Search

Teach For All (TFAll) is global network of programs based on Teach For America. Since 2007, TFAll has spread to more than 60 countries and had a considerable impact on educational policy across educational jurisdictions. Scant research, however, has examined 'shadow' programs based on this model but unaffiliated with TFAll, such as Teach For Taiwan (TFT). This paper engages in a critical policy analysis of TFT and examines both its emergence and (mis)alignment with educational policy. Our analysis first highlights the inspiration and support TFT has drawn from TFAll and its affiliate programs, despite its unofficial status. The paper then examines how TFT is aligned strategically with recent policy shifts toward deregulation in Taiwanese education. We also find that TFT is misaligned with key educational structures, including the national salary scale for teachers and teacher education system, resulting in a new category of transient teachers who are uniquely positioned in the teaching roles they assume but largely unable to continue teaching beyond TFT. We argue that more attention within education policy studies should focus on the impacts of (un)official TFAll programs – particularly given their disproportionate power and positioning to effect global educational change – and their (mis)alignments with national systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an analysis of contemporary comparative research on pedagogy, as published since 2000. It explores this sub-field of comparative education inquiry over this period, including how it has responded to new global movements, changing balances of power, and methodological advances. While these have shaped the field in recognisable ways, differing responses to these among researchers from contrasting research traditions have resulted in divergence as well as convergence. This divergence has created distinct typologies of studies that reflect particular epistemic communities of researchers, depending on how context and the purpose of research are perceived. The scoping review is based on a survey of 51 articles identified through a systematic search of 10 English-language journals in the field of comparative and international education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]