education policy analysis archives

: This article explores how teacher education operates within market-organized environments. We argue that the forces of the market have acted against institutional isomorphism in teacher education, as evidenced by the emergence of new graduate schools of education (nGSEs), which are a new population of teacher preparation providers. We suggest that nGSEs are animated by logics based on highly-specialized missions, alternative funding models


Mission, Money, and Membership: An Institutional Perspective on Teacher Preparation at New Graduate Schools of Education
Over the last 30 years, market-oriented educational policies have prompted the proliferation of many new developments in the organizational field of teacher education, including multiple alternate routes to teacher certification (Grossman & Loeb, 2008), new accountability mechanisms (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018;Taubman, 2009), new teacher preparation models such as urban teacher residencies and preparation programs for specific settings (Torrez & Krebs, 2019), for-profit and non-profit online teacher preparation programs (Norton & Hathaway, 2008), and newly emerging graduate schools of education (Cochran-Smith, 2021;Zeichner, 2016). In this article, we zoom in on the latter-new graduate schools of education (hereinafter, "nGSEs")-which are unaffiliated with universities but are state-authorized as institutions of higher education to offer teacher preparation, endorse candidates for licensure, and grant master's degrees. Here, we treat teacher preparation at nGSEs as a lens for considering larger questions about how teacher preparation operates within market-organized environments.
This article is based on cross-case analysis of four in-depth case studies of teacher preparation at nGSE sites. Drawing on key ideas from new institutional theory, this article builds three arguments, each of which we elaborate in the major sections below. First, we demonstrate that nGSEs, which emerged in the context of multiple education policies designed to open up the teacher preparation provider market, are characterized by highly-specialized missions, alternative funding models, and affiliations with powerful ideational networks related to teaching and learning. This combination sets nGSEs, as a new population of teacher preparation providers, apart from many other providers within the crowded and highly competitive organizational field of teacher education (Lincove et al., 2015). Second, however, we suggest that despite the shared general features of nGSEs, there is at the same time, remarkable variation and diversification among nGSEs themselves. Here, we argue that the forces of the market have generally acted against institutional isomorphism (i.e., structural and normative conformity; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) in the field of teacher education. We suggest that this is reflected in the highly-specialized teacher preparation niches that distinguish individual nGSEs from other members within the same population as well as other providers in the larger field. Finally, we suggest that although nGSEs have been shaped in many ways by the forces of the market, they are also influenced by other institutional logics. That is, many nGSEs combine elements of the logics of markets with elements of other powerful logics, such as a public service logic or a democratic logic, thus reflecting hybrid logics (Philip, et al., 2016) with mixed implications for policies and practices. As our analysis shows, these institutional developments are consistent with sociological and political analyses of institutional changes in other sectors, including health care (Scott et al., 2000) and K-12 education (Levy, 2006) as well as international trends (H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006).

Teacher Preparation and Policy: 30 Years of Market Forces
Market forces have been a central influence on education policy and practice in the United States for the last 30 years (Van Heertum & Torres, 2011;H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006;Scott & Holme, 2016). Along these lines, political sociologist, Jal Mehta (2013), concluded that a new largely bipartisan "common sense" about education emerged in the 1980s and 1990s that reshaped education policy and practice. Mehta (2013) asserted that the blockbuster Nation at Risk report (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), which claimed that America's ability to compete in the global economy depended on education reforms intended to enhance human capital, created a new "policy paradigm" in education, transforming it from a state and local enterprise to one with unprecedented influence from federal initiatives, policies, and politics. The new common sense was crystallized in market-oriented educational policies and practices, including competition, consumer choice, charter schools, the use of education management organizations, alternative routes into teaching, data-driven decision making, high stakes testing, and other new forms of accountability (Apple, 2006;Cochran-Smith et al., 2018;Mehta, 2013).
In teacher education, the new education policy paradigm shaped the contours of reform, empowered new actors, and created opportunities for institutional change, especially given the worldwide attention to teacher quality that emerged during the 1990s. At that time, there was growing consensus across policy communities that teacher quality was the key to economic prosperity in the global knowledge society (Bales, 2006;Cochran-Smith, 2001Cohen-Vogel, 2005;Tatto & Menter, 2019). In the United States, two primary policy tools intended to improve teacher preparation became dominant-deregulation and accountability, 1 which we describe in some detail below.
Highly visible during the 1990s and early-to mid-2000s, the deregulation agenda assumed that professional and state-level teacher certification and accreditation requirements buttressed the teacher education bureaucracy rather than improve teachers' impact (Hess, 2001;Hess & McShane, 2014;Hanushek & Woessmann, 2015). Based on this charge and on the (contested) conclusion that university teacher preparation did not bolster students' achievement or supply enough teachers for shortage areas (Ballou & Podgursky, 2000;Darling-Hammond, 2000), deregulation policies aimed to break up the university "monopoly" on teacher preparation, enhance the academic qualifications of entering teachers, and help fill shortages (Lubienski & Brewer, 2019;Hess, 2001). Fast-track entry routes, for example, although controversial, were often applauded by corporate sponsors, foundations, and the U.S. Secretary of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002Education, , 2003 because they were presumed to attract into teaching top college graduates, minoritized men, and/or career changers in key shortage areas (Johnson et al., 2005). Along these lines, the Obama administration's "blueprint" for teacher education reform, which built on the policies of the two previous Bush terms, emphasized the value of market competition in a deregulated environment (Cochran-Smith, et al., 2013). Today, although the majority of the nation's teachers continue to be 1 This does not mean there were no other teacher education-related reform agendas or social movements during this time (Cochran-Smith & Fries, 2001Zeichner, 2003). For example, there was strong advocacy for culturally responsive, social justice, and/or equity agendas in teacher preparation (e.g., Cochran-Smith et al, 2009;Cochran-Smith, 2010;Gay, 2000;Irvine & Fraser, 1998;Ladson-Billings, 1998, 1999McDonald & Zeichner, 2009;Milner, 2003;Sleeter, 2001Sleeter, , 2009Villegas & Lucas, 2001;Zeichner, 2017). Attention to race, equity, and justice in teacher preparation policy and practice has dramatically increased more recently (e.g., Andrews et al., 2019;Brown, 2013;Daniels & Varghese, 2019;Milner, 2012;Milner & Howard, 2013;Philip et al., 2018;Souto-Manning & Martell, 2019). However, these reform agendas and social movements did not become dominant policy tools. prepared in college and university programs, all but two U.S. states allow alternative routes into teaching, and there has been notable movement toward privatization of teacher education (Atkinson & Dotts, 2019;Mungal, 2015Mungal, , 2019Zeichner & Peña-Sandoval, 2015).
The second dominant policy tool for improving teacher preparation was intensified accountability, which was intertwined, although in different ways, with both the tool of deregulation and the agenda to professionalize teacher education (National Commission on Teaching andAmerica's Future, 1996, 1997). Intensified accountability was reflected in the new reporting requirements for teacher education in Title II of the reauthorized Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1998 and reached a crescendo in the 2014 proposed HEA regulations, which were approved after two years of debate. These regulations stipulated that all teacher preparation programs in the nation would report annually on outcomes, including students' achievement, graduates' job placement and retention data, and graduates' and principals' program satisfaction (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). 2 During teacher preparation's "accountability era," there were many new initiatives and policies in addition to federal reporting requirements, including new professional and state accreditation standards requiring providers to demonstrate impact, new professional performance assessments for teachers, and new consumer "report cards" about program quality (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018). In addition, partly in an effort to elevate the profession and unify a fragmented field, key leaders within the teacher education profession pushed for mandatory national program accreditation and "world-class" professional standards (Darling-Hammond, 2004) as well as rigorous uniform assessments of programs (Deans for Impact, 2016; Worrell et al., 2014) and teacher performance (Pecheone & Chung, 2006). Despite substantial controversy regarding many accountability policies and initiatives (AACTE, 2015;Au, 2013;Kumashiro, 2015;Picower & Marshall, 2016), over time much of the teacher education establishment embraced standards and accountability that was broadly consistent with state and federal policy trends (Taubman, 2009), and accountability was more or less normalized as part of the professionalization agenda (Cochran-Smith et al., 2018;Taubman, 2009).

Teacher Preparation at nGSEs
We define nGSEs as new (i.e., founded after 2000) graduate schools of education, which are state-authorized as higher education organizations. The focus of nGSEs is the preparation of teachers (as opposed to focusing simply on meeting licensure requirements or concentrating on the recruitment of new teachers); they also endorse teacher candidates for certification and grant master's degrees in teaching, but they are not sponsored by, or formally affiliated with or part of, existing universities (Cochran-Smith et al., 2020;Cochran-Smith, 2021). These new organizations emerged in the United States within the context of multiple state and federal education policies designed to improve teacher quality and decrease teacher shortages, as outlined above.
A convergence of trends during this time created a climate that was not only amenable to the emergence of nGSEs, but also to a certain extent privileged the expansion and legitimation of teacher preparation at non-university professional schools and other non-university sites (Cochran-Smith et al., 2021;Zeichner, 2016). However, there were mixed responses to teacher preparation at nGSEs from a wide variety of actors, including journalists, philanthropists, reformers, educational entrepreneurs, practitioners, and researchers. Mixed response is not surprising given that by entering the field as degree-granting graduate schools, nGSEs constituted a distinct group of teacher preparation providers, some of which situated themselves as direct competitors of university programs. Some journalists and education reformers characterized nGSEs as exciting "start-ups" that zeroed in "at last" on the nuts and bolts of classroom management and instruction and used "revolutionary" approaches to mobilizing teacher talent to disrupt the university "monopoly" on teacher education. Meanwhile some teacher education scholars and other critics charged that nGSEs, especially those connected to particular charter schools, emphasized "decontextualized" teaching techniques based on "deficit models" of teaching and learning and were part of a larger "neoliberal" reform movement aimed at undermining public education and democratic goals. In short, teacher preparation at nGSEs has been controversial within the larger field of teacher education, and policy and professional discussions about nGSEs have been highly charged. (See Cochran-Smith [2021] for a detailed analysis of professional and media responses to nGSEs.)

Studying a Controversial Innovation
This article draws on data from a three-phase empirical study of teacher preparation at nGSEs funded by the Spencer Foundation. The goal of the study was neither to praise nor judge teacher preparation at nGSEs, but was, instead, to understand and analyze teacher preparation at nGSEs as a controversial innovation in the field. The study asked two central questions: (1) How do nGSEs conceptualize and enact the project of learning to teach in new teacher preparation programs? and (2) As a new population of teacher preparation providers within the larger field of teacher education, how do nGSEs operate organizationally? This article does not address the first question, although we have addressed it elsewhere in case studies and cross-case analyses of nGSE program pedagogies, assumptions about knowledge and practice, and visions of good teaching (Carney, 2020(Carney, , 2021Cochran-Smith, 2021;Cochran-Smith et al., 2020Keefe & Miller, 2021;Miller, 2017;Olivo, 2022;Olivo & Jewett Smith, 2021;Sánchez, 2019Sánchez, , 2021. Here, we focus on the second question, particularly on how nGSEs-as new educational organizations-emerged from, and function within, market-oriented environments, including what logics animate these new organizations and what missions, funding models, and affiliations support their new institutional arrangements. As Figure 1 indicates, the first (and ongoing) phase of the study was designed to define the institutional domain of nGSEs and track the development of all nGSE sites. Based on an iterative process of internet searches, examination of 50 state department of education websites at multiple time points, suggestions from colleagues, and interviews with organizational leaders, we identified 11 nGSEs that emerged in the United States between 2005 and 2019 (Cochran- Smith et al., 2020;Jewett Smith, 2022). This first phase of the study yielded the definition of nGSEs that we use throughout this article and provided basic information about the seven nGSEs we did not study as full-blown cases. The second phase was comprised of case studies of teacher preparation at four nGSEs, selected for their geographic, programmatic, and philosophical variation (Patton, 2005), and their availability and willingness to participate: Sposato Graduate School of Education 3 in Boston; High Tech High Graduate School of Education 4 in San Diego; the online, for-profit TEACH-NOW 3 Sposato GSE was founded in 2012, building on the Match Teacher Residency program and focusing solely on teacher preparation. We use "Sposato" or "Sposato GSE" throughout this article to refer to this program. 4 At the time data were collected for this study, the District Intern initial teacher preparation program was housed in High Tech High (HTH), but there was involvement in teacher education across HTH and HTHGSE. HTHGSE began a Teaching Apprenticeship residency program in 2018, at the end of our data collection period. We use "HTH/GSE" to refer to the district intern program we studied, and also to acknowledge that teacher preparation was located in multiple places across HTH and HTHGSE and changed over time.
Graduate School of Education 5 headquartered in Washington, DC; and the MAT program in Earth Science at the Richard Gilder Graduate School at the American Museum of Natural History 6 in New York City. Phase 3 centered on cross-case analysis of both programmatic and institutional aspects of teacher preparation at nGSEs.

Figure 1
Research Design

Cross-Case Analysis
The arguments we present in this article about how nGSEs operate organizationally within market environments are based primarily on Phase 3 cross-case analyses of the institutional aspects of the four sites we studied in depth. As Figure 1 indicates, during Phase 2, we conducted 4 withincase qualitative case studies wherein each site was treated as an intrinsic case (Stake, 2006) of teacher preparation at an nGSE. Case study data, gathered over a period of 6-9 months at each site by central members of the research team, involved multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 2014). Key case study data sources included: observations of core program events and activities; interviews with program leaders and faculty about program origins, history, mission and goals, and curriculum, both coursework and fieldwork; interviews with school-based mentors, candidates, and graduates about recruitment, program experiences, preparedness, and evaluation; and, both proprietary and public program materials, tools, documents, artifacts, and institutional records. For each case, supported by Dedoose software, data were coded, and standard qualitative data analysis procedures were used to develop propositions (Erickson, 1986) about each unique site's assumptions, practices, and organizational arrangements (see Carney, 2019Carney, , 2021Keefe & Miller, 2021;Miller, 2017;Olivo, 2022;Olivo & Jewett Smith, 2021;Sánchez, 2019Sánchez, , 2021. Case analyses were shared with representatives of each nGSE to ensure that descriptions and interpretations were accurate and context-sensitive. For cross-case analyses, each site was regarded as an instrumental instance (Stake, 2006) of the larger phenomenon of teacher preparation at nGSEs. Thus, all case study data were recoded according to four broad dimensions (each with multiple sub-dimensions) that cut across the findings of the within-case studies and reflected the larger study's central research questions: (a) mission and origin, (b) organizational contexts and environments, (c) conceptualization and enactment of the project of learning to teach, and (d) funding arrangements. Cross-case analysis occurs in the complex space between maintaining the particularities of individual cases while also identifying themes and patterns that help to explain a group of cases (Ayres et al., 2003). Our efforts to achieve this "somewhat paradoxical goal" (p. 873) are illustrated in our analysis, which uses the particularities of individual cases to explain cross-cutting themes and patterns with explanatory power across the cases.
We added to the depth of our cross-case analysis of the four case study organizations by tracking their developments over time as they continued to evolve even after case study data collection was completed (Jewett Smith, 2022). In addition, as Figure 1 indicates, in order to enhance the breadth of the assertions in this article and to enrich our analysis, we also drew on Phase 1/continuing data from the other seven nGSEs, including publicly available financial information, grant narratives, public websites, press releases, and email communications. We also conducted at least one interview with nGSE leaders at each site not among our case studies. We followed all 11 organizations over the last five years through media items, website materials, tax documents, and other publicly-accessible documents (Jewett Smith, 2022).

Conceptual Framework: Perspectives from New Institutional Theory
New institutional theory (sometimes called neoinstitutional theory) has been used to examine the role of culture in shaping the behavior of organizations in scholarship that assumes organizations' behavior is shaped by rules and norms rooted in broader cultural phenomena (Friel, 2017;Scott, 2016). Historically, the use of institutional perspectives to study educational organizations has focused on stability and continuity. However, more recent applications have examined change, including the ways that markets empower new educational organizations and actors to create new tools and frames for addressing educational problems (Burch, 2007;H.D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006;Schmidt, 2010). In this article, we draw on three key ideas from new institutional theory: the notion of organizational field, the concept of institutional isomorphism (and challenges to this concept as it applies to educational organizations), and the perspective of institutional logics.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) describe organizational field as "a level that identifies a collection of diverse, interdependent organizations that participate in a common meaning system," comprised of "those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, similar organizations, and funders" (p. 148). Organizational fields "provide a framework for locating and bounding the phenomenon of interest" (Scott, et al., 2000, p. 13) and for exploring relationships among practices within a particular field or industry, larger cultural norms, and cross-organizational interactions (Burch, 2007). In this article we treat teacher education as a broad organizational field and nGSEs as an emergent population or "class" of new organizations (Hannan & Freeman, 1977, p. 930) within the larger field. Thus, our cross-case analysis focuses on the organization as the unit of analysis, rather than on teacher preparation programming, which we examined in the within-case studies.
Organizational sociologists who applied new institutional theory to education (J. Meyer, 1977;J. Meyer & Rowan, 1977, 1978Meyer, Scott & Strang, 1983;Weick, 1976) characterized schools as "loosely-coupled" (Weick, 1976) organizations wherein legitimacy rather than efficiency was the driving force, and organizations were controlled by government and professional forces, rather than by the market (J. Meyer & Rowan, 1977;J. Meyer, Rowan & Meyer, 1978). They argued that because educational organizations operated within similar institutionalized environments and with similar norms about legitimacy, there was ever-increasing institutional isomorphism-or structural and normative conformity-even across widely diverse settings (Scott, 2014) and even within the context of multiple reforms (Burch, 2007).
However, deregulation and other market-oriented reforms prompted highly visible changes in education that brought more pluralism to the public and private providers of K-12 schooling and to higher education. Partly in response to these international developments, some new institutional theorists challenged the concept of institutional isomorphism (Levy, 2006;H.D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006). They argued that education was not only not beyond the forces of the market, but actually that markets themselves had become a central part of the institutional arrangements of education and that research was needed that examined how various education sectors operated within marketorganized environments. Partly in response to this call for research, in this article, we examine the impact of market-oriented reforms on the institutional field of teacher education by focusing on the controversial innovation of teacher preparation at nGSEs.
Thirdly, this paper uses the lens of institutional logics. Friedland and Alford (1991) argue that logics are not simply sets of practices or behaviors that characterize institutions, but rather that logics connect culture and cognition, thus helping to account for agency and change. The logics perspective links to the concept of institutional isomorphism in that it is "in part a counter force to the proliferation of institutional isomorphism" (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 4) that characterized American education for much of the 20th century. The logics perspective allows us to examine organizations' symbolic and material practices and consider whether and to what extent emerging organizational diversity has replaced isomorphism. In particular, in this article we draw on Thornton and Ocasio's (2008) definition of institutional logics: "socially constructed patterns of symbols and material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals and organizations produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality" (p. 102). This perspective is a powerful framework for interpreting the underlying belief systems at work in the organizational cultures of nGSEs. Throughout our discussion of findings, we draw on key ideas in Thornton and Ocasio's definition, including the symbolic and material practices that characterize teacher preparation at nGSEs.
The discussion that follows is based primarily on cross-case analysis of teacher preparation at four nGSE sites supplemented, where appropriate, with analysis of domain data for the 11 existing nGSEs in the United States (see Figure 2). We focus on the institutional logics that animated nGSEs as a new population of teacher preparation providers within the larger organizational field of teacher education. We use this analysis as a lens into the broader question of how teacher education operates in the market-organized policy and political environment that has dominated over the last 30 years. Throughout our analysis, we use Thornton and Ocasio's (2008) definition of institutional logics as the patterns of symbolic and material practices that re/produce organizations' material subsistence and provide meanings to social reality. Following Thornton and Ocasio's definition, we organize our discussion under three headings: mission, or the values and beliefs reflected in nGSEs' organizational missions and arrangements of space; money, or the ways nGSEs ensured their material subsistence through financial structures and funding arrangements; and membership, or the salient affiliations, networks, and affinity groups that defined nGSEs in relation both to other providers in the field of teacher education and other members of the same nGSE population.

Mission
We use the term, "mission," to refer to organizations' goals and purposes as well as the broader aspirations and beliefs that gave meaning to the social realities of teacher preparation at nGSEs. Mission includes the assumptions, values, and histories of nGSEs. In addition, because we found that the ways nGSEs organized spaces and places for teacher preparation were tightly coupled with missions, we also consider space and place in this section. In short, and in keeping with Thornton and Ocasio's definition of institutional logics, missions have to do with what makes teacher preparation at nGSEs make sense conceptually, organizationally, and institutionally to their participants. Our analysis of nGSE missions draws on multiple data sources from each case study site, including interviews with program participants (leaders, faculty, school-based mentors, candidates, graduates), archival and current proprietary and public program material, and multiple site visits, including observations of program activities. Figure 3 includes multiple mission or mission-related statements from each site; the first statement in each column is taken from the organization's current website while the other statements were made by various participants in our interviews or were found in internal program documents collected during the case study period at each site. The array of statements in each column represents an array of different evidence sources, but reveals consistency in content.

Highly-Specialized and Restricted Missions
Across the four cases, we found that teacher preparation at nGSEs was highly mission-driven and that missions were specialized and restricted. For example, as Figure 3 indicates, the missions of both Sposato GSE and HTH/GSE zeroed in on preparing teachers for a specific kind of school with a particular pedagogical approach-our case studies revealed that Sposato had a laser-sharp focus on preparing teachers for "high-poverty, high-functioning" schools in urban centers (Keefe & Miller, 2021) while HTH/GSE aimed to prepare teachers for project-based, deeper learningcentered schools, serving students across demographic backgrounds (Sánchez, 2021). In contrast, the mission of the MAT Earth Science program at the AMNH was not preparing teachers for a specific type of school or pedagogy, but for a specific shortage area-middle and secondary Earth Science in New York's "high needs" schools (Olivo & Smith, 2021). Even TEACH NOW GSE, which recruited teachers worldwide for all levels and subjects, had a specialized mission-to license "tech-savvy" teachers ready to deal with the future of teaching and learning with technology (Carney, 2021). Although there was marked variation in missions across the four nGSEs, an observation to which we return below, our point here is that teacher preparation at each site coalesced around highly-specialized goals that responded to market demand. "When we call the Sposato students' supervising principals, when they're in the middle of their rookie year of teaching, what we're looking for is to put it bluntly that the principal says this person is a 7,8,9, or 10 out of 10 compared to other rookie teachers." (Administrator interview, 2016) "[The mission is] to prepare incoming teachers, people who want to be teachers, to be the best first year teachers that they can in "No Excuses" schools. Not in public school, not in private schools, but in "No excuses" charter schools. It's like preparing you for that niche in the education system." (Teacher candidate interview, 2016) "[HTHGSE] supports teachers, educational leaders and school founders in reimagining schools with a focus on equity, deeper learning and shared leadership." (HTHGSE website, 2021) "We really love being able to bring on teaching interns or apprentices into our schools. It's such a mutually beneficial situation. The interns get to go through our program, which…is focused on not just teaching about progressive pedagogy, but actually putting it into practice.." (Instructor interview, 2019)

Figure 3 Mission and Mission-Related Statements
"I think what makes us unique is that we're not attached to a university and we're very much attached to the idea of being fully embedded in the job." (Instructor interview, 2019) "High Tech High is really an equity project…That's what it's about, is wanting to reduce, or erase these achievement gaps and the inequities that are currently present in education." (Instructor interview, 2019) "For us, for credentialing, our mission is to develop good teachers and develop reflective teachers, thoughtful teachers, caring teachers, "I would say [the mission is] to get stronger science content teachers into high need schools…Our program is very NYC-specific. That's where they want us to go, even though we're allowed to go anywhere in New York State…Overall, they're kind of very much just, 'We want strong teachers in the places where they're needed most.' So the high need schools." (Teacher candidate interview, 2019) "The MAT program extends the AMNH's mission of research, education, and dissemination of knowledge about the natural world and the universe into the realm of teacher preparation… Working with partner schools and focused on educating urban students, AMNH's MAT program integrates scientists. educators, collections, and technological resources." (EPP Overview, Accreditation document, 2018) "Our mission: teaching teachers around the world to be resourceful problem solvers and tech-savvy educators through an online, collaborative, activity-based learning system designed for tomorrow's students in a dynamic and diverse world." (Moreland University website, 2021) "The [founder's] vision statement as defined in the first business plan for TEACH-NOW was: The essence of TEACH-NOW is transitioning bright, enthusiastic, energetic, motivated postbaccalaureate candidates to be tomorrow's teachers for tomorrow's students in tomorrow's learning world." (TEACH-NOW, Brief Historical Overview [internal history description], 2018) "The mission of TEACH-NOW is to equip, enable, and empower tomorrow's teachers for tomorrow's students in tomorrow's world using a globally-accessible, activity based, collaborative learning model. Graduates are prepared to enter any learning environment and implement learning strategies that ensure each child learns, grows, and develops. (TEACH-NOW Catalog and Candidate Handbook, 2018-19) "We want teachers to be certified, especially in the US, where so many people are working without teaching licenses...the goal is to get those teachers the education they need to be not only a great teacher, but to be legally licensed to be the one that's responsible for those students." (Administrator interview, 2018) In addition to meeting particular market demands, across the four nGSEs, missions were justified-in part-by leaders' perceptions of the "failings" of university teacher preparation. Although nGSE leaders had different beliefs about the presumed problems of university preparation, they shared the perception that the institutional environments of universities were not conducive to the preparation they believed was necessary to produce the kinds and numbers of teachers needed. For example, at both Sposato GSE and HTH/GSE, part of the motivation to establish a graduate school was the perception that new teachers from university programs were illequipped to teach in ways that were consistent with their (very different) philosophies. Sposato leaders thought universities offered too much theory and too little "nuts and bolts" training regarding instruction and management for "high poverty" communities (Keefe & Miller, 2021;Miller, 2017), while HTH/GSE leaders wanted new teachers who were knowledgeable about project learning and knew how to create environments that supported deeper learning for all students (Sánchez, 2021). Along different lines, TEACH-NOW leaders charged that university preparation was expensive and time-consuming, out of sync with consumer demands, and inattentive to technology's impact on education (Carney, 2021). Leaders of the AMNH MAT program believed that university science teacher education programs had generally failed to establish connections across science disciplines and education (Olivo & Jewett Smith, 2021).
Of course, university preparation is not monolithic. This means that the perceptions of nGSE leaders about the general "failings" of university-sponsored teacher preparation writ large are inevitably over-generalized and/or inaccurate. However, the validity of nGSE leaders' perceptions about university preparation is not the point here. The point is that nGSE leaders believed that new organizational and structural arrangements external to, and disruptive of, the values, knowledge traditions, and priorities of universities were needed.
Our cross-case analysis also revealed that teacher preparation missions at nGSEs were often coupled with outcomes-based goals. For example, the AMNH MAT program monitored: the percentage of students taught by MAT grads who lived in conditions of poverty and/or were minoritized; the New York State Earth Science Regents Exam scores of students taught by MAT grads compared to the scores of the students of other teachers; graduates' perceptions of program impact on their practice; and, the persistence of program graduates teaching in New York's high needs schools beyond the required four years (Hammerness et al., 2021;Olivo, 2022). The founder of TEACH-NOW reported in interviews that the organization measured its effectiveness, in part, by the number of countries in which candidates were enrolled, the proportion of graduates who passed initial licensure tests, the percentage of program completers, and the program's independent financial status (Carney, 2021). Sposato leaders touted that it granted the MET degree at the end of the second year of the program and only after candidates "proved" they were effective compared to other new teachers (Miller, 2017). In contrast, the leaders we interviewed at HTH/GSE explicitly eschewed measuring program effectiveness by students' test scores; HTH/GSE assessed its success, in part, by the zip codes of its student population, which signified that students from multiple demographics in the urban San Diego area were included in their schools and served by their teachers (Sánchez, 2021).
Across the four nGSEs we studied in depth, we found that the organizations had located teacher preparation in new spaces and places that were coherent with, and tightly tethered to, their highly specialized missions. Specifically, the founders of HTH/GSE embedded a graduate school of education within an integrated set of 16 San Diego K-12 charter schools dedicated to project-based learning (Sánchez, 2019). Somewhat similarly, Sposato GSE was physically located first within Match Charter High School and then Match Charter Middle School with teacher candidates working in Match or similar schools (Miller, 2017). In contrast, the AMNH MAT program was created within the exhibit halls and artifact collections of the AMNH, with residents participating in two science residencies-one at the museum and one at a field site-in addition to their two semester-long residencies in urban schools (Olivo, 2022). The leaders of TEACH-NOW GSE created an all-online graduate school of education, which was "wired into existence through technology" (Turkle, 2017, p. 16, cited in Carney, 2019 rather than existing as a physical place.

Market Niches
Across multiple data sources for the four nGSE case study sites, we found a paradox. All four nGSEs were part of the same new population of teacher preparation providers, and all of them reflected the common pattern of highly-specialized, restricted missions coupled with specific outcomes and new spaces and places for teacher preparation. However, this common pattern resulted in programs that were very different from one another, creating specialized market niches within competitive field of teacher preparation. In this sense, we found that markets made missions. That is, market forces, particularly the demand for teachers in certain shortage areas, regions, or for particular kinds of schools, made for highly specialized and diversified teacher preparation missions at nGSEs. But we also found that missions made markets. That is, niche programs with restricted missions helped to brand, publicize, and carve out the demand for the specialized preparation offered by the new organizations. Tracing origins and evolution patterns across all 11 nGSEs, we concluded that markets and missions operated dialectically, with changing market needs shaping and refining specialized missions at the same time that specialized program missions influenced the demands of the market. This conclusion is consistent with Rowan's (2006) suggestion that market forces often create "different strategic groups of organizations, even within the same industry, as part of a process of market differentiation" (p. 28).
This section on mission makes the argument, which is further supported in the next two sections, that market-organized environments act against institutional isomorphism in teacher education. As we noted above, in the 1970s and 1980s, key organizational sociologists (J. Meyer & Rowan, 1977;J. Meyer et al., 1978) characterized schools as organizations wherein formal organizational structures and actual day-to-day activities were "loosely coupled," driven by ritual or ceremonial legitimacy rather than "technical efficiency." The argument was that because educational organizations operated within similar institutionalized environments and with similar norms about legitimacy, they were institutionally isomorphic in both their structures and their normative expectations regarding legitimacy (Scott, 2014) and were beyond the control of the market (H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006, p. 3). As we pointed out above, this perspective was challenged in the 1990s and 2000s by some of the new institutionalists not only on a theoretical basis, but also on the basis of highly visible and actual changes in K-12 and higher education that were occurring worldwide (H. D. Meyer & Rowan, 2006): more pluralism in the providers of K-12 schooling and higher education, including the private sector; widespread demand for accountability; and, more attention to education in the emergent global knowledge society. The findings of our cross-case study of teacher preparation at nGSEs are consistent with the trends identified by the new institutionalists. That is, we did not find isomorphism, or normative and structural conformity, between teacher preparation at nGSEs and teacher preparation within the larger organizational field, nor among nGSEs themselves. Instead we found striking diversification in missions, ways of organizing space, funding arrangements, and affiliations, as described below. Interestingly, although not surprisingly, as we elaborate in the last section of the article, our findings are also in keeping with studies about market impacts on other organizational fields, including health care (Scott et al., 2006) and K-12 education (Levy, 2006;Rowan, 2006).

Money
Below, we continue our discussion of the institutional logics that animated nGSEs as a new population of teacher preparation providers operating within larger market-organized policy and political environments. Here, we focus on money-more specifically, funding models-which have to do with how nGSEs secured and sustained their "material subsistence" (Thornton & Occasio, 2008, p. 102). Within the concept of funding models, we include: (1) business models, or organizations' federal tax filing status as for-profit corporations or non-profit educational organizations, including the programs' relationships to parent organizations, if applicable; (2) tuition, or the dollars paid by teacher candidates, and/or the subsidies, tuition payment or pay-back arrangements, and the ways that organizations offset tuition costs, including their relationships to the federal financial aid system; and, (3) external funding, or the seed money, public and private grants, federal support, plus the philanthropic partners and initiatives that support preparation programs at nGSEs. This section of the article draws primarily on organizational documentary data (e.g., nGSE handbooks, promotional materials), marketing communications, annual tax filings, and financial aid webpages, along with interviews with the leaders of teacher preparation at the four nGSEs we studied in depth, supplemented by additional data across all 11 nGSEs.
Here, Thornton and Ocasio's institutional logics perspective is particularly helpful for analyzing how market forces have reshaped new higher education organizations' approaches to funding. The logics perspective allows us to analyze what concepts underlie the financial arrangements that enabled these organization to secure their material subsistence in the increasingly crowded market for teacher preparation. We found that all four case study sites created alternative funding models anchored by market concepts, such as competitiveness, efficiency, and marketability. In short, nGSEs offered consumer-oriented, cost-effective niche funding arrangements for master's degrees and teacher certification that complemented the niche missions we described above. Despite variation, all four funding models followed the same pattern-they were intended to minimize the financial burden placed on teacher candidates to secure federal loans or take on personal debt by increasing organizational reliance on private solutions, such as corporate philanthropy or individual lines of credit. It is important to note here that we do not use "market logic" and "for-profit" as synonymous terms. "Market logic" refers to market values and perspectives, such as competitiveness, branding, efficiency, market demands, and privatization, which characterize the ways nGSEs do business as organizations. "For-profit," on the other hand, is a technical term referring to a type of business organization that allows for the distribution of profits to owners.

Business Models
Across all existing nGSEs, we identified three different business models: (1) the stand-alone, fully online, for-profit corporation; (2) the embedded non-profit; and, (3) the stand-alone non-profit (see Figure 2). The first model eliminates brick-and-mortar facilities and operates entirely online as a for-profit business. For-profits collect funds directly from teacher candidates in no-interest installments. Run by CEOs, these businesses are structured as online companies dedicated to turning a profit in higher education by preparing, certifying, and granting master's degrees to teacher candidates.
In the second model, teacher preparation programs are historically and philosophically embedded in larger, preexisting non-profit educational organizations. Across the embedded nonprofit nGSEs (see Figure 2), the larger organizations in which they are embedded range from a public museum to regional professional development center to charter management organization. These graduate schools of education were often developed in relation to the missions and agendas of the larger organizations. In these cases, the nGSEs shared resources, personnel, and connections with the larger organization, its stakeholders, and supporters. The final model is the stand-alone non-profit nGSE. These graduate schools were founded as stand-alone organizations dedicated to graduate-level teacher preparation and post-baccalaureate certification, often with the support of major funders and tied to larger reform agendas. Regardless of business model, the foundation of all nGSEs included concepts such as risk management, consumer incentives, product innovation, and private sponsorship to guide their funding models. With very few exceptions, nGSEs operated within the private sector, regardless of whether they were for-profit or non-profit organizations. This is notable because it represents a significant shift in the field of teacher preparation, which has long been tied to colleges and universities, many of which are public institutions (Fraser & Lefty, 2018;Zeichner & Peña-Sandoval, 2015). In short, one impact of market forces on teacher preparation has been the creation of a "restart-and-relocate" rationale that encourages the emergence of new, privately-run organizations governed, at least in part, by market ideals and with ties to the private sector.

Tuition
Concentrating on our four case studies, but also examining the ways all 11 nGSEs navigated tuition, federal financial aid, and external funding, we found tuition arrangements that utilized a number of market-based strategies-cash incentives, cost-sharing, no-interest payment plans, risksharing-to make obtaining a master's degree in education straightforward and affordable. Skirting the problem of the "sticker shock" often involved in earning a master's degree at a university, most nGSEs developed ways to contain out-of-pocket costs for teacher candidates by appealing to private donors, partnering with charter networks, generating new revenue streams, and securing prestigious grants.
Our case studies make the point that nGSEs worked to minimize costs for teacher candidates. TEACH-NOW kept costs low by operating entirely online and charging $13,000 for a master's degree in education that included initial certification and $6,000 for certification alone; teacher candidates paid $1000 in monthly installments as they progressed through the program. In contrast, the AMNH MAT program fully subsidized the $44,750 tuition cost with public and private grants and offered each candidate an additional $30,000 living stipend; in addition, some AMNH cohorts also received an additional $10,000 salary boost when they began teaching in New York City public schools. Sposato's tuition was subsidized by school placement finder's fees paid by the schools that hired program graduates, while the balance of tuition was paid by the candidate after the training year in no-interest installments. Sposato's cost-sharing arrangement spread the risk and responsibility for payment across the schools that hired its graduates ($8,000 placement fee), the candidates who paid tuition (but only upon full-time employment-$18,000 spread out as six installments over three years), and the organization itself by deferring remuneration until graduates found jobs. High Tech High GSE was the only nGSE we studied that allowed candidates to apply for federal financial aid to offset the $22,000 tuition; however, first-year residents received an $8,000 living stipend.
Perhaps the most distinctive feature of nGSEs' new tuition arrangements was the turn away from the federal financial aid system. Three of the four organizations we studied in depth (and 9 of the 11 nGSEs nationwide) did not accept federal financial aid as payment for tuition. Across cases, we found that the privatization of funding for higher education was a key indicator of nGSEs' adoption of market logic; in place of public federal aid, nGSEs have turned to other private sources of organizational revenue to secure their material subsistence. Along these lines, as a for-profit business, TEACH-NOW collected money directly from candidates, not third parties. The AMNH MAT raised funds from a base of New York regional donors that provided subsidies directly for candidates. Sposato relied on an income-sharing model, rather than the federal aid bureaucracy. Even High Tech High, which did accept federal aid toward candidates' tuition, was heavily subsidized by major philanthropic foundations. Given universities' historic reliance on federal financial aid, the explosion of student debt, and the controversial, but popular cry that teacher preparation has been a "cash cow" for universities (Duncan, 2009), we suggest that this turn away from government funding represents a significant organizational shift consistent with marketoriented approaches to reform.

External Funding
As we have shown, nGSEs experimented with ways to survive in the new teacher preparation marketplace by sharing resources with established non-profits, striking financial partnerships with schools, or operating as for-profit corporations. At the same time, they also established partnerships with prestigious philanthropists and/or received public funds that supported start-up and ongoing operations. Along these lines, nGSEs can be thought of as beneficiaries of the "new education philanthropists" (Hess, 2005), whose corporate foundations have adopted the logic of investment and the principles of accountability to guide major gift giving. Investing in organizations like nGSEs that share their belief in the efficacy of market-based solutions, major philanthropies look for returns in the form of the increasing quality of teaching and teacher preparation, often measured by student outcomes. Several nGSEs received major ongoing operational support from high-status foundations such as The Gates Foundation, The Walton Family Foundation, The Broad Foundation, and the New Schools Venture Fund. For example, High Tech High GSE received annual funding from the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Gates Foundation also helped to launch Sposato GSE in Boston. The AMNH MAT program's graduate school was named for billionaire philanthropist, Richard Gilder. Even TEACH-NOW, which became a successful for-profit company that grossed over $5 million a year with no private funders, was initially seeded by the New Schools Venture Fund. These external partnerships were an essential part of the privatized funding models at the heart of nGSEs. They were also related to the new web of affiliates, suppliers, and networked partners that support teacher preparation at nGSEs.
In summary, we found that nGSEs were animated by market logics with tuition arrangements that emphasized straightforwardness and cost-effectiveness, increasing reliance on partnerships with prestigious philanthropies, and decreasing dependence on state and federal funding. Despite these common characteristics, however, we also found that no two funding models were exactly the same. Even though all nGSEs' funding models were animated by market logic, we found remarkable variation among the models, which were highly differentiated with respect to costs, approaches, and subsidies. nGSEs were involved in pioneering privatized strategies and market-based innovations to tailor their funding models and tuition arrangements to their targeted clientele and missions. Even with their shared characteristics, nGSE funding models were as different from one another as they were from traditional university-models. As we showed with nGSE missions, they offered niche solutions to the problem of remaining competitive in the new marketplace of teacher preparation providers.

Membership
In this section, we continue our discussion of the influence of market forces on teacher preparation by analyzing membership, which is a key aspect of nGSEs as an emergent population of providers. Within the term, "membership," we include nGSEs' relationships to parent organizations, accreditors, professional organizations, and networks. Consistent with Thornton and Ocasio's (2008) notion of institutional logics, we consider in this section how and to what extent these memberships "provided meaning to the social realit[ies]" (p. 102) of nGSEs and also positioned them within the larger organizational field of teacher education. Broadly speaking, we found that TEACH-NOW, as a fully online and for-profit organization, was an outlier in terms of membership among the four nGSEs we studied in depth, a point we elaborate on below. Our analysis in this section draws primarily on cross-case analysis, including site visits and site-based observations and multiple interviews with various participants at each site. We supplement this with information about all 11 nGSEs based on publicly available materials and at least one interview with representatives from each site.

Parent Organizations
Since roughly the mid-20 th century, universities have been the parent organizations of graduate schools of education (Labaree, 2004). This was the case until 2005, when the first nGSE was officially founded. In contrast to university-based graduate schools of education, with all 11 existing nGSEs in the United States, a defining feature is that they were not established by university parent organizations. In fact, as we note above, nGSEs were founded on the explicit assumption that, in order to meet today's market demands for teachers, new organizations not connected to, and markedly different from, the hierarchies and knowledge traditions of universities were needed. Despite their deliberate break from universities, and perhaps suggesting something of a paradox, we found that all nGSEs intentionally appropriated at least some of the visible trappings and nomenclature of universities, such as the academic language of "graduate school," "graduate school of education," "teachers college," "dean," and "provost" along with the awarding of degrees at formal regalia-rich graduation ceremonies.
Three of our four case study sites had parent organizations-two (HTH/GSE, Sposato GSE) were extensions of charter school organizations while one (the MAT in Earth Science at the AMNH) was the progeny of a museum. 7 Our case studies revealed that the work of these nGSEs was closely aligned with the work of their parents and founders, as our discussion of missions has already suggested. For example, the aim of the MAT program at the AMNH was to prepare Earth Science teachers for New York's "high needs" schools, a goal that was highly consistent with the history and mission of its parent, the AMNH, a beloved New York institution long dedicated both to the generation of knowledge about the natural world and human culture through scientific research and to the dissemination of that knowledge to the general public (Olivo, 2022;Olivo & Jewett Smith, 2021). Similarly, the aims of Sposato GSE were entirely consistent with the goals of its parent, Match Education, a Boston-based education reform organization dedicated to both providing high quality education to students in high-performing, high-poverty urban charter schools and validating innovative approaches to teacher preparation for these schools (Keefe & Miller, 2021;Miller, 2017).
TEACH-NOW GSE came into existence as a new stand-alone graduate school as did two other nGSEs of the total 11. 8 Interestingly and again reflecting the paradox between nGSEs' intention to disrupt the usual relationships of universities and graduate schools of education, on one hand, and their tendency to imitate some university traditions and language, on the other, TEACH-NOW eventually reverse-engineered a parent-like organization for its graduate school of education by transforming itself into Moreland University in 2021.

Accreditors
In addition to examining nGSEs' relationships with parent organizations, we also examined nGSEs' relationships to accreditors as an aspect of the ways they functioned as organizations. Like all nGSEs, the four sites we studied in depth were accredited at the state level to provide teacher preparation and grant master's degrees. Beyond state accreditation, HTH/GSE was accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), one of the nation's six regional accreditors, which have traditionally accredited colleges and universities to allow cross-institutional transfer of credits and to confer students' eligibility to seek federal tuition grants. 9 In addition, The Richard Gilder Graduate School at AMNH was accredited by the New York State Board of Regents, which is nationally recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, and TEACH-NOW GSE was institutionally accredited at the national level by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission (DEAC; U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In contrast, Sposato GSE was approved by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges, which typically accredits technical and vocational schools and whose authority is limited to organizations that provide non-degree programs or vocation-specific degree programs. This means students cannot transfer credits or degrees to accredited universities, and they do not qualify for federal tuition aid (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). In addition to institutional accreditation, the educator preparation programs at two of our case study sites (AMNH MAT, TEACH-NOW) were also accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), the larger of two national programmatic accreditors in the field of educator preparation. 10 Our cross-case analysis of interview data with nGSE leaders at the four case study sites revealed that nGSEs' reasons for seeking/not seeking accreditations were influenced primarily by state policies regarding accreditation as mandatory or voluntary. For example, the state of California requires master's degree providers (including HTHGSE) to obtain institutional accreditation through WASC, while New York state requires all registered teacher preparation programs to be endorsed by an approved national educator preparation accreditor. Despite differences, however, there is no question that the formal approval that comes with regional, national, or professional accreditations helps to legitimize new organizations, and we found that all nGSEs advertised their earned accreditations on materials designed to attract and recruit new teacher candidates and to inform the public about organizational pedigrees. However, we also learned through interviews with founders and leaders of the three non-profit nGSEs we studied in depth (Miller, 2017;Olivo, 2022;Sánchez, 2019) that it was not primarily formal accreditation that gave meaning to their social realities, but rather it was their membership in powerful ideational and relational networks, a point we elaborate next.
For TEACH-NOW GSE, the single for-profit among the 11 existing nGSEs, the situation was somewhat different. This is not surprising, given that its for-profit status and the completely online format of its teacher preparation program were two features that sometimes raised questions about legitimacy for potential consumers (Carney, 2019) As such, TEACH-NOW heavily emphasized its formal markers of organizational accreditation (Carney, 2019) as reflected in the organization's responses to the FAQs it publicized on its website and the long list of accreditations, endorsements, and authorizations emphasized by its founder in multiple interviews, including CAEP, DEAC, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education-DC, the GI Bill, the Arizona Department of Education, the Higher Education Licensure Commission, the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA), and the Hawaii Teachers Standards Board.

Teaching and Learning Networks
Our analysis revealed that all three of the non-profit nGSEs we studied in depth were closely linked to strong ideational and relational networks having to do with teaching and learning, although the nature and core interests of those networks varied widely across these nGSEs. By "ideational and relational" networks, we mean collections of people and/or organizations that are related by virtue of a powerful set of shared ideas, concerns, commitments, and passions about teaching, learning, and the larger purposes of education. Ideational networks also tend to share particular ways of identifying and framing the enduring problems of teaching, learning, and schooling along with ideas about what the potential solutions to those problems are. The central concerns of these networks were closely related to the missions of programs and parent organizations.
We provide one elaborated example here. HTH/GSE plays a pivotal role in the Hewlett Foundation-supported Deeper Learning Network, an organization of schools (and other educational organizations) dedicated to a progressive model of teaching and learning and reflected in schools/programs that are project-and inquiry-based, constructivist, individualized, and democratic (Sánchez, 2019;. Here, the shared animating idea is that a major problem has been that school-based teaching and learning tend to be transmission-oriented, shallow, and unnuanced, while what is needed to meet the demands of the 21 st century is for teachers and schools to provide the contexts that support critical, deeper, richer, and more individualized learning experiences for students across all socioeconomic backgrounds. Consistent with this, HTH/GSE also hosts the Center for Research on Equity and Innovation, which offers learning institutes and tools for educators beyond the HTH/GSE community and also supports communities of researchers, practitioners, and students designed to interrupt school leadership and classroom practices that reproduce inequities. Along different but related lines, both the MAT program at AMNH and Sposato GSE are part of strong ideational networks, although their networks differ markedly from each other's and from HTH/GSE's networks. The MAT program is part of a network centered on informal science learning as well as a network of educators interested in science expertise-based and context-specific teacher preparation (Olivo, 2022;Olivo & Smith, 2021). Sposato GSE, as an arm of Match Education, is networked with individuals and organizations committed to the success of "high-achieving/high-poverty" urban charter and "turn-around" schools, often referred to as "no excuses" schools (Keefe & Miller, 2021;Miller, 2017). Philip et al.'s (2016) discussion of organizational identity and institutional theory is helpful here in unpacking our finding that the three non-profit nGSEs we studied in depth were connected to powerful ideational networks, which, along with market forces, shaped their organizational behavior. More specifically, Philip and colleagues suggest that sometimes "hybrid organizations" develop that draw on "different collective identities (or logics) that exist in an organizational field, select particular elements from each of them, and combine them in new ways in order to construct a distinctive organizational identity" (p. 362), which resonates with more than one logic but is different from each of them.
Our cross-case analysis suggests that market forces have opened the door to the proliferation of hybrid logics undergirding teacher preparation at nGSEs. Each of the three nonprofit nGSEs we studied was animated by a hybrid institutional logic that combined strong elements of the logic of markets with elements of other powerful logics. With HTH/GSE, the logic of the market, especially the organization's focus on 21 st century skills and disruptive innovation in teaching and teacher preparation, was combined with a logic of democratic education, which included the idea that students from all socioeconomic strata in the San Diego area should have access to deeper, project-based, constructivist, and inquiry-oriented learning (Sánchez, 2019;. With Sposato GSE, the logic of the market, especially a strong focus on efficiency, teaching as prescribed technique, and test-based accountability (Keefe & Miller, 2021), was combined with a logic of teaching/schooling for social justice, wherein justice was defined in gradualist, compensatory, and distributive, rather than transformative, terms (Miller, 2017). And with the MAT program at the AMNH, the logic of the market, zeroing in on the preparation of teachers to remedy a specific regional teacher labor market shortage and focusing on outcomes, was combined with a logic of public service to the community and social impact consistent with the museum's long history as a public institution (Olivo, 2022;Olivo & Jewett Smith, 2021).
In each of these cases, the work of the nGSE resonated with, and was animated by, more than one logic. To a great extent, it was the particular combination of logics that contributed to each nGSEs' distinctive organizational identity and shaped its organizational behavior. As our data from across all 11 nGSEs suggest, hybrid logics may create tensions within organizations, some of which are generative in the sense of solidifying shared purposes, while others reveal potential clashes in values that prompt rapid organizational evolution, including name changes, reorganizations, and new partnerships (Jewett Smith, 2022). Regardless of how these tensions play out, it is clear that when teacher preparation occurs within market-organized environments, there is a strong tendency for hybrid logics to emerge.
With our analysis of ideational networks, we again identified a clear difference between the three non-profit nGSEs and the single for-profit we studied in depth. As a for-profit nGSE, TEACH-NOW was networked with more than a dozen organizations focused on international schools and teaching placements, including International Schools Services, Teaching Nomad, and the Association of International Schools in Africa. However, all of these were businessoriented rather than ideational networks, which strengthened TEACH-NOW's position as an efficient and effective provider of teacher preparation for uncertified English-speaking teachers throughout the world, particularly in terms of the growth of the organization's reputation and international enrollments. Unlike the three non-profit nGSEs, TEACH-NOW's strategies to connect with multiple international partners to expand its global footprint were part of its general market logic, which was overarching.

Discussion: Markets and Teacher Preparation at nGSEs
Teacher education is a major enterprise in the United States, with some 200,000 new teachers prepared every year in more than 2,000 teacher preparation programs (King, 2018). Although colleges and universities continue to prepare the majority of the nation's teachers, since the early 2000s, 48 of the 50 states have allowed (and sometimes privileged) alternate pathways that streamline or sidestep collegiate programs (National Association for Alternative Certification, 2010; U.S. Department of Education, 2002Education, , 2003. As we have argued, nGSEs are a subset of the loose category of alternate pathways, which emerged as part of larger efforts to break up what was perceived as the failure of the "university monopoly" on teacher preparation through deregulation (Cochran-Smith, 2005).
Despite the fact that teacher preparation at nGSEs is a relatively small trend within the organizational field, it is worth noting several markers of nGSEs' growth: 11 nGSEs emerged across the country between 2005 and 2019, nearly one a year; the most well-known nGSE-Relay Graduate School of Education-has grown exponentially in just ten years, now touting programs in 18 different cities nationwide; and, monthly enrollment at TEACH-NOW (now Moreland University) doubled when the COVID-19 pandemic began, enrolling 200 new teacher candidates from 135 countries in March 2020 alone (Jewett Smith, 2022). It is also worth noting that alternate routes, including nGSEs, continue to attract more diverse teacher candidates than most universitysponsored programs, including more Hispanic, Black, and non-White candidates (Cochran- Smith & Villegas, 2016;National Center for Education Statistics, 2018). Focusing on the organizational growth of nGSEs helps us understand how demand is driving the proliferation of new programs with diverse organizational makeup, priorities, and goals. By extension, the predominance of market logic among new entrants to the field will impact the way the broader field operates in unforeseen ways.

Teacher Preparation at nGSEs as a Lens
Focusing on the concept of organizational field and working from an institutional logics perspective, our analysis in this article draws primarily from cross-case study of teacher preparation at four nGSEs. As noted, to provide further breadth to our analysis, we also draw on a limited number of interviews and a large body of historical and current publicly accessible data and media sources regarding the seven other nGSEs, which we tracked over five years.
In the first section of this article, we identified nGSEs as a new population of teacher preparation providers defined and set apart from many other providers within the broader organizational field by shared features, including: state-authorization as higher education organizations, no formal affiliation with or sponsorship by universities, focus on teacher preparation, the granting of master's degrees in teaching, and emergence as part of larger education reform efforts intended to improve teacher quality and address teacher shortages during the first two decades of the 2000s. Building on these defining features, our cross-case analyses revealed that market forces have shaped three major aspects of the institutional logics of this population: (1) highly-specialized and restricted missions tightly coupled with new ways of organizing spaces and places for teacher preparation along with explicit forms of accountability; (2) alternative funding models with cost-effective tuition arrangements, increasing reliance on private philanthropies, and decreasing reliance on federal student financial aid; and, (3) memberships/affiliations based less on formal markers of legitimacy, and more on strong alliances with powerful ideational networks including mission-oriented founders and/or parent organizations.
In the major sections of this article, we elaborated upon missions, money, and memberships as three key aspects of the institutional logics at nGSEs, demonstrating that, with some exceptions for the single for-profit nGSE, our assertions cut across the four cases. However, we have also shown that although our assertions apply across the four cases, there is at the same time, enormous variation within and among the cases. In fact, we have shown throughout this article that market-organized environments have acted against institutional isomorphism in teacher preparation at nGSEs and instead have fostered striking diversification in missions, finances/funding models, and membership. In other words, one of the impacts of subjecting teacher preparation to the forces of the market has been the creation of what we refer to as specialized teacher preparation niches, which are the result of the unique ways these three aspects of institutional logics (missions, money, and membership) play out at each organization.
Our analysis suggests that the concept of hybrid logics is particularly useful for understanding new specialized teacher preparation niches, especially what animates their organizational behavior. This perspective provides a way to analyze both an organization's nimble responses to the changes and challenges of the market and its efforts to maintain an organizational "through line" driven by powerful ideas. An interesting example of hybrid logic can be seen at the newest nGSE, Rhode Island School for Progressive Education (RISPE), founded in 2019. RISPE elicited funding from a broad array of private philanthropies and community foundations to support its mission of preparing teachers of color to promote anti-racist pedagogies in urban public schools. Here RISPE is responding to market demand to create a private organizational solution to a public education problem. Understanding nGSEs in terms of hybrid logics is critical because although the emergence of nGSEs is clearly a response to market-organized environments for teacher education, it would be inaccurate and misleading to conclude that nGSEs are simply about markets or that their organizational behavior is driven solely by these concerns. Rather, as our analysis shows, although all nGSEs are in part responses to the demands of the rapidly-changing teacher education market, many of them are at the same time motivated by other logics, such as commitments to public service, close work with local communities, or the development and dissemination of new pedagogies.

Implications for the Organizational Field of Teacher Education
Interestingly, our finding that market forces have boosted diversification and shaped increasingly specialized niches in teacher education resonates across other sectors from health care to finance to journalism. As Scott (2016) points out, "the incursion of economic (specifically, market) logics into organizational fields previously organized around other logics" has fueled diversification within the field as "competition, privatization, cost-benefit analysis, and outcome measures" shape organizational behavior (p. 251). As we have shown, we found evidence across cases that supply and demand, competition, privatization, cost-benefit analyses, and attention to outcomes shaped the organizational behavior of teacher preparation at nGSEs.
To understand the implications of our study, it is important to note that the incursion of market logics into the organizational field of teacher education does not apply only to nGSEs. Rather this is a general trend in teacher education (and in higher education more broadly) that has been identified by policy scholars and historians for some time (Cochran-Smith, 2005;Earley, 2000;Fraser & Lefty, 2018;Labaree, 1994;Scott, 2016). Efforts to create more market-like institutional environments in teacher education is highly consistent with broader agendas related to the privatization and deregulation of K-12 education (Lubienski & Brewer, 2019), health care (Scott et al., 2000), and other sectors.
At roughly the same time that the organizational field of teacher education has expanded and diversified, there has been a marked drop in enrollment in many university teacher education programs across the country and a concurrent increase in enrollment in teacher education not based in higher education institutions (Partelow, 2019). Along these lines, many university-sponsored programs are under increasing pressure to meet particular market demands (e.g., local or regional demands for urban teachers, teachers of English language learners, teachers in the sciences or mathematics, or demands for preparation programs or other education programs that are flexible, inexpensive, and convenient) (Jewett Smith, 2022) while also staying true to larger organizational or historical missions. We conclude this article by returning to the question that introduced it: How does teacher preparation operate within market-organized environments? With teacher preparation at nGSEs as a lens, the answers to this question, which we have offered throughout the article, are complex and multiple. Although our answers emerged from close study of nGSEs, which is a new population of preparation providers, the trends we have identified have many parallels and implications for the larger organizational field of teacher education, which is increasingly subject to the forces of the market, given university teacher education enrollment declines, unsustainable tuition costs, and demands for teacher preparation that is more flexible and affordable. We have identified a number of key trends across all nGSEs based on our institutional, cross-case, and historical analyses. As more new teacher preparation providers emerge and as existing preparation programs increasingly adapt and respond to market pressures, we anticipate that these trends may also impact the organizational behavior of other providers in the larger field. In fact, other researchers are already documenting the impact of privatization and other market forces on teacher education in the US and globally (Atkinson & Dotts, 2019;Kretchmar, et al., 2019;Lubienski & Brewer, 2019;Montecinos & Fernández, 2019). Below are the major trends we have identified about what happens to teacher preparation in market-organized environments based on our nGSE study: • The organizational field of teacher education becomes more and more diversified, rather than more isomorphic, in terms of norms and structures. • New or revised teacher preparation programs develop with highly specialized missions and goals to address the perceived "failures" of traditional teacher education and meet specific market demands for teachers with particular content (e.g. earth science), pedagogical (e.g., anti-racist pedagogy), or context (e.g., urban schools and communities) knowledge, skills, and dispositions. • Teacher preparation programs develop with highly specific recruitment goals (e.g., more teachers from historically minoritized ethnic, language, and cultural groups). • The movement toward diversification and specialization creates narrow and highly-specific teacher preparation niches within the larger field whereby programs compete with one another for prospective teacher candidates. • High-specialized programs hold themselves accountable for progress toward candidate and program outcomes consistent with their missions and their goals to meet particular market demands. • New organizations rely on revenue from corporate philanthropies and regional community foundations for both seed money and ongoing operations. • Some programs turn away from federal financial aid as a substantial source of organizational income. • Organizations provide teacher preparation alternatives that are flexible, affordable, and convenient, including completely or partially on-line options.
These are trends that we think researchers and practitioners in the larger organizational field of teacher education will want to key an eye on over time to see whether and how they are influencing the larger organizational field of teacher education. In closing, we reiterate that these trends are not strictly market-oriented. Rather, many of them interact with other strong trends that are sociopolitical, such as efforts to center race and challenge inequity in preparation programs. The resulting hybrid trends are already shaping organizational behavior across the wider field of teacher education, and we anticipate that this will continue. education policy analysis archives Volume 30 Number 172 November 29, 2022ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.