Introduction of the 2014 Editorial Review Board

When we assumed the editorship of Journal of Teacher Education (JTE), we articulated the goal of maintaining a strategic balance among the areas of teacher education practice, policy, and research, bringing those areas to bear on one another in challenging and productive ways. We envisioned a forum for diverse work of national and international teacher education researchers (university and non-university based), teacher education practitioners, and policy makers at all levels. Linking research and practice was--and still is--paramount in our vision for JTE. At the same time, we wanted to improve the quality and coherence of the research base in teacher education and have focused several editorials on topics related to improvement (see issues 63:1, 64:2, and 64:4). We soon realized that this vision required a large team of committed reviewers with a broad range of expertise and interests. Previously, JTE has relied upon a group of excellent ad hoc reviewers who were acknowledged once each year in the last issue of the volume. However, given the vision articulated above, we decided that a stable, core group of reviewers who are acknowledged scholars would better meet the needs of the journal and would provide valued reviewers with the recognition they deserve. We are pleased to announce the members of the JTE Editorial Review Board (ERB) whose names appear on the inside cover of this issue. ERB members have outstanding records of scholarly achievement in teacher education, represent the diverse interests of our readership, exhibit various specialties within teacher education, and have a history of service to JTE. The role of the ERB will be to contribute to the quality of the articles published in JTE by providing high-quality reviews. Ad hoc reviewers will still be needed and we will draw from this group to select future ERB members. Through this process, the ERB and the ad hoc reviewers will serve to promote and support inquiry and dissemination of knowledge in teacher education. Highlights of the Current Issue The articles that comprise this issue exemplify the vision articulated above. Topics include teacher education impact, reform, and accountability as well as preservice perspectives on English language learners. All have well-developed implications for policy, practice, and research. The contexts are varied with focus on international, national, state, and local settings. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies are represented, and, in one article, the quality of a particular methodology is a major focus. The first two articles continue themes highlighted in earlier JTE publications involving the impact of teacher preparation programs (See Volume 63, Issues 3 and 5). The article by Gary Henry and his colleagues, "The Effects of Teacher Entry Portals on Student Achievement" extends the study of the relationship between teacher preparation program type and student achievement beyond the dichotomy of "traditional versus alternative" that has not been particularly fruitful in understanding preparation differences. They augment previous studies published in JTE on the topic (Gansle, Noell, & Burns, 2012; Plecki, Elfers, & Nakamura, 2012) by considering out-of-state teachers in their sample. They classify teachers from a national sample into a number of predominant portals of entry into the profession and estimate the effects of these portals on student gains. Results indicate that teachers prepared in in-state public undergraduate programs generally outperform teachers from out-of-state or alternative programs, even in math and science. The exception is Teach for America that, although it constitutes a very small portion of the sample, represents a highly successful portal. Lincove, Osborne, Dillon, and Mills contribute to the conversation launched in our previous theme issue about value-added modeling (63:5) in their article "The Politics and Statistics of Value-Added Modeling for Accountability of Teacher Preparation Programs" by considering stakeholders' views in analytical decisions. …