Sandy Schuck's cross-sectional self-study (see EJ863273) examines her work as a teacher educator. She views herself as responsible for helping elementary school teachers to develop as teachers who will enact a reformed approach to mathematics. Schuck presents a wonderful tangle of findings and challenges, framings, and reframings. As a teacher educator of students preparing to teach upper-grade science or mathematics, this author has grappled with many similar concerns in a context of reform. The mathematics reform document (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000) that Schuck cites is one developed in the US. Not to be outdone, science educators and officials in the US developed two different reform documents. All of these documents endorse a constructivist view of learning, a view that values students' active construction of understanding. Like Schuck, this author has experienced the gaps between the goals promulgated by a major reform document and the practices of many current teachers. In this response to Schuck's article, Trumbull uses two different positions. These positions are related, but each has a different focus. Trumbull responds initially as a critical friend, a colleague who strives to ask generative questions about some of the concrete details of teacher education practice. For her second set of responses, she reacts as a teacher educator and self-study colleague who has asked herself similar general questions or has developed questions based on reading this article.