Teachers in the United States receive conflicting messages about who they can and should be in and outside of the classroom. Recently, Time Magazine portrayed teachers as gloomy and underpaid educators (Reilly, 2018), while movies, like Stand and Deliver (Musca & Men endez, 1988) and Freedom Writers (De Vito, Shamberg, Sher, & LaGravenese, 2007), depicted them as saviors for troubled youth and urban classrooms. Some teachers may believe critical approaches to combating racial, political, and social issues are outside the scope of their classroom or not relevant to their discipline (e.g., for STEM, see Rivera Maulucci, 2013; for World Languages, see Osborn, 2006). Teachers may also feel constrained and disheartened by high-stakes testing, standardization, and policies detached from practice (Au, 2007, 2011; Kavanagh & Ari, 2018; Maguire, 2010). In contrast, there are transformative teachers who have embraced making, hacking, and connecting to transform education and disrupt such demoralizing narratives; their principles emphasize the democratization of knowledge, agency in teacher professionalism, and leveraging connected technologies (Baker-Doyle, 2017). There are also teacher activists who view themselves as socio-political change agents (Ginsburg & Kamat, 2009; Picower, 2012). All of these examples illustrate competing imaginings between marketbased reforms and conservative policy makers who position teachers as technicians, and teachers who wish to counter that narrative. Research demonstrates that teachers’ beliefs on learner equity and social justice are far more important in affecting student-learning outcomes than any other measure of teacher quality (Burant, Chubbuck, & Whipp, 2007; Frank Pajeres, 1992). Scholars have called for viewing and training teachers as autonomous, ethical, and reflective professionals, rather than simply as technical workers (Darling-Hammond, 2010a, 2010b; Mehta, 2013). In response, teacher education programs across the U.S. have begun to include social-justice oriented mission statements, but as Cochran-Smith (2010) points out, this language is often empty and does not necessarily translate to any real programmatic or institutional changes.

中文翻译：

---

赋权与转型：在三个教师教育计划中整合教师身份、积极性和批判性

美国的教师收到关于他们可以和应该在课堂内外的相互矛盾的信息。最近，《时代》杂志将教师描绘成阴郁且薪酬过低的教育者（赖利，2018 年），而电影，如站立和交付（Musca & Men endez，1988 年）和自由作家（De Vito、Shamberg、Sher 和 LaGravenese，2007 年）他们是陷入困境的青年和城市课堂的救星。一些教师可能认为解决种族、政治和社会问题的批判性方法超出了他们的课堂范围或与他们的学科无关（例如，对于 STEM，参见 Rivera Maulucci，2013；对于 World Languages，参见 Osborn，2006）。教师也可能因高风险的测试、标准化和脱离实践的政策而感到束缚和沮丧（Au, 2007, 2011; Kavanagh & Ari, 2018; Maguire, 2010）。相比之下，有一些变革性的教师接受了制作、黑客和连接来改变教育并破坏这种令人沮丧的叙述；他们的原则强调知识的民主化、教师专业化的代理以及利用互联技术（Baker-Doyle，2017 年）。还有一些教师活动家将自己视为社会政治变革的推动者（Ginsburg & Kamat，2009 年；Picower，2012 年）。所有这些例子都说明了基于市场的改革与将教师定位为技术人员的保守政策制定者与希望反驳这种说法的教师之间的竞争想象。研究表明，教师对学习者公平和社会公正的信念在影响学生学习成果方面比任何其他教师质量衡量标准都重要得多（Burant、Chubbuck、& 惠普，2007 年；弗兰克·帕杰雷斯，1992 年）。学者们呼吁将教师视为自主、道德和反思的专业人士，而不仅仅是技术工人（Darling-Hammond，2010a，2010b；Mehta，2013）。作为回应，美国各地的教师教育计划已开始包括以社会正义为导向的使命宣言，但正如 Cochran-Smith (2010) 指出的那样，这种语言通常是空洞的，不一定能转化为任何真正的计划或制度变革。