While states are increasingly adopting and implementing the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as goalposts for student learning, there is less clear consensus around the science instruction needed in classrooms to realize this vision. In this study, I investigate the visions of expertise in science instruction that three science teacher educators (TEs) hold who work for a university, public district's residency, and charter school's new Graduate School of Education (nGSE). Through analyzing interviews as well as artifacts of their institution's evaluation rubrics and methods, I find that TEs across institutions have remarkably similar ideals for student learning in a science classroom, yet markedly different descriptions of how teachers should facilitate this experience for students in their instruction. The differences in their visions of instructional expertise mirror the priorities seen in their institution's evaluation practices, which in turn closely resemble the market logics of their institutions. Using the framework of adaptive expertise, my analysis reveals that these differences occur on three dimensions: how much they prioritize general routines through proactiveness, students' novel thinking through responsiveness, as well as how much they consider the material conditions of classrooms. This work suggests that in the absence of field-wide consensus around NGSS-aligned instruction, science TEs are highly influenced by the insular logics of their institutions. Future work might consider how cross-institutional dialogue could provide science TEs access to alternative logics that expand their knowledge base, as well as develop shared insights around science TE pedagogy for methods instruction that upholds the NGSS.