after the departure of the Workers’ Party in 2016. 140 • Local level leaders act as boundary spanners and doing so advances their own needs as well as the encroachment of global education agendas in piecemeal fashion around the country. • There are ongoing disputes over defining civil society. The Campaign coalition took issue with the post-Worker’s Party Ministry of Education, because they see a trend toward excluding some parts of civil society from public processes. The post-Workers’ Party MEC claimed it was including a broader representation of civil society by including the All for Education Movement in its Forum. The next section repeats some of these themes in light of how they informed choices made between public and private sector teacher upgrading initiatives. I close the chapter with findings on what are likely future policy choices regarding teacher education. Choices Between the Public and Private Sector: Lula’s Balancing Act I began this study with the hypothesis that the private sector had a lot to gain from a teacher policy that required increased higher education qualifications. At the outset, my hypothesis had the for-profit college sector in mind. A way to frame this as a basic question would be, knowing they would increase enrollment and profit as a result, did for-profit colleges pursue higher education teacher qualification policies? I did not directly lead with this idea in my interview protocol. However, informants from all “sides” of the spectrum, from both coalitions I focused on in this analysis, brought up the for-profit sector. Even so, the short answer to the simplified question seems to be ‘no;’ these colleges did not pursue a particular policy regarding teacher qualifications. However, the fact of the growth of the for-profit sector was important from nearly every informant’s perspective. Informants focused on how the sector was notoriously low- 141 quality but holding power in that it was training the majority of new teachers. In some cases, this was framed as an unintended consequence. The private higher education system did not actively pursue a particular teacher education policy but rather put its weight behind moving more people in general toward tertiary level credentials. This goal is also found in the National Education Plan with accompanying mention of the public and private sector’s role in helping Brazil attain the goal. Proprietary institutions are enrollment driven. The for-profit sector was certainly interested in the ProUni scholarship scheme, which is open to all low-income students, not just those who are teaching K-12 without a credential. The private sector took part in negotiating the specifics of the ProUni program. ProUni filled empty college classrooms at private institutions and kept them financially afloat, which had been well-documented by the time of this study. An informant from the association that represents private colleges reflected on the time period which he said was more focused on improving institutional management and growth than on improving the teaching inside the institution: For a long time with this expansion, the owners of educational institutions, because they are private institutions and have owners, families that own them, thought that it was not necessary to invest in the teacher. "Investing in the [college] teacher is not important." "It is not our focus." "We are growing." So, there was no such thing in the 1990s and early 2000s. The focus was much more on the management model, because the institutions were growing in number of students and SEMESP [Association of Owners of Private Higher Education Institutions] already warned, already called attention, it is obvious that you have 142 to look at the management model, look at the training of leaders, but also have to take care of the activity end, that the student's learning and that is the profile of the teacher. What teacher is this, that goes in the classroom? "Degree courses that form the teacher. Rethink the training model. Although SEMESP [Association of Owners of Private Higher Education Institutions] made this speech, in its events, in its reports, this was not the priority, because it was growing. (Lucas, SEMESP) Now that the for-profit sector takes up so much of the pre-service teacher education market, it claims to be working to improve its own quality in order to ensure the public that it is producing quality teachers for the K-12 system. In other words, the sector has become aware of its power over the topic and is careful to guard its legitimacy in providing undergraduate teacher education: Yes, it is an area that I have dedicated myself to trying to understand in Brazil what is happening in relation to academic innovation, including I am responsible for a consortium that involves 50 institutions in Brazil, there are 14 states, and the focus of this consortium is we invest in teachers, in the training, qualification of these teachers, give perspective to them to change their attitude, work more with technology, with active learning, with new learning spaces, to improve student learning. (Lucas, SEMESP) The for-profit association has gone to great lengths to be associated with reputable higher education institutions outside of Brazil, but it has not sought partnerships that might directly improve its teacher education courses. Other private entities are partnering with for-profit colleges in piecemeal fashion to “train the trainers,” as the Lemann Center does with its import of the Stanford teacher training program into some for-profit colleges. 143 What the private college association does is seek legitimacy in the higher education world by hosting large forums and conferences, inviting keynotes from US-based institutions, and producing magazines and reports with guidance for institutions. An informant reiterated the importance of looking to US colleges as a reference point: When compared to the United States, the United States allows institutions to experiment, to experiment, to innovate. And then, I see Collin College and many other institutions, even Arizona State University, some institutions of California, that is, they are experimenting. And our legislation, it was always very bureaucratic, very difficult, right? So, through these international forums, even though we have a bureaucratic legislation that allows for little innovation, but we have to think, try to think about education differently. (Lucas, SEMESP) The association is challenged by its member colleges running many fully-online degree programs and the pressure to help these colleges stay relevant, in demand, and accredited. An example of materials it produces for the colleges’ directors is a “Guide to good distance education practices.” It implores colleges to do things like use an admissions process, avoid content and grammar errors in course content, and to train professors for their job. Each item is explicitly linked to protecting the reputation of distance learning. A translation from a portion of that guide: Organize a team to assist professors as they film video-classes to guarantee that no errors are made during the class, in content or in grammar. This type of error is easily detected by students and disseminated on social network sites, which can damage the image of your institution and call to question the quality of your courses. 144 A professor who taught in the for-profit sector informed me that she was denied a pay raise after earning her doctorate. She said her experience was common for people had worked for large, for-profit franchises. The typical process was for the chain to acquire or open a small single campus or an online entity, hire a certain number of faculty with PhDs, pass all documentation requirements to receive accreditation, and then fire the most expensive faculty (the higher credentialed), or simply refuse to pay them for their credentials. This informant said the colleges typically contracted other lower cost workers to teach their courses without worrying about actual qualifications, experience, or quality after receiving accreditation. I was hired and stayed there for a year. That year they had an accreditation evaluation to get their teacher training course approved. It was approved, then I went there and said: "Look, I want to be paid based on my doctorate", because I was not being paid that way. Then they said: "We do not have money". They used the doctorate, the title of doctor to show to the accreditors they had professors with doctorates, but they did not pay me like doctor. This was very common! They did not pay me as a doctor, but they used my name. So, this is very common: they hire a group to list as their faculty body. After courses are approved, they fire those faculty. This is in this movement of expansion of undergraduate licensure courses here. You see? Then what they do, those who do not have any expertise, no knowledge in the area, they hire them (Camila, DeVry University) The current size of the for-profit sector can be linked to what most informants considered the balancing act that the first Workers’ Party President, Lula da Silva, faced. 145 This balancing act addresses a lot of the “why” questions about the use or inclusion of the private sector in teacher education efforts. Candidate Lula had to build a coalition of parties and supporters to get elected. Besides traditional support from labor unions, Lula also appealed to the private sector, promising a regulation climate that would facilitate business and include businesses in addressing social problems, via public-private partnerships. In hindsight, most informants expressed that he and the government “could have regulated the sector more” when considering what is now seen as runaway growth and unending mergers of the for-profit college companies. A key result of Lula’s balancing act that directly related to teacher education policies was the parallel expansion of public and private higher education. Parallel Expansion of Higher Education There were parallel higher education expansion efforts taking place under Workers’ Party leadership. One program focused on the public universities: ReUni restructured and expanded this system into rural and interior regions by adding 18 federal universities (previously 50), 173 universities extension centers, and 360 federal institutes (technical training centers). At the same time, ProUni created a system of tax breaks for private colleges for offering full or partial scholarships to low-income and underrepresented students. ProUni resulted in the expansion of the private and for-profit college sector which grew from 711 in 1996 to 2,070 in 2018. An accompanying private finance system was created for low-income students to take out loans to pay for tuition at private institutions. While parallel, these two initiatives were not balanced in scale. The expansion of the public system was more expensive, and the simultaneous efforts helped 146 fuel the debate over public and private sector efficiencies in education spending. The sides of that debate are explained below. The MEC maintained the line that the private sector was helping the country democratize education at a faster rate than could be done otherwise. In many cases, for- profit colleges were the first to arrive to education deserts in the country. The for-profit company DeVry was the only higher education opportunity in a northeastern region of Brazil, a fact publicized by the MEC. The current MEC continues to publicize the merits of the for-profit sector in creating access for students. The personal finance program for low-income students (Fies) regularly gets coverage with headlines like: “Fies could be the way to make the dream to study a reality,” and, “The new Fies helps change the lives of Brazilian students.” Growth in the private, for-profit college industry has affected the nature of higher education. Financially, it is competing with what are considered the traditional private institutions in the country, the Catholic or other religious institutions that run on a non- profit model. According to one informant, many teacher education programs in the traditional institutions are at risk because admitted students will choose to go to a college that charges less for tuition. Because of the scale of the for-profit colleges and their ability to operate with lower labor costs, the traditional institutions cannot compete financially. One informant described the for-profit side of private education as behaving like an “octopus” (Beatriz, Ministry of Education) in the teacher licensure market. Further, high achieving students from low-income families are choosing for-profit colleges based on price and are choosing licensure courses (pre-service teacher education majors) because within an institution, teacher courses are the lowest-priced. These are 147 speculative impressions from veteran teacher-educators, though studies of ProUni and Fies students continue to confirm that these students academically out-perform their full- price paying peers. There are many implications to this phenomenon. On one hand, the students in question are landing in low-quality institutions that provide little to no support for retention and completion. On the other hand, these students are high achieving and therefore could have a positive impact on the quality of the institution they choose and on the education system down the road. That being said, informants were concerned with the ethics of students being poorly matched to their institution and to their chosen course of study (meaning high achieving students being pulled to schools and courses of study with low academic standards). The growth of the private sector was seen as greedy, by most working on the cause of teacher education, even among people who believe they are on opposite sides of other issues. The greed and the speed with which the “octopus” could maneuver far outweighed the public sector’s capacity to regulate or counter it. Many informants shared concern about private sector labor conditions. The labor is “flexible,” not bound to labor protections, and therefore cheaper. These colleges can afford to expand faster, because they have fewer costs. It was well-known that this meant that these professors were working without rights or benefits other professors or workers generally have in Brazil. People have the impression that Brazilian education is “privatizing from the inside” (Beatriz, Ministry of Education) or by Brazilians themselves. Even individuals who are a part of or who favor reforming education toward the competitive business model take issue with this. One informant pointed out the contradiction between Brazil as a developing nation and Brazil being home to the largest for-profit education 148 companies in the world. On the elite, Movement coalition side of the network, though, no one takes issue with this enough to actively do anything about it, even in the face of awareness of illegal lobbying activities and conflicts of interest by the for-profit community. Lula’s balancing act led to the institutionalization of public and private partnerships. Or, to describe the nature of the partnership more honestly, the permanent presence of publicly-funded private businesses inside public institutions. Companies – by way of private foundations and corporations – have fully rooted themselves inside of institutions. Once formed, these corporate plus public institution structural arrangements are difficult to break down or reverse. Because institutions are subject to change with political and electoral regimes, the structural incorporation of the private sector in the policy network was strategically wise for accomplishing any agenda the Movement coalition wants. This is because policies themselves do not root themselves into public institutions, though people can. I elaborate on this point below. The implications of these parallel efforts on teacher education are numerous. 82% of people enrolled in undergraduate teacher education are in for-profit colleges. Some informants framed the scenario as a tripod when public and private higher education demands were considered in tandem with the consensus for increased teacher training (or increased teacher quality). There is an important distinction between the types and focus of teacher improvement called for by different people. Reviewing the Campaign coalition’s key message: public, K-12 teachers themselves called for increased access to education and training that should be part of a package of clear career paths and better incentives and working conditions. The Movement coalition and more neoliberal 149 groups continue to focus primarily on providing more and better (and inexpensive) in- service professional development. While the Movement helped create the National Education Plan which reinforced the requirement of higher education level training, but this coalition has always emphasized that in-service professional development is the most effective and efficient way to improve teacher quality. Synchronized and Coordinated Efforts by the Neoliberal Third Sector Another part of Lula’s balancing act was including what I call the neoliberal third sector in solving social problems. The third sector is often defined as the part of society that is neither governmental nor corporate. The phrase third way is sometimes used to describe tackling social problems from outside of the State and outside of the market. Under this definition, all forms of non-governmental organizations would fall. However, the neoliberal third sector in this analysis is represented by the Movement coalition. The Movement coalition’s efforts were synchronized, well-coordinated, and sustained, which led to their institutionalized inclusion in the MEC and its affairs. The Movement’s participation is likely to withstand political and electoral changes as well as any other political ruptures, as was proven through its continued influence after the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. So how did the synchronized efforts by the neoliberal third sector impact choices between public and private forms of teacher education programs? This sector has made itself invaluable to the MEC. It has the capacity to develop programs and technological infrastructure, and the MEC has the capacity to help the neoliberal third sector scale up any experiments it chooses. 150 An important early maneuver by the neoliberal third sector was the inclusion of an education system index in its proposed national education plan to Minister Haddad. This system takes student scores on a national exam plus student grade level pass rates and produces a number of indexing schools, towns, and states. This item alone achieved what informants described as governance without changing policy. Local and state level leaders, whether they ascribe to standardized testing or large-scale assessment in any form, respond to the index for two reasons. One, the index is used to identify the lowest performing 40% of schools, and priority resources from the federal budget are given to those schools for improvement. Second, the index is public, and elected and other officials at these levels of government have to respond based on the results in order to appear to be governing. From this perspective, a dominant class – the business community that founded the Movement – identifies the policy problems, and consequently, the solutions. This is a classic issue to uncover from a critical policy analysis perspective. The dominant or elite class is represented by the Movement coalition. It ascribes to what it sees as “common sense” problem and solution identification: use data to diagnose, experiment with solutions, gather data to prove they work (or don’t), scale what does, and abandon anything else to avoid waste. Most solutions from this side of the network involve injecting some form of accountability in schools and teachers to get the desired results. From the perspective of looking at the 1996-2018 as a cohesive era for education and teacher education policy, the Movement coalition’s synchronized and sustained efforts over this time appear to have pushed the public sector into what could be called policy cohesion. 151 Returning to the Question of Civil Society: Corporations with the Mask of Civil Society Throughout my encounters collecting and analyzing information for this study, I found different notions for the phrase civil society. Technically, civil society could be any part of society that is not the government nor business; it is literally the third sector. The rift between the Campaign coalition and the MEC over the composition of the National Education Forum was caused by a general lack of consensus on who is or who can/should represent civil society. The MEC defended the restructuring by saying it included a broader set of “relevant representatives that had been excluded” previously (MEC website). In turn it removed an education labor union and association that were traditionally thought to be representative of an important component of civil society. The reason the notion of civil society matters to how choices are made between public and private education is that behind some technically civil society organizations is a lot of private sector, corporate power, and behind others is organized workers’ power. The All for Education Movement was founded and funded first and foremost by big banks and businesses that were concerned with the development of labor in Brazil. The Movement would say its primary goal is an efficient education system that will build a better labor pool, thus increasing economic development. Further, the Movement’s founders arrived with ideas of how to achieve this efficiency by focusing on particular outcomes and making decisions based on those alone. The Movement now presents itself as civil society. Is this notion of civil society the reason so many corporate foundations have power in and over the network? Does this group work, as one informant put it, “with the face of civil society” (Mariana, University of Campinas) because they really 152 represent something that is neither government nor business, or do they do this to find easier acceptance of their reforms among a population prone to resist pure neoliberal reforms? It appears the notion of civil society has been co-opted by a private sector seeking to shift its presentation from being philanthropic to being literally of the people. Finally, the State, especially in the post-Workers’ Party era has legitimized a broader conception of civil society that includes the private sector. Moving Beyond Teacher Credentials An interesting preview of what is to come in Brazilian teacher policy emerged from this analysis. Brazilian society in general and teachers and future-teachers in particular have been sold on the idea of higher education credentials. The Campaign coalition pushed for a policy of higher credentials and higher quality under the interest of professionalization. The Movement coalition pushed for the same policy in the interest of improving student learning assessment results and economic outcomes. Finally, the higher education institutions in the network indirectly pushed for this policy because it stood to gain enrollments and, in some cases, profits. The Movement-Lemman super-coalition is arguably the most influential part of the network. Its rational appeal for evidence-based reforms has a strong foothold with the MEC and with national and subnational leaders as well as with international organizations such as the World Bank. The Movement and World Bank informants previewed that they would be making new recommendations about improving teacher quality based on new evidence that higher education degrees are not linked to K-12 student performance. Many in the Movement coalition believe that the best place to apply resources for improving teacher quality is at the in-service stage, and that pre- 153 service training need not be lengthy and definitely need not be theoretical in nature, so this may be an opportunity for the coalition to try to take teacher education policy in these directions. As an informant at the All for Education Movement said, they will be making recommendations that are not necessarily in the interest of the for-profit colleges. These recommendations are likely to press for a move to post-secondary training institutes as the traditional route to teaching, Teach for All style alternative routes for others, and in-service training for those already working. This approach is similar to the post-Workers’ Party MEC’s interpretation of college student performance: it fails to recognize that another option could be to improve the higher education sector. Recall that the MEC used high college dropout rates to cite poor high school preparation rather than considering other factors that could be at play like the low quality or lack of student supports offered at higher education institutions in general, which is endemic to both the public and private college sectors. It remains to be seen how the network will respond if the next trend is to abandon the focus on credentials and move to focusing resources on in-service training. The for- profit sector could be indirectly regulated or shrink. Private foundations and institutes could find a broader application of their experiments and programs via the MEC and the state and municipal level leaders (and their associations), as they may be relied upon for the ideas and implementation of in-service training. Room for entrepreneurial short-term training programs that attract “talent” may grow. Traditional teacher education programs in universities may shrivel. Contempt for autonomous public universities runs high in the dominant coalition. As one informant expressed: 154 If you are a school of education, you have to prepare teachers well. If you can’t do that, change your name. (Carol, World Bank) In conclusion, both the Movement and the Campaign coalitions agree with the idea that questions of teacher quality are connected to all other questions of education quality. Informants across the Movement and the Campaign coalitions shared many examples of different initiatives so that it was clear when you talk about teachers, you hear about education. Teaching, the profession, and the preparation for it cannot be isolated from other subjects in the education field; everything is connected to everything. In other words, everyone agrees that teacher quality would improve if there were more resources, and if public schools were more effective, and if higher education was more accessible, and so on. The Movement coalition is heavily wrapped up in not just increasing its idea of teacher quality but also in promoting a nationwide common core and a full reform the structure of high schools around the country. However, despite ascribing to the everything-is-connected-to-everything concept, the Movement coalition does not advocate for holistic, multi-level reform. Rather, the Movement coalition directs all forms of accountability toward teachers and those who train them. Perhaps the most vocal critic of traditional teacher training and an integral part of the Movement coalition said at an event: “We have to change everything; we can only change things through teachers” (Amanda, UNESCO). A lot of reform is being called for simultaneously, and the resources are likely to come from the private sector. At that point, it is likely the strings attached will not be deliberated by teachers themselves. What is certain is that the Campaign coalition’s 155 vision of holistic teacher development and its vision for democratic schooling is further from becoming reality than it was in 1996. 156 Chapter 5: Discussion & Conclusion Addressing the Research Questions The previous chapter provided results of the analysis in response to the research questions. This chapter reviews that analysis in light of the theory and literature that guided the study. I begin by reviewing some key points related to each research question: 1. Which people, organizations, and ideas were involved in the development of teacher policies and teacher upgrading initiatives since 1996? What are the ideological and geographical origins and support structures of these people, organizations, and ideas? The network analysis revealed a debate and struggle between two coalitions that could be conceptualized on different points on of a left-right or progressive-liberal-neoliberal continuum. This conceptualization of the left-right struggle appears connected to the antagonistic education reform groups Krawczyk and Vieira (2012) identified as legacies of the post-dictatorship era: supporters of democratic management of schooling and those favoring technocratic management. On the right, I found the currently dominant coalition. This coalition is centered around the All for Education Movement and includes the Lemann Foundation and a host of international organizations including the World Bank. The Movement and many of the organizations in the coalition were founded and funded by ultra-wealthy individuals who own or are key stakeholders in the largest corporations, banks, and media companies. The Workers’ Party Minister of Education, Fernando Haddad, was instrumental in bringing the All for Education Movement in for official participation in policy development, in part reflecting the coalition government that Lula (a Workers’ Party leader) headed. This entry point in 2006 was the start of a 157 consistent presence of the Movement in official teacher (and other educational) policy work. The Movement also worked outside of the State and outside of the Ministry of Education to obtain partnerships and financial support from an international financial institution (the Interamerican Development Bank) for implementing a “new policy agenda” (IADB document). This implementation referred specifically to a website the Movement created for publicizing its monitoring of progress toward the National Education Plan goals. To the left, the other primary coalition is centered around the Campaign for the Right to Education. This coalition’s partners were historically politically influential and include organizations that were involved in a struggle to expand rights in Brazil since before the end of the military dictatorship in 1989. This coalition more naturally aligns with the ideology of the Workers’ Party, despite the contradictory nature of the Haddad Ministry collaborating extensively with the All of Education Movement and other private sector entities. The Campaign coalition’s partners include teacher and other labor unions, an association of teacher educators, and an education group focused on empowering people typically excluded from society. Parts of the Campaign coalition voluntarily withdrew from participation with the Ministry of Education after the most recent Workers’ Party president was impeached in 2016. Despite the Workers’ Party’s own role in compromise and conceding certain issues to the opposing coalition, most in the Campaign coalition remained loyal to the party in one way or another, if not by directly supporting the Party in an upcoming election, then by denouncing the post-2016, post-impeachment government as illegitimate. Ideologically, the Campaign coalition is concerned with participative 158 democracy at all levels of public life. The coalition received and receives support from international organizations that self-identify as progressive, like the international teachers’ union Education International, and other groups like Save the Children and Oxfam. The network analysis also showed how state and local level education leaders act as boundary spanners in the network; these groups have partnerships, projects, and actively work with the two main coalitions. Boundary spanners are collectively identified in the analysis by their associations: one is an association for state secretaries of education, the other is an association for municipal secretaries of education. Because they are collectively grouped, it is harder to pin them down ideologically. Individually, some have worked closer with the Movement and others worked closer with the Campaign. However, as associations, the two groups have partnerships and support from both coalitions. The analysis revealed the importance of local level leaders in bringing global policy ideas and resources into the State in a diffused manner, particularly because Brazil’s education system had been decentralized prior to the 1990s. 2. How do the people and organizations involved view teacher education? How do these views interact with the development of teacher upgrading initiatives? The two coalitions viewed teachers and the teacher policy of interest – having a 100% higher-educated teaching force – differently. The Campaign coalition advocated for holistic teacher policy that encompasses professional training and improved working conditions and compensation. The Campaign coalition advocates for teacher education that develops professionals for the classroom and for citizenship, and these are common themes in teacher education research rooted in the Brazilian academy (Soczek & Soczek, 159 (2015). The Campaign coalition defends traditional training as balanced between theory and practice. Further, they see the inclusion of education theories and the social foundations of education as essential for teachers to understand their students’ realities. In other words, theoretical content makes a teacher more prepared for work in the classrooms, school, and communities. In contrast, the Movement coalition sees preparation that includes theory as inefficient and ineffective, and perhaps raising too many questions about the current national and global political economy. Despite claims that theory is balanced in traditional preparation programs, the Movement clings to the argument that such programs are all-theory or theory-heavy. The differences in views about teachers are linked to different conceptualizations of professionalization (Flores and Shiroma, 2003). Both coalitions use the rhetoric of professionalism. The Movement frames the idea around technical competency and possessing the skills needed to improve student cognitive learning outcomes. This view is focused on data-driven and outcomes-based reform. As professionals, teachers should be trained and managed under this framework. According to the Movement coalition, teachers are the silver bullet the entire system needs. For example, low P-12 teacher quality is to blame for less than desirable student outcomes at the postsecondary level. The improvement of their ability to get the desired results from students is essential. The Movement coalition’s views of teachers and how they should be trained are directly rooted in the belief that teachers do not arrive ready to teach in actual schools because their university-based preparation is too theoretical. Training should be long enough to be effective, and it should be the most cost-efficient option which is usually at the in- service level. 160 3. What have been the factors affecting the choice of public versus private approaches to teacher upgrading initiatives? Public and private sector approaches to teacher education have been taken as a result of the Workers’ Party’s efforts to utilize public-private partnerships in policy solutions and the strength of the influence of the Movement coalition and the dominance of neoliberal ideology in Brazil and globally. One example is the creation of the ProUni scholarship program which brought the private college sector in as a partner in helping the government open up access to higher education. This program gives tax breaks to private colleges that offer scholarships to low-income students and worked as an incentive to increase the number of colleges in the country by the thousands. Most of these colleges opened up under light to no regulations or accreditation requirements, and the government is trying to get control on quality and accountability to this day. Where there are regulations on, for example, the number of faculty with PhDs that must be employed, colleges find ways around full compliance, confirming others’ findings on this sector’s business practices (Carvalho & McCowan, 2016). ProUni and the for-profit college sector growth is related to teacher training because the vast majority of people currently seeking an education degree are doing so in that very sector. Many of these people are already teaching in the P-12 sector while working on degrees that are offered in fully- online environments. Because the National Education Plan requires teachers to have a postsecondary credential, the demand for these degree programs has remained high. When I proposed this study, I theorized that the for-profit college sector had influenced the development of teacher policies regarding qualifications and subsequent programs aimed at upgrading teacher credentials. In Chapter 4, I relayed that the short 161 answer to this question was: ‘no.’ However, I found a different form of private sector influence on teacher policy via the Movement coalition. The Movement coalition represents the private sector and privatization in that its member organizations are not public, and they are largely founded and funded by private interests. The All for Education Movement as an organization had a clear role in developing the qualification policy and it currently holds the official role of monitoring progress toward the qualification goals. At the same time, the Movement coalition has wavered in pressing for all teachers to possess an undergraduate degree. Its support of Teach for All style training and its alliance with the World Bank which continues to emphasize in-service training over all other forms appears contradictory to the nature of the original teacher qualification policy. However, as informants from this coalition said, the amount of evidence that something works or doesn’t determines what strategies they will pursue or abandon, and there appears to be discussions among Movement coalition members to promote change in the requirement that teachers have higher education qualifications. The Movement coalition’s persistent advocacy and organizing around particular types of solutions also influenced the approaches taken to teacher training. This coalition made partnerships with subnational governments to pilot teacher in-service programs around the country and consistently publicized its ideas and research on its programs in important global and domestic spaces and events (real and virtual). This type of work, done consistently over time, has led the Movement and its partners to a permanent role in devising, implementing, and monitoring teacher, teacher education, and education policy at all levels of government (Hill, 2007). 162 Governance of Teacher Education Policy In this chapter, I argue that the Movement coalition governs teacher education policy. I also interpret these results in light of the theory and literature that informed the study. First and foremost, I consider what meaning can be taken from the network visualization and description. Network ethnography is meant to discern the forest from the trees, and to also see the micro as an example of the macro (Ball, 2012, 2016, 2017; Ball & Junemann, 2012). The forest is the right-left nature of the two coalitions struggling for their conceptions of what is most appropriate for teacher education policy. The trees are found in the micro-details of the network, where we find the context and nature of the social relationships connected to a policy, problem, or issue. This should make the “impersonal flows” of globalization, personal (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). Scholars close to the method have warned against “conflating the existence of networks with the existence of network governance” (Goodwin, 2009, p. 680), so I do not argue that the network I found as a result of the analysis is itself governing teacher education in Brazil. Rather, from a critical analysis standpoint, I argue that governance is occurring from the places in the network where power been most consolidated (Goodwin, 2009), and as time has moved from 1996 to present, that place is occupied by the All for Education Movement and its partners. I found this power in and around the All for Education Movement and the Lemann Foundation nodes. I argue that the All for Education Movement and coalition is steering and influencing the behavior of the State (Ball, 2012; Ball & Junemann, 2012) with an agenda based on human capital theory (Klees, 2016). The All for Education Movement’s 2006 proposal to Minister Haddad which became the National Education 163 Plan and its subsequent, consistent work has led to the organization getting a permanent seat at the policy table. The Movement’s coalition partners have worked as consistently, inserting themselves as partners with the MEC and local level governments, providing ideas and resources. Local level education leaders are always in need of resources, hoping to increase their standing on the national education index(which was established and monitored by the Movement), and the Movement’s partners make themselves available with well-packaged “creative responses” (Eggers, 2008, cited in Ball & Junemann, 2012, p. 2). A private institute that is a subsidiary of a major bank developed a program to provide principal and school leader training based on corporate management principles. Public managers now – as in education leaders – at all levels have moved from managing people and programs to being managed by resources that belong to private entities. Jessop called this denationalization or destatizaion (2002). Destatization means the State (be it any level of government) is no longer the key driver in policy decisions. Jessop also defined destatization as ties made between local and regional areas that bypass national authority. Similarly, Verger, Fontdevila, and Zancajo (2017) described the global education field as being majority-formed by actors that are above or beyond the scale of the nation-state, with the power to work through or over the State. The members of the coalitions in the network confirm Verger et al’s (2017) description of the field as consisting of corporations, transnational organizations, and multilateral banks. The World Bank specifically documented that its work was not necessarily in support of national goals and that it was waiting for its wisdom to be translated into a coherent national agenda. Explicit destatization - bypassing of national authority – has been at 164 work anywhere the Bank has supported a pilot project. To further argue the point, the All for Education Movement coalition exemplifies structural coupling and transfers of responsibility (Jessop 2002) through public-private partnerships that have cropped up all over Brazil as local education leaders accept pilot programs created and funded by combinations of private and intergovernmental international organization partners that have become permanent relationships. Structural coupling is when partnerships form solidly enough to become a relatively permanent fixture (Jessop 2002). In this case, private providers or funders and public bodies like state governments or local school systems are partnering for the foreseeable future. The private sector becomes indispensable to the public sector in these arrangements. When a private provider becomes part of the public structure, responsibility (and power) over a space is transferred to said provider. Where the State may have been responsible for some policy and programming function regarding teachers, that responsibility now rests with the private sector. NGOs, corporations, and other private enterprises like foundations and institutes have risen in centrality to the point of bypassing the State. Centrality in a social network analysis implies influence over a network. If a node has a large amount of other nodes passing through it directly or indirectly, it is central (Knoke, 1990; Lazer, 2011; Serrat, 2010). According to the analysis, the Lemann Foundation is as central as the Ministry of Education. Ethnographic details from informants about how the network parts worked together (or did not) led back to this private foundation. Individuals working for the Bank, the Movement, and other parts of this coalition have passed through the Lemann Foundation or some of its funded programs at some point. Further, many have personal 165 and professional connections to particular reform ideas in the United States (like Teach for America and Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion) and to elite institutions in the United States like Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. The social and professional connections are maintained through regular convenings, some also sponsored by the Lemann Foundation, where individuals propose and promote their ideas. It is a selective, self-promoting network. Within the All for Education Movement, we also see what Grewal (2008) called standardization. Standardization is when a particular standard way of doing something is pushed on a large scale and the cost of not taking on the standard idea on is too high. Standardization happens when networks of people, researchers, NGOs, companies, and/or other institutions take on a way of thinking about or doing teacher training and publicize their move to the standard. The National Education Plan contains the idea that a high-quality teacher should have a specific degree. This idea is considered a global standard for teacher professionalization. Other ‘standard’ policy ideas on the agenda of the Movement coalition include corporate-style management of schools and teachers by holding them accountable for particular student outcomes. This study revealed how local level leaders act as boundary spanners. One way they do so is by accepting reform projects to help their jurisdictions achieve a standard which they may have come to accept as obvious or natural. In these cases, the cost is too high for localities not to standardize. First, the cost is financial because local level leaders are most in need of tangible resources, and second, standardization is aided by the pressure to conform. As Grewal argued, “standards have a power that grows in proportion to the size of the network they unite” (p. 27). The use of the education indexing system to call out 166 localities for their performance also helps to apply pressure for education leaders to take up programs that promise to bring their schools up to the standard. The Globally Structured Education Agenda in Brazil Turning to how the results of this study might expand our understanding of how globalization processes interact with education policy setting, I argue that looking back as far as 1996, at the recommendation of my informants, revealed the nuanced characteristics of the Brazilian context. Jessop (2002) offered cautious guidance for analyzing the effects of globalization. Additionally, it is important to be mindful of history and understanding the historical presence of non-governmental actors in meeting State (or sometimes the people’s) goals. In Brazil, debates about education access, the nature of the teaching profession, and what teacher education should entail have been going on since before and continued through the re-democratization era. Therefore, the story revealed here was of teacher education under both democratization and globalization, because they happened simultaneously. When we consider these two sub- contexts, we find an explanation of what appears to both insiders and outsiders as two opposing camps: one aiming for increased rights and an education system that is liberating, the other aiming for increased education quality in the name of workforce and economic improvement. I argue some key features of neoliberal globalized education reform were present in the network. The function of the Lemann Foundation and its related organizations, like the Lemann Center at Stanford University, is to create a class of policy entrepreneurs (Verger, 2011). These individuals take a reform idea from outside of Brazil and work to spread the idea in Brazil. The foundational ideas of Teach for America and Teach for 167 All, for example, are highly interesting to these specialist elites and they work, especially in globalizing microspaces (Larner & Le Heron, 2002) to propel their ideas forward within their own circles and for a broader domestic and global audience (Verger, 2011). This was apparent in the discourse and structure of the Brazil Conference, but also in other modes of mobilization like policy briefs, convenings, and strategic internet presence. In these spaces, policy entrepreneurs package and present their ideas in a way that makes them “echo within the policy paradigm and the public sentiments that prevail at the time they are formulated (Verger, 2011, p. 4). The introduction of large-scale assessments to the Brazilian education system is also a feature of the globally structured education agenda. In most globalizing processes, the “effects are locally mediated” (Dale, 2000). I argue that the presence of the differing coalitions, one focused on rights with a broad vision of the purpose of education and the other interested in attaching Brazil to all global assessment and ranking schemes helped to create a “glocalism” (Jessop, 2002) out of standardized accountability. Glocalisms happen because policy ideas do not simply transfer wholesale from one place to another. Policies that come from the global agenda are mediated by the local context in which they fall (de Sousa Santos, 2002). De Sousa Santos was concerned with the local impact or the “imperatives” that result from a globalized practice. In this case, the use of standardized assessments to manage education is a globalized practice that was localized in implementation in Brazil. The education indexing system referred to throughout this dissertation places schools, towns, and states on a scale based on student performance on a test compared student age and grade level placement. A local-to-Brazil spin on this is that students never receive an individual performance report from the test. Therefore, the 168 index system is not used for direct student and teacher accountability or to guide teachers in how best to help individual students learn. Over time, the Campaign coalition partners have pushed back against a number of attempts to implement individual accountability measures on students and teachers based on standardized assessment. The format of the index is therefore a glocalism that is the result of the context set by the Campaign and its consistent stance against large-scale assessments. I also argue that Dale’s globally structured education agenda (Dale, 2000) explains contradictions found in the education system. The dominant coalition took issue with the autonomy of some institutions. Namely the public universities were seen as problematic because of their autonomy and unwillingness to conform to what the Movement coalition saw as common-sense ideas to teacher education. This contradicted most other instances where the Movement would argue for decentralized, local autonomy. After all, the Movement’s coalition partners had been able to implement its agenda and its experiments for teacher education mostly via local, decentralized education systems. Unsurprisingly, the Movement coalition put forth a strong message that centralized power in the federal government was hampering real improvement. These messages contradicted the Movement’s actual long-term strategy which was finding a central system through which to scale its experiments. They praised the local level governments taking up their pilot projects but lamented the inability to systematically spread and scale what they learned from these decentralized experiments. The Movement has “structurally coupled” (Jessop, 2002) itself with the MEC so that it now is an integral part of that central power and may find greater ease in scaling its work through that central structure. 169 Finally, I argue that the globally structured education agenda is present in Brazil, and like Roger Dale (2000), I consider the complicated interaction of choice, compliance, or coercion with globalization processes. I argue that compliance is at play in terms of the growth of the for-profit college sector. The for-profit college sector is global in that many of the companies work internationally. However, the most dominant part of this sector in Brazil is homegrown. The world’s largest such company is Brazilian and has grown over the past twenty years by consistently acquiring small colleges and merging with other large education companies. Many informants expressed dismay at the existence of this and other companies in the higher education and teacher education arena, but none were actively working to curb their power or address the quality issues found within these colleges’ teacher education programs. The most powerful coalition in the network is essentially compliant in the for-profit sector’s level of functioning. While not actively working against these companies, individuals in both coalitions pointed out the contradictory nature of the existence of profiteering companies in a country that is still labeled as low to middle income. Contradictions are a feature of globalization and the globally structured education agenda and they are especially common in the education space (Dale, 2000). Some examples of contradictions in Brazil are the inclusion of the private sector in, according to the Movement at least, spreading and democratizing access to education and the acceptance of low-quality teacher education programs in the for-profit colleges under a climate of constant reform and rhetoric of teacher quality. Education policy solutions are commonly contradictory under globalization because the State is balancing demands coming from the globally structured education agenda with real demands and real needs across its population (Dale, 2000). In 170 the case of Brazil and in these examples, contradictions came from within as much as they came from the global, or as one informant put it, Brazil was “privatizing from the inside” (Beatriz, Ministry of Education) by which she meant that the major players who moved the neoliberal, market-based, privatization agenda forward were Brazilians themselves. The ideas and resources at the heart of these contradictory policy solutions are both local and global in origin. The local actors from the Movement coalition made, maintained, or plugged into global connections (especially to entities in the US), and actors from the Workers’ Party connected with the Movement coalition to also connect the MEC, a local actor, to other local and global actors. The individuals of the dominant coalition are Brazilian nationals, at least some of whom attended higher education in the United States, who identify with the outside, global policy world. As individuals, many are the elite who have always enjoyed easy movement between nations; if globalization does not happen via open borders, because those do not exist for everyone (Stamback, 2016), it happens via people who have the ability to move resources and ideas across borders. Therefore, the “global” network of localities is firmly rooted inside of Brazil. These individuals travel between countries physically, namely the United States and Brazil, moving and sharing education policy ideas from the outside, while presenting themselves as the face of Brazilian civil society. Jessop’s (2002) notion that the global is an extended network of localities that is multiscalar, multidimensional, and multicentric fits well here. The concept captures how the Brazilian teacher education policy arena (and education policy more generally) is full of individuals and organizations that “coordinate their activities with others in order to produce global effects” (Jessop, 2002, p. 115) 171 Returning to the interrogation of the nature of the globally structured education agenda in Brazil: is it the result of coercion, compliance, or choice? The Movement coalition finding a permanent place within the MEC does not represent a ceding of power on behalf of the government. Instead, the MEC has collected more power and influence by coupling with influential partners (Jessop, 2002) found within the Movement coalition. This coalition of NGOs, non-profits, and in their own words, civil society representatives, has taken on roles the State previously held, like service provision, but has done so in a way that co-opts the ethos of historical civil society organizations in the country that were rooted in grass roots activism (Klees, 2008a). Where the NGO space is supposed to be the third sector or “third way” outside of the State and business spheres, this coalition is backed by and propagating neoliberal and market-based principles in the public education space (Klees, 2008a), evidenced by founding and funding from high wealth individuals as well as the largest corporations, media empires, and banks. The normalization of neoliberal ideas happens through sustained presentation of them as common sense, especially with solving education problems (Hill, 2007). This is not to say the MEC has only recently linked itself to the globally structured education agenda. Rather, this has been an ongoing project with increasing degrees of connectivity overtime. At the local level, state and municipal education secretaries initially accept proposals or look for outside resources out of need but they also accumulate power or at least are able to maintain their positions by coupling with the Movement coalition’s partners. To reiterate, the Movement coalition partners are insiders that are seen as outsiders; their reforms bring an air of legitimacy and prestige because of their external (to Brazil) validation. The idea of a globally structured 172 education agenda is meant to allow for a complicated interrogation of what the globalization process looks like on education policy. Rather than view Brazil as a monolith that has been victimized or coerced into the globally structured education agenda, we see the more nuanced view of who helped make choices and steer the country toward GSEA compliance. Reflecting on Critical Policy Analysis and Critical Political Economy Critical policy analysis hopes to offer complexity to the way we identify and solve problems (Marshal, 1997). This is thought to counter the traditional scenario where people already in power take it upon themselves to identify and solve problems without considering range of viewpoints (Marshall, 1997). This phenomenon was seen in the narratives against institutional autonomy promoted by the All for Education Movement and coalition. This coalition wanted consistency across places and to “make people focus” (Gabriela, Vetor Brasil) on the what they viewed were the correct problems. Likewise, other organizations in the Movement coalition circumvented State authority to implement their own agenda. When it came to setting target education index rankings, the Movement coalition organizations went to local jurisdictions with higher expectations than the MEC or local ministry of education would set. The Movement organizations saw this as setting the proper target that it framed as a reasonable expectation in light of its financial investment toward meeting education objectives. This practice happens all the way up to the level of the World Bank which also invested in state and local (“subnational”) areas and implemented programs tied to outcomes indicators that did not match federal level goals per se. The result of many of the subnational programs that circumvented official and/or federal level priorities was the development of energy 173 around the controversial common core curriculum and high school reforms; these items are already viewed as solutions by the dominant coalition. Counterpoints and criticisms of these solutions, mostly emanating out of the Campaign coalition, have been discounted to the extent that Campaign partners are disengaged from the policy-debating and policymaking spaces for the foreseeable future. Traditional policy analysis often treats issues as logical, rational, and free from power struggles (Marshall, 1997). The post-Workers’ Party MEC desired logical, rational, and power-struggle-free work within the National Education Forum and exercised a power grab by restructuring the membership. The MEC, once emboldened by the dominant coalition, exercised “power over the recruitment and exclusion process or control of flows of information” (Goodwin, 2009, p. 683). In doing so, it explicitly cited a desire for rational – as explicitly opposed to ideological – debates. The idea was that rational debate would lead to faster movement on the pressing tasks at hand: the approval and implementation of the high school reform and the common core project. Any group that would arrive with a position seen as ideological was relegated as irrational, and thus to what Marshall would call an ‘area of silence’ (p. 4). In the situation of the National Education Forum, the teachers’ union chose not to engage. This is not to say the teachers’ union lacks power in its own right. It has always defined what it sees as its own problems and worked toward its own solutions. In other words, the union identifies issues that directly affect it and works on or advocates for union- designed solutions and approaches. The union’s advocacy for holistic teacher education that balances theory and practicality, its concern with democratizing classrooms, as well as its advocacy for connecting teacher training reforms to improved teacher 174 compensation and school resourcing shows that its problem and solution identification is complex and nuanced, facets of critical policy analysis (Diem & Young, 2015; Klees, 2008b; Marshall, 1997). However, because the union itself practices critical policy analysis by considering the full breadth of a policy’s intention, stated or otherwise, it is seen as ideological, problematic, and uncooperative (Marshall, 1997). The union’s move to disengage from the National Education Forum cut itself off from information that may flow from the dominant coalition, but it was a move in solidarity with its partners the MEC had excluded. The National Education Forum provided a central space to see these stark contrasts between the teachers’ union’s and the Movement’s approaches. Social Network Analysis is sometimes touted for its ability to reveal opportunities for partnership or collaboration, so from a pragmatic stance, a sensible conclusion might consider what the ways moving forward for anyone with an interest in teachers and teacher education. Despite the implausibility of the two main coalitions working toward a common goal, looking ahead, the two are likely to agree with the idea that post- secondary level qualifications just for the sake of credentialing is problematic, and that there are other features of teacher education that are important, outside of where it is located. At the very least, both coalitions take issue with profiteering in education, which is what is happening at the for-profit colleges enrolling the majority of current and future teachers. Some parts of the Campaign coalition actively published statements against for-profit education, while the Movement coalition has acted with passive compliance (Dale, 2000). Could actors identified in the network that are successfully advancing their agendas (and actors identified whose agendas are not currently advancing) use the information about the policy universe, the network, and their coalitions toward 175 imaginative, creative problem solving? Is it possible for groups like this to see their relative positions to policy outcomes and work together toward them (Ball & Junemann, 2012; Knoke, 1990)? The answer to that might come from reflecting on this study in light of the critical political economy framework. In Chapter 3, I asked what happens if we resolve the tension between public goals and private interests (Caporoso & Levine, 1992). Another way to think about this is in terms of the size and nature of the divide (or connection) between politics and economy. The critical stance I began with views politics as power and the economy as inherently political (Diem & Young, 2015; Marshall, 1997). The Movement coalition’s position throughout its work on the policy issue is that education is not political, and any decisions to reform teacher education are equally apolitical. Choices are made based on acceptable forms of evidence. The All for Education Movement does not believe that it is doing political work and its partners are self-described non-partisan. The dominant coalition’s refusal to accept or admit to the political nature of education and instead relegating teacher education reform to the realm of rational, economically motivated, supposed voluntary exchanges means political and economy have been effectively separated (Caporose & Levine, 1992). The Campaign coalition is unlikely to ever publicly view education or teacher education in this way, so we are unlikely to see the two coalitions work together toward a common goal. Policy Implications This study highlighted the continuous move toward a practical, technical view of teaching and teacher training for Brazil. Those in favor of balancing practice with theory defend theoretical study as valuable for helping teachers understand school and political contexts, student realities, and teachers’ roles in the education policy process. In the 176 contemporary era, these views are not likely to be prioritized in future teacher education policy decisions. The globally structured education agenda of focus here was on a teacher education ideal and how to achieve it. This study looked at how this idea – of having a 100% postsecondary trained teaching force – came to be in Brazil and what has been done toward achieving it. The power of the dominant coalition suggests that policy will likely continue to focus on technical forms of teacher training since the central Movement coalition is focused on efficiency and doing only what has its definition of evidence behind it. However, like the globally structured education agenda considers the agency of nation-states on the receiving end of a global policy idea or agenda, it may be pertinent to recall the agency of the people on the receiving end of policy. The protests of 2013 and the school occupations that I mentioned previously are instances of people exercising their agency over a policy. Likewise, there has been steady resistance to global neoliberalism among parts of the population and certainly within the Campaign coalition of the network for even longer. De Sousa Santos (2006) used the phrase insurgent cosmopolitanism to refer to the “aspiration by oppressed groups to organize their resistance on the same scale and through the same type of coalitions used by the oppressors to victimize them, that is, the global scale and local/global coalitions” (p. 398). This recognizes the agency of the people and removes the fatalist view that agendas from some type of outside are inevitable. Cosmopolitan insurgency also harkens back to the historical work of Brazilian NGOs and civil society against anti-democratic rule and for human rights’ expansions. 177 Areas for Future Inquiry This study could be extended by taking a deeper dive into the nature of the work of the boundary spanners: how state and local level education leaders mediate federal and local education goals, resource needs, and personal or professional advancement was called an “artform” by one informant. The informants I met who functioned as boundary spanners (state secretaries or municipal education directors) had come through traditional teacher education programs, had worked for the federal Ministry of Education, or had worked in a leadership position in the national association matching their state or local level leadership role. The scope of this study did not allow for an exploration into a larger group of boundary spanners to understand if there are beliefs about teacher education such an individual is more likely to have, or not. Further, in some localities in Brazil, these leaders are elected by peers and/or the community, while in other localities, leaders are promoted or earn the job through an application and screening process. One informant believed those who were not elected were more effective even if or perhaps because they were less likely to move in directions preferred by the majority of their constituents. Future research into boundary spanners might explore these differences and how they affect decisions for the types of teachers recruited and the types of teacher education and in-service professional development prioritized. Additionally, the central importance of these boundary spanners and the fact that they are beholden to potential resources means that greater understanding of the different ways they work could help identify routes to achieving equitable and democratic education systems for students. Network ethnography is based on methods and frameworks with deep roots in sociology and anthropology and is an emerging tool in international education research 178 (Ball, 2012, 2016, 2017; Ball and Junemann, 2012). This study applied the method and theoretical guidance at a high-level on a policy topic and included a deep dive into how the identified actors formed coalitions and synchronized their work. The findings here build on other network ethnographies that revealed the way global philanthropies, social entrepreneurs and other organizations have linked their activities around the world (Adhikary & Lingard, 2018; Avelar & Ball (2017); Ball, 2012; Ball, 2016; Shiroma, 2014) by revealing among other things, the fuzzy line between global and local in the Brazilian teacher education policy network. The present study could be extended by focusing specifically on the nature of the corporate and corporate foundation links. Specifically, a network ethnography on the connections between corporations, high- wealth families, and their philanthropic efforts via private foundations, private institutes, and other non-governmental work would add to how we understand problem definition and agenda setting by these individuals. Deeper inquiry into how these parts of the global education network use rhetoric traditionally found among their policy spectrum opposites (ideas like civil society and teacher professionalization) to advance their positions would be useful. Conclusion I close by referring back to Jessop (2002) who reminds those who study globalization’s effects of the importance of considering the history of the third sector’s participation. Historically important NGOs in Brazil, like ABONG (the Brazilian Association of NGOs) and its affiliates used the term globalization in the spirit of cooperation and international solidarity and did so before the widespread association of the word globalization with neoliberal, global capitalism (Stromquist & Monkman, 179 2000). In this regard, we see the behavior of NGOs whether they have a rights-based or a profit-end orientation behaving in the same way to circumvent the State, if needed, to meet if needed their respective goals. The work of the rights groups during the Brazilian dictatorship functioned despite the State, and when the dictatorship ended and many were engaged in re-democratization, the same groups continued working without necessarily concerning themselves with what the State was doing or planning. This implied an inherent lack of faith in the State meeting goals aligned to rights, thus positioning them to incorporate neoliberal assumptions about the ineffectiveness or inefficiency of the state’s functioning. Similarly, profit-seeking camps in the network expressed a lack of trust in the government to set the right climate for its agenda on its own. As a result, we saw business-aligned groups take on a cause – improving education. The movements, like the All For Education Movement, worked in a coordinated fashion to infiltrate and make itself indispensable to the formal, public sector. The result is that this version of the private sector now controls policy and has an in to provide (and profit from) services for the foreseeable future, thus both circumventing and working in parallel with the State (Jessop, 2002). This study was an answer to a call to investigate the role of businesses and corporations in education policy (Ball, 2012). I examined the actual for-profit colleges that are playing a part but found their role in developing teacher education policy was lesser than the amount of influence private corporations and those with inherited wealth have by way of private foundations and NGOs formed as ‘movements.’ The premise at the start of the study was that for-profit higher education companies had a lot to gain from increasing qualification requirements of teachers, and they do, but they have been 180 less involved on the ground of this policy specification than I foresaw. Now that for- profit colleges enroll a majority of pre-service teacher educators, the private sector certainly holds a stake in any future teacher qualification policy changes, and they must be willing to ask themselves whether they are in the business of increasing standards, doing a public service, and/or increasing demand for their product. 181 Appendix 1: Interview Protocol 1. Can you tell me about your time [working at the MEC/Foundation X/etc]? a. What led you to that role? What are you doing now? 2. As my study is focused on teacher upgrading, what do you think would be the best case scenario for teacher training and upgrading in Brazil? (Alternative prompts: Is there a model already in use that you think should be universal? Do you think teacher training should only be done at the university or completely away from it? a. If you were a teacher and needed to upgrade your qualifications, which of these would you choose? b. How do teachers know what to choose? 3. Can you describe your/your organization’s involvement in teacher upgrading? 4. Did your organization work with a particular mission in mind, for a particular type of teacher training (ie, university-based, job-based, research-intensive, theoretical, technical)? 5. What resources did your organization rely on to do its work? 6. Can you tell me who or which organizations in this list you/your organization worked with on teacher upgrading and describe how you worked with them? (This question will be accompanied by a list for the participant to look at, mark up, and add to. The chart will be designed based on the first step of the study.) a. Which contacts were constant and closest? Why? b. Are there people on the list who held drastically different ideas from your own? How so? Are there people on the list who you know would not have contacted you because of a difference in sector or approaches? Why? 7. Where did the points of contact happen most often (meetings, phone calls, symposiums, conferences, social media)? 8. Can you tell me about a time that someone approached you/your organization to present a proposal for a teacher upgrading initiative? 9. Can you tell me about a time that you/your organization approached another with a proposed teacher upgrading initiative? a. What kinds of information was shared between yourself and these contacts? …via which modes of communications? 10. What did you do to maintain the relationships you felt were most important? a. Was the process different when working with public or private sector representatives? 11. Can you show me who on the list knows others on the list? a. Who influenced whom on the list? 12. Were there organizations NOT involved that you would have otherwise thought would be? Which ones? 13. If your organization could work with any to upgrade teachers in Brazil, which one or two would you like to work with and why? 14. Can you tell me about a time you/your organization developed or were/was involved in developing a teacher upgrading program or initiative? (Alternative 182 question(s): Can you tell me what you know about the creation of the following initiatives?) a. Where did the involvement begin? b. Who were the other people or organizations you were in contact with? c. What was the process (time involved, nature of communications)? d. What kinds of conversations did you have about teachers? e. What resources were required? f. What successes did you have? What difficulties? g. (Alternative secondary prompts: What was the involvement of public universities and private colleges in the development of these? ProUNI sticks out as the most private sector driven initiative, can you tell me about the process of opening this program up as a teacher upgrading initiative?) 183 Appendix 2: Examples of coded text Code: Example text: International …there was a type of cooperation that was done above the education cooperation dimension of these agencies, which was to give money in solidarity to Latin American countries that were discontent with the military dictatorships during the 1970s. Parallel with or A lot of the work of these organizations was also around public despite the state school teacher training and working with this idea of defending public schools as a more universal, democratic, space to form citizens. Many of these foundations, institutes, had this idea to do this kind of work, parallel with the State. Contradiction It is one of the things that the Lula [first Workers’ Party] government gained a lot of support for, even if they were routing resources to the private sector. Rights versus In this democratization process, they were very focused on this idea the State of supporting social movement and popular organizations, the quilombos, indigenous groups, and groups that worked with urban movement, and they didn’t worry about what the State was doing. Defining civil It is a private association, non-profit, that works in the defense of society rights; we call it the protection of public goods, defense of humanity, and so on. Conflicting These two networks have different perspectives. This one here is a agendas collection of groups like labor unions, teachers, and entities focused on social class. This one here is more of the institutes, businesses, etc and it has more of a business perspective. The other has more of a civil society perspective. Public-private In the All for Education Movement, they invited us but we did not interest accept because of the composition of the movement, which was very much focused on the market. We thought that we should continue doing our own work. We were all focused on the National Education Plan, we fought for it and such, but there were disagreements over some of its aspects. This one here [the All for Education Movement] has much more money than this one [the Campaign for the Right to Education], because it is composed of business and bank leaders. Religious Because of liberation theology and the pastoral work was almost the organizations only work possible to do under the political situation. And this organization was born to give support to these pastoral workers, for political training, popular education, and participative research. And, it was always done with international resources and international Catholic, Protestant, or lay agencies that supported projects in the third world as it used to be called. The “tripod” There was an actual demand for training, not just of teachers, but of (teachers, everyone. This demand existed. But on the other side, there was 184 public demand, also a pressure… for a lack of spaces at the public universities, and private supply) we have a big contingent of private universities that could not fill their classrooms. “Distances” the way the country expected to fund all the goals were based on a (policy to revenue that have never happened reality; theory to teaching) “could have but the amount who went to private universities is huge and it [the regulated quality] is so low. Like the argument, the reason is that we wanted to more” have scale, that was the only way to do it. And we couldn't afford to (compliance) waste time because people, especially the poor, young, people didn't have access to universities just because we were too segregated in our education system. But at the same time I think it's so, it's important. I don't have data to say that, but for me it's very hard to believe that people were not taking the money in these dealings. Business class This phenomenon of business-origin foundations and institutes grew = civil society a lot in the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s. It was very connected to complaints about businesses, that the market was out of control and that many of the businesses were responsible for the destruction of the planet, so much that they turned to present themselves as obligated to have a part in social and environmental work. But also, the vast majority were created because there is a fiscal incentive. Coupling of Many of these foundations, institutes have the notion that they private orgs should loan these services to the state with the State New Public These organizations work by creating their own education programs Management and in most cases, they have the idea that money is poorly used in the public sector, so they work to improve public management. The problem is not that we need to increase the education budget, the problem is that we need to make it more efficient. Governance Because they introduced the index, only the index would force the without secretaries of education and the states to change their policies, government without the government having to alter its own policies. 185 References: Adhikary, R.W., & Lingard, B. (2018). A critical policy analysis of ‘Teach for Bangladesh’: A travelling policy touches down. Comparative Education, 54(2), 181-202. Adrião, T., & Garcia, T. (2014). Subsídio público ao setor privado: Reflexões sobre a gestão de escola pública no Brasil. Políticas Educativas, 7 (2), 110-122. Adrião, T., Garcia, T., Borghi, R.F., Bertagna, R.H., Paiva, G., & Ximenes, S. (2015). Private systems of education in Brazilian public education: Consequences of commodification for the right to education. São Paulo: Ação Educativa. Avelar, M., & Ball, S.J. (2017). Mapping new philanthropy and the heterarchical state: The Mobilization for the National Learning Standards in Brazil. International Journal of Education Development. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.007 Ball, S.J. (2012). Global education inc: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: Networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549-566. Ball, S.J. (2017). Laboring to relate: Neoliberalism, embodied policy, and network dynamics Peabody Journal of Education, 0, 1-13. Ball, S., & Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol: Policy Press. 186 Barcelos, M., & Rodrigues, M.S. (2018). Concepções de política pública e práticas discursivas: uma análise sobre as políticas para a educação superior nos governos Lula (2003-2010). Education Policy Analyais Archives, 25(123). Barreto, R.G., & Leher, R. (2003). Trabalho docente e as reformas neoliberais. In: D.A. OLIVEIRA (Ed.) Reformas educacionais na América Latina e os trabalhadores docents (p. 39-60). Belo Horizonte: Autêntica. Bastian M, Heymann S, & Jacomy M (2009) Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Bento, M.A.S., Coelho, W.N.B., Coelho, M.C., & Fernandes, D.M.P. (2013). A educação na região norte: Apontamentos iniciais. Amazón Revista Antropologica, 5(1), 140- 175. Bernardes, J.E. (2016, October 18). Estudantes secundaristas ocupam mais de 700 escolas pelo país. Brasil de Fato. https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2016/10/18/estudantes- secundaristas-ocupam-mais-700-escolas-pelo-pais/ Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (2007) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Pear A & B. Bottery, M. (2009). Critical professional or branded technician? Changing conceptions of the education worker. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, M., & M. Peters (eds.), Re- reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century, (pp. 683-700). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 187 Bowles, S. (1975). Unequal education and the reproduction of the social division of labor. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), Schooling in a corporate society: The political economy of education in America (pgs. 38-66). David McKay Company. Bullough, Jr., R.V. (2016). Status and quality of teacher education in the US: Neoliberal and professional tensions. In: Lee, J.C., & Day, C. (Eds.) Quality and change in teacher education: Western and Chinese perspectives (pp. 59-75). Springer. Burns, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Teaching Around the World: What can TALIS tell us? Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Branford, S., Kucinski, B., & Wainwright, H. (2003). Lula and the workers' party in brazil. New York: New Press. Brazil (1996). Lei nº 9.394 de 20 de dezembro 1996: Estabelece as diretrizes e bases da educação nacional. Brazil (2014). Lei nº 13.005 de 25 de junho 2014: Aprova o Plano Nacional de Educação – PNE e dá outras providências. Bruns, B., Evans, D., & Luque, J. (2012). Achieving World-Class Education in Brazil: The Next Agenda. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Caporaso, J.A., & Levine, D.P. (1992). Theories of political economy. Cambridge University Press. Carvalho, C.H.A., & McCowan, T. (2016). Marketisation, commodification, and financialisation in higher education: The cast of Brazil. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Cultural Political Economy, 2016. 188 Cassagrande, I.M.K., Pereira, S.M., & Sagrillo, D.R. (2014). The World Bank and policies of teaching in Brazil. Educação Temática Digital, 16(3), 494-512. Catani, A.M., Hey, A.P., and Gilioli, R.S.P. (2006). ProUni: Democratização do acesso às instituições de ensino superior? Educar, 28: 125-40. Coutinho, J.M. (1992). Brazil. In H.B. Leavitt (Ed.) Issues and problems in teacher education: An international handbook, (pp. 37-50). Greenwood Press. Cottom, T.M. (2017). Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of For-Profit Colleges in the New Economy. New York: The New Press. Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: Demonstrating a “Common World Educational Culture” or locating a “Globally Structured Educational Agenda”? Educational Theory, 50(4), 427-448. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173. Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn from international practice? In: Authors (Eds.) Teacher Education Around the World: Changing Policies and Practices, pp. 151-193. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (2015) Teaching in a flat world: Learning from high-performing systems. NY: Teachers College Press. Dávila, J. (2003). Diploma of whiteness: Race and social policy in Brazil, 1917-1945. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Diem, S., & Young, M.D. (2015). Considering critical turns in research on educational leadership and policy. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(7), 838-850. 189 Dove, L. (1986) Teacher training: Origins and evolution. In L. Dove (author) Teachers and teacher education in developing countries (pp. 177-94). London: Croom Helm. Dove, Linda (1979). Teachers in politics in ex-colonial countries. The Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 17(2), 176-191. Dubois, V. (2016). Critical policy ethnography. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, A. Durnová, and M. Orsini (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pgs. 462-480). Elger. Edelman, M., & Haugerud, A. (2005). Introduction: Anthropology of development and globalization. In: M. Edelman & A. Haugerud (Eds.) The Anthropology of Development and Globalization: From Classical Political Economy to Contemporary Neoliberalism, p. 1-74. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Education International (2010). Closing the trained teacher gap. Johannesburg: Global Campaign for Education. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Teacher learning: How do teachers learn to teach? In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser & J. McIntyre (Eds.), enduring issues in changing contexts: 3rd handbook of research on teacher education, (pp. 697- 705). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Figueiredo, M.C.M., & Cowen, R. (2003). Models of teacher education and shifts in politics: A note on Brazil. The Challenges of Education in Brazil, 135-146. Fischman, G.E., Ball, S.J., & Gvirtz, S. (2003). Toward a neoliberal education? Tension and change in Latin America. In: S.J. Ball, G.E., Fischman, & S. Gvirtz (Eds.) Crisis and Hope: The Educational Hopscotch of Latin America (pp. 1-18). New York: RoutledgeFarmer. 190 Flores, M.A., & Shiroma, E. (2003). Teacher professionalization and professionalism in Portugal and Brazil: What do the policy documents tell? Journal of Education for Teaching, 29(1), 5-18. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Friedrich, D. (2016). Teach for All, Public-Private Partnerships, and the Erosion of the Public in Education In: A.Verger, C. Lubienski, G. Steiner-Khamsi (Eds.) World yearbook of education 2016: The global education industry, pp.160-174. Routledge. Gandin, L.A., & Apple, M.W. (2002). Challenging neo-liberalism, building democracy: Creating the Citizen School in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Journal of Education Policy, 17(2), 259-279. Gindin, J., & Finger, L. (2013). Promoting education quality: The role of teachers’ unions in Latin America. UESCO Education for All Global Monitoring Report Background Paper. Ginsburg, M. (1988). Contradictions in teacher education and society. New York: Falmer. Ginsburg, M. (2012). Teachers as learners: A missing focus in “Learning for All”. In: S.J. Klees et al. (Eds.) The World Bank and education, pp. 83-93. Sense Publishers. Goe, L., & Stickler, L.M. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 191 Gois, A. (2018). Quatro décadas de gestão educacional no Brasil: Politicas publicas do MEC em depoimentos de ex-ministros. Fundação Santanilla and Instituto Unibanco. Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Goodwin, M. (2009). Which networks matter in education governance? A Reply to Ball’s ‘New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education’. Political Studies, 57 (680-687). Gray, L. & Taie, S. (2015) Public school teacher attrition and mobility in the first five years: Results from the first through fifth waves of the 2007-08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Survey. US Department of Education: National Center for Education Statistics. Grewal, D.S. (2008). Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gulson, K.N., Lewis, S., Lingard, B., Lubienski, C., Takayama, K., & Webb, P.T. (2017). Policy mobilities and methodology: A proposition for inventive methods in education policy studies. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 224-241. Heyneman, S.P. (2003). The history and problems in the making of education policy at the World Bank 1960-2000. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 315-337. Hill, D. (2006). Educational Perversion and Global Neoliberalism. In E.W. Ross & R. Gibson (Eds.) Neoliberalism and education reform (pp. 107- 144). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 192 Hill, D. (2007). Critical teacher education, New Labour, and the global project of neoliberal capital. Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), 204-225. Hunter, W. (2010). The transformation of the workers' party in brazil, 1989-2009. New York: Cambridge University Press. Imig, D., Wiseman, D.L., Wiseman, A., & Imig, S.R. (2016). What is high quality teacher education? In: Lee, J.C., & Day, C. (Eds.) Quality and change in teacher education: Western and Chinese perspectives (pp. 76-94). Springer. Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais (INEP) (2017). Sinopse Estatística da Educação Básica 2016. Brasília: INEP. Available at: http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/sinopses-estatisticas-da-educacao-basica Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann S, Bastian M (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi Software. PLoS ONE 9(6), e98679. Johnson, S. M., J.H. Berg and M. L. Donaldson. (2005). Who stays in teaching
and why: A review of the literature on teacher retention. The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Jessop, B. (2002). The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kablay, S. (2012). Teacher employment under neoliberalism: The case of Turkey. In: M. Ginsburg (Ed.), Preparation, Practice, and Politics of Teachers: Problems and Prospects in Comparative Perspective, (pp. 161-172.) Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Keck, M. (1992). The workers' party and democratization in brazil. New Haven: Yale University Press. 193 Kidd, L., Brown, N., & Fitzallen, N. (2015) Beginning teachers’ perception of their induction into the teaching profession. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3). Klees, S.J. (1999). Privatization and neoliberalism: Ideology and evidence in rhetorical reforms. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(2), 1. Klees, S.J. (2008a). NGOs, civil society, and development: Is there a third way? Current Issues in Comparative Education 10(1/2), 22-25. Klees, S.J. (2008b). Reflections on Theory, Method, and Practice in Comparative and International Education. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 301-328 Klees, S.J. (2016). Human capital and rates of return: Brilliant ideas or ideological dead ends? Comparative Education Review, 60(4), 644-672. Klees, S., & Edwards, B. R. (2015). Privatization of education: Experiences from the United States and other countries. Brazilian Journal of Education, 20 (60), 11-29. Knobel, M., & Verhine, R. (2017). Brazil’s for-profit higher education dilemma. International Higher Education, 89, 23-24. Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks. The structural perspective. Cambridge University Press. Krawczyk, N.R. (2005). Políticas de regulação e mercantilização da educação: Socialização para uma nova cidadania? Educação e Sociedade, 26(92). Krawczyk, N.R., & Vieira, V.L. (2012).Uma perspectiva histórico-sociológica da Reforma Educacional na América Latina: Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México nos anos 1990. Brasília: Liber Livro. Kronholz, J. (2013). Still teaching for America. Education Next, 13(3), 38-43. 194 Kumashiro, K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on America’s schools. New York: Teachers College Press. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Labaree, D.F. (2008). An uneasy relationship: The history of teacher education in the university. In M. Conchran-Smith, S. Fieman-Nemser, & D.J. McIntyre (Eds.) Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring question in changing contexts; Third edition. (pp. 290-306). New York: Routledge. Larner, W. & Le Heron, R. (2002). The spaces and subjects of a globalizing economy: A situated exploration of method. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20 (753-774). Leher, R. (2009). Brazilian education, dependent capitalism, and the World Bank. In D. Hill and R. Kumar (Eds.), Global neoliberalism and education and its consequences, (pp. 127-150). Routledge. Leher, R., & Vittoria, P. (2016). The commodification of education in Brazil: Opposition and alternatives. In: R. Leher, & I. Accioly (Eds.) Commodifying education: Theoretical and methodological aspects of financialization of education policies in Brazil, pp. 83-105, Sense Publishers. Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Louzano, P. (2011). Addressing the EFA Teacher Gap in Latin America and the Caribbean. Santiago, Chile: UNESCO. 195 Lubienski, C.A., & Lubienski, S.T. (2016). Reconsidering choice, competition, and autonomy as the remedy in American education. In (Eds.), Learning from the federal market-based reforms (pgs. 365-391). University of Chicago Press. MacEwan, A. (1999). Neo-Liberalism or Democracy? Economy Strategy, Markets, and Alternatives for the 21st Century. London: Zed Books. Macpherson, I., Robertson, S. & Walford, G. (2014). An Introduction to Education, Privatisation, and Social Justice. In I. Macpherson, S. Robertson, & G. Walford (eds.), Education, Privatisation and Social Justice, pp. 9-24. Oxford: Symposium). Mariano, A. (2012). Multicultural categories in research on teacher education: Reflections from the social class, race/ethnicity and gender and sexuality. Educação Unisinos, 16(3), 262-271. Marshall, C. (1997) Dismantling and reconstructing policy analysis. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis, volume 1 (pp. 1-40). Falmer Press. Marshall, C., & Gerstl-Pepin, C. (2004). Re-framing educational politics for social justice, 1st Edition. Pearson. Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach, 3rd Edition. Sage. Maxwell, J.A., & Chmiel, M. (2014). Generalization in and from qualitative analysis. In: U. Flick (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, pp. 540-553. London: SAGE. McCowan, T. (2004). The growth of private higher education in Brazil: Implication for equity and quality. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 453-472. 196 McCowan, T. (2007). Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to higher education in Brazil. Higher Education, 53: 579-598. Meade, T. (2010). A brief history of Brazil, Second edition. Facts on File: New York, NY. Ministerio da Educação e Cultura (MEC). (n.d.) Seja um Professor: Programas de Incentivo. http://sejaumprofessor.mec.gov.br/internas.php?area=como&id=progIncentivo Ministério da Educação e Cultura (MEC) (2011). O Plano Nacional da Educação 2011- 2020: Metas e Estratégias. Accessed from http://fne.mec.gov.br/images/pdf/notas_tecnicas_pne_2011_2020.pdf Ministério da Educação e Cultura (MEC) (2014). Education for All 2015 National Review Report: Brazil. Brasília: Ministry of Education. Ministerio da Educação e Cultura (MEC). (2016, March 28). Universidade do Professor oferecerá 105 mil vagas para que docentes completem formação. http://portal.mec.gov.br/component/content/article?id=35121 Moreira, J.A.S., & da Silva, R.V. (2016). Policies for teacher education and recommendations of the World Bank: Interfaces with the current context of literacy teacher education in Brazil. Práxis Educativa, 11(1), 37-61. Nóvoa, A. (1991). O passado e presente dos professores. In: A. Nóvoa (Ed.) Profissão Professor, pp. 9-32. Porto: Porto Editora. Nóvoa, A. (1992). Formação de professors e profissão docente. In: Nóvoa, A. (Ed.) Os professores e a sua formação (pp. 15-34). Lisbon: Publicações Dom Quixote. OECD (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. 197 OECD (2011). Brazil: Encouraging lessons from a large federal system. In: Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States (pp. 177-200). OECD Publishing. Pansardi, M.V. (2011). Teacher education and the World Bank. EccoS Revista Científica, 25, 127-142. Park, H. & Byun, S-Y. (2015). Why some countries attract more high-ability young students to teaching: Cross-national comparisons of students’ expectation of becoming a teacher. Comparative Education Review, 59(3), 523-549. Patrinos, H.A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guágeta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public- private partnerships in education. The World Bank. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2010). Mobilizing policy: Models, methods, and mutations'. Geoforum 41, 169-174. Ramos, M.D., & Dri, W.I.O. (2012). O setor privado no sistema educacional brasileiro: Uma vertente da mercantilização da educação. Acta Scientiarum. Education, 34(1), 71-80. Ravitch, S.M., & Riggan, M. (2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Los Angeles: Sage. Redden, E. (2015, June 16). US for-profits in Brazil. Inside Higher Ed. Accessed from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/16/business-booming-american- profits- brazil-good Rizvi, F. (2017). Globalization and the neoliberal imaginary of educational reform. Education Research and Foresight Series, 20. Paris: UNESCO. 198 Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2000). Globalization and education: Complexities and Contingencies. Educational Theory, 50(4), 419-426. Robertson, S.L. (2012a). 'Placing' teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4): 584-607. Robertson, S.L. (2012b). The strange non-death of neoliberal privatization in the World Bank’s Education Strategy 2020. In: S.J. Klees et al. (Eds.) The World Bank and education. pp. 189-205. Sense Publishers. Robertson, S.L., & Dale, R. (2014). Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalizing of education. Globalization, Societies, and Education. Rodíguez-Gómez, R., & Alcántara, A. (2003). Toward a unified agenda of change in Latin American higher education: The role of multilateral agencies. In: S.J. Ball, G.E., Fischman, & S. Gvirtz (Eds.) Crisis and hope: The educational hopscotch of Latin America (pp. 19-43). New York: Routledge Farmer. Romero, S. (2013, September 7). Protests fill city streets across Brazil. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/world/americas/protests-fill-city-streets- across-brazil.html?_r=0 Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Samuels, D. (2004). From socialism to social democracy: Party organization and the transformation of the workers’ party in brazil. Comparative Political Studies, 37(9), 999-1024. Santos, L.L. (2002). Contemporary problems in teacher education in Brazil. In E. Thomas (Ed.), Teacher education: Dilemmas and prospects (pp. 81-90). Kogan Page. 199 Saraiva, L.A.S and Nunes, A.S. (2011). A efetividade de programas sociais de acesso à educação superior: o caso do ProUni. Revista da Administração Pública, 45(4): 941-964. Sassen, S. (2003). Globalization or denationalization? Review of International Political Economy, 10(1), 1-22. Schwille, J., & Dembélé, M. (2007). global perspectives on teacher learning: Improving policy and practice. Paris: UNESCO. Shiroma, E.O. (2014). Networks in action: New actors and practices in education policy in Brazil. Journal of Education Policy, 29(3), 323-348. Silva, S., & Tavares, P. (2016). Capital control over higher education. In: R. Leher, & I. Accioly (Eds.) Commodifying education: Theoretical and methodological aspects of financialization of education policies in Brazil, pp. 83-105, Sense Publishers. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. John Hopkins Press. Soczek, D., & Soczek, M.B. (2015). Políticas educacionais de formação de professores de educação infantil: Percursos e crítica. Revista Inersaberes, 10(20), 404-432. Sokolowski, M.T. (2015). Historical survey of teacher education in Brazil in the ‘30s to the ‘90s: Legislation and educational policies. Educação: Teoria e Prática, 25(49), 225-238. Souza, A.R., & Abreu, D.C. (2016). Entering the teaching career: Brazilian and Chilean experiences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(2), 1-17. de Sousa Santos, B. (2006). Globalizations. Theory, Culture & Society, 23, 393-399. 200 Spradley, J.P. (1979) The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stamback, A. (2016). Ethnography and the localization of global education. In: K. Mundy, et al. (Eds.). Handbook of Global Education Policy, Chapter 27. Wiley & Sons, Inc. Straubhaar, R. (2014). The ideological dominance of market logic: Adapting US-based education reforms into Rio de Janeiro’s poorest schools. Unpublished dissertation. Stromquist, N.P., & Monkman, K. (2000). Defining globalization and assessing its implications on knowledge and education. In: K. Monkman & N.P. Stromquist (Eds.) Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures, p. 3-25, New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Struyven, K. & Vanthournout, G. (2014). Teachers’ exit decisions: An investigation into the reasons why newly qualified teachers fail to enter the teaching profession or why those who do enter do not continue teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 37-45. Sugiyama, N.N. (2008). Ideology and networks: The politics of social policy diffusion in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 43(3), 82-108. Tomasevski, K. (2005). Globalizing what: Education as a human right or as a traded service? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 1-78. UNESCO (2005). Education for all: the quality imperative. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2005. Paris: UNESCO 201 UNESCO (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Paris: UNESCO. Vallaint, D. (2005). Education reforms and teachers’ unions: Avenues for action. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Vegas, E., Loeb, S., Romaguera, P., Paglayan, A., Goldstein, N., Ganimian, A., & Jaimovich, A. (2012). What matters most in teacher policies? A framework for building a more effective teaching profession. SABER Series. Washington DC: The World Bank. Verger, A. (2011). Framing and selling global education policy: The promotion of public- private partnerships for education in low-income contexts. Journal of Education Policy, 27(1), 109-130. Verger, A. and Altinyelken, H-K. (2013). Global education reforms and the new management of teachers: A critical introduction. In Verger, A. And H.K. Altinyelken (Eds.). Global managerial education reforms and teachers: Emerging policies, controversies and issues, pp. 1-18. Brussels: Education International. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Multiple paths towards education privatization in a globalizing world: A cultural political economy review. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 757-787. 202