Theresa Bourke Thesis - QUT ePrints

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS: MIRAGE OR MIRACLE CURE. AN ARCHAEOLOGY OF PROFESSIONALISM IN EDUCATION

THERESA BOURKE BSC PGCE

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Learning Innovation Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology November, 2011

i

Keywords

Archaeology, archive, discourses, examination, hierarchical observation, normalisation, policy, professional standards, professionalism, statements.

Teacher professional standards: Mirage or miracle cure. An archaeology of professionalism in education

i

ii

Abstract This thesis is a problematisation of the development and implementation of professional standards as the mechanism to enhance professionalism and teacher quality in the teaching force within Australia and, more specifically, Queensland. Drawing on tools from Foucauldian archaeological analysis, the dominant discourses of professionalism from the academic literature, Australian federal and state policy documents and narratives from Queensland teachers are examined. These data sets are then cross referenced, analysing the intersections and divergences between the different texts. Findings suggest that through policy, political strategy and derisory statements from various authoritative voices, the managerial discourse of professionalism through professional standards documents has been unduly privileged as a means of regulating teachers, despite the fact that teachers themselves do not share this dominant notion of professionalism. The teachers in this study proffer ‘new classical-practical professionalism’ as a counter discourse, or discourse of resistance, to managerialism. However, an application of Foucault’s theorisations on power-knowledge reveals that their spoken discourses mean they are in fact yielding to the discourse of professional standards as docile bodies.

ii


iii

Table of Contents Keywords .................................................................................................................................................i Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures .........................................................................................................................................v List of Tables .........................................................................................................................................vi List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ vii Statement of Original Authorship ..........................................................................................................ix Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................x Introduction .............................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH APPROACH .......................................................................................... 9 1.1

Section 1 – Foucault’s tools ....................................................................................................... 11 1.1.1 History ............................................................................................................................ 11 1.1.2 Archaeology.................................................................................................................... 13 1.1.3 The Statement ................................................................................................................. 14 1.1.4 Archive ........................................................................................................................... 15 1.1.5 Discourses ....................................................................................................................... 16 1.1.6 Archaeology as method .................................................................................................. 19

1.2

Section 2 – The Interviews......................................................................................................... 23 1.2.1 A case study approach .................................................................................................... 24 1.2.2 Foucault’s notions of power ........................................................................................... 32

1.3

Section 3 – Trustworthiness ....................................................................................................... 37 1.3.1 Transferability ................................................................................................................ 37 1.3.2 Credibility ....................................................................................................................... 37 1.3.3 Reflexivity ...................................................................................................................... 38 1.3.4 Ethical clearances ........................................................................................................... 39

CHAPTER 2: DISCOURSES OF PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE ........................................................................................................... 41 2.1

Definitions of professionalism, professionalisation and professionality .................................... 44

2.2

Traditional discourses of professionalism .................................................................................. 46

2.3

The Australian context ............................................................................................................... 56 2.3.1 Post World War II to the 1970s ...................................................................................... 56 2.3.2 The shift: 1980s onwards ................................................................................................ 61 2.3.3 The ‘Reorg’ and further Government strategies ............................................................. 64 2.3.4 Moving into the 1990s .................................................................................................... 66

2.4

New Surfaces of Emergence ...................................................................................................... 72 2.4.1 ‘New’ professionalism discourses .................................................................................. 73 2.4.2 Professional standards discourses ................................................................................... 83

2.5

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 90

CHAPTER 3: POLICY AS DISCOURSE........................................................................................ 91 3.1

Selection of policy documents ................................................................................................... 93

3.2

Overview of the Australian educational context ........................................................................ 96

3.3

Document Analysis .................................................................................................................... 97 3.3.1 Strengthening Australia’s Schools (SAS) (Dawkins, 1988) ........................................... 97 3.3.2 The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) ............................................................................ 103


iii

iv

3.3.3 A Class Act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession (Crowley, 1998)......... 108 3.3.4 A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) ............................................................................................................................. 124 3.3.5 Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006).................................... 132 3.3.6 The National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) .............................. 139 3.4

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 150 3.4.1 Improvements in quality teaching and educational outcomes for national prosperity and international competitiveness ............................................................... 151 3.4.2 All stakeholders working together on a national scale ................................................. 156 3.4.3 Professional standards as the main framework for improvements in quality, status and professional learning/career pathways ......................................................... 158

CHAPTER 4: PERSONAL DISCOURSES OF TEACHER PROFESSIONALISM ................. 165 4.1

What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism? ............................................ 167 4.1.1 Discourse One: Professional relationships ................................................................... 169 4.1.2 Discourse Two: Efficient organisation ......................................................................... 186 4.1.3 Discourse Three: Knowledge and skills ....................................................................... 191 4.1.4 Discourse Four: Professional learning/development (PD)............................................ 200 4.1.5 Discourse Five: Specific personal attributes ................................................................. 204 4.1.6 Discourse Six: Accountability ...................................................................................... 208 4.1.7 Discourse Seven: Leadership ........................................................................................ 219 4.1.8 Discourse Eight: Reflective practices ........................................................................... 224 4.1.9 Discourse Nine: Professional standards ........................................................................ 227

4.2

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 234

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 235 5.1

Response to Research Question One ....................................................................................... 236

5.2

Response to Research Question Two ....................................................................................... 238

5.3

Response to Research Question Three ..................................................................................... 246 5.3.1 Section A: To what extent do teachers regulate and control their practice as docile bodies? ............................................................................................................... 246 5.3.2 Section B: Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland? .............................................................................. 253

5.4

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 255

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 261 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................... 279 Appendix A: Archaeology as method – Bibliographic references ........................................... 279 Appendix B: Template for recording information from texts .................................................. 280 Appendix C: Initial table of themes ......................................................................................... 283 Appendix D: Framework for the National Standards for Teaching 2003 ................................ 284 Appendix E: Queensland College of Teachers – Professional Standards ................................ 285 Appendix F: AITSL Standards ................................................................................................ 286

iv


v

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Texts from the archive ..................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.1: Diagram of the non-discursive domain .......................................................................... 71 Figure 2.2: The componential structure of professionalism ............................................................ 80 Figure 2.3: Voices of authority on professionalism and professional standards............................ 89 Figure 3.1: Political strategy as a discursive practice .................................................................... 164 Figure 5.1: Professional standards: A ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ ........................................... 236


v

vi

List of Tables Table 1.1: Participant’s log ................................................................................................................ 26 Table 1.2: Example of cross referencing ........................................................................................... 31 Table 2.1: Hoyle’s professional criteria underpinned with functionalist assumptions ................. 48 Table 2.2: Ideas of professionalism from three different decades .................................................. 50 Table 3.1: Statements revealing the contradictions within the Crowley Report ........................... 117 Table 3.2: Reports compared and contrasted (A Class Act, the minority report and the government’s response) ................................................................................................... 120 Table 3.3: Active verbs included in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers .......... 138 Table 3.4: Changes in documents’ terminology (2003 – 2011) ...................................................... 147 Table 3.5: Common statements relating to quality across the documents ................................... 152 Table 3.6: Authoritative texts and voices of authority across the documents .............................. 154 Table 3.7: Voices of authority supporting professional standards ............................................... 159 Table 3.8: Voices of authority for professional standards with regard to professional learning and career enhancement ................................................................................... 161 Table 3.9: Type of ‘standard’ across the document ....................................................................... 162 Table 4.1: Personal discourses on professionalism from the interview data ................................ 168 Table 4.2: Intersection between texts for Discourse One ............................................................... 185 Table 4.3: Intersection between texts for Discourse Two .............................................................. 191 Table 4.4: Intersection between texts for Discourse Three ............................................................ 199 Table 4.5: Intersection between texts for Discourse Four ............................................................. 204 Table 4.6: Intersection between texts for Discourse Five .............................................................. 208 Table 4.7: Intersection between texts for Discourse Six ................................................................ 219 Table 4.8: Intersection between texts for Discourse Seven ............................................................ 223 Table 4.9: Intersection between texts for Discourse Eight............................................................. 227 Table 4.10: Knowledge of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) .................................................................................................................................. 228 Table 4.11: Intersection between texts for Discourse Nine ............................................................ 234 Table 5.1: Discourses and discursive themes evident in teachers’ responses ............................... 239 Table 5.2: Intersection and divergence between discourses of professionalism in the academic literature and spoken discourses .................................................................... 240 Table 5.3: Intersection between the standards documents and the academic literature ............ 241 Table 5.4: Intersection between the spoken discourses and the QCT standards document ....... 242 Table 5.5: AITSL standards’ alignment with the spoken discourses ........................................... 242 Table 5.6: Hierarchical observation (surveillance) ........................................................................ 247 Table 5.7: Normalising judgement/normalisation .......................................................................... 248 Table 5.8: The examination .............................................................................................................. 249

vi


vii

List of Abbreviations Abbreviation

Meaning

AARE

Australian Association for Research in Education

ACARA

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

ACE

Australian College of Educators

ACER

Australian Council of Educational Research

ACSA

Australian Curriculum Studies Authority

ADD

Attention Deficit Disorder

AEC

Australian Education Council

AEEYSOC

Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee

AGQTP

Australian Government Quality Teacher Program

AITSL

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

APA

American Psychological Association

ARC

Australian Research Council

AST

Advanced Skills Teacher

ATC

Australian Teaching Council

BCA

Business Council of Australia

CED

Committee for Economic Development

CCSSO

Council of Chief State School Officers

COAG

Council of Australian Governments

CPD

Continuous Professional Development

DEET

Department of Employment, Education and Training

DEETYA

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

DEST

Department of Education, Science and Training

DETYA

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

DP

Deputy Principal

DSP

Disadvantaged Schools Program

EdNA

Education Network Australia

ESL

English as a Second Language

ETRF

Education and Training Reforms for the Future


vii

viii

G

Graduate teacher

GCSE

General Certificate of Secondary Education

HA

Highly Accomplished teacher

HEI

Higher Education Institution

ICT

Information Communication Technology

L

Lead teacher

MCEETYA

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

MCEECDYA

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs

MCVTE

Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education

MOVEET

Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training

MP

Member of Parliament

NAPLAN

National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy

NBPTS

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NCTAF

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

NPQTL

National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning

NRC

National Research Council

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Ofsted

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

OP

Overall Position

P

Proficient teacher

PD

Professional Development

PM

Prime Minister

QCS

Queensland Core Skills

QCT

Queensland College of Teachers

QCAR

Queensland Curriculum and Reporting

QSA

Queensland Studies Authority

SAS

Strengthening Australia’s Schools

TAFE

Technical and Further Education

TDA

Teacher Development Agency

TQELT

Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

viii


ix

Statement of Original Authorship The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature:

_________________________

Date:

_________________________


ix

x

Acknowledgments

I dedicate this thesis to my mother and father who made many sacrifices for my education. Their support and encouragement have always guided me and will continue to do so. Rest in peace. To my three supervisors, Professor John Lidstone, Dr. Mary Ryan and Dr. Clare O’Farrell, I thank you for your advice and wisdom as you guided and believed in me to achieve my goals. I thank QUT for their assistance and resources, particularly Professor Annette Patterson who gave me the time and space needed to complete this task. I would also like to thank Dr. Judy Smeed who has walked beside me, listened and put up with my various ups and downs. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the School of Cultural and Language Studies for their many thought provoking conversations along the way. I also extend my thanks to Julie Nickerson. Your hard work and patience is much appreciated. I would also like to acknowledge the participants in this study. Thank you for your generosity of time and honesty in your responses. Also, a big thank you to my family. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the publications which have transpired from this work to date. They include: Bourke, T. & Smeed, J. L. (2010). Let's take a closer look at teacher professionalism. Leadership in Focus: The journal for Australasian School Leaders, 2010(20), pp. 38-39. Ryan, M. E., & Bourke, T. (in press). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(3).

x


1

Introduction My position in the research – My story I began my career in 1990 as a secondary school teacher in the UK when professional standards were high on the agenda as a government-led initiative as part of the implementation of the National Curriculum. After a few years of teaching, I was promoted to the role of Head of Geography in a secondary school. I was extremely pleased with my accomplishments, increasing the percentage pass rate at GCSE1 level by thirty-five per cent and being rated highly by Ofsted2. My Geography department was regarded as being well organised; we had year plans and units of work from Years 7 to 11 which fitted with the requirements of the new curriculum. My principal at the time suggested that I apply to become a ‘Threshold’ teacher3 with future recommendations for senior management positions. However, my life journey took me in a different direction and I migrated to Australia. I became a classroom teacher in a school where everyone appeared to be ‘doing their own thing’. I remember thinking that this was quite odd, and secretly described these teachers as ‘unprofessional’. This was not how teaching happened in the UK where everyone followed a prescribed curriculum and worked through the professional standards to gain promotion. To me, this was normal and I never questioned it. However, after only a short time, I realised that many of my colleagues were in fact what I would regard as highly ‘professional’. This led me to question my earlier practices as a teacher in the UK. I always regarded myself as professional, but now I had to admit to myself that I had no idea what this notion or word actually meant. It was also around this time that A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2003) was being introduced for the first time in

1

GCSE – General Certificate in Secondary Education – an academic qualification awarded in a specific subject, taken in a number of subjects by students aged 14-16 in secondary education in the UK 2 Ofsted – Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills who inspect and regulate services which care for children and young people, and those providing education and skills for learners of all ages. 3 Threshold – a career level in the pre-2007 Professional Standards for Teachers in the UK


1

2

Australia. This prompted me to examine the literature on professionalism. My initial view saw professionalism as a claim to exclusive ownership of particular expertise, with related status and prestige of practice. Professionals were an autonomous group with self-regulated standards for training, practice and conduct (Larson, 1977). However, even though I was a ‘Threshold’ teacher, I did not believe that I fitted into this definition of being a ‘professional’. I began to question what professional standards were all about. The context and significance There is an abundance of literature on professionalism, with many attempts to provide a definition for this term, and even more government-led agendas calling for higher degrees of professionalism and higher standards in education. However, what professionalism is, how it can be defined and by whom, are still sites of struggle within the education sector. From educational literature, it is obvious that different stakeholders in education understand and experience professionalism in different ways. Friedson (1994) maintains that the use of the term is inconsistent, and Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) proclaim that there is no universal agreement or understanding of the concept. Professionalism, as Hanlon (1998) says, is a shifting rather than a concrete plan. It is subject to geographical and cultural differences (Helsby, 1995), is socially constructed, and changes its meaning through history (Holroyd, 2000). In recent times, one does not have to look further than the Yellow Pages or job advertisements to find the term creeping into the most unlikely domains such as restaurants, dog-minding services and hairdressers, all allegedly offering ‘professional services’ as a seductive marketing device. As the label is further transposed into these diverse domains, the term loses its purchase and becomes an empty and meaningless category, potentially including anyone (Fournier, 1999). It is obvious that the appeal to professionalism (Fournier, 1999) is widespread and teachers are not an exception to this. In the last three decades in Anglophone nations around the world, there has been an enormous interest politically and administratively in ‘identifying, codifying and applying professional standards of practice to the teaching force’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 1) in order to enhance professionalism. Australia has embarked on a vigorous campaign across all states and territories to develop and articulate

2


3

professional standards in teaching. Considerable research has been conducted around the concept of professional standards globally, but researchers vary in their conclusions about the extent to which the promulgation of such professional standards is useful. In 2006, Bloomfield remarked that policy documents in Australia signalled an escalating agenda of a new discourse linking professionalism with quality teaching and learning within a so-called ‘necessary framework of professional standards’. She argued that these structures and processes of explicit accountability and standardisation result in a particular form of the teacher as professional being legitimised (Bloomfield, 2006). Reports from Furlong, Barton, Miles, Whiting and Whitty (2000) and Leaton Gray and Whitty (2010) claimed that policy initiatives in the 1980s and 1990s in the UK were framed to change the nature of teacher professionalism. The UK government maintained that policies were developed in response to concerns over teacher supply and necessary accountability measures for initial teacher education. Similar politics currently underpin accountability regimes such as the Australian professional standards. Bloomfield (2006) concluded that these policy shifts were creating a climate of increased surveillance and conformity. The generally unchallenged belief is that the implementation of professional standards will deliver ‘quality’ in education – quality that can be measured and presented to the market to guide customer/consumer choice: in other words, a discourse of quality assurance. However, after my experience as a teacher in the UK, and realising that what I thought was professionalism was perhaps not really professional at all, I question the implementation of professional standards as the means to enhancing professionalism and increasing quality in education in Australia. I see this as an area that needs to be looked at again, further examined and problematised. In order to resolve my intellectual and personal conflicts in this arena, I enrolled in a higher degree research programme which took me on a different journey of understanding, one where I came across the work of Michel Foucault. Reading Foucault opened my eyes to the possibility of alternative perspectives on the issues of professionalism. Reflecting anew on such issues led to the identification of three research questions that have focused and guided this study. The three research questions are outlined below.


3

4

Research Questions: 1. How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? 2. What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism and professional standards implementation? 3. To what extent do teachers regulate and control their own professional practice? Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland? In order to understand how professional standards have emerged as the outcome to enhancing professionalism, I needed to ‘dig’ to find the transformations that made this possible. I wanted to rediscover ‘the connections, encounters, supports, blockages, plays of forces, strategies’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 76) which established professional standards as necessary. Therefore, my aim was to analyse the event of professional standards according to the multiple processes and events which constituted them; in Foucault’s words, working out the ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77). To complete my task, I embarked on three projects. The first of these was to trace the origins of professionalism in the academic literature, analysing the continuities, discontinuities and transformations of discourses relating to professionalism. This type of analysis allowed for a greater understanding of how the individual or subject is formed through discursive practices as well as how subjects shape discourse. I drew on Foucault’s book The Archaeology of Knowledge (1972) using archaeological analysis as the chosen method to identify similar and divergent theoretical viewpoints or competing discourses that have been presented in the debate about professionalism in education. The use of archaeology as a methodology offers a non-linear explanation to events such as professional standards, contributing to a far closer examination of the meaning of professionalism from different perspectives as well as showing how the meaning has changed over time. Archaeology also examines the methods, techniques and practices by which discourses relating to professionalism become normalised. My intent was not to enter

4


5

the debate about professionalism, but to show how the debates themselves have come about so as they can be disrupted. The second project I undertook in completing my task was to subject federal and state educational policy documents to archaeological analysis; documents that have been instrumental in the formulation of professional standards. Policies are defined as statements of government intentions and, in education, educational policy fixes the boundaries and horizons of education at national and state levels. Current policies are infused with the economic, social, political and cultural effects of globalisation reflecting a complex policy-making climate (Doherty, 2007). These policies are purposeful and directed towards a problem in order to bring about desired outcomes. Therefore, employing archaeological analysis allowed me to problematise government action (in this case, the implementation of professional standards) and what this practice means for teachers as well as how and why these professional standards have been set up historically. The third step was to elaborate and contextualise professionalism in the real world of teachers. To accomplish this, I interviewed current teachers in Queensland about their perceptions of teacher professionalism and professional standards implementation. These personal ‘discourses’ showed how professionalism operated in teachers’ daily routines. I wanted to make sense of professionalism as a discursive concept, offering a perspective on how the notion was used to reposition teachers. I then cross analysed the discourses from the academic literature, the policy documents and the interviews to look for intersections and divergences between the discourses. Furthermore, in order to investigate the use of professional standards as a method to regulate or govern teachers under the guise of enhanced professionalism, I subjected the interview data to the Foucauldian notion of power. For this part of the study, I drew on Foucault’s Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (1995). By using these various sources, my aim was to enable a deep understanding of how the current practices of professional standards for enhancing professionalism have eventuated and have been accepted as an unproblematic field or practice at this particular time. My intention was to explicate those historical conditions of possibility which have produced the present. This necessitated prising apart the taken-for-grantedness (Kendall & Wickham, 1999) of professional standards as a


5

6

means to enhancing professionalism. Following Foucault, as Kendall and Wickham (1999) remark, ‘the point is to use history as a way of diagnosing the present’ (p. 4). They elaborate by saying that an archaeological analysis helps us to see that the present is as strange as the past; not that a sensible or desirable present has emerged (Kendall & Wickham, 1999), a ‘triumphant daybreak’ as Foucault (1994a) describes it. In Foucault’s own words, the task is ‘to diagnose the present, to say what our present is and how our present is different and absolutely different, from all that is not it, that is to say our past’ (Foucault, 1996, p. 53). According to Kendall and Wickham (1999), an important part of using Foucault’s method is recognising strangeness. Therefore, in using this approach I avoided making myself comfortable with the present ‘strange’ situation of professional standards as the solution to enhancing professionalism; rather, I wished to disturb this taken-for-granted practice which has become common sense knowledge (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). The implementation of professional standards is premised on a set of claims to truth which are historically specific and are not necessarily the only way to enhance professionalism. My objective was to confront the standards reform agenda while remaining close to the everyday life and work of teachers, for it is in their daily routines that the rhetoric of professionalism is played out. Foucault’s archaeological analysis illuminates how the rules and procedures for professional standards have been set up and their complex practical effects (Foucault, 1972). The use of standards to enhance professionalism is the result of struggles for power, not the conclusive enlightened answer. The ‘interplay between a ‘code’ which rules ways of doing things (how teachers are to be trained, graded and examined) and the production of ‘true’ discourses which serve to justify the reasons for doing things in this way’ are analysed (Foucault, 1991a, p.79). Therefore, this study addresses the literature, the framing of policy and discourse and the ‘interactive’ realisation of such policies within the life of teachers (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 22). Goodson and Hargreaves (1996b) argue that such an approach provides a meaningful commentary on professionalism. By analysing the academic literature, policy documents and interview responses, I can identify where new ideas about professionalism begin to surface, who presents these ideas, what gives these people the right to speak, and how the meanings have changed over time.

6


7

In addition, I extended the archaeological approach with strategic borrowings from Foucault’s theorisations on power-knowledge to investigate the use of professional standards as a means of regulating or governing teachers under the guise of enhancing professionalism. Now, as a teacher educator in Australia, I watch with interest what is happening in the Australian context in relation to the younger generation of teachers. These reforms are being proffered as the mechanism for enhancing professionalism. However, with a different set of eyes, I believe that it is time to look at these current practices again, practices that are being taken for granted. Thus, the structure and order of the thesis are outlined below. Overview of the thesis CHAPTER ONE – RESEARCH APPROACH

This chapter outlines the methodological frameworks adopted in this study to increase understanding of the process of implementing professional standards in Australia to enhance teacher professionalism. The selected research approach is justified, explaining the interconnections between the core research questions, the structure of the research and the qualitative research methodologies employed. The approach is underpinned by a theoretical framework that draws selectively upon the work of Michel Foucault, so the Foucauldian concepts that I have borrowed are outlined here also. CHAPTER TWO – DISCOURSES OF PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE

Rather than being presented as a straightforward review of literature around professionalism, this chapter is written as an archaeological analysis of the different discourses of professionalism in the academic literature. The voices of authority that make up the ‘enunciative field’ for professionalism are outlined, presenting the competing discourses. As well as outlining what has been said, by whom and the authority they have to speak, the conditions that make these discourses possible will also be discussed in relation to the Australian education context. In other words, the political, social and economic circumstances are discussed to reveal the complex set of contingencies or conditions of possibility that allowed changes in the discourses to happen. Discourses on professional standards, the current mechanism for enhancing professionalism in Australia, are also outlined.


7

8

CHAPTER THREE – POLICY AS DISCOURSE

This chapter presents a Foucauldian archaeological analysis of selected Australian federal and state policy documents related to professionalism, professional standards and teacher quality, with an aim to revealing which professionalism and professional standards discourses are portrayed through such documents. The policy texts are analysed productively in terms of how they speak within discursive frames, revealing which voices are legitimised or amplified and how other voices are redistributed, repositioned or even silenced. Policy as a discursive practice seeks to advance and mobilise particular ‘regimes of truth’ and institutionalise disciplinary structures of normalisation (Bloomfield, 2006), in this case, professional standards. CHAPTER FOUR – PERSONAL DISCOURSES OF TEACHER PROFESSIONALISM

This chapter outlines the personal discourses of teacher professionalism as proclaimed by twenty teachers currently registered to teach in the Australian state of Queensland. As well as reporting on nine discreet discourses and twenty-four themes within these discourses, how these spoken discourses intersect with or diverge from the discourses in the academic literature and policy documents is also revealed. Additionally, findings from an application of the Foucauldian notion of power are outlined to measure the extent to which teachers are conforming to or resisting the dominant discourses of professionalism and professional standards. CHAPTER FIVE – CONCLUSION

This chapter responds sequentially to the three core research questions that focus and guide the study. The sets of data are further interwoven to ascertain intersections and divergences between the data sets in order to summarise the findings and draw conclusions. The chapter concludes with the overall findings from the study and their implications.

8


9

Chapter 1: Research Approach Introduction This chapter outlines the theoretical and methodological frameworks adopted in this study to raise understanding of the process of implementing professional standards in Australia to enhance teacher professionalism. The aim is to outline and justify the selected research approach, explaining the interconnections between the core research questions, the structure of the research and the qualitative research methodologies employed. Furthermore, the approach is underpinned by a theoretical framework that draws selectively upon the work of Michel Foucault – one of the most influential thinkers of the late twentieth century. Foucault’s experimental methodology affords flexibility and has been taken up and has impacted upon disciplines across the humanities and social sciences. According to Peters and Besley (2007), researchers are able to use aspects of Foucault’s ideas ‘to demonstrate a proposition, elucidate a point, and examine an argument or window dress our own theoretical hunches’ (p. 4). These qualities have made its use popular as a means of inquiry within the educational and other fields. Many authors in education have employed aspects of Foucault’s ideas and adapted them to research on, for example, the examination as a key concept in understanding the nexus of power-knowledge relations (Hoskin, 1990), exploring new notions around pedagogy (Marshall, 2007), and critically framing education policy using the Foucaldian concepts of discourse and governmentality (Doherty, 2007). O’Farrell (2005) identifies five basic principles that she argues underpin Foucault’s work, namely order, history, truth, power and social justice. She suggests that in order to have ‘something that vaguely resembles an ‘application’ of Foucault’s work’ (p. 54), these assumptions have to be kept in mind. Foucault often referred to his work as a ‘tool box’ where one could go rummaging (Foucault, 1994b), so for the purpose of this study I have borrowed a number of the concepts or ‘tools’ associated with O’Farrell’s five basic principles in order to carry out this research. Foucault encouraged others to use his work in this way saying, ‘If one or

Chapter 1: Research Approach

9

10

two of these ‘gadgets’ of approach or method that I’ve tried to employ … can be of service, then I shall be delighted’ (Foucault, 1980a, p. 65). These ‘gadgets’ are useful tools in making sense of educational practices that are publicly proclaimed as educational ‘truths’. Foucault regarded his work as a series of experiments (O’Farrell, 2005) and it is this experimental nature and the versatility it provides that has made his work so attractive. His method allows for deep critical analysis where, as he says, the ‘rhythms become broader’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 3). In other words, his approach allows for a non-linear explanation of events such as professional standards implementation. His texts identify how and why certain phenomena, behaviours, processes or practices become a problem. Therefore, in this study, Foucault’s method allows for the problematisation of how and why professional standards have become the accepted practice for enhancing professionalism in Australia at this point in time. Using Foucault’s historical research approach allows for the demonstration of the interplay of contingent factors in the development of professionalism discourses rather than simply identifying a system of cause and effect. It is the role of contingency rather than historical inevitability that generates the capacity to question the rationality of professional standards as the mechanism to enhancing professionalism. As Foucault explains, his method ‘at least gives a fairly fruitful kind of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 74). The research approach described in this chapter is divided into three main sections. Section 1 – This section describes the methodology of the thesis and explains ideas from Foucault’s work relevant to this study, notably ‘archeology’ and ‘discourse’. Archeology and discourse are ordering tools that Foucault uses in historical analysis. These tools also describe the ‘power/knowledge formulation that makes the Foucauldian approach so distinctive’ (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, p.22). Section 2 - This section outlines the data collection techniques. Specific aspects of a case study such as boundaries, site and participants are also outlined. The data analysis procedure is then explained in detail. The data are purposefully subjected to Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power to illuminate power relations in the interview data. Foucault’s notions of disciplinary power are also outlined to provide further

10


11

clarification on meaning and to demonstrate their application and relevance to this study. Section 3 – The last section outlines the processes adopted to establish design and focuses on issues including transferability, credibility and reflexivity. This section also discusses the ethical procedures adopted in the study. 1.1

SECTION 1 – FOUCAULT’S TOOLS

This section outlines Foucault’s view of history before proceeding to explain ‘archaeology’ and the various categories it uses such as the ‘statement’, the ‘archive’ and ‘discourse’. A definition of another Foucaldian notion, the ‘regime of truth’ is also offered in this section. 1.1.1 History

If traditional views of history claim that they are able to unearth and describe ‘what actually happened’ in the past, more contemporary views argue that all historical views are partial. As the well-known dictum has it, history is written by the victor. The big question therefore is: whose truth or perspective is being foregrounded to explain any specific historical event; in this instance, the events which led to the construction of professional standards? Foucault’s view of history is somewhat different from traditional accounts. He does not see history as a series of events that can be explained in simple chronological order, transitioning from one event to the other smoothly, using historical dates as a frame. Foucault’s histories are crucially about problematisations (Kendall & Wickham, 1999; O’Farrell, in press) so it is the selection of a problem rather than a historical period that is more important. In the current study, therefore, I see the implementation of professional standards to enhance professionalism as an event to be problematised. This part of the study is guided and focused by the first research question: How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? Foucault asks that we divert our attention away from the totalising themes of traditional histories; themes like succession, unities and continuities (Foucault, Chapter 1: Research Approach

11

12

1972). Instead, his approach maintains that describing differences, transformations, interruptions or discontinuities allows for a much deeper analysis (Foucault, 1972). In his opinion, traditional historians are opposed to conceiving of difference, to describing separations and dispersions in what is happening. They prefer continuity rather than ‘continual difference’ (O’Farrell, in press). For Foucault, his preference is to ask harder questions like ‘what happened to cause certain concepts to transform and enter ‘a new time’ far removed from their origin?’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 4) With this question, Foucault is asking us to recognise the multiplicity of conditions constituting an event like the implementation of standards, taking account of the interconnections of the possibilities that have allowed this event to occur, when and how it did (Foucault, 1991a). Foucault’s concern is with ‘discourse’ in terms of knowledge; where knowledge is understood as a matter of social, historical and political conditions under which statements come to count as true or false (Foucault, 1972). He maintains that concepts (like professionalism) do not continually progress (or regress) to a defined end point, but become more refined into a ‘single horizon’ over time (Foucault, 1972, p. 5). They are subject to successive rules where the production of knowledge or ‘truth’ are set up historically through particular discourses and then reconstituted into certain practices. Thus, it is not a matter of progress (Kendall & Wickham, 1999) or a fixed definition of the truth, rather the main line of questioning is how divisions have been drawn between the true and the false over time (O’Farrell, in press). The formulation and publication of professional standards have emerged as the ‘truth’ or the accepted interpretation of professionalism. My task is to uncover the conditions of possibility that allowed this to happen; in Foucault’s words, working out the ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77). In simpler words, I have to describe the various bits and pieces that had to be in place to allow professional standards to start to operate (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). Foucault describes his approach to history variously as ‘archaeology’, ‘genealogy’ or ‘a history of the present’. For the purpose of this study, archaeological analysis is my chosen method as it will give the clearest sense of the present understanding of professionalism. It allows for an exploration of the networks of what has been said about professionalism as well as allowing an exploration of discourses as practices. An interpretation of The Archaeology of Knowledge 12


13

(Foucault, 1972) and Discipline and Punish (Foucault, 1995) provides the method that allows an understanding of why various education stakeholders perceive professionalism differently from each other. Using this methodology makes it possible to articulate professionalism and to understand how professionalism as an object of knowledge has been produced. I extend the archaeological method by introducing ‘power’ in this study; a notion that some might correlate more with the genealogical method. However, I have refrained from using ‘genealogy’, a method very similar to archaeology that Foucault used in his later work to analyse power relations. When applying Foucault to this kind of material and subject matter, the current practice is usually to deploy his ideas on governmentality in addition to the ideas of other theorists who have used this notion. However, I want to take a slightly different, and perhaps less mainstream approach, in order to produce a different angle on the problem. 1.1.2 Archaeology

An archaeologist is one who digs through layers of rock and soil in order to uncover and study what people did in the past from the things they left behind. When someone disturbs the ground there are traces left behind about activities occurring at those certain locations at particular times. Archaeologists use various tools to carry out their excavation activities and carefully record and map their findings. This information helps the archaeologist to interpret what happened in the past. In the same way, Foucault’s archaeology has allowed me to dig through historical ‘archives’ on professionalism in education in order to throw light on the events that have created the field of knowledge and ‘regimes of truth’ on professionalism. Professionalism in education has been defined in a multitude of ways (see Chapter Two) and from various different perspectives. Some writers agree, repeating each other’s claims about professionalism; however, other writers offer differing viewpoints, in some cases even contradictions. By using archaeology, it becomes possible to understand how professionalism has been produced as an object. It is a way of opening up these verbal formulations (statements) in order to explore what is said and what can be seen in a set of social arrangements (Foucault, 1972); in this instance, Australian education. In Foucault’s own words, ‘archaeology describes discourses as practices specified in the element of the archive’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 131). Chapter 1: Research Approach

13

14

In order to elaborate on this, I now explain what Foucault means by the statement, the archive, discourses and ‘regimes of truth’. 1.1.3 The Statement

Foucault’s archaeology does not define statements in the grammatical or propositional sense. Rather, for Foucault, statements are the ‘atoms’ or ‘elementary units of discourse’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 80). He says, the statement: … is a function of existence that properly belongs to signs and on the basis of which one may then decide, through analysis or intuition, whether or not they ‘make sense’, according to what rule they follow one another or are juxtaposed, of what they are a sign, and what sort of act is carried out by their formulation (oral or written) (Foucault, 1972, p. 86). Therefore, the most important thing about a statement is what it makes possible and what distinguishes it from other statements. As well as being distinctive, statements set up relationships with each other, deriving support from other statements. They always belong to a series or a whole and always play a role among other statements. They coexist and have effects, functions and roles (Foucault, 1972). To analyse a statement is to look at ‘its actual practice, its conditions, the rules that govern its existence and the field within which it operates’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 87). As well as this, a statement must have a material existence (Foucault, 1972); in other words, a place, a date, a status, a field of emergence, for example, who may have produced the statement and with what authority? These statements then enter various networks and various fields of use, where some eventually disappear, some are modified and some are replaced by other statements. The ‘survivors’ are then integrated into operations and strategies, serving or resisting various interests – they ‘participate in challenge and struggle, and become a theme of appropriation or rivalry (Foucault, 1972, p. 105). ‘Statements in their coexistence, their succession, their mutual functioning, their reciprocal determination and their independent or correlative transformation’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 29) are an integral part of archaeological analysis. Statements are the basic unit of discourse and these statements form the object within what Foucault calls a ‘discursive practice’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 44). When statements from speakers conveyed through an abundance of texts cohere or make core repeatable claims of knowledge, they form the discursive 14


15

practices. O’Farrell (2005) summarises Foucault’s (1972) notion of discursive practice as the ‘historically and culturally specific set of rules for organising and producing different forms of knowledge’ (p. 134). Thus, the juxtaposition of statements, discourses and discursive practices forms knowledge on professionalism, disclosing conditions which make possible changes to theory in the area. The status and institutional setting of particular statements within discourse are described as enunciative modalities (Foucault, 1972). Statements or texts have authority because of the institutional setting and the authority of the writer or speaker. Over time, the ordering of these enunciative modalities creates concepts; specifically in this study, the concept of professionalism. In summary, statements as a conceptual tool are analysed to see how they are linked to each other (or not) and to discover how they change. In this way the discourse and the underlying knowledge become visible. 1.1.4

Archive

I have assumed the role of the archaeologist excavating a textual ‘archive’. Foucault defines the ‘archive’ as being ‘the general system of the formation and transformation of statements’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 130). In other words, the archive specifies the rules that have allowed what can be said (or not said); it defines the functioning of statements and the emergence of these statements as events as well as dictating how statements survive and undergo modification. The list of rules is never really complete and is therefore always open to change. This search through the archaeological ‘archive’ therefore describes the general theme of professionalism and questions the already said at the level of existence. It also describes the enunciative function as well as the discursive formation operating (Foucault, 1972). The textual archive for this investigation includes: 

Academic literature – this includes scholarly articles, journals and books mainly from the areas of education, the history of education and sociology.



Federal and state policy documents in Australia, namely Strengthening Australia’s Schools (Dawkins, 1988); Agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the teaching profession through their unions: Providing for an accord to advance the quality of teaching and learning (from now on known as The Teaching Accord) (Department of


15

16

Employment, Education and Training (DEET), 1994); A Class Act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession (Crowley,1998); A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003); Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (Queensland College of Teachers (QCT), 2006); and National Professional Standards for Teachers (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), 2011). Reference is also made to other supporting policy documents. 

Interview recordings and subsequent transcripts with current teachers registered to teach in Queensland.

The following shows diagrammatically the use of the three different texts from the archive. This will be used as an orientation tool throughout the study to guide the reader. Figure 1.1: Texts from the archive

Academic Literature

Policy Documents

Interviews

My intent in this study is to provide archaeological descriptions of the competing discourses on professionalism in education from these texts. The aim is to define discourses in their specificity to show the way in which the set of rules that they put into operation could result in no other outcome (Foucault, 1972, pp. 138139). In this case, the outcome has been a set of prescribed professional standards. 1.1.5 Discourses

Originally the term ‘discourse’ was a technical linguistic concept (Hall, 2001). It simply referred to connected passages of oral or written text (Stubbs, 1983). For Foucault, however, ‘discourse’ is something much ‘more’ than just language (Foucault, 1972, p. 49). In The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault admits the meaning of ‘discourse’ fluctuated. Sometimes he meant individual groups of 16


17

statements, sometimes the general domain of all statements, and sometimes he meant a regulated practice that accounted for a certain number of statements (Foucault, 1972). According to Mills (2003), the latter means the unwritten rules or structures that have produced the statements in the first place. This definition is generally the one that interests most commentators and also where my own interest lies. Discourses do not just come about but are produced by a set of rules; a set of rules that lead to the distribution and circulation of certain statements. Some are widely circulated whereas others are limited. Therefore, as well as seeing discourse as constituted by statements that cohere, it is also important to analyse those excluded and the complex mechanisms that allowed this to happen. Discourse depends on the interplay of rules at a particular point in time. It is the coexistence of all these statements and the transformations they undergo, the interplay of their arrangement, location and replacement (Foucault, 1972) that are analysed. Defining the conditions and determining the field of events that made these rules legitimate is the task of the archaeologist. Foucault used the example of medicine where medical discourse in a particular historical period depended on the laboratory, experiments, instruments and institutional regulations of the time. There are always contradictory discourses about what is right and what is normal, and these circulate and compete with each other at different points in time. Thus, I looked for internal configurations and secret contradictions concerning the rules surrounding professional standards. Discourses are put into practice and used to regulate the conduct of others. Therefore, ‘discourses’ are about relations of power. This is not necessarily an oppressive form of power. For Foucault, discourses are ‘productive’ in that they have effects on people’s conduct. As one commentator suggests, there is a multiplicity of meanings about our social world in circulation, each one aligning with and constituting different culturally and historically specific power relationships (Stubbs, 1983). For Foucault, truth and power exist in a highly complex historical relationship which is subject to constant negotiation (O’Farrell, in press). Some discourses dominate, not necessarily because they are more right or truthful, but because they have political strength within that particular institution (Stubbs, 1983). In this way, particular meanings enable particular groups of people to exercise power reflecting their own particular vested, and sometimes veiled, interests (Marsh, 2010).


17

18

In the current study, the discourses governing how the topic of professionalism can be spoken about and reasoned are under investigation. The question is how is it that one particular statement appeared rather than another? It is not just a case of analysing statements, but also looking beyond them to the broader context. The issue in this study is why, at a given time, out of all that could be said and done, this particular practice of prescribed professional standards appeared rather than another. Discourses become ‘discursive practices’ or ‘regimes of truth’ as they convey the message about what are normal, establishing criteria (the professional standards) against which teachers are evaluated. Foucault defines ‘regimes of truth’ as ‘the ensemble of rules according to which the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power’ are ‘attached to the true’ (Foucault, 1994c, p. 132). He elaborates by saying that what needs to be looked for is the status of the truth – does the truth rest on fragile ground, ‘crumbling soil’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 137) or on solid foundations? What allows professional standards to be read as unproblematic statements of fact? This ‘regime of truth’ in this case is the explicit program, the systematic form of thought that endeavours to change practices and reform the conduct of teachers (Dean, 1999). Foucault argues that: … each society has its “regime of truth”, its general politics of truth, that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true, the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true or false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned … the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true (Foucault, 1980b, p. 131). This study, therefore, investigates the relations between voices of authority on professionalism and systems of norms, as well as the economic, political and social processes enabling discourses to become the practices that systematically ‘form the objects of which they speak’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 49). Investigating the academic literature on professionalism, policy documents and teachers’ statements reveals the competing discourses of professionalism that allowed the professional standards to become the current discursive practice or regime of truth for enhancing professionalism.

18


19

1.1.6 Archaeology as method

Foucault did not elaborate a fully worked out, practised and repeatable method. In other words, he did not offer a template or blue-print for undertaking analysis. As he said, ‘I don’t construct a general method of definitive value for myself or others. What I write does not prescribe anything, neither to myself nor to others’ (Foucault, 1991b, p. 29). Therefore, in order to explicate the methodology, I have used the guidelines offered by The Archaeology of Knowledge (Foucault, 1972) and the principles as set out by Kendall and Wickham (1999) in Using Foucault’s Methods and devised my own version of the archaeological method. Kendall and Wickham (1999) propose that archaeological analysis in action attempts to do seven things as outlined below: 1. Chart the relations between the sayable and visible. Here the focus is on sets of statements and their arrangements. 2. Analyse relations between one statement and another. The focus here is on the ordering of statements. This shows how a system of statements works. 3. Formulate rules for the repeatability of statements. This concentrates on the procedures to deploy statements. 4. Analyse the positions that are established between subjects. In other words, how statements produce subject positions – ways of being and acting taken on by human beings. 5. Describe ‘surfaces of emergence’ – places within which elements are made objects in discourse. 6. Describe institutions which acquire authority and provide limits within which discursive objects may act or exist. 7. Describe ‘forms of specification’ which refer to the ways in which discursive objects are targeted. A form of specification is a system for understanding a particular phenomenon with the aim of relating it to another phenomenon (systematic ways that phenomena are made accessible to us, for example through journals). With these guidelines in mind, I conducted an extensive literature review on the topic of professionalism using databases from the university library. I focused initially on


19

20

books and scholarly journals and articles and interrogated two types of texts for my search: 

First, I examined books, scholarly articles, journal articles (collectively referred to as texts) from the fields of education and sociology for their statements on professionalism. These texts illuminated how professionalism and associated notions such as professions, professionalisation and professionality were described and defined in the academic world. These texts also outlined a variety of competing discourses of professionalism debated by the academic community over years of research. Literature on professional standards was also investigated.



Secondly, I used texts on the history of Australian education to provide a backdrop of the political, economic and social conditions present in Australian education at particular points in time from the end of World War II to the present. As mentioned previously, it is not the period of investigation that is primary;

the problem to be investigated is key. However, for certain discursive formations, the order may follow the thread of chronological successions. I have adopted this as a worthy procedure for analysis in this study. The adoption of the timeframe from World War II was based on changes to the education system, such as the developments in teacher training and scholarships for teachers as well as the particular value given to education at that time. It was also during this period that teacher professionalism and professionalisation strategies became predominant. My first interest lay in how professionalism was spoken about in the academic literature, so using these texts I created a database of authors, dates and sites of publications by tracing influences and cross referencing writers by patterns of citations. This information was organised bibliographically using Endnote XII. An example of this is shown in Appendix A. Thorough readings were conducted of texts and detailed notes were recorded manually as shown in Appendix B. This extensive reading and interrogation of texts gave a broad overview of the topic of professionalism, allowing for a large corpus of data to be collected. Relevant material was judged to be any text that dealt with professionalism from a sociological or educational perspective from the broad theme. 20


21

When the note taking procedure concluded, the first level of analysis involved looking at statements from the various retrieved texts. The aim was twofold. First, I looked for archaeological isomorphism or sameness in the statements as they appeared at the level of formation and sought the rules that made the statements valid at that point in time. I looked at the regularity and frequency of statements, mapping when statements emerged and when new statements began to function (surfaces of emergence). Foucault (1972) refers to this as the attribution of innovation. By this he is not only talking about ‘original affirmations’ but also statements that have been borrowed or even copied from predecessors. He refers to original affirmations as creative statements and those borrowed as imitative. I analysed the enunciative regularities and frequencies of these statements to look for homogeneity. The rules that set up these statements are never entirely formulated but space is created for their coexistence. It became clear that certain groups of statements formed the starting point from which other statements were derived. This tree of enunciative derivation of a discourse is one of the principle themes of archaeology. Secondly, I uncovered irruptions, discontinuities, contradictions or distances between statements (fields of initial differentiation). Foucault refers to this part of the analysis as the analysis of contradictions. He maintains that contradictions should be described, ‘they are not appearances to be overcome, nor secret principles to be uncovered’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 151). As part of my analysis, the gaps or ‘spaces of dissension’ were described. The aim was to ‘map the point at which they were constituted, to define the form that they assume, the relations they have with each other and the domain which they govern’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 155-156). The analysis of statements continued until the arguments began to repeat, helping me to understand the conditions of existence of the discursive formation of professionalism. This search delineated the corpus of material needed for analysis and revealed the authorised voices or enunciative modalities on professionalism. These were recorded as shown in the template in Appendix B. Foucault (1972) maintains that archaeology is a comparative analysis that is not intended to reduce the diversity of discourses. Rather, the intention is to have a Chapter 1: Research Approach

21

22

diversifying effect. To accomplish this I looked for exchanges between different discourses happening at the same time. As well as the relations between discursive formations, relations with non-discursive domains (political events, economic processes) were also investigated. By doing this I was not trying to show political or economic practices as causes; rather, I was showing on what condition a correlation could exist between them. The analysis of transformations formed the final part of the analysis. In order to accomplish this I described the different elements of a system of formation, for example, the rate of unemployment, the labour needs or political decisions with regards to universities. When mapping transformations, it did not necessarily mean that everything was new. Rather, that a transformation of relations had occurred. I found archaeology a highly valuable alternative approach to writing a literature review on professionalism as an already well researched and theorised concept. The extensive reading and documentation of the academic literature revealed other sources of information useful for my archaeological analysis. These included various media articles and policy documents. I then subjected a purposeful sample of policy documents to archaeological analysis also. The most representative documents that related to professional standards were selected for this purpose. The policy documents were examined to ascertain whose voices had been privileged or whose had been silenced and which texts had been used as supporting evidence for various discourses. As well as looking at the regularity and frequency of statements, attention was also given to the frequency of key terms and words and their colocation with other terms and words. Finally, how teachers were positioned in the discourse was also noted. Kendall and Wickham (1999) also provide other suggestions about using this method which are worth noting. They say that since ‘discourse is a corpus of statements whose organisation is regular and systematic’ (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, p. 42), rules must apply. They point out that it is important to identify the rules for the production of statements. As well as this, it is important to identify the rules for the shifts in thinking. They call this delimiting the sayable (Kendall & Wickham, 1999). What is also of importance here is the new space that is created for new statements to be made. Kendall and Wickham (1999) emphasise the need to look for contingencies rather than causes. This means that the emergence of an event was not 22


23

necessary but was merely one possible outcome of a whole series of complex relations between other events. To accomplish this, I outlined the social, political and economic backdrop of Australian education in relation to changes in discourses on professionalism. Kendall and Wickham (1999) also encourage analysts to be skeptical in regard to all political arguments. Although they do admit that no one ever really succeeds in suspending second order judgements, they do recommend that attempts to be non-interpretative are important (Kendall & Wickham, 1999, p. 26). 1.2

SECTION 2 – THE INTERVIEWS

This section outlines the data collection and methods of analysis used for the interviews. Professional standards have become the dominant or normalising discourse; the statement, representation and practice of professionalism in Australia. Therefore, in order to explore teachers’ understandings of professionalism as well as their opinions on professional standards, interviews were conducted with twenty Queensland teachers. Although many countries have adopted professional standards as a means to enhance professionalism, the understandings and experiences that teachers have of these concepts can vary considerably (Coleman, 2007; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a; Helsby, 1995; Sachs, 2003). Therefore, the underlying purpose of this part of the study is to make sense of teachers’ current understandings of professionalism. A qualitative method featuring open-ended interviews was adopted as the appropriate technique. While an individual school or other educational site could have been identified as a case study with me as researcher immersing myself in the culture of that one educational establishment (Cope, 2004), I base my case on a geographic region, namely Queensland. The reason for this is that all schools regardless of whether they are primary4, secondary5, state6, private7, or of religious affiliation8 are now subject to standards. I interviewed teachers from each of these systems to give a

4

Primary in Queensland means Preparatory to Year 7. Secondary in Queensland means Years 8-12. From 2015, Year 7 will move to the secondary sector. 6 State schools are government owned schools and can also be referred to as public schools. 7 Private schools are also known as independent or non-state schools. They are generally not part of a system, but can be aligned with long established religious foundations (e.g., the Anglican Church). 8 Religious affiliated means either an independent school aligned to a particular religion or a systemic Catholic school. 5


23

24

wider base of interview data to juxtapose against the academic literature and policy documents. Given the range and lack of specificity of the term ‘professionalism’ (as discussed in Chapter Two), a qualitative approach was adopted. Qualitative research seeks to listen to participants’ stories, interpret their views, and retell their accounts of their experiences in order to explain how a group of people make sense of the world (Glesne, 1999). The intention was to understand the socially constructed reality teachers derive from their world (Merriam, 1998). Cohen and Manion (1994) suggest that data gathered in this manner is glossed ‘with the meanings and purposes of those people who are at the source’ (p. 37) and in this study it was particularly important to gain information from the source (Queensland teachers) in order to respond to the second research question – What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism? It was imperative to gain insight into teachers’ behaviours for, as Dreyfus and Rabinow (1982) state, ‘it is in the practices, focused in technologies and innumerable localisations which literally embody what the analyst is seeking to understand’ (p. 187). Hence open-ended interviews which lie within the interpretative paradigm were identified as the most valuable research approach. Cavana, Delahaye and Sekaran (2001) say ‘the interview provides a unique opportunity to uncover rich and complex information from an individual’ (p. 138). In summary, for both ethical and investigatory reasons, aspects of a case study approach featuring open-ended interviews is an appropriate methodology. 1.2.1 A case study approach

According to Freebody (2003) ‘case studies focus on one particular instance of educational experience and attempt to gain theoretical and professional insights from a full documentation of the instance’ (p. 81). He says, in its most general form, the goal of a case study is ‘an inquiry in which both researchers and educators can reflect upon particular instances of educational practice’ (Freebody, 2003, p. 81). In this case, the particular instance is the implementation of professional standards to enhance professionalism in Queensland. The boundaries are set by the geographic region, thus meeting Merriam’s (1998) requirement that unless the intended phenomenon is bounded, it is not a case study. As well as having a strong sense of place, this study also has a strong temporal dimension. Yin (1994) maintains that a 24


25

case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. Implementing professional standards is currently a global phenomenon and as Hamel, Dufour and Fortin (1993) point out, these local cases can be a reflection of a much larger global educational force. Stake (1995) declared that case studies can be used in a variety of settings and in this study the boundaries are set by the geographic region. The study gives voice to the participants (Hatch, 2002), is based on a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 1994) and focuses on a particular educational instance (Freebody, 2003), thus justifying the case study approach. The site - Queensland The maps below show the location of Queensland in Australia.

The Participants Teachers currently registered to teach in Queensland were sought with representation from state, private and religiously affiliated schools. The teachers had various years of experience, from first year teachers to teachers at the latter end of their careers. The primary and secondary education sectors were also represented, as well as various levels of the school hierarchy. Variation was also sought in the levels of qualifications that the participants held. The participants were obtained by snowballing from professional learning networks. Participants were provided with a brief description of the research to which, in accordance with university policy and ethical procedures, they consented. Over a period of approximately three months, interviews were arranged at times and locations convenient for both the participants and myself. All participants were from the Brisbane area although many had taught at various locations throughout Queensland during the span of their careers. A matrix to show details of the participants is included below. Each participant was given a pseudonym to preserve confidentiality. Chapter 1: Research Approach

25

26

* * * * * *

*

*

0-10

Teacher

11-19

*

* * * *

* * *

*

*

* *

* * * *

*

* *

*

* * * *

*

James

*

20+

*

Janice

* * *

Sally

*

Kory

*

*

Jean

* * *

* *

Kate

* * *

*

Xanthe

* * * * * * * * *

Jan

Senior Manager

*

Holly

Middle Manager

*

Sue

Principal

*

Judy

Private

Years of Service

* * * *

Mike

State

Secondary

Positions of Responsibility

* *

Barbara

Primary

*

Marie

Mary

Barney

PhD

*

Cecilia

Masters

Type of School

*

Tia

Undergrad

Qualifications

*

Mabel

Genevieve

Name

26

Table 1.1: Participant’s log

* *

* *

*

*

* *

* * * * * * * * *

* * * *

* *

*

* *

* *


27

Positioning My position in this research is as a teacher from overseas, coming from a country where the implementation of professional standards to enhance professionalism had occurred some years previously. Therefore, I believe it was important for me to take measures not to influence the interview process (as much as possible) as I have been socially and historically shaped in another education system. It was for this reason that the open-ended interview technique employing the phenomenological concepts of bracketing or époché was chosen. This is further outlined below. I was also aware that I was asking teachers to speak about incidents which in some cases resulted in stories about their colleagues or indeed their leadership teams. I stressed the confidentiality and ethical procedures surrounding this process so that they could talk freely. However, I was aware of the power relationships inherent in all interview situations and that there was a risk that teachers would tell me what they thought I wanted to hear. Accordingly, I attempted to counter this by varying my styles of questions. The interview design will now be elaborated. Interview Design Interviews were conducted face to face and followed a sequence proposed by Cavana et al. (2001). The interviews began with the ritual greeting and some general conversation. Then, a brief synopsis of what the research was about occurred as a way of establishing rapport (Cavana et al., 2001). The open-ended approach to interviewing was also outlined to assure the participants that there were no right or wrong answers and they were encouraged to elaborate on their practices and experiences. Each participant was asked the following closed questions to identify and log explicit facts about them: 1. How long have you been a teacher? 2. What type of school are you employed in? 3. Do you hold a position of responsibility within your school? What does it involve? 4. What academic qualifications do you hold? These questions allowed the participants to feel comfortable and settle into the conversation. Cavana et al. (2001) refers to this as ‘entrance time investment’. After these initial closed questions, the interview proceeded using open-ended questions Chapter 1: Research Approach

27

28

allowing for rich dialogue and detailed accounts of the participants’ experiences. This unstructured open-ended technique was chosen to make the interview seem less artificial and to provide insight into the interviewees’ socially constructed world (Freebody, 2003). Freebody (2003) describes this style of interviewing as one in which a few general questions or issues are put to the participant giving them a chance to answer freely and direct the talk. The questions used the ‘stem–plus–query design’ (Cavana et al., 2001), for example, ‘I am interested in your concerns about unprofessional behaviour. Would you tell me about some of these concerns?’ This softens the question so the interview is not quite so inquisitorial (Cavana et al., 2001). I prompted the interviewees to identify a particular experience so that the rest of the interview was an opportunity to think and talk freely about it, exploring the outer and inner parameters of their understanding. The primary question of the interview was ‘Tell me about a time when you felt you were being professional, or behaving in a particularly professional manner.’ Therefore, each interview took a different path as participants’ responses were explored. An unstructured approach relies on probing and paraphrasing to manage the process. Having no preordained ideas should theoretically reflect more of the interviewee’s world. However, unstructured interviews can be time consuming and can go off the point. As no two interviews are the same, the breadth of the investigation can become very wide (Cavana et al., 2001) and thus the length of the interview must be managed. Some examples of prompts or probing questions that were used are ‘Could you explain further?’ or ‘What do you mean by that?’ It was important to get a balance between leading the interview and attempts to ‘lead’ the interviewee to comment on their experience. That said, while it is unrealistic to presume an absence of all prior perceptions by any researcher, I actively attempted to put aside any preconceived notions that I held of professionalism or professional standards by employing a conscious process of ‘bracketing’ or époché. This means that judgement was suspended so that as little bias or personally held beliefs as possible were reflected in the interview process. Merriam (1998) warns that meanings and experiences gained in this way will inevitably be filtered through the researcher’s own perceptions and subjectivities.

28


29

All interviews were conducted through interaction and coordinated mutually by both speakers and even though (by bracketing) I did not introduce anything new into the interviews, it was myself, as interviewer, who nominated what was relevant and chose aspects on which the interviewee was asked to elaborate. I also used leadons and reinstatements where I thought something might be of interest. These types of moves do coordinate the talk and shift emphasis on issues (Freebody, 2003). Even with such caveats, however, my main aim was to take a step back and try to see professionalism through the respondents’ eyes. Paraphrasing was another technique used to clarify inconsistencies. This allowed for further reflection or development of thinking or re-orientation of the interview if misapprehension had occurred. For some of the particularly personal stories, permission for follow up questions was sought; for example, ‘do you mind …’ A second question that was used was ‘Could you tell me if you are aware of the Professional Standards?’ This question was used to give me an insight into how much attention teachers paid to these standards and also to gauge how acceptable (or not) this mechanism is for enhancing professionalism according to their point of view. The style of questioning was chosen deliberately, avoiding why questions and concentrating on what and how as the intent was to orient participants towards their lived experiences (Sandberg, 1994). Answers from interviewees were based on impromptu perceptions. Whilst a more carefully prepared, rehearsed and intellectualised response might have elicited different notions related to their receptive understanding of the concept, these data had the benefit of immediacy, potentially tapping into the ‘tacit knowledge’ that guides practice. Participants commented that they found the interview quite challenging, but also very reflective. After interviewing, it became quite usual for stimulating educational conversation to continue which acted as a winding down from the intensive interview process. Cavana et al. (2001) refer to this as the ‘exit level investment’ or the ritual good-bye. Organisation of interview data TRANSCRIPTS

The following process was undertaken for the transcription of data. Interviews were recorded on a digital recorder and downloaded onto my computer for safe storage. I Chapter 1: Research Approach

29

30

played back the recordings first and then typed what the participants had said. Transcripts were checked by listening to the recordings again and comparing this to the written text. Errors were corrected. Pseudonyms were used on all transcripts to protect the anonymity of the participants. Due to the volume of data collected, it was necessary for me to carefully organise and manage this data collection process. This was achieved by having an electronic file stored on my computer as well as having hard copies and floppy disks also filed at home in a locked facility. DATA ORGANISATION/ANALYSIS

Hatch (2002) says that analysis is the ‘systematic search for meaning’ (p. 148). It is a method of processing data into a form where it can be communicated to others. He continues by saying that an analysis is a means of ‘organising and interrogating data in ways that allow a researcher to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make interpretations, mount critiques, or generate theories’ (Hatch, 2002, p. 148). Commonly accepted protocols for qualitative research do not exist in the way they do for quantitative studies, hence I outline the way in which I conducted the analysis. There were two stages of analysis of the interview data. First, statements from interviews were sorted into general themes and organised as ‘discourses’. Secondly, the data was purposefully subjected to Foucault’s notion of disciplinary power. Both levels of analysis are explained below. By revisiting the interview recordings and re-reading the transcripts, I became familiar with the data collected. After this familiarisation process, I sought generative collaboration from another researcher external to the study. Using a quarter of the transcripts, the external researcher and I established a process for coding the information. This simply consisted of looking for general themes or overlapping statements (frequency/analysis of terminology) running through the transcripts and numbering them. We worked independently on the transcripts, noting and numbering our identified themes and cross-referencing our themes to look for comparability. An example of the cross-referencing procedure is included below.

30


31

Table 1.2: Example of cross referencing

Me 1. professionalism 1. 2. role model 3. high expectations 4. well organised 5. punctual 6. commitment 7. learning environment 8. professional learning/dev 9. relationship with students 10. presentation 9. 11. passion 12. preparedness, organised 13. knowledge 14. teaching & learning strategies 15. communication 16. professional standards

Researcher X 1. whole self

17. professional behaviours 7. learning environment 8. currency 9. relationship with students 9. treatment of students 11. passion

16. professional standards

As shown in Table 1.2 above, it was found that out of sixteen themes in total, there was agreement on six. This prompted further discussion, allowing us to rework and refine the themes until there was agreement that professional attributes could include themes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12 and 15. It was found that having an additional researcher encouraged a greater open-mindedness. This whole process was conducted with a high degree of openness to new interpretations; it was a strongly iterative and comparative process of sorting and resorting of data (Akerlind, 2002). A draft set of themes was drawn up which is shown in Appendix C. The themes were continually reworked and refined until the final set (as shown in Chapters Four and Five) were determined. Following this, files were set up for each of the identified themes and selected quotes or statements from the interviews were cut and pasted into these files. These files represented the ‘discourses’ of professionalism spoken by teachers. This method required sorting of statements with borderline quotations being examined. Quotations were used to illustrate the findings. The teachers’ statements were analysed looking for


31

32

continuities and discontinuities in the interview data according to archaeological analysis, and were organised according to key discourses. As all discourses are productive in that they produce effects of power, the Foucauldian notion of power was applied to the interview data to reveal evidence of power relationships moving through various activities and interactions that constitute the everyday life of a teacher. Therefore, the main interest was not just the formation of discourses, but the effects discourse and power have on physical practice. For Foucault, power relations are produced and resisted within local settings at the base level and therefore the ideas of teachers are of paramount importance in this analysis. Following Foucault (1980b), in order to understand how power relations flow in networks such as schools, it is necessary to investigate how teachers are enacting the effects of ‘truth producing discourse’, while also themselves acting on a discourse. Foucault (1980b) also argues that wherever power is exercised, there will also be resistance and the ever present possibility of the construction of a counter discourse and set of practices. This leads to my third research question – To what extent do teachers regulate and control their own practice? Are there ways they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland? 1.2.2 Foucault’s notions of power

For Foucault, power is not a ‘thing’ or a ‘capacity’ which can be owned by anyone, not even certain individuals (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 99). He does not see power as ‘being purely located in the State or the administrative and executive bodies which govern the nation State’ (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 100). He says: ‘What defines a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action that does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions, an action upon an action’ (Foucault, 1994c, p. 340). In other words, for the state to exist there must be the operation of many complex micro-relations of power at all levels of the social body (O’Farrell, 2005). He says: Power is employed and exercised through a net-like organisation. And not only do individuals circulate between its threads; they are always in the position of simultaneously undergoing and exercising this power. They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are also the elements of its articulation (Foucault, 1980c, p. 98). 32


33

Thus, Foucault shows the multiple influences at work and the complexities involved in individuals being subjected to effects of power as well as being the vehicle for its articulation. Power relationships in schools exist between staff and students, amongst colleagues or different levels of the hierarchy, as well as amongst those stakeholders external to the school. Foucault also argues that if power is being exercised, then it is only exercised where all parties are free to act. Therefore, Foucault does not see power as being necessarily oppressive in nature, but rather he argues that power can be productive in generating different types of knowledge and behaviour. Foucault prefers to regard power as ‘a relation in which one guides the behaviour of others. And there’s no reason why this manner of guiding the behaviour of others should not ultimately have results which are positive, valuable, interesting and so on’ (Foucault, 1988, p.12). However, it should be noted that some people misunderstand what Foucault means by ‘productive’. Productive does not necessarily mean that all outcomes are positive. Rather, productive means generative of behaviours, structures or events which could be either positive or negative. Foucault proposed various types of power-knowledge configurations: disciplinary power, biopower and governmentality. For the purpose of this study, only the first is used to interrogate the interview data and this is now discussed. Disciplinary power Foucault subdivides disciplinary power into three simple instruments. These are hierarchical observation, normalisation and examination. I intentionally sought to discern the operation of these three mechanisms, or micro technologies of power, in the interview data. Here, I am shifting from the ‘macro’ realm of structures and discourses to the ‘micro’ level of bodies. Foucault explains: In thinking of the mechanisms of power, I am thinking of its capillary form of existence, the point where power reaches into the grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their action and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives (Foucault, 1980d, p. 39). Therefore, looking for these micro technologies of power in the interviews about professionalism enabled me to study power in its field of application. I wanted to unpick the threads of things that have been said and done in the name of professionalism. Chapter 1: Research Approach

33

34

The instruments of disciplinary power are now briefly explained. HIERARCHICAL OBSERVATION

Hierarchical observation is a technology of surveillance, a way of controlling conduct and improving performance. Since the early nineteenth century, schools have been seen as places of training, as pedagogical instruments, but according to Foucault, they are also apparatuses of observation or panoptic mechanisms (Foucault, 1995). By panoptic mechanisms, Foucault was referring to Jeremy Bentham’s model of a prison where everyone was made ‘visible’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 200). He used this notion of panopticism as a metaphor for systems of surveillance that operate within the social body including the school. In Queensland, this system of surveillance included the old inspectorate system that existed until the early 1980s and still includes the hierarchical organisation of teachers in schools with a ‘head’ at the top, the organisation of space in the form of classrooms, the organisation of activities around timetables, and ‘a network of gazes9’ all laid down as a means of visibility (Foucault, 1995, p. 171). Even though the inspectorate system has been abolished, surveillance in the form of the publication of school data, for example OP (Overall Position)10 data and the recently publicised My School11 website, means that schools are still under a constant gaze. Foucault says: Take for example, an educational institution: the disposal of its space, the meticulous regulations which govern its internal life, the different activities which are organised there, the diverse persons who live there or meet one another there, each with its own function, his well-defined character – all these things constitute a block of capacity-communication-power. The activity that ensures apprenticeship and the acquisition of aptitudes or types of behaviour is developed there by means of a whole ensemble of regulated communications (lessons, questions and answers, orders, exhortations, coded signs of obedience, differentiation marks of the ‘value’ of each person and of 9

One of the characteristics of Foucault’s language is his repeated use of certain key words. Many present no difficulty in translation, but others such as ‘gaze’ have no normal equivalent. In such cases, it is generally preferable to use a single unusual word. In The Birth of the Clinic (Foucault, 1973), the unusual ‘gaze’ is used to mean the common ‘regard’. 10 Overall Position (OP) is a tertiary entrance rank used in the Australian state of Queensland for selection into universities. It shows how well a student has performed in their senior secondary studies compared with other students in the state. 11 My School is an online site to locate statistical and contextual profiles on almost 10,000 Australian schools. This allows comparison of similar schools across the country. 34


35

the levels of knowledge) and by means of a whole series of power processes (enclosure, surveillance, reward and punishment, the pyramidal hierarchy) (Foucault, 1982, p. 218). This description is of a whole apparatus working as an aperture for surveillance; a mechanism of power used to increase political and economic efficiency. Being subjected to this visibility, teachers become the mechanism of their own subjection, whether ‘being watched’ is verifiable or not. In other words, they modify their behaviour as a result of the perceived or real ‘all seeing eye’ (Foucault, 1995) whether this is from leadership, their colleagues, their students or the wider community, including administrative bodies like the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) or the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), parents or politicians. In purposefully seeking evidence for such micro technologies at work, I am able to identify the existence of mechanisms of power in the practices of teachers masquerading in the guise of what they believe to be autonomous professionalism. NORMALISING JUDGEMENT (NORMALISATION)

This is the process of defining the ‘normal’. Educating has always been about the teaching and enforcing of norms – norms of behaviour, of knowledge, of attitudes. Any deviation from the norm was punishable or subject to reform. For example, in Discipline and Punish, Foucault (1995) writes about nineteenth century schools having a whole set of penalties for students. There were penalties for lateness, inattention or impolite behaviour (Foucault, 1995). These punishments were laid down as a set of regulations to enforce order. Schools also used corrective mechanisms where problems could be ‘put right’ by training or systems of rewards. The modern school still uses these disciplinary strategies; that is, these strategies have become the norm – disciplinary strategies that secure the functionality of the overall school operations according to criteria of normalcy. In interrogating the interview data, I looked for these strategies at work in the pedagogical practices of teachers as well as looking at the extent of bureaucratic rule, such as how professional standards affect or shape teachers’ behaviours. Has this type of rule become normative control, shifting teachers into a regime of consent or compliance, once again in what they believe to be professionalism? Documents outlining professional standards provide the normal practices and knowledge that a teacher Chapter 1: Research Approach

35

36

should possess and the hours that they should spend on professional development. I measured the extent that such practices have become institutionalised or normalised as regimes of truth. THE EXAMINATION

The examination combines both hierarchical observation and normalisation as an effective mechanism of disciplinary power. Foucault describes this instrument as ‘a normalising gaze, a surveillance that makes it possible to qualify, to classify and to punish’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 184). Schools are very much apparatuses of the examination (through their testing procedures) where individuals can be judged, their performance can be measured, and comparisons about aptitudes and abilities can be realised. Teachers impart knowledge to their students, whilst at the same time gaining information about the knowledge of their students. In this way, data on individuals’ conduct and performance can be documented. This documentation means that each individual can be described and measured, as well as trained to bring about improvement (Foucault, 1995). In essence, normalisation occurs. I sought evidence of this mechanism of disciplinary power at work in the practices of teachers. With the development of a standards framework, are teachers being subjected to a new form of examination? In conclusion, as Foucault suggests, whole aspects of modern society can be understood better by describing techniques of power designed to regulate the behaviour of individuals in a range of social and economic institutions (Gordon, 1991). This part of the study investigates how mechanisms of disciplinary power have been able to function through apparatuses of surveillance, normalisation and examination – all articulated in practices and behaviours that teachers believe embody professionalism. Intersection or divergence In order to complete the analysis, it is necessary to weave between the competing discourses of professionalism as outlined in the academic literature, the discourses from policy, and teachers’ own discussions. This involves looking for continuities, intersections and discontinuities or contradictions between policy documents, the academic literature and what teachers said in the interview process about professionalism. It is interesting to note how large scale discourses emerge in 36


37

everyday talk and writings, in practices that teachers take for granted. The use of a Foucauldian perspective is not offered to achieve an all-encompassing theory on professionalism, but rather as a distinctive standpoint from which empirical aspects of the lives of teachers may be seen and analysed. This is reported in Chapters Four and Five where data sets are woven together. 1.3

SECTION 3 – TRUSTWORTHINESS

Nowhere are qualitative methods (in the service of any paradigm) given direct approval (Guba & Lincoln, 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to consider criteria for judging the ‘trustworthiness’ of the research. These include transferability, credibility and reflexivity. These will now be discussed. 1.3.1 Transferability

Transferability means being able to use the findings from this study in relation to another research situation. Samples were chosen for their heterogeneity rather than their representativeness (Akerlind, 2002). Consequently, this meant that the sample was not representative of the population in the usual sense of the term (Akerlind, 2002). However, because of the variation within the sample, the range of meanings will be representative of the range of meanings within the population, and therefore the findings can be transferable. Guba and Lincoln (1989) suggest that the intention of making transferability judgements is to provide ‘thick description’. Thus, for the purpose of this study, I have provided extensive and careful description of the time, the place and the context in which the investigation was conducted. Stake (1995) points out that the real business of any case study is particularisation, not generalisation; the emphasis being on the uniqueness of the case. However, these local cases can be a reflection of a much larger global educational force (Hamel et al., 1993) 1.3.2 Credibility

Credibility ‘is widely regarded as the extent to which a study is seen as investigating what it aimed to investigate, or the degree to which the research findings actually reflect the phenomenon being studied’ (Akerlind, 2002, p. 12). This includes the selection of the participants, data collection, as well as analytical procedures. Many techniques can be employed to enhance credibility. These include member checking, prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and peer debriefing, as well as Chapter 1: Research Approach

37

38

multiple sources of evidence. In this study, data were collected from three different sources: interviews, policy documents and the academic literature. The interview technique included many checking devices, such as paraphrasing and reinstatements, to make sure that what was being recorded was a true reflection of what the participant was trying to express. According to Stake (1995), researchers have an ethical obligation to minimise misunderstandings and misrepresentation. So, in order to maintain these ethical obligations and increase credibility, I did the following: 

acknowledged my background as teacher and researcher;



reported on the means and strategies by which I attempted to obtain an unbiased sample/data;



stated the characteristics of the participants clearly;



justified the interview design;



conducted data analysis with an open mind using another researcher;



analysed data in detail;



used processes for control and checking interpretations throughout the interviewing and analytical procedures; and



presented results in a manner which permitted informed scrutiny as well as themes being illustrated with quotations.

1.3.3 Reflexivity

Reflexivity is an ethical/epistemological obligation on the part of the researcher to explore and disclose biases in the research project (Sanguinetti, 2000). Hall (1996) refers to this obligation as ‘own[ing] up’ (p. 47) to our contributions in knowledge. Lather (1986) maintains that one of the best ways to make research credible is to ‘construct research designs that demand a vigorous self-reflexivity’ (p. 270). In order to achieve this, I have explained my positioning in the research, adopting a selfreflexive stance in the interpretation and analysis of the data. I consciously utilised designs that allowed contradictions as well as intersections in the data, keeping myself open to counter-interpretations. While there is no such thing as value free or objective research, I have kept an open frame of reference as much as possible and used a researcher from outside the research to keep check on my own subjective view of the world in relation to the data (Lather, 1986).

38


39

1.3.4 Ethical clearances

For any piece of research to take place, ethical processes and procedures must be adhered to. Ethical standards used in research are published by professional associations, for example the American Psychological Association (APA). According to these standards, participants in research must give informed consent and have certain rights (Creswell, 2005). All participants have the right to withdraw at any stage during the study, and should be guaranteed anonymity and a certain degree of reciprocity (Creswell, 2005). In order to preserve these rights, I obtained informed consent outlining the purpose of the investigation and sought permission to publish the results in the future. Names of participants were not disclosed and audio recorded interviews were only heard by me and my supervisors. When not in use, the recordings were stored in a locked facility at my home where they will be held for five years as per university guidelines. Data collection must be treated confidentially. The audience also needs to be respected. Ethics can be a grey area in research with sometimes a divide between public ethics and private ethics, but in order for research to have credibility, all ethical issues should be carefully considered. Finally, ethical clearance was sought from the university in order for this research to occur.


39

41

Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Academic Literature Literature This chapter undertakes an archeology of professionalism as an alternative approach to writing a literature review on the already well researched and theorised concept of professionalism. The social, political and economic situation in Australia (or non-discursive domain) is referred to throughout the discussion to reveal how a number of contingent factors have an effect on discourses of professionalism. The findings in this chapter will help build a ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77) in response to my first research question: How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? Introduction Although much has been written about the concept of professionalism and the associated notions of a profession, professionalisation and professionality, what these terms mean are not ‘universally agreed [upon] or understood’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b, p. 4). Professionalism is subject to geographical and cultural differences (Helsby, 1995), as well as being a historically changing and socially constructed concept (Holroyd, 2000). This elusiveness allows for continual reinterpretation of this concept, resulting in inherent complexities when researching in this field. Furthermore, in everyday ‘discourse’ these terms are taken for granted and used with such common currency that their meanings are in flux, leaving their value open to question. In the field of education, current debates in both the public and academic arena indicate sites of struggle with competing views about teacher professionalism (Sachs, 2003). There are many voices of authority in this debate making up the enunciative field of professionalism. Authority to speak on this concept is defined by having longevity in the field, being well published with many citations, and being Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

41

42

nationally and internationally respected with credentialed research. According to Sachs, a well-known writer on professionalism in Australia, debates around professionalism are usually centred on issues of power and/or status (Sachs, 2003). The Chicago School’s sociological commentator and international authority on the professions, Friedson, adds that these debates depend on different groups and their particular interests at certain times (2001). Using Friedson’s work extensively, in combination with Foucault’s analysis of knowledge-power relations, Larson (1990) further observes that professionalism, as constituted within a discursive field of knowledge-power, helps us to understand the way this concept can change to define the work of an occupation differently and position members differently at particular times. Larson maintains that members of a profession can be discursively repositioned as non-experts by powerful and vested interests (Larson, 1990) and teachers are no exception to this. She also maintains that the ‘core region’ of a discursive field is the university; therefore to use Bourdieu’s phrase, these are the people who have ‘symbolic capital’ or the authority to speak about such concepts (Larson, 1990). These theoretical insights indicate the centrality of ‘discourse’ and highlight how education stakeholders speak about professionalism differently depending on their role, practice, institution and the power/knowledge relations at play. Therefore, these voices influence the shaping of the notion of professionalism. According to Foucault (1995), discourses encompass more than just what is said; they are also about what is thought, who can speak, when and with what authority. Ball (1990) elaborates on this, asserting that discourses also ‘embody meaning and social relationships’ and ‘constitute both subjectivity and power relations’ (p. 2). The meanings of discourses are therefore not limited to spoken language but also arise from institutions, material objects and power relations. It is also important to note that professionalism is not a static concept. It transforms in response to changing social, economic and political conditions (Sachs, 2003). Therefore, as well as outlining what has been said by whom and the authority they have to say it, the conditions that have made these discourses possible will also be discussed in relation to the Australian educational context. I will begin my discussion by showing the intractability of the terms professionalism, professionalisation and professionality in education by drawing on 42

Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

43

the work of Hoyle, an early writer on teacher professionalism. Hoyle (1974) is cited by many later writers such as Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a), Sachs (2001, 2003, 2005), and Helsby (1995, 1996, 2000), on whose work I draw extensively. I will also introduce other well-known international writers to show professionalism as a multilayered and contested concept. Then, I will outline the old or traditional ‘discourse’ of professionalism that dominated before the 1980s and continue by elaborating other models, typologies or discourses on professionalism put forward by Fullan and Hargreaves in 1991 and Goodson and Hargreaves during the mid-nineties. Next, I will specifically attempt to identify links and gaps between these discourses and the situation in Australia. In order to outline the particular social, economic and political circumstances in Australia, I use the work of Reid (1993), Robertson (1996), Kenway (1993), Marginson (1997) and Lingard (1991), all Australian writers in either the field of sociology or the history of education. Using these authors, I will show how and why transformations occur in professionalism discourses by outlining the complex set of contingencies or conditions of possibility in Australia that allowed such changes to occur. The last two decades of the twentieth century with their particular set of political, economic and social circumstances saw a major shift or discontinuity in academic discourses around professionalism. These ‘new’ discourses with varying nomenclatures will then be outlined. Once again, I will particularly draw on the work of Sachs and Goodson and Hargreaves to discuss these new discourses. I will also use the work of Fullan and Hargreaves (1991), Evetts (2009), Evans (2008, 2011) and Hilferty (2007, 2008), authoritative voices on this topic in the field of education. The chapter concludes with a discussion on discourses of ‘professional standards’, the current mechanism for enhancing professionalism in Australia. This is discussed using the work of Invargson (1995, 2002a, 2002b, 2010), Sachs (2001, 2003, 2005), Hargreaves (2000, 2003) and Darling-Hammond (1992, 1999, 2000, 2001). Although my study is based in Australia, it is apparent that these shifts are part of a much wider global context, hence the use of international literature. These shifts have not occurred as a smooth progression of happenings; rather, as Foucault says, they emerge as ‘a profusion of entangled events’ (Foucault, 1984, p. 89).


43

44

2.1

DEFINITIONS OF PROFESSIONALISM, PROFESSIONALISATION AND PROFESSIONALITY

Before outlining competing discourses on professionalism, I will first offer definitions for the following three terms: professionalism, professionalisation and professionality. In his well-known 1974 paper, Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching, Hoyle placed professions on a continuum ranging from the ideal type (doctors and lawyers) to non-professions at the other end. He defined professionalism as ‘those strategies and rhetorics employed by members of an occupation in seeking to improve status, salary and conditions’ (1974, p. 14). However, he also used the term professionalisation in a similar context to refer to an occupation seeking to improve its salary, status and conditions (Hoyle, 1974). Later, in 1995, along with a colleague, John, Hoyle defined professionalisation as the process by which a semi-profession increasingly strives to achieve the alleged criteria of a full profession (Hoyle & John, 1995). They further elaborated on professionalisation by proposing that it had two strands. The first strand was concerned with status and self-interest; for example, increasing credentials for entry and establishing a self-governing body. The other aspect was more concerned with improving the quality of the service provided by increasing the knowledge and skills of practitioners. For the latter, they coined the term ‘professionality’ which they maintained referred to the ‘knowledge, skills, values and behaviours which is exercised on behalf of the clients’ (Hoyle & John, 1995, p. 16); in other words, a service interest. Hoyle preferred to use the term ‘professionality’ rather than ‘professionalism’ as he believed the latter had become confused. Friedson (1994) agreed, stating that ‘much of the debate about professionalism is clouded by unstated assumptions and inconsistent and incomplete usages’ (p. 169). Hoyle and John (1995) maintained that some writers had used the term professionalism ‘to refer to ideology, rhetoric and strategies which occupations deploy in the interest of their own self-aggrandizement’ (p. 16). Later, however, Hoyle’s explanation of professionalism has been ‘to describe enhancement of the quality of service’ (Hoyle, 2001, p. 146). These early definitions have guided later writers in the field to some extent, but closer examination revealed a number of differences. Helsby and McCulloch 44


45

(1996), two British commentators on professionalism in education, distinguished between professionalisation and professionalism. For them, professionalisation was the quest by teachers to be recognised as professionals, like medicine and law. They proclaimed that professionalism referred ‘to teachers’ rights and obligations to determine their own tasks in the classroom, that is, to the way in which teachers develop, negotiate, use and control their own knowledge’ (Helsby & McCulloch, 1996, p. 56). Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) also saw professionalisation as the strategy to claim status whereas the term professionalism was more linked with the quality of teacher action and judgement. Going further afield, in the USA, Eisenmann (1991) emphasised the idea of professionalism as different forms of knowledge and how this was then interpreted in the classroom. Englund (1996) provided a European perspective, maintaining that whereas professionalisation was a sociological project relating to authority and status, professionalism was a pedagogical project concerned with the quality of teaching. Therefore, it appeared that the mutual understanding between these voices of authority was that professionalisation was the strategy used to increase status, whereas professionalism was more concerned with teachers’ behaviours and actions in the workplace. In the mid-nineties, Helsby (1995) reported research findings from a study in the UK on teacher professionalism. Her analysis showed two distinct categories: ‘being a professional’ or ‘behaving professionally’. The former related broadly to public recognition, conditions of work, as well as issues of status (Helsby, 1995), whereas the latter referred to behavioural traits – dedication, commitment, highly skilled practise and instilling confidence in clients (Helsby, 1995; Helsby & McCulloch, 1996). These categories are broadly in line with distinctions in the literature as outlined above for professionalisation and professionalism. That said, Ozga (1995), provided an interpretation that was quite distinct from the other voices in this discursive field analysing the concept of professionalism as a form of occupational control of teachers. She contends that: Professionalism is best understood in context, and particularly in policy context. Critical analyses of professionalism do not stress the qualities inherent in an occupation but explore the value of the service offered by the members of the occupation to those in power (Ozga, 1995, p. 22).


45

46

Ozga’s view was not a sole voice but was congruent with Troman from the UK who similarly perceived professionalism as a ‘socially constructed, contextually variable and contested concept … defined by management and expressed in its expectations of workers and the stipulation of tasks they will perform’ (Troman, 1996, p. 476). Thus, it may be seen from these definitions that there is nothing simple or static about professionalism. The concept is constantly redefined at different times to serve different interests (Helsby, 2000), sometimes by government, sometimes by the teaching profession itself. Having highlighted the enunciative derivation, fields of initial differentiation and spaces of dissension (Foucault, 1972) in some of the statements concerning professionalism, I will now turn to the old or traditional ‘discourses’ of professionalism to continue my dig through the academic literature. 2.2

TRADITIONAL DISCOURSES OF PROFESSIONALISM

The word ‘profession’ has its origins in eighteenth century Europe, particularly England and France, where barristers and physicians were referred to as the learned or liberal professions (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a; Helsby, 1995; Hoyle & John, 1995; Larson, 1977, 1990). The characteristics of this traditional discourse included having specialised knowledge or a shared technical culture, a strong service ethic, and a self- regulated profession with its own codes of ethics and standards of practice (Carr, 2000; Etzioni, 1969; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b; Larson, 1977). This privileged class of occupations had members who were highly trained, had expertise in their field, and were selected by merit as well as being subject to peer surveillance. Their expertise or specialised knowledge separated them from the ordinary groups in the workforce and created a market for their services. This ‘exclusive shelter’ (Friedson, 2001) was controlled by entry standards as well as having defined conditions for ongoing membership or registration. Certification was the central mechanism so that only those credentialed could define what was valid knowledge and valid criteria for the ‘truth’ (Larson, 1990). In this way, professional groups had collective autonomy and social power and shaped how the job got done. This exclusionary strategy created the ideology of professionalism which in turn enhanced the status of the group (Friedson, 2001). Doctors and lawyers were successful in employing these professionalisation mechanisms for gain and the insulation of their status.

46


47

The founders of sociology, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, wrote about the concept of professionalism extensively (Hoyle & John, 1995). According to Quicke (2000), Durkheim realised that the professions could be a ‘positive moral force in society, acting as a bulwark against economic individualism and an authoritarian state’ (p. 302). Other social theorists or sociologists such as Marshall (1939) took up Durkheim’s theme regarding professionals as ‘a source of stability and democracy in a changing world’ (Quicke, 2000, p. 302). In 1939, Marshall outlined the social service ethos of professionalism. This definition centred on providing a service on the basis of need rather than on the ability to pay. Many writers over the next thirty years, including Goode (1957), Hughes (1963) and Wilensky (1964), concentrated their work on this definition of professionalism. According to Hanlon (1998), prior to the 1940s, ‘individualistic professionalism’ was more dominant. This perception of professionalism was based on the idea of servicing only those who could pay. Hanlon (1998) maintained that the shift to social service professionalism occurred because of the advance of the welfare state, where citizens had the right to social welfare, health and education. Social service professionalism became the dominant discourse until it came under attack in the 1970s. Social service professionals were criticised for being unresponsive to client needs and wasteful of resources as well as being untrustworthy. This resulted in the state commercialising some professions by introducing quasi-markets so they could have more control. This resulted in a move towards a notion of ‘commercialised professionalism’ (Hanlon, 1998, p. 50) where managerial and entrepreneurial skills were favoured. It was thought that social service professionalism was a ‘luxury the state could no longer afford’ (Hanlon, 1998, p. 51). Flexner (1915), an early American educator, also derived certain criteria from Durkheim’s work in order to distinguish professions from other occupations. Flexner used a criterion approach, outlining characteristics or traits which occupations could be judged against in terms of their ‘profession-ness’ (Hoyle & John, 1995, p. 2). However, as these characteristics were constructed by the learned professions, it meant that these criteria were always self-fulfilling for those professions. In 1954, another writer cited by Hoyle and John, Parsons (1954), proposed an approach for classifying professions based on functionalist theory. Although he used criteria in his work, he linked the professions to certain social functions which were central to the Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

47

48

maintenance of society (Hoyle & John, 1995). Many later writers in the field such as Stinnett and Huggett (1963), Purvis (1973) and Travers and Rebore (1990) have used aspects of functionalism to define professionalism, so the summary of the functionalist argument by Hoyle (1980) is given attention below: Table 2.1: Hoyle’s professional criteria underpinned with functionalist assumptions

1

A profession is an occupation which performs a crucial social function.

2

The exercise of this function requires a considerable degree of skill.

3

This skill is exercised in situations which are not wholly routine, but in which new problems and situations have to be handled.

4

Thus, although knowledge gained through experience is important, this recipe-type knowledge is insufficient to meet professional demands, and the practitioner has to draw on a body of systematic knowledge.

5

The acquisition of this body of knowledge and the development of specific skills requires a lengthy period of higher education.

6

This period of education and training also involves the process of socialisation into professional values.

7

These values tend to centre on the pre-eminence of clients’ interests and to some degree are made explicit in a code of ethics.

8

Because knowledge based skills are exercised in non-routine situations, it is essential for the professional to have the freedom to make his (sic) own judgements with regard to appropriate practice.

9

Because professional practice is so specialised, the organised profession should have a strong voice in the shaping of relevant public policy, a large degree of control over the exercise of professional responsibilities, and a high degree of autonomy in relation to the state.

10

Lengthy training, responsibility and client-centredness are necessarily rewarded by high prestige and a high level of remuneration.

48


49

Larson (1990), however, challenged functionalism because of its neglect of historical diversity. She maintained that its approach was limited as it only took into consideration medicine and law, as well as only comparing professionalisation movements in the UK and USA from the early nineteenth century to more recent times. Although such a list had heuristic value, as Larson (1990) argued, medicine and the other learned professions were taken as the paradigm professions which considerably limited the practices of other professions from being commensurable. Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) described the emulation of teachers of the learned professions as ‘classical professionalism’. However, where teachers have tried to measure their occupational status against these criteria, they have been found to be largely wanting. This relates back to Hoyle’s work where, on the continuum, teaching usually fell a long way short of the ideal type, some even regarding it as a semi-profession (Hoyle, 1974). In the field of education, many authors have proposed certain criteria or statements to define a teacher professional and hence professionalism. The table below shows three useful perspectives put forward in a teacher education text by Marsh (1996), a well-known writer in pre-service teacher education. These perspectives are from three different decades and demonstrate different approaches to professionalism in teaching through the years.


49

50

Table 2.2: Ideas of professionalism from three different decades

Stinnett& Hugget, 1963, p. 57

Purvis, 1973, p. 57

Travers and Rebore, 1990, p. 11

Involves activities essentially intellectual

Gives a specialised, unique service which is essential to society

A profession involves a lifelong career commitment

Commands a body of specialised knowledge

Possesses intellectual techniques

Social service

Requires extended professional preparation

Offers a long period of training and professional socialisation

Intellectual techniques and activities

Demands continuous inservice growth

Enjoys a high degree of growth, individual autonomy

Code of ethics

Affords a life career and permanent membership

Exercises its own means of social control through the enforcement of a code of ethics

Independent judgement relative to professional performance

Sets up its own standards

Commands a high level of commitment in which work and leisure hours are not easily demarcated

Exalts service above personal gain

Offers a life-time calling within a career structure

Has a strong, closely knit, professional organisation

Encourages the pursuit of research, the diffusion of knowledge and in-service training

It is evident that these writers have drawn on the earlier criteria and functionalist approaches as constructed by the learned professions. In comparing the 50


51

three approaches, the statements in common indicate that a professional should be engaged in intellectual activities, have standards or codes of ethics which are set up by the profession, and see their profession as being for lifelong social service rather than for personal gain. A professional has a unique position in society that allows for professional judgements and the responsible performance of the service ethically and well. However, these three perspectives do not show complete consensus, and the writers do not agree on two of the major features of traditional professionalism, namely specialised knowledge and autonomy. These differences have been recurrent and contentious themes within the educational domain for a long time. Professional knowledge At the core of traditional professional knowledge was the idea that a profession based its practice on a specialised body of knowledge that was well ‘beyond the reach of lay people’ (Hoyle & John, 1995, p. 45). This type of knowledge was tested by scientific method and therefore had validity as well as being supported by various theoretical models. Larson (1990) affirmed that all professional or professionalising phenomena should be theoretically linked to the social production and certification of knowledge. Therefore, for a doctor, such subject disciplines as chemistry or biology would guide their actions with practical knowledge and experience being downplayed. However, Friedson (1970) disagreed with this point of view, arguing that although textbook knowledge was important, case knowledge and practical experience also had to be considered. In the world of education there were many supporters for the application of the traditional conception of professional knowledge to teaching; for example, the classic study of school teachers by Lortie (1975). Many advocated for the inclusion of the four main disciplines of philosophy, history, sociology and psychology to mirror chemistry and biology for medicine. It was argued that research in these areas would produce validated knowledge that could then be translated into practice (Hoyle & John, 1995). However, for some, this was problematic in a teaching context as bridging the gap between research knowledge and practice was complex due to the indeterminacy of classrooms and uncertainty of schools. For some, commonsense, intuition and experience were much more important. Some examples from this way of thinking include Brown and McIntyre (1993) who used the term craft knowledge; personal practical knowledge introduced by Clandinin and Connelly (1995); or the amalgam of content and pedagogy adopted Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

51

52

by Shulman (1987) which he believed was a teacher’s own special form of professional understanding. Others like Schön (1983), the author of the highly influential The Reflective Practitioner, suggested that academic knowledge could not clearly define the unpredictability of teaching or problems faced and resolved by teachers. Some, such as David Hargreaves (1980), argued that secondary school teachers could claim a specialised knowledge base, but there was continuing controversy in this regard especially for the primary and early childhood sectors. Believers in the application of practice to knowledge suggested an emancipatory professional empowerment in this way of thinking, whereas critics argued that such developments go against what professionalism was actually all about (Hoyle & John, 1995). In the contemporary era, the knowledge base of professionals has become even less secure. According to Quicke (2000), there have been changes in the nature of knowledge and what it means to know. He maintains that no knowledge claims are incontestable as professionals can no longer claim their knowledge is unbiased. All knowledge has its own rules and criteria for truth depending on the vantage point or whose point of view is being put forward. Autonomy The second disputed criterion, autonomy, has long been a site of controversy, probably even more so in recent times with the advance of government accountability regimes. For many, such as Quicke (2000), autonomy is central to the work of a professional. He maintained that, without autonomy, professionals could not explore or experiment in new approaches, since their own capacities for creativity and moral choice were restricted. Teachers should be free to make their own decisions based on the best interests of their students. With this came a sense of responsibility. However, for some, autonomy was merely a strategy to avoid accountability (Hoyle & John, 1995). Nevertheless, according to Hoyle (1974), there remained at least some agreement between researchers and writers that three criteria were essential – knowledge, autonomy and responsibility. Thus, Furlong, Barton, Miles, Whiting and Whitty (2000), teacher education writers from the UK, stated:

52


53

The three concepts of knowledge, autonomy and responsibility central to a traditional notion of professionalism, are often seen as interrelated. It is because professionals face complex and unpredictable situations that they need a specialised body of knowledge; if they are to apply that knowledge, it is argued that they need the autonomy to make their own judgement (p. 5). These three concepts are repeated in a more recent paper by Leaton Gray and Whitty (2010). The challenge for the teaching profession is to maintain these three concepts or dimensions. These ongoing disputes, particularly in relation to professional knowledge, saw the emergence of new statements (Foucault, 1972) appearing on professionalism in the academic literature. Fullan and Hargreaves (1991) coined the term ‘interactive professionalism’ which encouraged teachers to work beyond the confines of their own classroom, but the most noted innovators in this area were Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a). In the mid-1990s, they put forward four different typologies or discourses on professionalism, namely ‘flexible’, ‘practical’, ‘extended’ and ‘complex’ professionalism that gave credence to teachers as professional practitioners working in professional communities. The neo-technical redefinitions or creative statements (Foucault, 1972) which they offered were an attempt to codify professionalism by the experiential knowledge that teachers possessed (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a). The first of these was flexible professionalism. (1) Flexible professionalism was an alternative to the shared technical culture of traditional professionalism. This redefinition of professionalism emphasised teachers working in ‘cultures of collaboration’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 10). The idea was that teachers shared practice and had ongoing professional dialogue. Teachers in their local communities set their own agendas in ‘situated certainties’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 10) replacing the certainty of scientific knowledge. Locally, teachers could agree on common goals and standards of practice in the immediate context resulting in an improvement in teaching and learning. However, one criticism of this discourse was the absence of input from the wider educational community and broader professional networks. In effect, flexible professionalism provided a ‘local anaesthetic’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

53

54

11). It was also argued that this type of professionalism could actually work in favour of governments maximising their interests by keeping professional communities fragmented. (2) Practical professionalism, the second discourse, was the embedding of practice and expertise within local teacher communities (Bottery & Wright, 1997). It relied on the experience of the teacher in the practical situation. Tacit knowledge was seen as ‘a source of valid theory, rather than theory’s opposite or enemy’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 11). It was thought that teachers’ knowledge of curriculum, teaching strategies, the classroom environment, subject matter, parents and other components made up the toolkit of craft knowledge (Brown & McIntyre, 1993) for a teacher. As mentioned before, an extrapolation of this discourse was the idea of the reflective practitioner, a notion first coined by Schön (1987). However, this notion depended on what practical knowledge teachers actually possessed. Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) elaborate: If teacher professionalism is to be understood as exercising reflective judgment and developing and drawing on a wide repertoire of knowledge and skill, to meet goals of excellence and equity within relationships of caring then whether practical knowledge can provide a proper foundation for it depends on what the practical knowledge is, in what kinds of contexts it has been acquired, the purposes to which it was put, and the extent to which teachers review, renew, and reflect on this (p. 13). However, like criticisms of flexible professionalism, practical professionalism was criticised for working in favour of governments. A second criticism of this discourse of practical professionalism was that it cut teachers off from university knowledge, turning them into educational workers only. Once again, this gives governments or other bodies the chance to hijack the profession for their own political agenda and seriously damage the voice of teachers in pursuit of greater professional recognition (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). Drawing on Hoyle’s (1974) work about restricted and extended forms of professionality, Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) offered a third discourse.

54


55

(3) Extended professionalism was where teachers engaged in collective planning, designing instructional interventions and staff development. This was in line with Hoyle’s (1974) extended professionality where the professional took a broader stance, compared his/her work with others, self-evaluated, and had a greater interest in theory and its relation to practice (Marsh, 1996). This was in contrast to the restricted professional who, although intuitive and classroom focused, worked from experience rather than from theory and, as a consequence, had limited involvement in wider professional activities. However, Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) warned that extended professionalism could stretch teachers too much, resulting in work overload and stress. It was based on this that they offered a fourth discourse on professionalism. (4) Complex professionalism argued that professions should be judged by the complexity of work tasks; therefore teaching was a true profession as it was a highly complex form of work (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). Based on work by Rowan (1994), they argued that increases in work complexity appeared to help and shape professional prestige and occupational earnings, somewhat like the professionalisation strategies mentioned earlier. The more successful teachers were in undertaking complex tasks and in raising standards, the greater the opportunity for increased status (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). However, with the ever increasing demands on teachers today, this quest for complex professionalism could simply lead to teacher exploitation, burnout and lack of staying power (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). This work intensification also tended to keep teachers busy and out of the political agenda. I will now relate these four discourses to the Australian context of education from the period from post World War II to around the mid-1970s for as Ozga (1995) says, professionalism is much better understood when put into context. As part of an archaeological dig, it is important to outline the complex set of contingencies that created space for new statements to be made. As a comparative analysis, it is also vital to look for exchanges between different discourses happening at the same time as well as how they relate to the non-discursive domain. How and why transformations in discourse happen can then be mapped.


55

56

2.3

THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT

2.3.1 Post World War II to the 1970s

The post war years in Australia up until the 1970s were regarded as boom years, a ‘golden era’ (Robertson, 1996, p. 32). During these buoyant times, education was seen as the basic ingredient to provide social mobility, accumulation and choice for a better quality of life (Marginson, 1997). The Martin Report of 1964 stated: Education should be regarded as an investment which yields direct and significant economic benefits through increasing the skill of the population and through accelerating technological progress. The Committee believes that economic growth in Australia is dependent upon a high and advancing level of education … It is both beneficial and realistic to regard education as a form of national investment in human capital (Martin, 1964, p. 1-2). This statement clearly reflected the Enlightenment beliefs that education would bring economic benefits, solve problems such as poverty in society, as well as produce better citizens. In post war times, equality was a major priority and this rhetoric continued up until the Whitlam government of 1972, with Whitlam’s election policy speech stating ‘education should be the great instrument for the promotion of equality’ (Australian Labor Party (ALP), 1972, p. 12). The centrality of education to the social vision meant that expansion in schooling was dramatic. In the two decades after 1955, with accelerated immigration and baby boom populations, the population rose by 51% (Marginson, 1997) and enrolments in education doubled. These buoyant times provided the conditions for major increases in public spending on education and other social programs (Marginson, 1997) so that by the mid-1960s participation rates, especially for females, had increased and seven universities had been established. By 1973, this had increased to seventeen universities and seventy-seven advanced education institutions which included teachers’ colleges with a total population of 27,625 trainee teachers (Marginson, 1997). The vision was that more education would mean greater social uplift, so schools operating as ‘factory-like’ systems of mass education taught through standardised and specialised curricula (Hargreaves, 2000). Teaching strategies included recitation, note-taking, and question and answer sessions. The ‘hands up’ orchestra was conducted by the teacher, competition was encouraged, and pre-determined points were imparted

56


57

(Hammersley, 1974). This so-called transmission teaching dominated, with novice teachers picking up their craft in an apprenticeship model by observing skilled and experienced teachers in the field (Hargreaves, 2000). Hargreaves (2000) referred to this as the pre-professional age. Massive injections of funding into education continued with 15.9% of total budgets being spent on education as opposed to 6.2% pre-war (Marginson, 1997). Some of this funding went towards teacher scholarships so that by 1974, there were 52,286 teacher training awards (Marginson, 1997). Teacher numbers continued to rise to cope with the demand for education, and teachers enjoyed relatively low class sizes and pedagogical freedom in what Hargreaves (2000) referred to as the age of the autonomous professional. The post war theme of encouraging people to act in their own interests and to become educated had increased the market in education so that by 1975, 44% of state funding was being spent on education. The rise of teacher professionalism accelerated considerably with the concomitant extension of the welfare state in post war times. There was a teacher shortage, demand for increased educational opportunity, acceptance of a human capital approach to investment in education, and growth of pedagogical expertise. All these factors combined throughout the 1950s and 1960s to strengthen teachers’ positions. The state was forced to maintain the rhetoric of partnership and professionalism (Ozga, 1995). Throughout these expanding market opportunities, teachers had consistently played the professionalisation game, seeking greater social recognition and economic reward from the state in exchange for their knowledge and skills. However, even though teaching was seen as a demanding job, it was not necessarily seen as a technically difficult one (Hargreaves, 2000). Moreover, quite often the means by which teachers attempted to gain the right to bargain for better working conditions came through the action of unions rather than by more acceptable professional strategies. This resulted in unions being incorporated into state educational apparatuses, in effect making public sector teachers much less successful than doctors or lawyers at creating their own exclusive shelter and increasing professional status. Even though the professionalisation agenda had some victories with a wage parity granted for female teachers in the early 1970s, according to Robertson (1996), the only outcome schools were mass producing was inequality. The youth revolts of Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

57

58

the late 1960s were testimony to this, indicating that the homogenising function of schooling was not working. Teachers were heavily castigated for these inequitable outcomes, many claiming that teachers only had their own interests at heart (Ozga, 1995). As well as this, the two dominant discourses of investment in human capital and equality of educational opportunity had created financial problems for the states. Despite these fiscal problems, The Karmel Report of 1973 continued the rhetoric of equality through education (Karmel, 1973). Even though the reforms did improve the material conditions for government schools, these schools remained in a position of subordination to private schools. Therefore, the failure of education policy to eradicate inequality, accusations of self-interest by teachers, and the threat of economic crisis combined to weaken the strong position that teachers had previously held. The Karmel Report of 1973 was also one of the first government reports to mention the development of professional standards in education, perhaps an implication about the quality (or lack) of services being provided. In addition, in Australia as elsewhere, the teaching profession was highly feminised especially in the primary and early childhood sectors. Many equated this with the caring activities of a housewife (Robertson, 1996) rather than the specialised knowledge required for traditional or classical professionalism. Males in the private sector proclaimed a more scientific knowledge base and to some degree were more successful in gaining expert status. These individuals believed they had a greater authority to speak as education professionals, highlighting knowledge/power relationships from within the occupation itself. This shows the ‘differential capacity’ (Larson, 1990) of a profession to construct authoritative discourse from within. As well as gender, the borderline status of Australian teachers was further exacerbated by the social class of individuals entering the teaching profession. Teaching attracted people from upper working class and middle lower class who saw the profession as a chance of upward mobility (Robertson, 1996). People in these social classes could not afford to pay for tertiary education courses which up until 1974 in Australia were usually fee paying. Instead, many trainee teachers received scholarships in exchange for a specified period of service. The teacher training course was two years in length and the resultant diploma was exchanged for a teacher appointment wherever the state required (Robertson, 1996). This almost feudal system maintained teachers’ subordination to the state (Robertson, 1996). The chance to be upwardly mobile and 58


59

the promise of professional status had blinded teachers to the fact that one of the major characteristics of traditional professionalism was lacking, namely the characteristic of autonomy. Thus, gender, class and lack of autonomy in the teaching profession excluded teachers from the ranks of traditional and classical professionalism. In addition to this complex set of contingencies, teacher training occurred in training colleges rather than universities, which ranked teachers’ status as second tier. Furthermore, quite often primary and secondary teachers were trained together with a focus on teaching content and methods. Even though some colleges introduced components of educational theory, psychology and pedagogy, teacher training was craft oriented; the practical discourse of professionalism being promoted as central to the development of a teacher. However, during the 1970s, some universities such as the University of Melbourne, Sydney and Western Australia began to offer diploma courses in education and around the same time, teacher training colleges became recognised or transformed into Advanced Colleges of Education which were organised by councils or boards (Marginson, 1997). With these developments, there was a slight increase in professional status for teachers. These moves also went some way to relaxing government control over teacher training, but the fact remained that the curriculum was still tightly in the hands of the states. As the demand for teachers grew, courses in teacher education were extended from two to three years in length and disciplines like sociology were introduced. However, teaching remained largely based on the practical discourse of professionalism, with little recognition of research based practice or teaching as a knowledge profession. As Hoyle (1974) argued, teaching remained merely a semiprofession. However, in some circles at both universities and training colleges, the popularity of practice based on theory was growing (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). This more academic view helped to increase the status of some teachers. However, in some states, notably Queensland, there was still concern over the quality and status of the profession. This was reflected in the initiation of the Board of Teacher Registration which was set up to enhance the quality of teacher education as well as increase the status of the teaching profession. This Board monitored entry to the profession and regulated ongoing registration from 1974 onwards. The Board also Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

59

60

mandated the content of teacher education courses to include a more theoretical and philosophical base in the form of disciplines including sociology, psychology, and curriculum studies, as well as professional practice (Aspland, 2006). These moves could be likened to Friedson’s (2001) creation of an exclusive shelter, a professionalisation strategy or complex professionalism after Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a). However, even with an increase in teachers’ salaries, lengthened teacher training and a more academic knowledge base, the culture of isolated classrooms and a somewhat restricted professionalism bred a lack of confidence (Hargreaves, 2000) by some. Many articles in the public arena, for example the edition of the The Bulletin on 15 May, 1976, outlined how a lack of literacy and numeracy standards in Australian schools had led to high levels of youth unemployment (Marginson, 1997). It was believed that the licensed autonomy of this period was unsustainable and the quality of work produced did little to further the cause of professionalism. That said, there was little empirical evidence to support The Bulletin’s claims with Australian students performing just as well in literacy and numeracy as in other OECD countries (Marginson, 1997). Therefore, the complex of conditions – class, gender, lack of autonomy, accusations of self-interest, public criticism, union actions, questions about quality of training, failure of education policy, a questionable knowledge base – coupled with an imminent economic crisis and the dismissal of the Whitlam government, forced Australian teachers to work under the control of bureaucrats and experience poor working conditions such as overcrowded staffrooms and temporary classroom spaces (Robertson, 1996). This was not the image of professionalism that Australian teachers were looking for. Whilst enduring these circumstances, quite often teachers turned to each other in what Hargreaves (2000) has referred to as the age of the collegial professional. In 1975, the Fraser government came to power when production, investment and employment had collapsed and inflation had climbed. This government decided that spending on schools and higher education should be frozen except for Technical and Further Education (TAFE) courses. Therefore, lack of resources and declining pupil numbers could now be added to the list. The view of the public sector had changed, many believing that concentrating resources in a sector that was not subject to market forces was harmful to efficiency (Marginson, 1997). This was the 60


61

beginning of the change in educational policy discourse. Thatcherism in the UK and Reaganism in the USA completed the transition to the new era (Marginson, 1997) of market liberalism and a swing to the policies of the so-called ‘New Right’ who advocated economic liberalism and social conservatism. As professionalism is not immutable, it was inevitable that the concept would change with state activity (Ozga, 1995). 2.3.2 The shift: 1980s onwards

The scene in Australia changed going into the 1980s. With less spending on education, places in higher education were scarce. Australia had entered into a global economy by deregulating the exchange rate and international currency transactions, as well as licensing foreign banks and providing freedom for foreign investment (Marginson, 1997). International competition was encouraged with telecommunications and air travel barriers of distance and time collapsed. The social objectives of education of the past were now subordinate to the economic system. Education was seen as the way to improve labour productivity, technological advancement and a method for the inculcation of flexible, responsive and competitive behaviours in future workers. In this changed scene, the Australian Labor government returning to power in 1983 under the leadership of Bob Hawke brought a different set of politics; a strategy they called ‘progressive competitiveness’ (Robertson, 1996, p. 38). After floating the Australian dollar which confirmed Labor as a government of the New Right, the budget was brought back into surplus for the first time in thirty years (Marginson, 1997). However, this government continued the rhetoric of deficits until it became a truism in order to increase global competitiveness. They also reduced grants to the states which lessened the states’ capacities to provide educational services. This period was one of transition and in times of transition, teachers were recognised as a potential source of opposition as they were one of the most unionised groups in Australia and made up a large proportion of the workforce and voters, spread across all states (Robertson, 1996). Thus, strategies were sought to increase control over their work and encourage them to embrace the new reforms. One such strategy was what Ball (1994) referred to as the ‘discourse of derision’.


61

62

Discourses of derision: Government strategy In the 1980s, the media became involved in the ‘discourse of derision’ of teachers and schools. Many Australian publications partook in this activity. Even though there had been derogatory articles published in the 1970s about education, none seemed to have the power of the publications of the 1980s. One of the first was in 1985 when the Business Review Weekly covered a story about government schools, naming low retention rates and high youth unemployment as major deficiencies of public schooling (Gottliebsen, 1985). Other publications such as The Australian and The Australian Financial Review joined the campaign. On 2nd February 1985, Greg Sheridan, a writer for The Australian, wrote a condemning report that generated much controversy (Sheridan, 1985). In his report he contended that government teachers were subversive, teaching children to hate their country and the world their parents grew up in, as well as promoting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle. He continued his attack by saying that teachers were a threat to intellectual rigour, values, parental control and national interest. Even though it was reported that there was no evidence to back his claims, the article sparked debate, with many important voices taking the opportunity to promote their points of view. Amongst these voices were Professor Chipman, a cultural conservative and Oxford graduate, as well as Susan Ryan, the Federal Minister for Education at the time. In addition to using newspaper articles to promote their views, these figures participated in talkback radio programs, portraying government education in crisis and an issue of national concern (Marginson, 1997). The media used circular referencing tactics with slogans, common arguments and terms or imitative statements (Foucault, 1972) from other media reports making sure to seal off discussion that offered different points of view. Schools were blamed for youth specific cultures, shifts in sexual behaviour, feminism and ecological movements (Marginson, 1997). Peter Ryan (1986), The Age columnist, reported that teachers combined a staggering number of vices. They were idle, greedy, feeble, slack, twisted, disaffected, subversive, dogmatic and disturbed. Ozga (1995), writing about education in the UK, noted that teachers had been accused of squandering resources, creating cultural confusion, contributing to moral decay and not attempting to redress issues of inequality. This situation was mirrored in Australia. All of these factors were argued to have contributed to the economic crisis. 62


63

Teachers were criticised for not adapting to emerging minority cultures and diversity. Scathing reports also indicated that there had been a decline in literacy. However, according to Start (1989), longitudinal trends in data showed otherwise, with the level of functional literacy above the minimum essential. In addition to these assaults from the media, employers criticised the literacy and numeracy standards of students entering the workforce (Karmel, 1985), believing that standards would improve if businesses were more involved in educational management and decision making (Business Council of Australia (BCA), 1986). These demands were backed by the Hawke Labor government who, like the Fraser government before them, also blamed schools for widespread unemployment and used teachers as scapegoats for the failure of their educational policies. This resulted in employer organisations being rewarded with a policy role in education (Marginson, 1997). What they (employers) wanted was a competency-based outcome-oriented pedagogy related to the world of work (Robertson, 1996). Therefore, thinking skills, problem-solving, coping with authority and social skills (vocationalism) were high on their priority list. Governments also thought it necessary that schools form school/business partnerships (Robertson, 1996). Various international policy documents such as Investing in our children: Business and the public schools from the Committee for Economic Development, urged business to take the challenge of improving schools by using the principles of effective organisation and management (Committee for Economic Development (CED), 1985). Tertiary institutions were also invited to forge business links through collaborative programs. However, in contrast to this, private schools defended a conservative curriculum and assessment program in the name of rigour, academic excellence, status and the production of future leaders. They had little interest in broadening citizenship or teaching vocational skills (Marginson, 1997). The divide between public and private schools was widening with the flight to private schools developing through the 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s. The cultural conservatives also joined the widespread ‘discourse of derision’. Conservatives such as Partington (1985) painted teachers as unprofessional, antiAustralian, anti-Christian and incompetent. His fellow conservative, Chipman (1980), described poorly dressed, foul-mouthed teachers as the bottom of the graduate barrel. Unions were also heavily criticised, many seeing their interference Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

63

64

as a strategy of avoiding accountability (Marginson, 1997). Therefore, the cultural conservatives and the Liberal Government, followed by the subsequent Labor Government, business leaders, the New Right as well as the media, reiterated the myth of decline in standards and generated a sense of crisis in education which they intimated would lead to national crisis. Professor Beare (1982) of the University of Melbourne argued that Australian public schools suffered from a poor image because of economic decline and the negative actions of teachers’ unions. He also maintained that there was a lack of will by teachers themselves to retaliate positively and powerfully to unwarranted criticism. Nevertheless, this particularly powerful ‘discourse of derision’, the psychology of national decline, and the promoted role of employers/businesses in education, were used as strategies to reposition teachers and pave the way for new educational policies and new systems of control (Marginson, 1997). This phase in Australia became known as the ‘Reorg’ (Ashenden, 1990). Education had a new economic mission. It was not just about developing the skills and talents of the Australian nation as in years gone by; now the development of education and research was seen as a way to increase national competitiveness. This was the beginning of the restructuring of teachers’ work when teacher professionalism became constituted in a very different framework linked to the economy. The traditional notions of professionalism were clearly past their use-by date and were being replaced by ‘new’ discourses of professionalism. 2.3.3 The ‘Reorg’ and further Government strategies

Halsey, Heath and Ridge (1980) once called education a policy receptacle, the wastebasket into which society’s unsolved and insoluble problems are deposited. This explains what happened in Australia. Even though education and teachers had been blamed for all the ills in society, they were also seen as the solution to national economic reconstruction. OECD reports at the time called for globalisation and a program of micro-economic reform and this became the taken-for-granted international wisdom about the government of education in Australia as well as other OECD countries. Under the leadership of Dawkins, Minister of Employment, Education and Training, the government employed many strategies to follow the OECD line. These included education being further opened up to the business sector to ensure a productive workforce. As well as a competency-based curriculum in schools to meet industry requirements, Dawkins proclaimed in various reports that 64


65

Australia needed the right kinds of graduates to increase production, employment, exports and economic growth (Dawkins & Holding, 1987). At the same time, he also increased immigration numbers particularly for skilled labour and business classes (Marginson, 1997). Dawkins also pushed for business to be involved in research funding at universities. The Australian Research Council was formed in 1987 with the intent of encouraging research agencies and industry to work together to make Australia more productive (Marginson, 1997). With business drawn into education, more corporate forms of management were introduced into educational establishments. These forms of management became further strategies to weaken the position of teachers. Such strategies included the creation of market-based systems of accountability, the formation of national systems, devolution and industrial mechanisms. Labor argued that restructuring education was the only way to produce a skilled workforce to make Australia globally competitive (Reid, 1993). Education became redefined as an industry with inputs and outputs. Schools and other educational institutions were refashioned as corporations, and teachers were the producers of skilled students: the products. Education operated as a national/global market with parents as the education consumers shopping around, looking for a school to invest in. The underpinning idea was that choice and competition would enhance the quality of teaching. Without any increases in funding, outputs would expand and provide economic growth for the nation (Kenway, 1993). Words like efficiency, effectiveness, competitiveness, performance indicators, and education quasi-markets became the norm (Kenway, 1993). This marketisation of education (Sachs, 2003) saw schools marketing themselves with mission statements and strategic plans in a marketplace mentality, with structures and terminology all in industry and ‘business-speak’. These market strategies became the commonsense discourses of schooling. Rather than being seen as problematic, they became the contemporary taken-for-granted way of thinking at that time, and schools that did not take on this approach were said to be ‘out of touch’. According to Sachs (2003), the imperatives of this market regime were for schools to turn students out who were ‘numerate, literate and able to take civic and social responsibility’ (p. 18). The emphasis was placed on preparing students to be


65

66

multi-skilled, flexible workers who would boost the economy and increase international competitiveness. Schools function as state apparatuses. In buoyant economic times, they can be fairly autonomous as in the early 1970s. However, in times of financial crisis, governments dictate what particular content and skills are to be taught in order to see returns for their funding. The state governments were the first to initiate corporate plans, performance agreements and accountability measures, but it was not long until the federal government introduced a more national approach to education. The Labor government of the 1980s achieved an unprecedented national control over educational policy. Dawkins’s blizzard of educational reforms kept blowing at an alarming rate. In 1988 in Australia, higher education was reorganised as a Unified National System and teacher education formally became a university course. Forty-seven Colleges of Advanced Education were amalgamated with nineteen existing universities to create thirty-eight universities. These amalgamations were expected to move teaching away from practical or restricted discourses of professionalism towards a more scholarly approach or a notion of extended professionalism. Teachers had advanced their knowledge in teaching and learning styles, metacognition, computer-based learning, cooperative learning, multiple intelligences and self and peer evaluations. There was the additional ‘social work’ or ‘pastoral care’ aspect of teaching with the integration of students with special needs and students from culturally diverse backgrounds (Aspland, 2006). The challenge was no longer under the control of the ‘hands up’ orchestra in a restricted form of professionalism, but in individualised teaching programmes and an extended professionality. However, the move to university-based courses for education seemed a contradiction in terms as governments were now asserting that pre-service education courses needed classroom skills rather than the academic disciplines of history, philosophy and sociology. Knowledge now appeared to be subordinate to skills. 2.3.4 Moving into the 1990s

By cooperation and negotiation under the leadership of Dawkins, the states worked within a common national framework. This became known as ‘corporate federalism’ (Lingard, 1991). According to Lingard (1991) who coined the term, this strategy 66


67

incorporated various ‘discourses’ including (1) neo-corporatism, (2) corporate managerialism, (3) economic rationalism and (4) human capital theory. (1) Neo-corporatism describes the large scale consultations and agreements set up between government, unions and business. In this case, state and federal education ministers made up the Australian Education Council (AEC) and from 1990 the Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training (MOVEET) was renamed the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education (MCVTE). From 1993, the AEC became known as the combined Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). In 2009, these councils were amalgamated to form what is now called MCEECDYA (Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs). Their agenda was, and still is, to reach agreement on national policies for schooling. (2) The second discourse, corporate managerialism, refers to the appointment of a small number of managers to set goals and objectives. This strategy sets up line managers who operate systems efficiently. (3) The third discourse, economic rationalism, goes hand in hand with corporate managerialism where the emphasis is placed on effectiveness and efficiency. (4) The fourth discourse, human capital theory, argues that investments in education produce economic outcomes for society. Brennan (1996) describes a teacher working within corporate management as: A professional who clearly meets corporate goals, set elsewhere, manages a range of students well and documents their achievements and problems for public accountability purposes. The criteria of the successful professional in this corporate model is of one who works efficiently and effectively in meeting the standardised criteria set for the accomplishment of both students and teachers, as well as contributing to the school’s formal accountability processes (p. 22). Therefore, schools were transformed into carriers of economic policy; corporations with line managers working effectively and efficiently under direct ministerial control. The operation of the market was secured through control which had to be Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

67

68

managed. Teachers had been repositioned as educational workers subject to this management. However, another strategy, namely devolution, gave the illusion of autonomy. Sachs (2003) referred to this as a paradoxical strategy. The surface impression was that devolved school management was about a quest for quality, controlled locally. However, development of policies and strategic control of teaching, curriculum and assessment remained firmly in the hands of centrally located bureaucrats. This distancing by governments or steering at a distance was a successful strategy for avoiding controversy, leaving teachers open to more blame. State and federal initiatives continued to be implemented in the 1990s in order to bring about further change. Some had educational objectives, seeing schools from a deficit point of view. Schools were required to improve, and teachers were expected to develop professionally. Other initiatives were industrial, which led to yet another government strategy of control. The most powerful of these was the award restructuring strategy whereby, in order to win pay increases, employers and unions had to ‘cooperate to review their rewards in order to improve industry efficiency, productivity and workers’ career opportunities’ (Reid, 1993, p. 131). This offsetting of work reorganisation and productivity for wage increases meant that industrial and educational issues could no longer be separated and government had a potent mechanism for reforming teachers’ work. In 1994, the federal government negotiated The Teaching Accord with the unions (DEET, 1994). This Accord affirmed a commitment by the government to the teaching profession and financial support for curriculum assessment projects, professional development and various research projects, for example, the National Schools Project (Sachs, 2003). The Accord also claimed greater salary justice and a move further towards ‘professional’ standards. Even though the Accord was contested by some, others maintained that it marked a watershed for teacher professionalism. Education stakeholders, teachers and academics entered the debate and supported the profession taking responsibility for defining itself (Sachs, 2003). The federal agenda continued with the introduction of the National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning (NPQTL) in 1996. This project was charged with examining work organisation in schools, including what teachers did and the knowledge and skills they required. The project also investigated options for a 68


69

nationally consistent framework for teachers’ qualifications, accreditation and registration schemes. Teacher education, including initial training and ongoing inservice provision, was also under examination. This project was superseded by the Australian Government Quality Teacher Program (AGQTP) which was established in 2000 with a focus on ‘the importance of teacher quality to effective schooling, and to increased performance and productivity in schools within a climate of national microeconomic reform’ (Thomas, 2011). These initiatives were put forward in the name of teacher professionalism. However, the power to define teaching had been handed to one body and a new conception of professionalism linked to managerial activities was the outcome (Sachs, 2003). This could be likened to Hanlon’s (1998) ‘commercialised professionalism’. Combined, these strategies made teachers into technicians who efficiently implemented decisions made by managers. It was acceptable for teachers to be skilled practitioners, be reflective and solve practical problems (Sachs, 2003). Their job was to improve student performance, compete with neighbouring schools for resources, and raise money from the business sector (Robertson, 1996). However, they were not to be involved in intellectual, philosophical or epistemological decisions (Reid, 1993). Governments were strategic, making sure that any consultation processes with teachers were tightly managed. The intellectual autonomy characterised in traditional discourses of professionalism had well and truly been stripped from teachers. They had now lost control of the content knowledge, the skills, and the pace of what they taught. Instead of making educational decisions, teachers had to adhere to the declared needs of industry, producing multi-skilled efficient workers who were self-reliant, team oriented, adaptable and flexible. ‘Discourses of derision’ continued into the 1990s, but this time not only were teachers being attacked, but a discussion paper by The Department of Employment, Education and Training in 1992 openly asserted that teacher educators in Australia had lost touch with classrooms as well as being too old and set in their ways (Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), 1992). As already mentioned, governments maintained that what was needed in pre-service teacher courses was a concentration of classroom skills (Reid, 1993) instead of philosophy, history and sociology. This was further strengthened by the push for the development Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

69

70

of national competency standards. Competencies emerged in the 1960s in the USA, their popularity growing rapidly through the 1970s until they arrived in Australia in the 1980s (Marginson, 1997). Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the term ‘teacher competencies’ was used extensively in policy documents (MCEETYA, 2003). However, the word ‘competence’ implied minimum ability, promoting teaching as merely a technical activity. The dislike and criticism of this term from teachers led to changed terminology and the word ‘standards’ was introduced in countries like the UK, USA, and Australia. According to Reynolds (1999), a commentator from the UK, this term conveyed a broader conception of teachers’ work including values and attitudes. The focus was not just on outcomes, but also on teachers’ processes, purposes and efforts (Reynolds, 1999). However, even with the introduction of this term, some still equated standards with performance and accountability, as per the competency movement (Mayer, Mitchell, Macdonald, & Bell, 2005). Governments used the term standards as a clarion call (Reynolds, 1999) for reform with particular political advantages – how could teachers resist improving standards? Therefore, in line with the economic agenda, the knowledge, understandings and skills that made up effective teaching were now defined in much more explicit ways than ever before. These standards constructed a view of teachers as practical classroom workers. Michael Apple, one of the most well-known exponents of the application of labour theory to teaching, maintained that teachers were being deskilled in curriculum planning and teaching and learning strategies, and becoming re-skilled at putting into operation the goals and designs of external experts, in effect the ideology of management (Reid, 1993). Furthermore, senior positions in education were filled with people with generic managerial skills; field specific expertise (for example, experience as a teacher) was devalued (Connell, 2009). In summary, multiple strategies were employed by governments to reposition teachers discursively. These strategies are summarised in Figure 2.1 below.

70


71

Figure 2.1: Diagram of the non-discursive domain

Dominant Discourses: Post WW2, the two dominant discourses were investment in human capital and equality (through education) Contingent factors However, education policy fails to eradicate poverty, accusations of self-interest about teachers, criticisms of teachers’ specialised knowledgebase, public criticism of the class and gender of teachers, union actions, questions about teacher training quality, questions about autonomy – all worked together to weaken the position of teachers. Imminent economic crisis Changes in government – Whitlam government dismissed, Fraser government, Hawke Labor government Thatcherite movement in UK, Reaganism in the USA – swing to the policies of the New Right overseas.

Early 80s SHIFT

Dominant Discourses: Economic discourse, economic rationalism, social conservatism Contingent factors Hawke Labor government – progressive competitiveness Australia entered a global economy Reduced funding to education and the states

Concerns about funding going to education that was not subject to market forces. Fears that this would harm efficiency

Education’s new mission was economic – to improve labour productivity and international competitiveness Recession looming

Teachers pose a threat to new reforms – obstructers in the past, highly unionised, high population. Strategies sought to control teachers particularly in times of economic crisis

The Outcome: Teachers positioned in deficit discourses with constant calls for quality improvements. Teachers’ skills devalued. Teachers repositioned as educational workers under direct ministerial supervision Competencies imported from USA Terminology changed to standards Standards have become the mechanism to improve quality in education and enhance professionalism

Teachers seen as a problem, but also seen as the solution to national economic reconstruction

Discourses: Human capital theory, neo-corporatism, corporate federalism, corporate managerialism Deficit discourses about teachers and discourse of derision about teacher educators Contingent factors Immigration numbers increased, ARC set up, National Unified System – however academic skills were subordinate to competencies


Strategies: Government courted the media, discourses of derision. Teachers blamed for economic crisis, creating cultural confusion, moral decay and inequality. Perceived drop in standards Businesses awarded a dominant role in education, a competency based outcome oriented pedagogy related to the world of work resulted. More corporate forms of management entered education such as market driven accountability regimes, devolution, and industrial mechanisms such as award restructuring Imitative statements from international policy calling for micro-economic reform NPQTL – projects for a nationally consistent framework for beginning teachers Education redefined as an industry, known as the marketisation of education, with performativity and managerialism encouraged

71

72

These strategies and their associated discourses gave rise to sets of paradoxes about the nature of teaching as well as teachers’ senses of professionalism. Education was reconstructed as a commodity promoting managerialism and performativity. Teachers were now even further from the classical conceptions of professionalism. The Australian education reforms had challenged classical discourses, particularly in relation to the two ongoing contentious themes of knowledge and autonomy. Instead, teachers moved away from using professional judgement and expertise, with contemporary professional behaviour being driven by the requirements of external forces resulting in compliance. According to Sachs, in the context of corporatism, the word professionalism now works as a normative discourse controlling the identity of teachers (Sachs, 2001). In the words of Hargreaves (2000), teacher professionalism had reached a ‘crossroads’ (p. 166). The next section outlines new surfaces of emergence in the academic literature during and after this crossroad of professionalism. 2.4

NEW SURFACES OF EMERGENCE

According to Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a), the agenda for teacher professionalism is neither wholly positive nor negative. Hargreaves (2000) believes that there is a struggle between forces and groups, some intent on deprofessionalising the work of teachers, others who are trying to revive, re-invent or re-define teacher professionalism. He says: ‘The fate of teacher professionalism is by no means fixed and will be argued about, struggled over and pulled in different directions in different places at different times’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 167). In effect, some contemporary discourses empower teachers whereas others exploit them. In the most recent academic literature, discourses of professionalism have been claimed by both teachers and government. The result has been many competing discourses, dressed by various names by different commentators. For clarity, I shall group these discourses under discourses of ‘new’ professionalism or re-professionalisation and contrast them with discourses related to managerialism or de-professionalisation. According to British writer, Evans (2008), the common thread tying the conceptions of ‘new’ professionalism together are a perception of a shift in power. Her view is that ‘new’ professionalism tends to be a focus on practitioner control with teachers taking responsibility for defining the nature and content of their own

72


73

work as well as regaining power over their own destiny. As this type of professionalism is unlikely to come as a ‘gift from enlightened policymakers’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 167), it has to come from the teaching profession itself. Many other writers have used the term ‘new professionalism’ to represent teachers taking control. However, the phrase has been used in contradictory contexts which I will draw attention to in the following discussion. 2.4.1 ‘New’ professionalism discourses

Goodson (1999) introduced the discourse of ‘new professionalism’ by proposing a set of seven principles, namely: 

increased opportunity and responsibility to exercise discretionary judgement over issues of teaching, curriculum and care that affects one’s students;



opportunities and expectations to engage with the moral and social purposes and value of what teachers teach in line with curriculum and assessment;



commitment to working with colleagues in collaborative cultures of shared expertise to solve the ongoing problems of professional practice, rather than implementing the external mandates of others;



occupational heteronomy rather than self-protective autonomy where teachers work authoritatively yet openly with other partners in the wider community (especially parents);



a commitment to active care and not just anodyne service for students. Professionalism must embrace the emotional as well as the cognitive dimensions of teaching;



a self-directed search and struggle for continuous learning rather than compliance with the enervating obligations of endless change demanded by others; and



the creation and recognition of high task complexity, with levels of status and reward.

Some years earlier, Goodson, along with his colleague, Hargreaves, proposed the same seven principles under the name of ‘post-modern professionalism’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a). In this work, they concluded that discourses guiding future agendas on professionalism should not be self-serving as in classical professionalism, nor indeed should they be confined to practical reflection and technical competence Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

73

74

as in flexible and practical discourses (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a). These older discourses, in their opinion, were redundant. They argued that maintaining any future agenda of professionalism should be ‘guided by moral and socio-political visions which teacher professionalism should serve within actively caring communities and vigorous social democracies’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 20). The new set of principles represented a ‘fight back’ or a reclamation of territory lost to governments. As well as the cognitive dimensions of knowledge, the moral and social purposes of education and the emotional dimensions of teaching were also included. Rather than struggling to regain autonomy, they spoke of collaboration as in flexible professionalism and occupational heteronomy especially in working with parents. The statements also called for professional learning rather than just complying with taken-for-granted external agendas. They believed teachers should continue using strategies of professionalisation in the hope of gaining increased professional status and reward. At the turn of the twenty-first century, Goodson (2000) further elaborated on these principles and introduced the discourse of ‘principled’ professionalism. Again, the same statements that had been used for ‘new’ and ‘post-modern’ professionalism were outlined to describe ‘principled’ professionalism. As well as using these imitative statements (Foucault, 1972), Goodson (2000) also emphasised teaching as a ‘moral and ethical vocation’ (p. 188). Rather than being restricted to the narrow concerns of professionalisation strategies, he maintained that ‘new professionalism’ should have caring concerns as a guiding principle (Goodson, 2000).That said, the last statement in these principles still referred to status and reward. Hargreaves and Fullan (1998) also referred to a ‘new’ professionalism, believing that in the new twenty-first century information economy or knowledge society, teachers should embrace a ‘new professionalism’, one where they are committed to being ‘catalysts’ of change. They maintained that this is the time for teachers to focus on teaching and learning, and working collaboratively and effectively with each other and the wider community. They encouraged teachers to respond competently and rapidly to any educational changes presented to them. They wanted teachers to define their own practice, reclaim educational territory hijacked by policy makers and governments, and defend and develop their own professionalism (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). 74


75

Hargreaves (2000) in particular warned teachers of the need to defend themselves against the forces of de-professionalisation and reassert themselves through professionalisation. He believed that as professionals, teachers could demand competitive salaries, counteract the ‘blaming and shaming’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 169) by the media and politicians and restore public perception ‘one parent, one school, at a time’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 171). Hargreaves (2000) continued by saying that teachers must defend the profession with regulation and extend the practice of the collegial professional. For Hargreaves (2000), these collaborative strategies had to expand across the profession as a whole by setting and meeting a set of professional standards of practice set by the profession itself. This ‘new professionalism’ was collegial and collective, rather than autonomous and individual (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 166). He envisaged the possibility of what he describes as ‘post-modern’ professionals being open, inclusive and democratic, a conscious social movement of teachers committed for the greater good of the profession (Hargreaves, 2000). McLaughlin (1997) used the term ‘new’ professionalism also, identifying six principles that underpinned it. These were: increased opportunities for professional dialogue; a reduction in professional isolation; providing opportunities for learning and discourse; professional development; creating an environment of professional trust and safety; and, restructuring time, space and scale within schools. Sachs’ (2003) term for ‘new’ professionalism was ‘transformative professionalism’ which she maintained included ten characteristics: inclusive membership; public ethical codes of practice; collaboration and collegiality; activist orientation; flexibility and progressiveness; responsiveness to change; self-regulation; policy activity; enquiryoriented; and knowledge building. She extended one of these characteristics and coined a further term, the activist professional based on the work of Giddens (1994). She argued that all teachers should be involved and respond to issues that relate to education and schooling, reclaiming the professional agenda. This kind of teacher professionalism was concerned with expertise, autonomy and altruism, characteristics associated with the more traditional discourses. The fundamental difference, however, was the call to political action of the group. Sachs based this type of professionalism on ‘trust, active trust and generative politics’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 138) where educational stakeholders worked collaboratively to ‘make things happen Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

75

76

rather than to let things happen to them’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 144). However, writers such as Sachs and Hargreaves also recognised that many forces were working against this realisation, especially market inspired systems of administration and performance management from the corporate world; forces that Hargreaves described as the ‘very antithesis of any kind of professionalism’ (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 169). Therefore, Hargreaves, Goodson, Sachs and Fullan were all part of the force to revive and re-define teacher professionalism in teachers’ own terms. In contrast to these discursive practices aimed at re-inventing professionalism as an escape from the mandates of external controls, David Hargreaves also spoke about a ‘new professionalism’. He maintained that the external mandates or educational reforms of the late1990s in England and Wales had actually provided the circumstances for a ‘new professionalism’ (Hargreaves, 1994). His view was that reforms like the National Curriculum in the UK strengthened teacher professionalism as they negotiated their roles and responsibilities, with their main focus on student learning and achievement and their own professional development (Hargreaves, 1994). However, fellow British writers, Helsby and McCulloch argued that reforms like the National Curriculum were a strait-jacket for teachers, causing work intensification and lowering morale and confidence, in effect de-professionalising teachers (Helsby & McCulloch, 1996). In Australia, Robertson (1996) also used the term ‘new professionalism’. However, she used the term with a touch of irony. In referring to her work in Australia, she maintained that teachers confused ‘depersonalised authority’ with professionalism, misrecognising their own exploitation. Thus, even though ‘new’ discourses for professionalism had been introduced, these did not necessarily mean the same to everyone. According to Sachs (2003), an examination of Australian policy documents at federal and state levels identified two forms of professionalism that dominated Australian literature, namely democratic and managerial professionalism. One of these discourses, democratic professionalism, overlapped in character with ‘new professionalism’. Democratic professionalism will be discussed in the next section along with the similar notions of occupational and enacted professionalism, followed by an explication of the contrasting term managerial professionalism (also referred to as organisational, demanded, required, requested or prescribed professionalism).

76


77

Democratic and occupational professionalism discourses (re-professionalisation) Under the banner of democratic professionalism, teachers demystified their work by building strong alliances with parents, students and the wider community as well as with other education stakeholders including academics. According to Sachs (2003), this concept used in the early 1990s by the Australian Teachers Unions had at its core an emphasis on collaboration and cooperation. She maintained that teachers needed to look beyond their classrooms and take responsibility as a group for the broader development of the profession. Hilferty, another commentator from Australia, remarked that democratic professionalism asked teachers to engage actively in the role of change in schools (2007). This writer and others such as Evans (2008, 2011) advocated ‘enacted professionalism’ which Hilferty described as ‘an active process of social engagement through which teachers shape their own lives’ (Hilferty, 2008, p. 161). This was similar to Hargreaves and Fullan’s (1998) notion of ‘new professionalism’ and Sachs’ (2003) activist professional. Like Sachs, sociologist Evetts (2009), also distinguished between two contrasting discourses, namely occupational and organisational professionalism. The one that aligned with ‘new professionalism’ was occupational professionalism, or professionalism ‘from within’ (Evetts, 2009). In some ways, like democratic professionalism, this discourse was constructed within professional occupational groups and incorporated collegial authority. Controls were operationalised by practitioners who were guided by codes of professional ethics which were monitored by professional institutes and associations. Teachers worked autonomously, exercising discretionary judgement in an environment of trust from both employers and clients. Therefore, ‘new’, ‘post-modern’, ‘principled’, ‘democratic’, ‘enacted’, ‘transformative’, ‘activist’ and ‘occupational’ discourses represented the teaching profession using professionalism as a discourse to regain control and bring about occupational change for their own interests. According to Banks and Shelton Mayes (2001), writers from the UK, all of these discourses represented reprofessionalisation; teachers working collaboratively on broader more complex tasks,


77

78

making their own sophisticated judgements collectively. However, other definitions of professionalism were only conducive to the longer term aims of governments. Managerial/organisational professionalism discourses (de-professionalisation) The first type of democratic professionalism identified by Sachs has already been discussed. The other dominant discourse she observed in Australian educational policy documents was managerialism or managerial professionalism (Sachs, 2003). According to Sachs, managerial discourse made two distinct claims. First, efficient management solves all problems and, second, private sector practices are equally appropriate for the public sector. Many governments around the world, including Australia, are now promoting this type of professionalism. Strategies that allowed this discourse to flourish include policy, funding, devolution and decentralisation; strategies that have all been put to use by the Australian federal government and discussed in detail earlier. Through the promulgation of policies and the allocation of funds associated with those policies, this discourse of managerialism redefined what was meant by teacher professionalism. Teachers were discursively repositioned as non-experts, the last in the line of a management hierarchy with central office at the top, descending to regional offices and then to principals. Educational decisions were made elsewhere and it was up to the teacher to work effectively and efficiently in a standardised accountable environment. Managerialism saw teachers as unquestioning supporters and implementers of a competency-based, outcome-oriented pedagogy related to the world of work, in line with Australian government policies. For Evetts (2009), the flip side to occupational professionalism was organisational professionalism or professionalism ‘from above’. She defined organisational professionalism as ‘the increased standardisation of work procedures and practices and managerialist controls. It relied on externalised forms of regulation and accountability measures such as target setting and performance review’ (Evetts, 2009, p. 23). Evans (2008, 2011) coined the terms demanded, requested, required and prescribed professionalism which were along the same lines. Therefore, these types along with managerial and organisational professionalism were discourses that governments favoured. When the discourse is imposed from above, a false or selective discourse is used to promote and facilitate occupational change. In this way,

78


79

the discourse is used as a disciplinary mechanism to control the work of teachers. This was achieved through training and certification, sometimes referred to as credentialism (Evetts, 2009). The group, in this case teachers, quite often welcomed this discourse as they perceived it as an enhancement of status, something teachers had always been quite sensitive about. However, what they neglected to see was that professional values were replaced by organisational values. Bureaucratic, hierarchical and managerial controls replaced cultures of collaboration; there were competencies and licensing rather than trust, all accompanied by budgetary restrictions, standardisation of work practices, performance targets and accountability rather than professional judgement (Evetts, 2009). In the past, teachers had proved enduringly difficult to manage and were resistant to change, so this strategy recreated professionals as managers, managing by normative techniques. Teachers became subject to quality control, audits, target-setting and performance review. These accounting procedures were then promoted as professionalism in a highly competitive environment (Evetts, 2009). The autonomy that existed in earlier classifications was replaced by accountability in managerialism professionalism which led some commentators such as Evans (2008) to argue that a process of de-professionalisation is at work. She claimed that de-professionalisation had been the only outcome of the marketisation of education. The Australian context, as already discussed, had witnessed teachers as ‘casualties’ (Hargreaves & Lo, 2000, p. 173) of declining support, tighter controls, shrinking budgets, intensified workload and standardisation. At the same time, they were under increasing pressure from politicians and the community to be more accountable and to maintain standards (Sachs, 2001). With the turn of the century, their positions had been further weakened by curriculum prescription, testing regimes, performance management, a casual workforce, standards, monitoring and appraisal systems, as well as the continued ‘discourses of derision’ (Ball, 1994) from various sources. These arrays of actions were the very antithesis of what some believed professionalism in its commonality was all about. Voices for this argument included Ball (2003) as well as fellow British writers, Bottery and Wright (1997), who saw teaching as a profession de-skilled and proletarianised. These writers and others maintained that teachers were being well prepared for a life of ticking boxes (Wragg, 2001) and window dressing the implementation of top-down directives, Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

79

80

ministerial interventions and legislative initiatives. Stronach, Corbin, McNamara, Stark and Warne (2002), termed this a Punch and Judy professionalism, the pedagogical equivalent of painting by numbers (Davies & Edwards, 2001). In this type of so-called ‘professionalism’, teachers became little more than recipefollowing operatives (Winch & Foreman-Peck, 2005) whose professional expertise was reduced to classroom management and the technical aspects of teaching. Most recently, Evans (2011) added yet another type of professionalism, namely deduced or assumed professionalism. She described this discourse as sustaining some of the elements of the more traditional discourses despite the advance of managerialism. In this paper, she also deconstructed professionalism into three components, namely the behaviourial, attitudinal and intellectual. She further divided these into eleven elements to illustrate the ‘quiddity12’ (Evans, 2011, p. 856) of the concept. The componential structure of professionalism after Evans (2011) is shown in Figure 2.2 below. Figure 2.2: The componential structure of professionalism

(From Evans, 2011, p. 855)

12

Quiddity – the ‘whatness’ of something or essence

80


81

In summary, the turn of the century witnessed two competing discourses on professionalism. Various voices of authority assigned different names to these discourses such as ‘new’, ‘post-modern’, ‘principled’, democratic’, ‘occupational’, ‘enacted’, ‘transformative’, ‘activist’ or ‘professionalism from within’ as opposed to ‘managerial’, ‘organisational’, ‘required’, ‘requested’, ‘prescribed’ or ‘professionalism from above’, with ‘deduced’ and ‘assumed’ as the newest additions. What remains to be seen is which discourse will become the more dominant and if, in any way, teachers in Queensland and elsewhere are able and/or willing to insert themselves into these discourses and use them to their own advantage. Boyt, Lusch and Naylor (2001) implied that professionalism is shaped and evolved from within the profession rather than being formulated and imposed by external agencies. Evans (2008) was quite adamant that professionalism must be something that professionals did, not something that governments or other agencies wanted them to do or mistakenly imagined that they were doing to fulfil the service level requirement. There have been contradictory messages evident from the UK about external controls on teachers. As already discussed, writers like David Hargreaves (1994) welcomed the controls, arguing that these have forced a ‘new’ professionalism, whereas other writers such as Bottery and Wright (1997), also writing from a British perspective, argued that education reforms led to a centrally directed, highly accountable, rigorously inspected teaching force, which was not required to think too deeply about the larger, social, moral, and political issues which a richer conception of professionalism would have committed them to. The phrase ‘loose coupling’ from the late 1970s has been used where teachers are increasingly able to resist such control of their work (Helsby, 1995). Helsby (1995) argued that teachers constructed their own realities and could respond to the demands put upon them in varying ways. She continued by saying that if the notion of professionalism were socially constructed, then teachers are potentially key players in that construction, accepting or resisting external control and asserting or denying their autonomy (Helsby, 1995, p. 320). In subsequent work with fellow colleagues, they continued the ‘discourse of resistance’ by saying that:


81

82

… educational improvement depends on teachers wanting to make a difference. It depends upon their feeling professional. Neither raising standards by regulation nor professionalising by prescription will work. Teachers have power in the sense that they have to want improvement for improvement to happen (McCulloch, Helsby & Knight, 2000, p. 118). To bring the Australian story to the present, discourses of neo-corporatism, corporate managerialism, outcomes driven economic rationalism and human capital theory continue and are increasing in educational governance. Words like accountability, assessment, standards, performance, teacher quality and quality assurance are widespread. In this global economy, education is seen as the answer to labour productivity, producing flexible, responsive and competitive workers for the future. Governments argue that high quality education is an imperative to achieve the above mentioned outcome and at the heart of this are high quality teachers. A growing body of research from the USA, particularly from Darling-Hammond (2000), affirms teacher quality as one of the most important factors influencing student achievement. From her work, she concluded that ‘teachers’ qualifications, based on measures of knowledge, expertise, education and experience, account for a larger share of the variance in students’ achievement than any other single factor, including poverty, race and parent education’ (2000, p. 10). In Australia, similar studies by Cuttance (2001), Lingard, Ladwig, Mills, Bahr, Chant and Warry (2001) and Rowe (2003) have also reached similar conclusions. These conclusions also follow the OECD line. In 2002, the OECD launched a program of teacher policy which extended to twenty-five countries. In 2005, they published a document named Teachers Matter (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2005) which was backed by influential authorities such as Lingard. This document stated that even though social background and ability influence learning, the most important determinant which has the potential to be open to policy is teacher quality. These sources all posit that teachers are the most valuable resource in education and if high quality teachers are an imperative to improved outcomes for the nation, then it makes sense to invest in teacher quality and professionalism. In effect, achieving Australia’s National Goals for Schooling in the twenty-first century set up by the declarations from 1989 (Australian Education Council, 1989), 1999 (Ministerial Council on 82


83

Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 1999) and 2008 (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008) depends on the quality of teachers. This has furthered the drive for the implementation of professional standards for the teaching profession. The next chapter will detail Australian policies on professionalism, teacher quality and professional standards, but first I will outline discourses of professional standards in the academic literature according to various voices of authority. 2.4.2 Professional standards discourses

As previously mentioned, Hargreaves (2000) asked teachers to defend the profession with regulation by setting and meeting a set of professional standards of practice set by the profession. He believed that by doing this, teachers’ effectiveness and public credibility would increase. Sachs (2003) agreed that the development of professional standards for teaching should be ‘owned and overseen by the profession itself’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 52). She advocated the development of standards as a ‘collective enterprise of all who are interested in improving the quality of teaching and student outcomes’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 52). These notions were supported by a group of Australian writers who believed that standards were a useful mechanism for credentialing, appraisal and enhancing professional learning (Mayer et al., 2005). Darling-Hammond, the education advisor to the Obama presidential campaign and member of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), claimed professional standards as a useful reference point for advanced certification of accomplished teachers or beginning teacher licensure (Darling-Hammond, 2001). Other commentators from North America, Flowers and Hancock (2003), agreed. They claimed that professional standards were a powerful vehicle for professional development, adding that they are also a good framework to define good practice. These statements argue that standards described in this sense are a mechanism for teachers to gain control over their work, gain public trust, and produce quality outcomes for their students. In line with this way of thinking, Mahony and Hextall (2000) from the UK coined the term developmental standards; standards used to improve the profession. They argued that these professional standards were aimed at improving the quality of teaching and providing professional learning opportunities for teachers throughout their careers (Mahony & Hextall, 2000). Therefore, from ‘an uncritical gaze’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 39), standards would Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

83

84

appear to be in the best interests of teachers, students and the profession in general. However, Sachs (2003) warned that when investigated more critically, standards could actually result in a reduction of diverse approaches and possibly lead to more constrained practice. She has taken this even further by suggesting that if standards are mandatory in conjunction with other accountability regimes such as high stakes testing, then it puts the emphasis on uniformity in a highly regulated environment rather than being a springboard for professional development and increased professionalism; in short, all that is enhanced is teacher control. She actively promotes scepticism concerning whether standards are seen as the mechanism to enhancing professionalism. Sachs (2003) is not alone; there have been other voices of concern, asking teachers to proceed with caution. North America is further along the standards track than Australia, but Darling-Hammond (1999) argues that by themselves standards cannot solve all the problems of schooling and should not become a constraint to codify knowledge and practices that do not concern competence. Hargreaves (2003) has likewise been critical of standards, suggesting that they erode cultures of collaboration, cause exhaustion and trivialise teachers’ investment in their own professional learning. This degree of caution is well served as in many countries, including Australia, standards are quite often employed by governments as bureaucratic controls over teachers. Ingvarson (2002a), who works in the field of teacher quality for the Australian Council of Educational Research (ACER) and is an advocate for professional standards, makes three core claims about standards employment. First, the introduction of standards should improve teachers’ performance; second, introducing standards will improve teachers’ status; and third, standards contribute to, and will encourage, ongoing professional learning for teachers. He elaborates by claiming that standards must identify the central tasks of teaching in light of best knowledge and research; tasks that must be regularly revised and performed at a desirable level describing how teachers should improve as they progress through their careers (Ingvarson, 2002a). Therefore, it can be seen that the views of Ingvarson about standards are much more performance oriented, rather than just being about improving teaching and learning. Whilst writing with a colleague from ACER, he maintains that ‘the most coherent and valid sets of teaching standards

84


85

emerge when they are designed to be tools for the assessment of teacher performance’ (Ingvarson & Kleinhenz, 2003, p. 1). In contrast to this, British commentator, Reynolds (1999), maintains that once the quality of performance of educators is interrogated and only concentrates on the achievement of predetermined outcomes or what is given value, teachers’ professional practice may diminish. Gipps (1990), also from the UK, claims that ‘standards’ is the most loosely used term in education; teachers often being called to raise standards, often without any explication or reason why. Reynolds (1999) suggests that in education, standards are often used to denote notions of quality or that something is worthwhile, or even that the job is done in an acceptable way; the term having ‘overtones of excellence and academic value’(p. 253). For Reynolds (1999), when standards are linked to quality, then both are understood as quantifiable and tangible. However, she continues that standards in teaching cannot be defined unambiguously for the purposes of assessment because they refer to the unmeasurable outcomes that may not be recognised until the future. She says ‘complex functions such as those involved in teaching cannot be made to conform to a framework’ (Reynolds, 1999, p. 254). This is in direct contradiction to Ingvarson (2002a) who promotes outcomes driven discourses regarding standards. Asian commentators Tang, Cheng and So (2006) have also entered the enunciative field. They believe that professional standards have a limited impact on the reality of what actually goes on in the classroom. Furthermore, Beyer (2002) from America, argues that standards only provide a technical approach to teaching and do not take into account the broader political, social and philosophical underpinnings of good teaching. In summary, there appear to be tensions between ‘standards for professional learning’ discourses and ‘standards for accountability’ discourses, with others adding that standards could in effect be de-professionalising for teachers. Using the Oxford English Dictionary to define the word ‘standards’ as a noun, standards are something considered by an authority or by general consensus as a basis of comparison, an approved model, an average or normal requirement, a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgement. Also as a noun, standards can refer to a flag or emblematic figure, or other object raised on a pole to indicate the rallying point of, for example, an army. As an adjective, standards serve as a basis of weight, measurement, value, comparison or judgement. Conforming, acceptable and correct Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

85

86

are also words that appear in dictionary definitions. Ingvarson (2002a) summarises two dictionary definitions that give two interrelated uses of the term ‘standards’ in education, namely rallying and measuring. He elaborates that ‘as rallying points, standards aim to articulate core educational values that teachers seek to make manifest in their practice’ (Ingvarson, 2002a, p. 3). In other words, standards are statements defining what is valued. He continues by saying that: … as measures, standards not only describe what teachers need to know and to be able to do to put these values into practice; they describe how attainment of that knowledge will be assessed and what counts as meeting the standard (Ingvarson, 2002a, p. 3). Mahony and Hextall (2000) have used the term regulatory standards for these statements of performance. These standards are used as a method of reform for the teaching profession usually imposed by governments and used as frameworks to control licensing and certification procedures. These writers maintain that whereas developmental standards revitalise the profession, regulatory standards remove autonomy and limit diversity of practice (Mahony & Hextall, 2000). Sachs (2005) furthers this argument in her keynote presentation at The Sharing Experience: Ways forward on standards conference in Melbourne 2005. In her conference paper, Professional Standards: Quality teachers for the future, she maintains that the regulatory approach focuses on accountability, a technical approach to teaching, and high surveillance resulting in compliance because of the imposition of external standards. On the other hand, the developmental approach is student centred and focuses on teachers improving their professional knowledge and practice (Sachs, 2005). In earlier work, Sachs (2003) identifies four types of standards; standards that she maintained were operating in Australian policy documents and debates. The four types are: (1) standards for quality improvement; (2) commonsense standards; (3) standards for quality assurance; and, (4) standards of certification and control. (1) According to Sachs (2003), standards for quality improvement outline how teachers should improve their practice, a more long term approach focusing on appraisal and promotion. These types of standards advocate a strong and autonomous professional teaching group. This category would fall into Mahony and Hextall’s (2000) developmental standards. 86


87

On the other hand, the other three categories are more regulatory in style. (2) Commonsense standards are benchmarks of minimum levels of achievement for various aspects of teaching; in other words, what teachers know and should be able to do (Sachs, 2003). Her view of these types of standards is that they are control mechanisms, rules or mandates that require direct supervision and standardise practices. Sachs maintains that these types of standards have significant implications for teacher professionalism, especially in regard to autonomy (Sachs, 2003). (3) Sachs’ (2003) third type, quality assurance standards, focuses on public accountability. These types of standards have evaluative connotations and political intentions to raise the status of the profession in line with other professions, as well as in the view of the public. (4) Lastly, standards of certification or control are bureaucratic, standardise procedures and reduce autonomy (Sachs, 2003). From this, it is easy to see that the regulatory type is the more dominant discourse in the Australian policy documents as investigated by Sachs (2003). According to Ingvarson (2010), if teachers are involved in standards development, they commit passionately and have a strong sense of ownership. They recognise their shared responsibility with employers and unions to achieve financial rewards and career progression. Ingvarson (2010) states: … while it is not appropriate for governments to tell teachers how to teach or decide what counts as accomplished teaching, it is appropriate for governments to ask the profession to show that it can be trusted to provide a rigorous teacher evaluation system if the profession expects expertise to be rewarded (p. 57-58). Ingvarson (2010) claims that Australia is at an ‘unprecedented level of agreement about the need to implement a standards-based system for recognising accomplished teachers and lead teachers’ (p. 59). However, that said, there are still voices from the enunciative field raising concerns about standards, especially where their implementation focuses on standardisation of practice. Some like Reynolds (1999) claim that rather than improving insight into teaching, standards can be interpreted as Chapter 2: Discourses of Professionalism in the Academic Literature

87

88

an attempt to formalise classroom practice or to standardise in the narrowest sense. Mayer et al. (2005) argue that it is not standards per se that cause the problem, but who develops them and how they are used that is more important. Most of these commentators believe that any policy should focus on ways that standards support and extend professional learning. However, regulatory standards seldom achieve this end. For example, implicit in one of the most recent policy documents on standards from the UK is the message that standards will be used to provide more precision in identifying and dealing with unsatisfactory teacher performance (Department for Education, 2010). These moves pose more risk than the debates about standardisation, and certainly make little pretence of supporting professional learning. As has already been noted, the standards movement in America has been operating for longer than in most other countries, including Australia. However, there is still limited research to support standards as the mechanism to enhance professionalism, teacher quality and improved student outcomes. Kowalski, Chittenden, Spicer, Jones and Tocci (1997), referring to the NBPTS process, concluded that certification in line with the standards may or may not improve quality. Furthermore, a report by the National Research Council (NRC) titled Assessing Accomplished Teaching found that the NBPTS only had the potential to make a valuable contribution to improvements in teacher quality (Hakel, Koenig, & Elliott, 2008). The report further stated that limited evidence does not prove that such an approach could not be successful. The use of this double negative is noteworthy. Most recently, Lustick (2011) has argued that Board registered teachers appear to learn by going through the NBPTS certification process, particularly in relation to scientific inquiry, student assessment and reflection. He stated that ‘if teacher learning is considered an important component of improving teacher quality and ultimately student learning, then these results point to the possibility that the process of Board certification may positively impact the quality of instruction and students’ learning’ (p. 312). However, he also indicated that improvements in quality were hard to determine. Linguistically, statements such as ‘limited evidence’, ‘may or may not’ and ‘point to the possibility’ reveal a lack of consistent and convincing evidence to support the link between standards and improved teacher quality in the American context. One study by Clotfelter, Ladd and Vigdor (2010), however, maintains that 88


89

teachers who are certified by the NBPTS, particularly in Maths and English subject certification, appear to become better teachers as a result of the certification process. By examining data on state-wide tests in North Carolina, they determined that teacher credentials are sufficiently important that they can be used as the basis for policies to improve student achievement. However, this research appears to stand alone. In all, these various voices show how education stakeholders speak about professional standards differently depending on their position, institution and the power/knowledge relations at play. This discussion also shows that the term standard is ambiguous and implementation is neither straightforward nor unproblematic to the teaching profession. The evidence to support standards as mechanisms for improving teacher quality and student outcomes is also somewhat limited. The following diagram summarises the authoritative voices from the academic literature where professionalism and professional standards are concerned. This will be used in the construction of the polyhedron of intelligibility revealed in Chapter Five. Figure 2.3: Voices of authority on professionalism and professional standards

DISCOURSES OF PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ACADEMIC LITERAURE

DISCOURSES OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN THE ACADEMIC LITERATURE

Older discourses: Classical or traditional (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a)

Standards for Teaching: Developmental standards (Mahony & Hextall, 2000), standards for quality improvement (Sachs, 2003), standards for professional learning (Mayer et al., 2005)

Neo-technical redefinitions: Flexible, Practical, Complex, Extended, Restricted, (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a), Interactive (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1991) New surfaces of emergence (the shift): New (Goodson, 1999; Hargreaves, 1994; McLaughlin, 1997; Robertson, 1996), Democratic, Transformative, Activist (Sachs, 2003), Post-modern (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a), Principled (Goodson, 2000), Occupational (Evetts, 2009), Enacted (Evans, 2008, 2011; Hilferty, 2008), Managerial (Sachs, 2003), Organisational (Evetts, 2009), Prescribed, Required, Requested, Demanded (Evans, 2008, 2011), Deduced, Assumed (Evans, 2011)

Standards for Teachers: Regulatory standards (Mahony & Hextall, 2000), commonsense standards, standards for quality assurance, standards for certification and control (Sachs, 2003), standards for accountability (Mayer et al., 2005)


89

90

2.5

CONCLUSION

The authoritative voices from the academic literature as named above make core repeatable claims for teacher professionalism to be defined from within the profession. Therefore, the dominant discourses are ‘democratic’, ‘transformative’, ‘activist’, ‘new’, ‘principled’, ‘enacted’ or ‘post-modern’ and ‘occupational’ professionalism. Even though some of these writers have coined terms such as ‘managerial’ (Sachs, 2003), ‘organisational’ (Evetts, 2009) and ‘demanded’ (Evans, 2008, 2011) professionalism, they do so in a negative context to illuminate how these discourses have a detrimental effect on the teaching profession. Common statements which display this include: teachers are offered ‘new subject positions ... those of management as opposed to professionalism’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 2); and, ‘managerialist controls’, and ‘standardisation of work practices’ (Evetts, 2009, p. 23). The main discursive theme is that these latter types of professionalism are not in the best interests of teachers. Like the concept of professionalism, investigation of the professional standards discourses in the academic literature also reveals a site of struggle. None of the authoritative voices are totally opposed to standards implementation, but contradictions and disagreements exist regarding a clear definition of the term ‘standards’ as well as who should have the responsibility for setting them. Figure 2.3 reveals that there is direct alignment between ‘new’, ‘democratic’, ‘transformative’, ‘activist’ and ‘occupational’ discourses of professionalism and ‘developmental’, ‘standards for quality improvement’ and ‘standards for professional learning’. This alignment represents ‘standards for teachers by teachers’, aimed at improving the quality of teaching and learning and revitalising professionalism from within the profession. Alternatively, ‘managerial’, ‘demanded’ and ‘organisational’ discourses align with ‘regulatory’, ‘standards for quality assurance’, ‘standards for certification or control’, ‘commonsense standards’ and ‘standards for accountability’, where the main focus is on controlling quality in education by imposing external accountability regimes determined outside the profession; in other words, government control. The next chapter presents a Foucauldian archaeological analysis of select Australian policy documents with a view to examining the discourses of professionalism and professional standards that they present.

90


91

Chapter 3: Policy as Discourse

Policy Documents

Introduction This chapter presents a Foucauldian archaeological analysis of select Australian federal and state policy documents revealing the dominant discourses of professionalism and professional standards that are portrayed through such documents. The findings in this chapter will help to build a ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77) in response to the first research question: How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? The polyhedron will be revealed in Chapter Five, The Conclusion. Policy discourses are forms of social practice subject to particular rules and transformations through which particular representations of ‘truth’ and self are constructed within particular power relationships (Ball, 1994). They work to define not only what can be said and thought but also who can speak, where, when and with what authority (Ball, 1994). Therefore, policy discourses on teacher professionalism or teacher quality define both what a professional teacher should be, as well as what quality teaching can and should be and who has the right to speak on the subject. In this chapter, I will show how professionalism and the professional teacher are being constructed through an analysis of a selection of Australian educational policy documents. I will seek to destabilise the authoritative discourse on the subject by interrogating ‘how power, identity and social relations are negotiated, are legitimated and are contested towards political ends’ (Apple, 1996, p. 130). To achieve this, I will use Foucauldian archaeological analysis to analyse policy and policy texts productively in terms of how they speak within discursive frames. The way in which some voices are legitimised or amplified is analysed along with how other voices are redistributed, repositioned or even silenced, revealing competing but unequal interests (Ball, 1994). In this way, policy as a discursive practice seeks to advance and mobilise particular ‘regimes of truth’ and institutionalise disciplinary


91

92

structures of normalisation (Bloomfield, 2006), in this case, professional standards. This methodology is valuable for tracing both the policy discourses themselves and the ways in which teachers are constructed within and through such discourses. Even though referring to genealogy rather than archaeology (see explanation of the use of archaeology rather than genealogy in Chapter One), Ball (1994) asserts that this methodology ‘identifies and counterpoints antagonistic discourses – the dominant and the silenced, the ‘truthful’ and illegitimate’ (p. 4). Ball maintains that discourses embody the meaning and use of propositions and words, allowing certain possibilities for thought to be constructed. Words are ordered and combined in particular ways while other combinations are displaced or excluded. Discourse analysis makes visible the ways in which policy assembles collections of words, statements and related policies, exercising power through a production of ‘truth’ and knowledge as discourse (Ball, 1994). Through Foucauldian archaeological analysis, I will seek to disrupt the taken-for-granted practice of professional standards implementation which has become commonsense knowledge. I will question the use of professional standards as a way to regulate/control or govern teachers under the guise of enhanced professionalism. Over the last twenty years, there has been a plethora of education policies and texts that have placed great emphasis on the quality and professionalism of the teaching profession in Australia (Thomas, 2005). These include, but are not limited to: 1. Strengthening Australia’s Schools: A consideration of the focus and content of schooling (Dawkins, 1988); 2. Teacher Quality: An issues paper (Schools Council, 1989); 3. Quality of Teaching: An Issue for all (Dawkins, 1990); 4. The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994); 5. A Class Act: Inquiry into the Status of the Teaching Profession (Crowley, 1998); 6. Teachers for the 21st Century: Making the Difference (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA), 2000); 7. Quality Matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices (Ramsey, 2000);

92


93

8. A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003); 9. Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006); and 10. National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). In order to question professional standards as the answer to teacher professionalism, a selection of the policy documents from the list above concerning professionalism, professional standards and teacher quality are subjected to a Foucauldian archaeological analysis. The interrogated documents are numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. After explicating the selection of these particular documents, I will continue with an overview of the situation in Australia before each selected document is subjected to a detailed Foucauldian archaeological analysis. The final section is a summary in response to the first research question – How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? 3.1

SELECTION OF POLICY DOCUMENTS

The selected policy documents span the period from 1988 to the present. The past two decades have seen major changes in Australian society and the economy which have contributed to changing priorities in education, especially the focus on teacher quality. All of the chosen documents outline specific new developments, representations or involvements in the education field as discussed below. Strengthening Australia’s Schools (Dawkins, 1988) was chosen because, at the time of publication, it added a new dimension to the debate of teacher professionalism. In the previous year, the Department of Education under Susan Ryan had been replaced by The Department of Education and Training under Dawkins. As discussed in Chapter Two, the release of this document coincided with the period in Australia known as ‘The Reorg’ (Ashenden, 1990) with neocorporatism, corporate managerialism, economic rationalism and human capital theory being the dominant discourses (Lingard, 1991). This document stressed the


93

94

critical and central role schools play in society and the economy. At this time, the social objectives of education had become subordinate to the economic system. Quality was seen as not just about equity or professionalism, but also about economic processes. Therefore, this period represented a shift from equity discourses to economic discourses (Lingard, O’Brien, & Knight, 1993). The document reflects this discontinuity with a shift to quality and a focus on improving the quality of teachers. The link between teacher quality, student outcomes and national productivity is clearly stated. In Foucauldian analysis, the discontinuities, shifts or ruptures need to be investigated and analysed. The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) was selected because, according to Sachs (2003), this accord marked a watershed for teacher professionalism. This document, negotiated between the federal government and the unions, affirmed a commitment of financial support as well as support for curriculum and professional development projects between the profession and the government. Greater salary justice was promised together with a move towards the development of professional standards defined by the profession itself. The Teaching Accord has been included as part of this policy analysis as many teachers saw the development of standards ‘by the profession, for the profession’ as a positive step and were in favour of this agreement. A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) was included as this document resulted from a Senate Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. The aim of this report was to give teachers the responsibility for establishing standards for the profession that would be supported by the government. The document outlined literature on professions and professionalism, as well as detailing the status of the profession from three hundred different perspectives representing all parts of the educational community. The government’s response and the minority report to this document are also included in the analysis. The inclusion of A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) was imperative as it was the first time Australia produced a working national document on professional standards. Australia had twice attempted to establish a national professional body – the Australian Teaching Council in the mid-1990s and again in the mid-2000s with a body called Teaching

94


95

Australia, but both failed as the bodies were perceived as not representative of the interests of all stakeholders (Ingvarson, 2010). Therefore, this ‘framework’ was the first of its kind and proposed agreed foundations for effective teaching as well as facilitating professional discourses within and between different Australian states. The document aimed to align standards nationally for entry to the profession, as well as providing standards for teachers and principals. The 2003 National Framework recognised the need for standards to have meaning for teachers within their local/regional contexts and jurisdictions. Therefore, it was thought that states and territories were best placed for the implementation process. The inclusion of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) shows this process as it occurred in the state of Queensland. Queensland, unique in Australia for its longstanding school based assessment processes and high levels of teacher autonomy, was chosen as it is the context of this study with interviews having been conducted with teachers currently registered to teach in this state (see Chapter Four). The last source document selected is the most up-to-date government position on professional standards for teaching at the time of writing. This document, National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), represents a shift back to the national agenda on standards with the formation of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). It was thought that in light of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008), the National Productivity Agenda, the formation of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and especially their paper, National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality (2008), as well as work previously undertaken on standards by professional associations, that a revision of standards was timely. This document is the first of its kind outlining professional standards in detail across four career levels. In the discussion of these pivotal and key policy texts, reference is made to other texts to provide further support for arguments and to emphasise the key positions of the chosen texts. It is important to note, as do Kendall and Wickham (1999), that analysts should be sceptical of all political arguments. Ball (1994) further warns that when reading policy documents, we should bear in mind that the


95

96

effect of policy is primarily discursive in that it changes the possibilities we have for thinking otherwise. 3.2

OVERVIEW OF THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT

One of the first government documents that called for teachers to take a more active role for their profession by developing standards of practice and exercising responsibility for professional development was The Karmel Report of 1973. The report argued: A mark of a highly skilled occupation is that those entering it should have reached a level of preparation in accordance with standards set by the practitioners themselves, and that the continuing development of members should be the responsibility of the profession. In such circumstances, the occupational group itself becomes the point of reference for standards and thus a source of prestige or of condemnation (Karmel, 1973, p. 123). Thus, it was approximately forty years ago that standards and professional development were first mentioned as a means to creating a stronger Australian teaching profession. Progress has been slow, but in the last twenty years the move towards a defined and agreed set of standards has quickened, particularly in recent years. Many government reports emerged in the 1980s and 1990s with a focus on improving the quality of education, teacher quality and professional development. These reports voiced concerns about the profession including declining student outcomes, the academic quality of those entering the profession and limited career paths and wage incentives for teachers (Ingvarson, 2010). Some programs were put into place to counteract these concerns, for example, the Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) program. Dinham and Scott (1997) have claimed that the aim of the AST program was to provide incentives to keep good teachers in the classroom by offering salary increments. However, this program was a failure because salary increases were inadequate when compared with the burden of extra work and stress. This, coupled with an invalid evaluation system, inconsistent procedures from one school to another and panel members who were not qualified, resulted in the program being abandoned.

96


97

According to Ingvarson (2010), throughout the 1990s the teaching profession was defenceless against the range of structural and accountability reforms being directed at them; many identifying a de-professionalisation of teachers. Teacher numbers were being curtailed, schools were closing and the status and attractiveness of teaching as a profession was in decline. Weak salary structures and the lack of career pathways had resulted in many industrial disputes. All in all the profession was perceived as being in crisis by both the government and the public (Crowley, 1998). This resulted in a blizzard of initiatives proposed by the government to ‘reform education’. Many of the associated policies concentrated on teaching as a profession, focusing on the quality of teaching and learning with professional standards being forwarded as the solution to the ‘educational crisis’. By subjecting selected policy documents to Foucauldian archaeological analysis, some conclusions can be arrived at as to why and how professional standards became the chosen solution to improve education in Australia. 3.3

DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

Using an archaeological approach, the selected documents were investigated for isomorphism in statements as well as the rules that made the statements valid at that time. The regularity and frequency of statements were recorded and when new ‘surfaces of emergence’ or new ideas began to appear, these were noted. I also investigated contradictions, distances or ‘spaces of dissension’ between statements. As archaeology is an examination of the relations between different elements in systems and historical processes, I also looked for exchanges between different and competing discourses happening at the same time. The non-discursive domain is important so political events and economic processes were also noted, not as causal factors but for the existence of correlations. Finally, when transformations in statements occurred, these were mapped. 3.3.1 Strengthening Australia’s Schools (SAS) (Dawkins, 1988)

The first text I will be examining, Strengthening Australia’s Schools (SAS) (Dawkins, 1988), was a consideration of the focus and content of schooling in the late 1980s by John Dawkins, then Minister of Education for the Hawke Labor government. This eight page document, outlining Dawkins’s blueprint or ‘game plan’ (Lingard et al., 1993, p. 231) for schooling reforms was addressed to


97

98

governments, administrators, the non-government sector, teachers, students, parents, business and the community in general. Presented as a thin pamphlet, the structure of the text made Dawkins’s messages accessible to a large audience. This short text is divided into sections which detail the aspects of education which Dawkins wanted to ‘adjust’. This is a term Dawkins uses himself. Schools had to share ‘the burden of adjustment’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 1) for the ‘adjustment of our society and economy’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 1). The use of the word ‘adjust’ rather than change is noteworthy and strategic. Dawkins is giving the impression that not too much had to change; after all, change could be too overwhelming and breed resistance. As well as a Foreword and an Introduction, the sections of the SAS document are as follows: 

Developing a National Effort for Schools;



A Common Approach to Assessment;



Priorities for Improving the Training of Teachers;



Increasing the Number of Young Australians completing school;



Education and Equity;



Maximising our investment; and



The Next Steps. The Foreword makes two key analytic themes clear. First, that education had

to improve and, second, that this improvement would happen on a national scale. Statements providing evidence of this include: ‘to ensure that all Australian schools are of the highest possible standard’ (p. 1), ‘real improvements’ (p. 1), ‘improved educational outcomes’ (p. 6), ‘improve the quality’ (p. 1) and ‘relevance and effectiveness of schools’ (Foreword). These statements, laden with words such as ‘outcomes’, ‘quality’ and ‘effectiveness’, show that there had been a shift in the way of thinking from the more traditional equality discourses in education to economic discourses. Prior to this, schools had a social agenda as outlined in the introduction of this chapter. The first sentence of the document says, ‘From its inception public schooling has played a crucial role in the intellectual and social development of Australian children’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 1). However, the introductory section continues with contradictory statements referring to ‘career development’, ‘an able and competent population’ who were to be ‘productive’ and have ‘meaningful

98


99

working lives’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 1). In Dawkins’ language, equality discourses had become subordinate to economic principles and schools needed to play their part in these times of change. Dawkins was referring to Australia’s need to change from dependence on primary industries to ‘value-adding’ in the secondary and tertiary spheres (Lingard et al., 1993). He announced that schools had to rise to this challenge and help create ‘a more balanced industrial structure and increased flexibility and responsiveness in the economy’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 1). Where schools once provided the foundation on which a well-informed, compassionate and cohesive society was to be built, Dawkins was now calling on schools to provide the basis of a more ‘highly skilled, adaptive and productive workforce’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 2). For this to happen, Dawkins asserted that there had to be an improvement in the quality of education. Even though fairness and social justice were maintained as underlying principles of education, here Dawkins had coupled them with efficiency, and economic discourses became the more dominant of the two. This thrust of ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ are predominant throughout this document (Lingard et al., 1993), with these words used at least seven times. ‘Quality’ is used no less than nine times and the scattering of other words such as ‘performance’ (p. 2), ‘competitiveness’ (p. 4) and ‘investment’ (p. 6) maintain the economic message. As well as the thrust for efficiency and effectiveness, the second analytic theme, ‘a national effort’ in educational matters, is strongly evident with this statement mentioned thirteen times13. Dawkins speaks of ‘national priorities’ (Foreword, p. 2, p. 3), ‘national leadership’(Foreword, p. 3), ‘a national approach’ (p. 5), ‘national guidelines for registration’ (p. 5), ‘national co-ordinating mechanisms’ (p. 6) and ‘a national board’ (p. 7) on various occasions throughout the document. He stated ‘it is essential that everybody involved with education develops a national perspective’ (p. 3). The repetition of the word ‘national’ incites the reader to consider this approach as the answer to improving education. As noted in Chapter Two, at a time when the Australian Labor Party had achieved control both federally and in all major state governments, Lingard et al. (1993) were able to identify the moves towards a

13

It should be noted that educational policy in Australia is bedevilled at the national level by statefederal relationships. While compulsory education policy is a state responsibility, state educational systems are funded by the Commonwealth.


99

100

national agenda as ‘the emergence of a new form of commonwealth-state relations’ (p. 231) which Lingard (1991) had previously referred to as corporate federalism. Lingard et al. (1993) maintain that SAS was the first clearly articulated statement of corporate federalism, with a move towards education becoming part of the broader microeconomic reform agenda. To realise this national effort, Dawkins (1988) called for ‘co-operation’ (Foreword, p. 2, p. 3), ‘consultation and negotiation’ (Foreword), ‘participation’ (Foreword), ‘a shared commitment’ (Foreword), ‘a cooperative effort’ (Foreword), ‘a coordinated and cooperative way’ (p. 3), ‘a coherent curriculum’ (p. 4), ‘an overall approach’ (p. 4), ‘a common framework’ (p. 4), ‘a common approach to benchmarks for measuring students’ (p. 5), ‘ways to develop stronger links’ (p. 6), in a country that could ‘no longer afford fragmentation of effort and approaches’ (p. 7). These statements cohere and make core repeatable claims that the undeniable answer to improvement in education is to have a co-operative national approach. The main reason given for such a national approach is ‘the growing interstate mobility of the workforce’ and the ‘inconsistencies in school curricula’ (p. 4) but really with a national approach, control was more centralised. Dawkins asserted that parents, young people and the community were entitled to high quality education. He repeats this statement three times; first, ‘parents, young people themselves, and the community generally have a right to expect schools to provide young Australians with the knowledge and skills they will need for life’ (Dawkins, 1988, Foreword). The second time he mentions it, he slightly alters his words: ‘parents and the community generally, now more than ever, have rightly come to expect schools to provide young Australians with all the knowledge and skills, and especially contemporary skills, they will need in life’ (p. 1). The third time, he refers to ‘the expanding expectations the community has of schools’ (p. 3). The progression of these statements shows how Dawkins positions parents and the community more powerfully and gives the impression that they are the players that are demanding the ‘adjustment’ (p. 1) rather than the government. As well as this, Dawkins makes it clear that the states are responsible for education, referring to them as ‘the primary policy maker in the area of schools’ (p. 3) for constitutional and financial reasons. In the Foreword, he claims that the states have ‘primary responsibility’, repeated again on page 2, stating that ‘they [the states] take their responsibility seriously’. Thus, Dawkins eliminates direct links to the

100


101

Commonwealth government by assuming the passive voice. He then contradicts himself in the ‘Next Steps’ section by saying that ‘joint action will be developed between the Commonwealth and the States on a financial partnership basis and will be reflected in negotiated agreements’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 7). This is also reflected in a further statement where he invites them [the states] to cooperate with a national effort. He says, ‘we have decided to invite the co-operation of the States to develop and implement a national effort’ (p. 3). On the one hand, he makes it clear that the states own the portfolio for education, and on the other he assumes the authorial position, the ‘we’ being the Commonwealth government as the decision makers. Not only will the states have to conform to the federal government’s line, they will be responsible for implementation, once again removing the Commonwealth government from direct criticism. The use of the word ‘we’ is noteworthy in this document. Sometimes, as described above, the ‘we’ is a mechanism to exclude others from the discourse, the government having the authorial voice. However, in other places, for example, in the Foreword where Dawkins (1988) refers to ‘our society and economy’ and ‘we must concentrate ...’, the ‘we’ is a strategy promoting the notion of inclusivity in the discourse. The reader is enticed into agreement with what seems commonsense, unable to be contested. As well as placing the states in subordination, Dawkins marginalises teachers, their voices continually relegated to the background. Acknowledgement is given to teachers for being hard-working men and women, but the call by Dawkins for improvement in quality of practice diminishes their authority. For example, the minister asks for cooperation from ‘those who work in schools’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 2) – the word ‘teachers’ omitted, demonstrating their exclusion from the discourse. He also refers to ‘those who have the responsibility of making policy for them’ (p. 2); again teachers being excluded, this time from the policy-making process. This is in direct contradiction to the cooperative approach suggested throughout the document; teachers are never the ‘doers’ in this ‘cooperative’ work. Their voices are continually suppressed. As well as this, there is a whole section called ‘Priorities for Improving the Training of Teachers’ devoted to improving teachers’ knowledge. Statements in this section such as ‘we must ensure’ and ‘we must examine’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 5) show that teachers are having the training ‘done’ to them; they are not the active agents. Thus, once again, teachers are positioned as deficient.


101

102

Dawkins also makes it clear that there will be no funding for any adjustments – ‘the adjustment task before our schools does not require more money’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 2). By quoting figures from previous reviews, he claims that the Commonwealth and the State governments have already ‘increased funding for all schools’ and ‘funding to schools has increased substantially in real terms’ (p. 2). Additionally, ‘resources available to schools stand at their highest ever level’ (p. 3). Again, the repetition leads the reader to believe that additional funding and resources are not necessary to bring about change; rather a cooperative national response from teachers is what is needed. As part of this cooperative national approach, Dawkins emphasises that what is required is ‘a common framework’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 4). The word ‘framework’ is repeated eight times and is given as the solution to subject area content, best curriculum design and teaching practices, Asian and Pacific content, literacy, numeracy, analytical skills as well as assessment (Dawkins, 1988). It would appear that ‘frameworks’ can do almost anything. ‘Framework’ is co-located with ‘will provide’, ‘could’, ‘must’, and ‘should’, making it difficult for anyone to disagree with a ‘framework’ as the solution. This gap or ‘space of dissension’ between a national cooperative effort and the so-called ‘need for a framework’ is noted as an important point. Writers such as Reynolds (1999) maintain that ‘complex functions such as teaching cannot be made to conform to a framework’ (p. 254). To conclude, even though examination of this document reveals the reframing of education in economic terms, equity discourses are still evident – ‘schools must take an active role in overcoming inequity’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 6); inequity for females as well as the ‘disadvantaged’, the ‘low socio-economic’, people from ‘ethnic backgrounds’ and ‘Aboriginals’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 6) – but these discourses are overarched or circumscribed by the emphasis on economic discourses. Teachers’ voices are silenced and their authority challenged by the call for improvements in the quality of their practice. In the final section of the document, Dawkins proclaims, ‘I envisage a central role for the Schools Council of the National Board for Employment, Education and Training which I hope to establish on a permanent basis’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 7). This statement shows that a transformation had occurred without the so-called national cooperative approach with teachers and the states. As already mentioned, the year before the publication of SAS, the

102


103

Department of Education was replaced by the Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). This represents a material shift from a liberal progressive perspective to an instrumentalist approach to reframing schools in human capital terms (Lingard et al., 1993). This document did not stand alone at this time, but manifested ‘a real intertextuality with a range of other commonwealth statements’ (Lingard et al., 1993, p. 237), for example The Finn Report, which promoted similar ideas of human capital investment with the illusion of a ‘cooperative’ national approach. In his Foreword, Dawkins (1988) states ‘we need to ensure that all Australian schools are of the highest possible standard’ but there is no elaboration on what the word standard might mean at this point. The following statement highlights the argument already put forward – ‘a national effort will provide the framework for achieving ... commitment and cooperation’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 3), in other words, teachers and the states will cooperate with the government’s national agenda. 3.3.2 The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994)

The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) was an agreement between the Commonwealth government and the various unions in Australia that represent teachers. This twenty page document begins with letters from the three main voices of authority representing the major stakeholders in education. All letters are accompanied by a photograph of the main players, namely The Honourable Ross Free M.P., Sharan Burrow, the serving Federal President of the Australian Education Union and Lynne Rolley, the Federal Secretary of the Independent Teachers Federation at the time. The inclusion of photographs is unusual for a government document, giving quite a personal touch, a face being put to the name. Other photographs included throughout the document show teachers and students happily working together. Again, this adds to the personal touch and portrays the upbeat nature of the document and the inclusion of teachers and students in the discourse. The document is divided into the following sections: 

Purpose of the Agreement



Preamble



Objectives



Principles for Implementation


103

104



Educational Reforms

The Educational Reforms, of which there are ten, are detailed in the remainder of the document. The professional objective of that reform and the priorities for implementation were in the named target areas of: 1. Literacy; 2. The Middle Years of Schooling; 3. Post-Compulsory Education; 4. Curriculum Statements and Profiles; 5. National Equity Program for Schools; 6. Aboriginal Education; 7. Education of Girls; 8. Education Industry; 9. Collation and Use of Quantitative and Qualitative Data for Educational Training; and, 10. Professional Structures/Career Development. The target area that is of particular interest to this study is the one concerned with Professional Structures/Career Development for Teachers, and this target area has therefore been given greater attention. There are four key analytic themes evident in this accord. First, that this is an agreement or collaboration between all of the major education stakeholders; second, the link made between improvements in quality of teaching and learning and the economy; third, that a national approach to education is needed; and, lastly, that teaching will be supported as a true profession and career. The language used in the letters from Sharan Burrow and Lynne Rolley illustrate the first theme. The Federal President for the Australian Education Union acknowledges the ‘shared responsibility’, ‘collaborative approach’ ‘negotiated change’, and ‘partnerships’ involved in this ‘historic agreement’ (p. 2) and the Federal Secretary for the Independent Teachers Union ‘is pleased to have been a partner in the negotiation’ and also speaks of ‘a collaborative culture’, ‘negotiating parties’ and the legitimate role of the ‘teaching profession as partners in the exercise’ (p. 3). However, the language used by Ross Free M.P., although mentioning ‘a

104


105

comprehensive framework agreement’ (p. 1), does not seem to be as open to this collaboration. In condescending tones, he says that teachers have ‘won a role as major players’ (p. 1) and he commends ‘the teaching unions for their foresight and vision in joining with the Commonwealth in this important and very necessary agreement’ (p. 1). This statement clearly puts the government in charge of the process. The rest of the document, however, reiterates the collaborative message, this descriptor repeated nine times and co-located with action nominals such as ‘structures’ (p. 6), ‘initiatives’ (p. 6), ‘approach’ (p. 7), ‘action’ (p. 8), and ‘responsibility’ (p. 8). Other words or statements, such as ‘cooperates’ (p. 5), ‘negotiations’ (p. 5) and ‘active participation by the profession’ (p. 5) further the lexical cohesion across the text (Bloomfield, 2006) and provide universal credibility of the concept of collaboration. The repetition is a persuasive device serving to normalise the idea of teachers working collaboratively with authorities. These statements appear to promise an equal voice for teachers, although the vague language used by the minister could bring this into question. Common statements from the three voices of authority acknowledge the central and fundamental role that teachers have in the strength of Australia’s education system. Ross Free refers to ‘a very tangible recognition of the fundamental role that teachers must play in the continued development of the profession’ (DEET, 1994, p. 1), Sharan Burrow recognises ‘that teachers are central to the provision of quality schooling (p. 2) and Lynne Rolley says ‘the strength of Australia’s education and training system lies with its teaching profession’ (p. 3). Free and Rolley both acknowledge the high standard of Australian schools, teachers being recognised as ‘well-qualified’, ‘skilful’, ‘committed’ (p. 1) ‘highly skilled’ and ‘dedicated practitioners’ (p. 3). However, all three highlight the room for improvement in statements such as ‘keen to see general levels of attainment rising’ (p. 1) ‘advancing the quality of teaching and learning’ (p. 2), and ‘improving the quality of teaching and learning’ (p. 3). These statements show how teachers are positioned in contradictory terms. First, they are represented with connotations of quality and members of a profession, but then they are repositioned from a deficit point of view where they need to commit to advancing or improving the quality of education. The Education Minister identifies teachers as ‘major players in the development and implementation of policies and programs’ (DEET, 1994, p. 1). This


105

106

idea is further elaborated by Burrow when she quotes a statement from the ‘Purpose’ section – ‘the continuing role teachers have, not only in implementing change but also in contributing to the development of policies and programs’ (DEET, 1994, p. 2, p. 5). These statements, through the use of action verbs such as ‘implementing’, and ‘contributing’, suggest that teachers are active agents in this type of work, unlike in SAS where teachers were totally excluded from the discourse. Collaboration was not limited to teachers and the government in this document but, rather, ‘partnerships involving teacher organisations, education authorities and universities will be a major factor’ (DEET, 1994, p. 6). This is a different message from the suppression of such voices in the earlier document. The articulation of corporate federalism is maintained in this document with moves towards education being acknowledged as part of the economy. This second key analytic theme is shown in such statements as: ‘these collaborative initiatives will enhance the role of schools in underpinning Australia’s economic and social development into the 21st century’ (p. 6) and to ‘improve the quality of teaching and learning to provide for the social and economic demands of the 1990s and beyond (p. 7). The context given for the collaborative improvement initiatives is ‘the face of a rapidly changing society’ (p. 1). These statements maintain the convergence between education and the marketplace as outlined in SAS; in other words, the link between improvements in the quality of teaching and learning and new capitalism. The word ‘quality’ is mentioned eleven times in this accord, most concerned with ‘improving’ (p. 3, p. 5-7), ‘advancing’ (p. 2) or ‘promoting improvements’ (p. 9) in teaching and learning. In effect, improvements in the quality of teaching and learning are linked to the economy and a more productive society for the future. Like SAS, the third key analytic theme, a ‘national’ approach, continues in this document. The word ‘national’ is mentioned forty-five times and co-located with ‘reform’ (p. 1), ‘consistency and coherence’ (p. 3), ‘agenda’ (p. 1, p. 5) ‘effort’ (p. 6), ‘collaborative work’ (p. 6) ‘agreement’ (p. 7) and ‘framework’ (p. 2). As evidenced in the SAS analysis, frameworks can supposedly achieve many things. Similarly, in this document (DEET, 1994), ‘a national framework’ would be responsible for ‘implementing curriculum and vocational initiatives’ (p. 1), ‘managing educational change and development’ (p. 2) and ‘validation, benchmarking and assessment of Key Competencies in the school sector’ (p. 12).

106


107

Once again, it appears that frameworks are useful. These statements make the national agenda clear and incite the reader to believe that a national approach/framework is the only solution for education. No other solution is given consideration, highlighting the gap in evidentiary statements showing the link between improvements in quality and a national approach. Additionally, for most of the target areas, there is some sort of national project or action plan included, such as the National Literacy Development Program for target area one, the National Equity Program for target area four, and National Competency Standards and a National Professional Development program for teachers for target area nine. Similar to SAS, there is no elaboration on what the word ‘standards’ might mean. The Teaching Accord proclaimed overwhelming support for professional development for teachers and how the government could provide support for career pathways. This is target area nine, ‘Professional Structures/Career Development for Teachers’, and the fourth and last key analytic theme evident in this document. The word ‘profession’ or ‘professional’ is mentioned over twelve times in this section of the document, again the repetition prioritising the concept of ‘being professional’. Teaching is referred to as a profession and professional is used in the context of ‘development’, ‘structures’, ‘body’, and ‘support’ (DEET, 1994, p. 19). Once again, teachers are positioned in contradictory terms; that is, they are members of the teaching profession and therefore professionals, but they need to develop their skills and would need structures put into place to support this – ‘developing new structures to support the teaching profession’ (p. 19). In this instance, the government appears as a helpful supporter, but essentially teachers are positioned as powerless and needing assistance, a discourse that provided a means for external regulation and control. The solution as to how the support and development would happen is already assumed: a national body would be set up called the Australian Teaching Council (ATC); professional development would continue but would be tied to an agreed management and funding model; there would be ongoing work with the development of competency standards; dialogue about pre-service education courses would be initiated; and links to industry for schools and universities would support innovative projects modelling work practices. I have indicated how the use of action verbs positions teachers as active agents in this collaborative agreement. This is repeated in target area nine – ‘involving teachers in designing and planning their


107

108

professional development’ (DEET, 1994, p. 19), but their contradictory positioning, as well as the solution incorporated into the perceived problem, meant that this was not the case. Even though some contested this accord, the overall response from the profession was positive; many convinced that it was the beginning of the profession itself, designing and developing professional standards for the profession (Sachs, 2003). What is important contextually is that at this time, education had been ‘marketised’ and linked to the economy. In times of change, teachers can be seen as obstacles to the government agenda so this document was presented and worded in a clever but potentially deceptive fashion to get them on board. Whereas some thought The Teaching Accord had given teachers a voice in decision making and enhanced professionalism, when investigated more critically, this document was yet another step to repositioning teachers as non-experts or technicians who put into operation the designs and goals of those from outside the profession. In this market regime, teachers are responsible for ‘producing’ numerate and literate ‘products’ to make up a multi-skilled, flexible workforce who boost the economy and increase international competitiveness. Their job is to increase productivity, not to be involved in political, intellectual, philosophical or epistemological decisions (Reid, 1993). This illustrates managerial, demanded or organisational discourses of professionalism as highlighted in Chapter Two. Even though some teachers were in favour of developing standards, they failed to see that the standards would be of either the regulatory type (Mahony & Hextall, 2000) or quality assurance type (Sachs, 2003) under the guise of enhanced professionalism. As outlined in Chapter Two and at the beginning of this chapter, the general perception was that there were serious concerns with the teaching profession. This resulted in an inquiry into the status of the teaching profession being commissioned in June 1996. The resultant report, A Class Act, otherwise known as The Crowley Report, was published in 1998. 3.3.3 A Class Act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession (Crowley, 1998)

The so-called Crowley Report (1998) undertaken by the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee, chaired by Senator Rosemary Crowley (a former medical practitioner), was a commissioned inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. This two hundred and fifty-eight page book incorporates three hundred submissions from all parts of the educational community including:

108


109

the Deafness Group of Australia, Women Educators’ Associations, universities, professors, primary and secondary schoolteachers, principals, principals’ associations, education and research development services, unions, Council of Deans, parent councils, families, students, professional associations, education departments and children’s services, state, Catholic and independent education authorities, youth and family services and library associations. This report includes a minority report and an additional separate seventeen page report documenting the government’s response to the inquiry (Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), 1998). The recommendations from the original report, the minority report and the government’s response are all examined in this study. The chapters of A Class Act are as follows: 

Terms of Reference;



List of Recommendations;



Overview – Letter from Senator the Honourable Rosemary Crowley (Chairperson);



Chapter 2 – Taking Teachers Seriously;



Chapter 3 – Status and Professionalism;



Chapter 4 – Perceptions of Teachers’ Status;



Chapter 5 – The Outside School Environment – Factors Affecting Teachers’ Morale, Professionalism and Status;



Chapter 6 – The School Environment – Factors Affecting Teachers’ Morale, Performance and Status;



Chapter 7 – Teacher Recruitment and Training; and



Chapter 8 – Supply and Demand.

Also included are appendices with detailed tables and graphs documenting the national profile of Australian teachers in terms of salaries, employment, qualifications, ethnic background and gender. Comprehensive lists of the names of all participants are also included as well as lists of public hearing witnesses for each state.


109

110

Three key analytic themes are evident in this document. First, the perceived crisis of morale in the teaching profession; second, the link between education and the economy in terms of quality of teaching and learning and student achievement; and, third, professional standards implementation on a national scale as the answer to the perceived crisis. The introductory sections of this document outline in considerable detail the decline in Australian education and particularly the perceived crisis in teachers’ morale; ostensibly the reason why the inquiry was ordered in the first place. Statements which provide evidence of this first key analytic theme include: ‘widespread crisis of morale amongst teachers’; ‘status of the profession is disturbingly low’; and ‘the status of teachers in Australia is declining’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 29) with ‘some [teachers] ... even ashamed to admit to being teachers’ (p. 1). Many factors are cited as contributing to this crisis. These include: ‘low tertiary entrance requirements’, ‘feminisation of the profession’, ‘shrinking budgets’, ‘alarmist media reports’, ‘unsupportive ministers’, a ‘crowded curriculum’, the ‘disappearance of support services’ (p. 1), ‘professional development ... severely eroded’, ‘career progression ... largely non-existent’ (p. 5) and ‘relentless change’ (p. 8) by governments. Coupled with this, teachers are ‘constantly asked to do more with less’ and are ‘undermined by ill-informed or gratuitous criticism’ (p. 5). Foucault’s (1972) concept of enunciative regularity applied to this report provides a useful tool in clearly foregrounding the picture of the despair of ageing professionals who feel misunderstood, unappreciated and not ‘supported in the general community’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 1). Teachers are criticised for not coping with ‘changes in labour markets and skills requirements’, ‘diversity of students’, ‘domestic arrangements’, ‘inclusive class profiles’, advancements in ‘technology’, a ‘multicultural student population’ and ‘more harried and stressful lives’ (p. 9) All in all, teachers are shown in a very poor light and unable to cope – ‘there is something of a crisis of confidence emerging in the private and public discourses about teaching and education in this country’ (p. 6). Therefore, an emerging theme can be identified; one where education as a whole is in decline and ‘under-valued’, ‘unappreciated’, ‘under-resourced’, ‘perplexed’ and ‘demoralised’ (p. 6) teachers need saving from themselves. The regular and repetitive use of negative descriptors encourages the reader to accept this picture as the ‘truth’. Furthermore, Crowley throws doubt on the status of the

110


111

teaching profession by her repeated questioning. She asks ‘whether indeed it [teaching] can be described as a profession’, ‘what attributes of teachers ... contribute to their level of professional status’, and ‘how the relationship of teachers to students ... affects their professional role’ (p. 1). She adds, ‘The Committee is in no doubt that teaching must be regarded as a profession, with all that this implies for the standards, accountability, status and autonomy that a community expects of a profession’ (p. 6). The latter statement implies that, as it stands, teaching is still not accepted as a true profession in the eyes of the community. Chapters Five, Six, Seven and Eight further elaborate the factors affecting teachers’ morale with other voices of authority entering the enunciative field. For example, in Chapter Five, in ‘the politicisation of education’ section, Dr David Kemp is quoted as describing literacy and numeracy in Australia as ‘a national disgrace’ (p. 96), the Prime Minister blaming the results on ‘faddish’ (p. 96) teaching methods. As the Prime Minister says in an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, 12th March, 1997: ‘Clearly the literacy techniques for teaching reading and writing that have been fashionable over the last 20 years have not suited all students’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 96). Other politicians such as Senator Amanda Vanstone are quoted in this report, adding to the ‘discourse of derision’ (Ball, 1994). Her comments were concerned with the public versus private debate. She said in a report to The Sun Herald, August 10th, 1997 that ‘school leavers from state schools are ten times more likely to end up on the dole queue compared to their private school counterparts’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 98). Premier Kennett continued this ‘teacher bashing’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 104) by asserting on 10th September, 1997 in Brisbane that ‘teachers have never done a day’s work in their lives’ (p. 104). The report states that teachers found these allegations to be ‘simplistic, misleading and quite unjustified’ (p. 98). They say ‘the very people [Education Ministers] who should be supporting them [teachers] were instead leading the charge against them’ (p. 99). Hargreaves retaliates to this ‘discourse of derision’ by asserting that teachers needed to develop a ‘discourse of dignity’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 107-108) in response. Such proclamations by the government show how they court the media (Thomas, 2011) to further diminish the authority and morale of teachers and the public’s perception of them. In complete contradiction to the ‘discourse of derision’ described above, the introductory section of the report states that:


111

112

… the vast majority of Australia’s schools employ teachers who are deeply committed, well qualified and dedicated to the educational and personal wellbeing of their students. There is no major crisis of quality in Australia’s teaching force, and generally our schools are the safest environments in which young people can gather (Crowley, 1998, p. 6). This statement begs the question: if there was no crisis of quality in education, then why the need for an inquiry or the call for improvements in quality? The regularity of the negative representation of teachers and teaching far outweighs these contradictory positive descriptors to provide an almost irrefutable argument in favour of a necessary paradigmatic shift in the structure and operation of schools. The second key analytic theme concerns this paradigm shift and the ‘marketisation’ of education, with calls for improvements in the quality of teaching and learning in order to influence student achievement. Teachers are described as the ‘most powerful leverage for improving education’ (p. 8), quality teaching is placed ‘at the heart of a quality education provision’ (p. 5), with ‘good teachers ... at the heart of successful learning’ as well as ‘recognition of teachers as the key factors in student achievement’ (p. 7). The last point is supported by evidence from the American study, What matters most: Teaching for America’s future (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), 1996), which stated ‘in terms of student achievement, the teacher is a more significant factor than any other kind of school resource’ (p. 7). The study also said that ‘every additional dollar spent on more highly qualified teachers netted greater improvements in student achievement’ (NCTAF, 1996, p. 11). In effect, it was thought that investment in quality teachers would lead to improved student outcomes which would lead to a more economically productive society. This is shown by the following statement: ‘a society which seeks to be democratic, vigorous and tolerant and economically successful must have a wholehearted commitment to good education’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 7). A similar statement, repeats this message: ‘a tolerant, vigorous, successful society requires a quality education system, and at the heart of quality education, are quality teachers’ (p. 2). The repetition of the word ‘quality’ in this sentence (and twenty-four times in this section) is a persuasive device. Furthermore, the report justifies the calls for improvement in quality teaching and learning with an economic argument by stating that ‘expenditure on teachers takes up the vast bulk of

112


113

government’s expenditure on education’ (p. 8). Therefore, governments want to see returns for their investment by improved outcomes in student achievement. In discursive terms, this document presents the mantra of a preferred version of professionalism that is explicitly linked to quality in outcomes. The report also states that ‘the Labour Party in Britain and the Democratic Party in the United States both won recent elections with campaigns in which education was a central issue and in which teachers were acknowledged as critical to its quality’ (p. 2). Crowley thus flaunts political strategy as seemingly reliable evidence to support the Committee’s views. The economic narrative is strongly evident throughout this document. One does not have to look much further than the chapter titles to recognise this. For example, Chapter Six has ‘performance’ in the title, Chapter Seven, ‘training’ and Chapter Eight is concerned with ‘supply and demand’. This language correlates with the managerial discourses associated with economic rationalism. In order to achieve these improved student outcomes, the development of professional standards is proffered as the solution and is the third key analytic theme. Crowley (1998) states unequivocally: … no consideration of this sort [improvements in the teaching profession] can avoid the fundamental question of professional standards ... the Committee considers that all who take the role of teacher must demonstrate their ability to operate at the appropriate professional standards (p. 11). Crowley assumes the authoritative voice, suggesting that the only possible solution to the declining status of the teaching profession is the development of professional standards. Her strong modality and definitive statements such as ‘no consideration ... can avoid’ and ‘all … must demonstrate’ blocks any questioning of professional standards as the regime of truth because of the logic and coherence of her argument. Another statement – ‘recruitment and training of new teachers must be predicated on rigorously developed and enforced standards’ (p. 7) – uses similar language; that is, that professional standards are ‘a must’. The regularity of this message is evident in the strong, emotive language, with the development of ‘enforced’ standards referred to as ‘unavoidable’, ‘absolutely necessary’ (p. 16), the only way for the profession to become ‘fully credible’ and ‘properly recognised’ (p. 17). By using this language,


113

114

Crowley leads the reader to believe that there is no choice in this matter; professional standards are a ‘vital consideration’ (p. 16) and need ‘serious attention’ (p. 15). Crowley supports her claims for the development of professional standards using the American report What Matters Most (NCTAF, 1996) which claimed that ‘school reform is best approached by a focus on teachers and their professional standards’ (p. 11). Therefore, the effect of Crowley’s statements is to limit the possibility for solutions other than professional standards. Backed by partial forms of international research, her already determined solution appears ‘normal’ and difficult to question. This new discourse links improvements in the teaching profession and hence professionalism with quality in teaching and learning within a so-called necessary framework of professional standards (Bloomfield, 2006). As no other solutions are offered for quality improvement, these statements highlight the gap or ‘space of dissension’ between calls for improvement in quality and the need for professional standards. In effect, discursively, A Class Act mobilises professional standards as the reigning regime of truth, institutionalising them as disciplinary structures of normalisation (Bloomfield, 2006). The committee behind A Class Act had strong views about standards and the mechanisms by which they should be ‘established, regulated and enforced’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 11). The use of the words regulated and enforced is noteworthy as, earlier in the report, Crowley stated that in order for teaching to be accepted as a profession, one of the features needed was ‘autonomy’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 6). These two statements contradict each other. Rizvi and Lingard (1996) maintain that ‘the language of the new order is inherently contradictory because, while it preaches organisational democracy and empowerment, it does not really permit workers to question some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the new business capitalism’ (p. ix). Unlike SAS and The Teaching Accord, this text provides a definition for standards. There are two types of standards suggested in this report; registration standards and standards of professional teaching practice. Registration ‘is the legal mechanism by which state authorities give permission to applicants to practice their profession within that state’s jurisdiction’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 15). Here, standards of professional teaching practice are ‘essentially concerned with quality assurance and

114


115

accountability’ (p. 12). Quality assurance is described in relation to the confidence that users and producers could be assured of in terms of value for money and ‘accountability involves the requirement that one group (here a profession) provide an account or justification of its activities to another (here the public) in return for trust or privileges granted to the former by the latter’ (p. 12). For most other professions, regulation, gate-keeping and monitoring of the profession would occur from within the profession, but this inquiry is quick to point out that teachers are employed by the government and therefore governments in their unique position as both the ‘accountable for and the accounted to’ (p. 13) must be involved in standards development. Crowley sees this situation as ‘peculiarly problematic’ and ‘exceedingly complicated’ (p.13). In an effort to clarify the roles of government and the profession for standards development she says: In the Committee’s view, both governments and the teaching profession must be mutually responsible for the standards of Australian schooling. These responsibilities should be separated out in a way which helps to clarify which standards are more properly the province of which group, and where the lines of accountability should be drawn (p. 13). In order to support this idea and distinguish the roles further, Crowley uses Ingvarson (1995) and Darling-Hammond (1992) as voices of authority. Ingvarson’s (1995) view is that ‘it is very difficult for government policy to penetrate practice’ (p. 23). The Committee concurs with this viewpoint and uses Darling-Hammond’s (1992) view that the government’s role is one of ‘delivery’ standards (working conditions, buildings and resources) as opposed to the profession’s role which is concerned with standards of professional practice. Implicitly, Darling-Hammond hands authority to the profession itself, advocating what Sachs (2003) would term standards for quality improvement, or the developmental type as outlined by Mahony and Hextall (2000). These are professional standards that are developed by the profession in the best interests of teaching and teachers. Ingvarson (1995) also comments that ‘without standards, a professional body is defenceless’ (p. 107), but once again, according to Sachs (2003), this writer is an advocate for standards developed by the profession itself. Therefore, Crowley (1998) uses authorities that promote developmental type standards, whereas the definition offered earlier for standards in this document is the more regulatory or quality assurance type. Once


115

116

again, this focuses attention on the gap between what is being offered as evidence and what these writers have advocated in other writings. The Committee acknowledges that the ‘most desirable state of affairs for education would be one in which delivery standards are predicated upon standards of professional practice’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 15). However, this view is dismissed ‘as the current economic facts of life are hardly likely to realise such a desirable state’ (p. 15). Table 3.1 below shows the contradictory statements in this report regarding who should be responsible for professional standards development. On one side are the statements that favour the profession developing standards for the profession, and on the other side are statements that give ownership to the government. The merged cell at the bottom of the table shows a complete contradiction within the same sentence.

116


117

Table 3.1: Statements revealing the contradictions within the Crowley Report

Profession

Government

The ‘recommendations in this report aim to give teachers responsibility for professional standards’ (p. 2)

The ‘government’s responsibility [is] for staffing, facilities, and back up support (p. 2)

‘standards that are owned by the profession and recognised by authorities’ (p. 7)

‘The Committee is also of the view that it is in the interests of government, to assist the profession to achieve these goals’ (p. 17)

‘In the Committee’s view professional standards are the province of the teaching profession itself, and should be established and upheld by the profession’ (p. 15)

‘government and education authorities have a legitimate contribution to make to the development of standards’ (p. 17)

‘standards developed by the profession itself’ (p. 17)

‘stakeholders work alongside the teaching profession, reflecting and commenting upon professional standards’ (p. 18)

‘should be initiated by teachers themselves’ (p. 20)

‘Historically, and because state governments have constitutionally had the responsibility for school education, it has been assumed that governments are directly responsible for all aspects of school quality including the maintenance of the professional standards of teachers’ (p. 15) ‘there a number of reasons why governments should contribute’ (p. 20)

‘They [teachers] should play a key role in determining how change is to be effectively implemented within the administrative, regulatory and policy frameworks which government and education authorities prescribe’ (p. 9)

This table of statements shows how, on the one hand, the profession should take the initiative and develop their own professional standards and registration mechanisms, but on the other hand governments should be prescribing and regulating to ensure quality. Simultaneously, teachers are encouraged to be autonomous: ‘it is vital that teachers establish themselves as a self-regulating autonomous professional group’ (p. 29), but only under the critical gaze of authorities. The overarching recommendation from the Committee was that: … the Commonwealth Government facilitates the development of a national professional teaching and registration body to have the responsibility, authority and resources to develop and maintain standards of professional


117

118

practice. The national body should work closely with State governments and peak teaching organisations (Crowley, 1998, p. 21). This shows that even though governments still had the authority, teachers were to some extent still involved in the discourse. Sachs (2003) maintains that the implicit and explicit aim of quality assurance standards is to elevate the status of a profession in the eyes of other professions and also in the eyes of the public. However, Sachs also warns that what usually results is a site of struggle depending on who sets the standards which is often omitted from the discourse (Sachs, 2003). From Table 3.1 above, it may be seen that there is some confusion on this issue. Her critique of these types of standards is that they affect the autonomy of teachers. Bloomfield (2006) concurs, claiming that these types of standards result in a climate of increased surveillance and conformity. Other chapters in this report repeat the message of a national body and professional standards as the solution to declining education; for example, Chapters Three and Four. In Chapter Three, various voices of authority enter the enunciative field such as Andy Hargreaves, Anna Yeatman, UNESCO, and Minister for Education, David Kemp. Their work is used to illustrate the lack of consensus on what professionalism means – ‘there is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a profession’ (p. 23). In response to this, the articulation of a set of prescribed standards is implied – ‘it would ... be ... helpful to improving status if teachers were able to articulate more clearly their professional skills’ (p. 26). The fourth chapter details the perceptions of the community, parents, students and teachers about the status of teachers. Perceptions from the community range from those who believe teachers are role models, ‘incredibly hardworking’ and ‘highly skilled’ (p. 41), to those who believe ‘teaching is a breeze’ (p. 45) with ‘short hours ... long holidays’ (p. 41). Parents’ ‘attitudes range from downright hostility, through indifference to strong support’ (p. 51) and students believe that teachers ‘are the most important thing in your life’ (p. 64) but are ‘undervalued and underpaid’ (p. 64). Teachers’ perceptions vary between believing that ‘their work is important’ (p. 71) but they also believe ‘that their skills are neither understood nor valued in the community, which accords them low status’ (p. 71). The overarching theme in this chapter is the ambiguity of the teacher’s role. The solution proffered in answer to this ambiguity is

118


119

the establishment of a national professional body – ‘a national teaching body will enhance teachers’ status ... by giving them greater control of their profession and by providing a national body to speak on their behalf’ (p. 78). However, Sachs (2003) does not believe that strategies such as the development of a national body and more particularly a standards framework ‘will turn around a non-supportive press or embedded community prejudices’ (p. 47). Nineteen recommendations from the Committee and the minority report were put forward. The minority report was written by Senators Tierney, Ferris and Synon to officially state their position counter to the committee’s majority. In March 1998, the government published a response to the Senate Inquiry. The committee’s report, the minority report and the government’s response are summarised in the table below.


119

120

Table 3.2: Reports compared and contrasted (A Class Act, the minority report and the government’s response)

1.

Committee’s view

Minority Report’s view

Government’s response

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government facilitates the development of a national professional teaching and registration body that would have the responsibility, authority and resources to develop and maintain standards of professional practice. This body would work closely with state governments and peak teaching organisations.

The Government Senators recommend that state and territory governments examine the possibility of the establishment of teacher registration boards and that MCEETYA investigate the establishment of a framework for mutual recognition of teacher registration arrangements.

Overall, the government did not agree with many of the recommendations.

The national body will:

MCEETYA working closely with states and territories examines the feasibility of establishing:

Many elements of this recommendation are the primary responsibility of states and territories and teacher employers

Establish standards of professional practice Certify entry to the profession, re-registration and recognise advanced standing in the profession Accredit initial teacher training programmes and establish professional learning frameworks Recommend priorities for national professional development programmes Consider and act on complaints of professional incompetence, and assist teachers to improve their skills Manage a register of eligible teachers

Nationally consistent standards of practice

The Government not persuaded by the connection between teacher registration and professionalism. There is no consensus on the desirability of teacher registration

Certified levels of entry into the profession, criteria for reregistration and advanced standing in the profession Accreditation arrangements for initial teacher training and a professional development framework A system for priorities for national professional development programmes Mechanisms for acting on complaints of professional incompetence, and assisting teachers to improve their skills A national register

Promote the value of education in the community

2.

120

The Committee recommends that Governments fund public schools and establish a Schools Education Costs

Mechanism for mutual recognition already exists National consistency in initial teacher education has already been reported by the Australian Council of Deans and referred to MCEETYA Minority recommendation for the promotion of the value of teaching in the community

Promotion in the community of the value of teaching

Governments fund public schools – state and territory responsibility

Agree with minority report


121

Committee

3.

The national body will establish clear levels of advanced professional certification, helpful in remuneration

Dissent from this recommendation. Salary and career structures are the responsibility of states and territories

Does not support the establishment of a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching Minority Report more accurate

4.

The Committee recommends a reversal of the trend of casualisation

Dissent from this recommendation

Decisions up to state and territory governments

5.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government institute research on the level of casualisation

State and territories institute research on the level of casualisation

Will raise the issue with MCEETYA

6.

The Committee recommends proposed new funding for vocational education be retained with TAFE


Restricting funds to one provider such as TAFE confers an advantage to that sector. User choice is promoted

7.

The Committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments establish benchmarks for funding for technology and reappraise its Capital Grants programme

MCEETYA establish benchmarks for funding for technology

This would be difficult to achieve because of differing schools in each state and territory. Previous work such as Education Network Australia (EdNA) to work with DETYA to develop an action plan

8.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government reinstate the Disadvantaged Schools Programme (DSP)


DSP already integrated into a Literacy and Numeracy programme under state and territory jurisdiction.

9.

The Committee recommends development of a national recruitment campaign to attract high quality applicants to the profession – costs shared by Commonwealth and states and territories

MCEETYA develop a national recruitment campaign

MCEETYA already undertaking this work and will continue with further work

10.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government introduce scholarships for post graduate qualifications for teachers


Commonwealth Government does not employ teachers. Recommendation inappropriate

11.

The Committee recommends abolition of differential HECS fees


Inappropriate to dismantle existing system


121

122

12.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government reinstate funding for the National Schools Network


Fee for service approach which links funding to outcomes is a more efficient use of resources

13.

The Committee recommends the establishment of a National Teacher Education Network

MCEETYA establish a National Teacher Education Network

Agree with minority report

14

The Committee recommends the Establishment of a national development fund for research


Considerable funding for educational research is already available

15.

The Committee recommends that the national body include among its responsibilities the development of a suggested structure for induction programmes

MCEETYA include among its responsibilities the development of a suggested structure for induction programmes

Recommendations will be referred to MCEETYA

16.

The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government reinstate the National Professional Development Programme


More tightly focused PD program already introduced

17.

That the proposed national body be responsible for the accreditation of professional development providers and courses

MCEETYA be responsible for the accreditation of professional development providers and courses

This proposal would not raise the quality of teaching

18.

The Committee recommends participation in professional development be a prerequisite for their continued registration, re-registration

State and territory governments ensure participation in professional development be a prerequisite for their continued registration, re-registration

Does not want a national bureaucracy for this

19.

The Committee recommends that The National Report on Schooling include information on teacher supply and demand

Support the recommendation

Referred to MCEETYA

As shown earlier, analysis of the original report showed contradictory messages about professional standards development from Crowley and the Committee. However, in contrast to the minority report and the government’s response, the original report appears to have had good intentions, trying to respect teachers’ discretionary judgements and support their ideas of a professional community by establishing a national professional body. Although the Committee recommended facilitation of the professional body by the Commonwealth Government, the use of action verbs such as ‘establish’, ‘certify’, ‘accredit’, 122


123

‘recommend’, ‘consider’ and ‘promote’ (see Recommendation One), shows that teachers, as part of this national professional body, would be involved in this discourse. However, the minority report turns these action statements into nouns/phrases. For example, in the Committee’s report to ‘certify entry to the profession’ becomes ‘certified levels of entry’ in the minority report, and to ‘accredit initial teacher training’ becomes ‘accreditation arrangements’. This shows how the government senators involved in the minority report excluded teachers from the discourse, stating that state and territory governments under MCEETYA would be better placed to oversee the profession. The government’s response was in line with the minority report. They stated: … the Commonwealth Government does not accept a number of the recommendations in the report. Several of the recommendations will be referred to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs which is a more appropriate forum for their consideration (DETYA, 1998, p. 1). The overall notion evident in this analysis is that the government was not in agreement with the Committee’s report. One key analytic theme is evident, namely that the government did not want the establishment of a national professional teaching body. The minority report referred to a national body as an ‘imposition’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 254) and the government believed that the creation of a national body represented an ‘intrusion’ to states and territories that would ‘restrict the flexibility of employers and teachers to respond to local requirements in areas such as curriculum and professional development’ (DETYA, 1998, p. 3). In other words, a national body did not take into consideration local area needs. They elaborated by asserting that they would not consider ‘any national measures to regulate the teaching profession or involve itself with arrangements which states and territories may have instituted’ (DETYA, 1998, p. 3). This is repeated in their response for recommendation three – the Government does not support ‘a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching’ (DETYA, 1998, p. 5) and then repeated again in their responses to recommendations seventeen and eighteen – ‘there is no need for a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching’ (DETYA, 1998, p. 15) and the government ‘is not persuaded that the evidence supports the creation of a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching’ (DETYA, 1998, p. 15). Crowley and the Committee’s good


123

124

intentions were effectively silenced by powerful bureaucracy. Politicians did want teachers to change, but the change would be dictated to them through MCEETYA and state departments. The minority report and the government’s response show that they were not willing for a national body made up from the profession to take charge. The Ministerial Council would guide the national approach, working with state and territory authorities. Therefore, they would assume the position of power and authority. Once again, the voices from within the profession are silenced and those from within government through MCEETYA are given more volume through a managerial discourse. 3.3.4 A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003)

This twenty page online document is divided into sections, namely: 

Preamble;



Introduction;



Rationale;



The National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching;



References; and



Appendices

The Preamble, parts of the rationale and Appendix One detail the process of how work on this framework began. This is briefly outlined before the key analytic themes from the document are discussed. In July 2001, MCEETYA established a body called the Teacher Quality and Educational Leadership Taskforce (TQELT) to respond to the national goals for schooling as outlined in The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (MCEETYA, 1999). This taskforce’s aim was to strengthen national consistency around teacher quality by outlining agreed basic elements of effective teaching, as well as providing advice on the structural components of quality teaching across a teacher’s career. TQELT carried out two extensive consultation processes, actively promoting the engagement of teachers. The initial Consultation Paper was considered at a national conference of stakeholders, November 7th, 2002. Seventy-nine representatives from all states and territories, public and private sector employees, teacher professional associations,

124


125

organisations representing teachers as employees, those involved in the preparation of teachers, those involved with research in education, principals’ associations and teachers themselves participated. From these groups’ responses, a revised consultation paper, A National Framework for Standards for Teaching: A Consultation Paper was produced and distributed nationally for consultation. The document states ‘by March 2003, [written] responses from every jurisdiction and a wide range of teacher representative organisations, professional associations and teacher educators had been received’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p.16). Both the input from the conference participants and the written submissions informed the National Framework approved by Ministers in July 2003. In addition, both national and international research was drawn upon for the final document. Furthermore, concomitant work on standards by various other organisations, such as the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), the Australian College of Educators (ACE), and the Australian Curriculum Studies Authority (ACSA) as well as Board of Teacher Registration authorities and Departments of Education were also used. All of these sources informed the resultant document, A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003). According to Louden (2000), (although referring to earlier standards development processes) Australian frameworks for standards have been developed hastily, with little time taken to consult to the depth required. He also maintains that Australian standards have been developed with government priorities in mind and with little involvement from professional associations and other stakeholders (Louden, 2000). This consultation happened over a two year timeframe and according to this document, all stakeholders were involved in the process. However, it is noteworthy that the consultation process was carried out by TQELT acting on behalf of MCEETYA. This leaves the authenticity of this ‘broadly based consultation’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 5) process open to question. There are three key analytic themes evident in this document. First, an agreed national framework is espoused as the strategy to improve teaching quality; second, quality teaching is linked to the global economy and international competitiveness; and, third, the ‘necessity’ for professional standards not only to bring quality improvements in education, but also to guide teachers along a professional career path.


125

126

The first key analytic theme emphasised in this document is the agreed national framework for education. As outlined earlier, the document details the level of consultation and the stakeholders involved in what the document describes as ‘a lengthy consultation process’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 1). Statements such as, ‘agreed foundational elements ... of effective teaching’, ‘agreed language, utilising commonly understood terms and definitions’, and ‘effective information sharing ... across jurisdictions’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 2) paint an upbeat, future-oriented picture of teachers working collaboratively with authorities and agreeing on a national scale. These statements enforce the ‘agreed’ nature of the framework, encouraging the reader to accept that through consultation all stakeholders consent to this ‘national collaboration’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 1). These statements appear to promise an equal voice to all stakeholders, the document referring to the ‘successful partnership between teachers, the teaching profession, teacher educators, teacher employers, the community and the government’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 8). However, the last sentence of the Preamble is noteworthy: The significance of this endorsement by Ministers cannot be overstated and other groups such as employers and professional associations who are undertaking or will undertake work on standards for teaching need to recognise the imprimatur that the National Framework has and refer to it as a guide and a key point of reference (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 1). This statement shows Ministers with the authoritative voices and others such as employers ‘will’ use the Framework for the development of standards in teaching. The wording of this statement leaves the reader no option for thinking other than within the context of the National Framework that they ‘will’ use. The interesting use of the word ‘imprimatur’ which is Latin for ‘let it be printed’ or ‘let it be made by pressing upon’ means a sanction or approval, an official license to print or publish. This furthers the notion for thinking of a National Framework as imperative. What is also significant is that teachers are not directly referred to in this statement and therefore are excluded from the discourse even though they are mentioned as being included in the partnership. The rhetoric of agreement at a national level continues with the word national repeated approximately eighty times within the document and co-located with

126


127

‘collaboration’ (p. 5), ‘agreement’ (p. 4) and used in the context of ‘consistency’ (p. 6). ‘National’ is also co-located with ‘goals’ (p. 5), ‘prosperity’ (p. 3), and ‘significance’ (p. 4), descriptors which continue the upbeat, future-oriented message. Various voices of authority enter the enunciative field such as those of Luke, Mayer and Leitch (2002) who, in an unpublished manuscript, promoted the notion of the truly ‘Australian teacher’ who could engage with dynamic national ... contexts’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 4). The third word, ‘framework’, in this ‘agreed national framework’ is mentioned over fifty times, mostly co-located with the word ‘national’. As discussed in the analysis for SAS, frameworks can be used for almost anything. In this document (MCEETYA, 2003), the ‘framework’ has many tasks to accomplish. The framework is a communication device – it ‘aims to enhance the effectiveness of professional discourse across jurisdictions’ (p. 2), and ‘provides a mechanism through which the detailed work within jurisdictions and professional associations can have national application’ (p. 6). It is a device for teacher professional development – it ‘captures teachers’ growing expertise’ (p. 4), it ‘must be capable of reflecting, supporting and recognising teachers’ professional growth throughout their careers’ (p. 6), it ‘allows the identification of the specific attributes of individual teacher education graduates’ (p. 10), and ‘facilitates a culture of recognition and quality, [and] should also enable professional leaders to be identified’ (p. 10). In addition, ‘a professional framework for teachers can provide clear benefits, not only to the teaching profession, but also to students, parents, the community and the government’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 6). This latter statement shows that the National Framework will provide transparency and accountability measures; a discourse of quality assurance. All of the tasks that the National Framework encompasses are about improving quality in education, an issue which the document describes as being of ‘national significance’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 4) and therefore in the interests of all stakeholders. However, the following statement contradicts the agreed nature of the document and outlines the potential of the framework to act in governments’ interests only: the framework ‘provides a source document for Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to draw upon for their own strategic purposes’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 2). Analysis of SAS shows how equity discourses in education had shifted to economic discourses. This was further elaborated in The Teaching Accord and A


127

128

Class Act where economic productivity of the nation was aligned with improvements in teacher quality and supposedly enhanced student outcomes. This notion is repeated in A National Framework for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), the first sentence of the rationale stating ‘a strong and effective school education system is integral to individual success, social cohesion, progress, and national prosperity’ (p. 3). However, this document builds on this notion of national prosperity with quality in educational outcomes further linked to processes of globalisation and international competitiveness, indicating a new surface of emergence. This is the second key analytic theme exemplified by the following statement – there is ‘increased value placed on knowledge as a commodity in current societies, [which] raises the importance of the intellectual and social capital of nations in determining international competitiveness’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 5). Furthermore, voices of authority entering the enunciative field, such as Luke et al. (2002), call for preservice teachers to critically engage with globalised and globalising economies and environments, the document posing the question, ‘how will we prepare our students to engage with critique, analyse and understand a globalised nation and world?’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 4). Therefore, according to this document, it is important that education in Australia plays its part in this globalised competitive economy. To do this, there has to be quality in teaching and improved educational outcomes. The document emphasises ‘the importance of building and sustaining quality teaching in a global context’ (p. 7), recognising teachers as ‘the greatest resource available to students, schools and communities’ (p. 4). Parents are referred to in economic language as ‘consumers’ who are aware of ‘the importance of quality teaching to the outcomes of students’ (p. 5). This argument is backed by various voices of authority and a growing body of research confirming teacher quality as one of the most influential factors in student achievement. This growing body of research includes that from Darling Hammond, LaFors and Snyder (2001). They concluded that in the USA, ‘teachers’ qualifications – based on measures of knowledge and expertise, education, and experience – account for a larger share of the variance in students’ achievement than any other single factor, including poverty, race, and parent education’ (p. 10). Australian research from Cuttance (2001) and Rowe (2003) confirm these conclusions. This link between quality teaching and student outcomes presents a discourse of quality assurance. The word ‘quality’ is mentioned thirty-five times in this document and only co-located with ‘teachers’, ‘teaching’ or ‘education’,

128


129

prioritising the concept of quality teaching. In effect, it is up to teachers and education to improve student outcomes as required, as shown in the following statement – ‘the responsibility for delivering the highest quality education rests personally and collectively with teachers’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 8). Teachers, therefore, will increase productivity and the economy not only on a national scale, but in the international market also. As has already been noted, in some cases teachers are not referred to directly, demonstrating their marginalisation or exclusion from the discourse. As in A Class Act, the authority of teachers is challenged in this document also by statements such as, ‘their status with regard to community standing has declined’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 3). Again, teachers are portrayed as being misunderstood and not coping – ‘teachers often feel that their work is more complex and demanding than the community comprehends ... and that the demands arising from their work and its complexity are increasing’ (p. 3). The findings from A Class Act are cited to provide evidence of this decline in status. This shows that the intertextuality of particular documents and imitative statements are used interdiscursively to reinforce the notion of certain ideas of decline and further the marginalisation of teachers. In order to counter these views of decline and enhance the public profile of the profession, professional standards are put forward as a ‘necessary aspect of any strategic and long term approach to ensuring the provision of quality teachers’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 3). Statements from the National Reference Group for Teacher Standards, Quality and Professionalism are cited and proclaim that the ‘recognition of the critical relationship between teachers and learners highlights the need to better define and communicate what constitutes good teaching’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 3). They maintain that ‘articulating professional standards for teaching helps make the knowledge and capabilities of teachers explicit for those within and outside the profession, and provides means by which good teaching can be identified, rewarded and celebrated’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 3). These statements present a professional standards discourse as both necessary and in the best interests of everyone involved. Once again, with no other solution offered, this highlights the gaps in statements. This is the third key analytic theme evident in this document. In the first five pages, the word ‘standard’ is used seventeen times, usually co-located with the word ‘professional’. This leads the reader to believe that the only


129

130

way for teachers to become more professional is to have standards. However, throughout these pages there is never any elaboration as to what is actually meant by the word ‘standard’. The beginning of the Introduction promotes the view of standards as a better alternative to competencies. Many voices of authority had criticised the competency movement, the document referring to Porter, Rizvi, Knight and Lingard (1992) who maintained that teachers were being deskilled. Hattam and Smyth (1995) are introduced to the enunciative field, declaring the potential of competencies to fragment, technicise and decontextualise teachers’ work, and Whitty’s (1994) arguments about restricted teachers’ professional growth are cited to promote the shift from discourses of competencies to standards. Reynolds (1999) is also cited as acknowledging standards as a much broader concept. However, on closer analysis of the work of these writers, it emerges that they also criticise the standards approach. Their voices used in this way give the impression that the shift to standards is ‘a good thing’ and has their support, which is not really the case. It is not until the fifth page of the document that standards are articulated as ‘minimum standards’. Sachs (2003) refers to these types of standards as commonsense standards; standards that define what a teacher should know and be able to do. She maintains that the purpose of commonsense standards can be to present an ‘uncritical view of professional standards, in other words that it makes sense to put in place a regulatory framework that provides for ‘quality’’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 41). She also promotes an alternative point of view where these types of standards are used as a mechanism to control the teaching profession, where ‘complex issues are simplified and reduced to meaningless cant’ (Sachs, 2003, p. 41). The rhetoric of a so-called ‘necessary framework’ of professional standards enhancing professionalism continues with the word ‘professional’ mentioned seventy-eight times, mostly co-located with standards (MCEETYA, 2003). This limits the possibility of thinking in ways other than of standards as enhancing professionalism, and once again highlights the gaps in statements. ‘Professional’ is also co-located with ‘dialogue’ (p. 2), ‘development’ (p. 2), ‘aspirations and achievements’ (p. 2), ‘growth’ (p. 4), ‘support’ (p. 6), and ‘leadership’ (p. 8), all which have positive connotations, further allowing the reader to accept this so-called agreed framework uncritically. The resulting framework has four professional elements, namely professional knowledge, professional practice, professional values

130


131

and professional relationships with this repetition furthering the notion of teachers as professionals. As well as improvements in teacher quality, professional standards are also presented as being central to teachers’ career development and continuous professional learning. ‘Professional’ and ‘learning’ are co-located on numerous occasions (p. 4-5, p. 7-8, p. 10) throughout the document and ‘career aspirations and achievements’ is a title for a subsection in the Rationale. This short section mentions the word ‘career’ eleven times, reinforcing teaching as a career, the word co-located with ‘development’, ‘dimensions’ and ‘pathways’ (p. 4). As well as having four professional elements, the resultant framework also has four career dimensions, namely graduate, competence, accomplishment and leadership. Again, standards are presented as being in the best interests of teachers; a valuable strategy for them to use to direct and control their career profiles. Darling-Hammond and Ingvarson are used again as voices of authority to support these claims – ‘the value of teachers engaging with professional standards as a strategy for continuous professional learning which is directed and controlled by them, is well supported’ (MCEETYA, 2003 p. 4). However, according to Sachs (2003) and as discussed previously, where these writers have promoted standards, the assumption is that the standards have been developed by teachers initially over extended periods of consultation. Louden (2000) maintains that this was not the Australian experience. Once again, gaps in statements are present as the various voices of authority are misrepresented because of the ambiguous use of the word standards. Even though the national approach to standards development is strongly evident, the document maintains that professional standards must have meaning to teachers in their local jurisdictions – ‘the priority of any framework for, or of, professional standards must be that it is relevant to practising teachers’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 6). Thus, it is suggested that states and territories are best placed to implement standards using the framework as a mechanism for common foundations and articulation of parameters for consistency and mutual recognition. This line of thinking relates directly to the outcomes from A Class Act, the government’s response and the minority report.


131

132

The following statement outlines how the framework is to be used to develop standards which are linked to the professionalism of teachers. It is described as: … a framework to guide the development of equitable, trusted, reliable and nationally consistent and acknowledged teaching standards ... central to achieving ... vision and to supporting and enhancing the professionalism of teachers. The National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching is an expression of the commitment of all responsible parties toward teaching quality (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 8). This statement defines the link between professionalism, standards and quality. The National Framework is included in Appendix D. 3.3.5 Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006)

Published in December 2006, this seventeen page document exists as an online publication and as a coloured ‘brochure’. Similar to A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), the document is divided into sections, namely: 

Letter from the Chair;



Introduction;



Development of Standards;



Standards Model;



Format of the Standards;



The Standards in detail (1-10); and



References.

The Development of Standards section details the consultation process which is outlined first before the key analytic themes identified are discussed in more detail. The format or structure of the standards then receives comment. In 2006, the Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) was established to develop standards in line with A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching endorsed by MCEETYA (2003), but also to cater for state based priorities and variations (QCT, 2006, 2007). A committee including government, Catholic and independent schools, employing authorities, teacher unions, universities, the

132


133

Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) and the Board of the QCT including a community representative were responsible for setting the strategic direction and overseeing the development and implementation of these standards (QCT, 2006). What is noteworthy from this list of participants is that teachers are not directly named for inclusion. Draft standards were produced in 2006 by a small writing group (no details given) and approved for consultation in August of the same year. According to this document, the consultation was state-wide, providing an opportunity for all stakeholders including teachers and other relevant groups to respond. The feedback received was incorporated into a revised version of the standards which were then published in December. No other details of the consultation process are revealed but based on the evidence outlined above, it would appear that the timeline for development was within one year and the consultation period was rather short. This could confirm Louden’s (2000) concerns where time is not taken to consult to the depths required. There are two key analytic themes evident in this document. First, that due to a rapidly changing world, quality in education has to improve; and, second, that the QCT professional standards have been developed by teachers and are the mechanism needed not only to improve quality, but also to enhance professionalism and status and to control entry to the profession. The document states that ‘a society faced with rapid social, economic, technological and cultural change’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3) needs ‘quality’ education as a central consideration in order to prepare ‘effective citizens’ (p. 3) who can ‘contribute meaningfully to society’ (p. 3). These statements reveal the first key analytic theme and maintain the economic discourses from previously analysed documents where quality improvements in education are linked to the economy and a more productive society for the future. Echoing A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), quality schooling is declared here to be of global significance with calls for teachers to respond to the new demands of globalisation. These demands include ‘the explosion in the use of ICT’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3), ‘diverse family structures’ (p. 3) and ‘changing workforce patterns’ (p. 3). The subtle implication is that teachers are not quite equipped to cope with these new demands. The document refers to ‘the changing nature of teachers’ work’ (p. 3), ‘the new demands being placed on teachers’ (p. 3) and ‘as


133

134

professionals, teachers themselves ... need to articulate and model the same worker skills that they seek to develop in their students’ (p. 3). To respond to these changes and new demands, there are calls for ‘high quality educational experiences’ (p. 2), ‘high quality teaching in Queensland schools’ (p. 2), ‘teacher quality’ (p. 3) and ‘quality instruction and support’ (p. 4). The thrust of quality is maintained throughout the document, with the word ‘quality’ repeated eight times and mainly co-located with teachers and teaching. This repetition and co-location serves to privilege the notion of ‘quality teaching’ as non-negotiable; this is what is needed to improve society and the economy. Teachers are expected to teach their students to be ‘lifelong learners’ (p. 3), ‘have transferable skills’ (p. 3) and to ‘contribute to teams’. Rather than being concerned with education per se, these new skills are in line with economic and managerial discourses. The calls for quality are supported by other policy texts cited in this document. These include The Report of the Review of the Powers and Functions of the Board of Teacher Registration (also called The McMeniman Report) (McMeniman, 2004), the Education and Training Reforms for the Future: A White Paper (Queensland Government, 2002), the Report on Indigenous Education (Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational Renewal, 2004), Raising the Standards: A Proposal for the Development of an ICT Competency Framework for Teachers (Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), 2002), and Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations of the Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy (Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), 2005). The authors of these supporting documents argue that standards would ‘help to ensure teacher quality’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3), ‘meet the needs of students’ (p. 3), improve the ‘outcomes for Indigenous students’ (p. 3) and improve reading and literacy respectively. Thus all these documents reiterate the demands for improvements in the quality of education. The McMeniman Report (McMeniman, 2004) also calls for the ‘establishment of explicit and robust professional standards’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3). This is in line with the National Framework (MCEETYA, 2003) which also called for ‘robust standards’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3). These imitative statements reinforce professional standards as the ‘regime of truth’ for improvements in the quality of education. The QCT document states the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) would ‘outline the capabilities that teachers must possess in

134


135

order to provide high quality instruction and support student learning’ (QCT, 2006, p. 4). The use of the word ‘must’ gives the impression that standards are necessary and positions teachers as needing regulation from an external source. The second key analytic theme is that the QCT Professional Standards are inclusive of teachers’ voices. A letter from the Chair of the QCT, Professor John Dewar, provides evidence for this. Addressed to his ‘colleagues’, this ‘charm offensive’ (Beck, 2009, p.11) implies that the document has been produced in partnership with teachers. He declares that ‘the standards are a public statement by the profession’ (QCT, 2006, p. i), with teachers expressing their appreciation ‘for the opportunity to engage collegially in shaping the standards’ (p. i) and stating that ‘the College looks forward to working with teachers as they engage with the Professional Standards’ (p. i). It is pointed out that the College ‘in consultation with its key stakeholders’ (p. i) is ‘funded by teachers’ (p. 2), and ‘is committed to using Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers’ (p. 2). These statements lead the reader to believe in the collegiality of the process, even though the consultation occurred within a short timeframe and teachers were omitted from the original list of participants. The word ‘professional’ is co-located with ‘commitment’ (p. 3), ‘culture’ (p. 2), ‘relationships’ (p. 3) and ‘team’ (p. 3) which provides lexical cohesion across the document of committed teachers working collaboratively to improve quality. As well as this, ‘professional’ and ‘standards’ are co-located and repeated over thirty times. This limits the possibility for thinking of anything other than standards as the solution to teacher quality (QCT, 2006). Not only are standards put forward to improve quality, they are also espoused as the mechanism for enhancing ‘teacher professionalism’ (QCT, 2006, p. 2) as well as ‘boost[ing] public confidence in the profession’ (p. 2). The repetition of ‘professional’ also prioritises the concept of professionalism and status. The ‘Introduction’ further elaborates another purpose for the development of standards, namely to regulate entry to and ongoing membership of the profession in Queensland. Therefore, these standards are for registration purposes, this word repeated eleven times. Sachs (2003) refers to these types of standards as ‘standards of certification or control’ or ‘licensing’. Registration means that you are permitted to practise your profession, but with no choice but to pay for the privilege of being registered with a professional body, in this case, the QCT. The document (QCT,


135

136

2006) states that ‘professional standards ... lie at the heart of the College’s registration and approval functions’ (p. 2). In effect, this means that decisions are made by the state government about admission to practice. Thus, even though the document claims to have been developed in partnership with teachers, the government maintains control and the authority of teachers is diminished. Like the ‘professional elements’ from A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), the QCT model is divided into three clusters, namely teaching and learning (professional knowledge and practice), professional relationships and professional growth. Standards 1-5 make up the first cluster; standards 6-9 are the second and standard 10 is the last (see Appendix E). Although parsimoniously organised, when the ten standards are unpacked, there are one hundred and ninety-five separate dot points describing the knowledge, practice and values needed for quality teaching. Louden (2000) has been critical of this format, describing them as long lists of duties which are really just a list of competencies. He also maintains that standards need to be developed in context. He says ‘without contextual information, the standard of a standard is very difficult to determine’ (Louden, 2000, p. 126). Connell (2009) claims that standards are a list of unconnected substantive sentences where dot points could be added or subtracted with no overall difference to the framework. The QCT standards (QCT, 2006) are written in this manner: generic language, educational jargon and technical sounding phrases, for example ‘establish learning goals’ (p. 7) and ‘design and implement learning experiences’ (p. 8). They apply to all subjects, all regions, all fields of practice and all levels connected to ideas such as life-long learning and team work skills rather than education. For example, the word ‘team’ is repeated twelve times in standard nine alone. According to Beck (2009), generic modes have an effect of silencing by not permitting alternative possibilities of thought. Each standard follows the same format: a title, the scope, practice, knowledge and values. The title is described as an action oriented statement outlining concisely a key aspect of the work of a teacher. The scope clearly details what is expected from the teacher. Practice comprises a number of sequenced statements focused on demonstrable performance. This means that these standards are represented as performative statements, a so-called ‘performative professionalism’ according to Beck (2009). The areas of knowledge needed are also clearly defined as well as the

136


137

values to which teachers should commit. The document states that ‘while the standards outline clearly what teachers need to demonstrate, they do not attempt to prescribe how this should be done’ (QCT, 2006, p. 4). This is a contradiction in terms with each separate dot point, or as Louden (2000) would call them, competencies, defining the work of a teacher in more detail than ever before. The document counters the competency argument by stating that ‘the standards are a total package of integrated components to be applied holistically, not used as a checklist of competencies’ (QCT, 2006, p. 4). Many academic writers would not agree. Wragg (2001) argues that teachers are being prepared for a life of ticking boxes, and Winch and Forman-Peck (2005) claim that teachers have been reduced to recipe-following operatives whose professional expertise has been reduced to the technical aspects of teaching only. According to Davies and Edwards (2001), following these dot point lists or competencies is the pedagogical equivalent of painting by numbers. Beck (2009) agrees, saying that the discourse is: … profoundly reductive in that it constructs the professional educator as having to acquire a limited State prescribed knowledge base accompanied by a set of prescribed skills and competencies. In effect, the framework is a technicist one involving the acquisition of trainable expertise (p. 11). To investigate these claims and contradictions further, the format of each standard is deconstructed further. The sections for every standard, that is, practice, knowledge and values, all begin with the same wording. Practice begins with ‘teachers apply professional knowledge and understanding of learners, the curriculum and teaching and learning to ...’ (QCT, 2006, p. 7), knowledge begins with ‘teachers know and understand …’ (p. 7), and values begins with ‘teachers are committed to …’ (p. 7). Each of these introductory stems is then followed by an active verb with teachers as the ‘doers’. The active verbs included in this document are listed in Table 3.3 below.


137

138

Table 3.3: Active verbs included in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers

Practice

Establish, select, plan, gather, determine, design, monitor, review, provide, create, engage, promote, encourage, develop, assess, apply, work, communicate, use, implement, prepare, participate, support, undertake, manage, employ, enhance, reflect

Knowledge

Know and understand

Values

Are committed to

Whereas this format could show teachers as active participants and in authority, what it reveals is that teachers are being instructed on what they should know and be able to do. They are only active in painting by numbers (Davies & Edwards, 2001) or in following the recipe (Winch & Foreman-Peck, 2005) of the technical aspects of teaching. Whereas traditional or classical conceptions of professionalism were based on having specialised knowledge, trust and autonomy, now teachers are highly competent practitioners working in ways that are appropriate to meet the demands of a changing national and global context. In other words, they are technicians conforming to patterns of provision defined centrally; that is government defined priorities. Some teachers misrecognise this technicisation as enhanced professionalism, whereas the dominant discourse is managerialism as described in Chapter Two. This management discourse is evident in the language, for example, mentoring and coaching techniques (QCT, 2006, p. 16) and, as mentioned earlier, the repetition of teamwork in standard nine. Thus, each set of standards is a checklist of competencies for what is defined as professionally relevant, with the emphasis on effectiveness and measurable performance. They tell teachers how they should behave and exclude any opportunity to exercise the ability to think otherwise. Recent research in the UK by Evans (2011) also identifies standards documents as concentrating on the behaviourial components of professionalism, rather than the more important attitudinal and intellectual components developed in her deconstruction. To become a professional teacher, all one has to do is to acquire the trained competencies and expertise that the government and its agencies prescribe. Louden (2000) maintains that the Australian experience of standards development has been a top-down

138


139

approach. He claims that where subject and age have not been considered, standards are not relevant to a teacher’s real world. 3.3.6 The National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011)

Published February 2011, the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) is a twenty-four page online document or booklet divided into sections, namely: 



Preamble 

The Crucial Role of the Teacher



Professional Standards for Teachers



Purpose of the Standards

Organisation of the National Professional Standards for Teachers 

Domains of teaching (Professional Knowledge, Practice, Engagement)



The National Professional Standards for Teachers 

Standards 1-7



Professional Capabilities at 4 career levels



Conclusion



Glossary



Acknowledgements

This section will first outline the consultation and validation processes undertaken in the development of these standards to illustrate whose voices ‘count’ in developing standards for Australian teachers. Next, the key analytic themes evident in this document are explained and justified by identifying the frequency of statements, emergences, contradictions and gaps in the discourses that take shape within the document. Finally, the structure or format of the standards is analysed with attention to priority positioning of particular discourses. Work on the revised National Standards began in 2009 under the direction of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA). The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), a government funded body, finalised and endorsed the revised standards in December, 2010 after significant work in the previous year by the National Standards sub-group of the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials


139

140

Committee (AEEYSOC). A list of the members of AEEYSOC, the writing group, the validation steering group, Teaching Australia and members of the University of New England are listed as participants at the back of the document. The National Professional Standards for Teachers was published in February 2011, after an ‘extensive consultation’ (AITSL, 2011). Details of the consultation process are not reported in the document but can be found at the accompanying website: www.aitsl.edu.au. The website outlines in detail the consultation and validation processes. Consultation occurred between March 9th and May 21st, 2010. According to this site, the consultation process was extensive with one hundred and twenty submissions received through the MCEECDYA website. These were both individual and joint submissions from professional associations, educational organisations, the Catholic sector, government organisations, Deans and universities, individual schools, principals’ organisations, organisations such as the Business Council, the independent sector, parent associations and unions. These participants responded to six focus questions in order to comment on the Draft standards. The six focus questions were as follows: Question 1: Does the preamble to the Standards give a clear picture of the context for the reason, use and purpose of the Standards? Question 2: Do the draft Standards describe a realistic and developmental teacher professional standards continuum? Question 3: Do the draft Standards reflect what you would expect teachers to know and be able to do for each of the four levels (graduate/proficient/highly accomplished and lead teachers) Question 4: Are there other descriptors the draft Standards should include? Question 5: Remembering that there will be substantial support material; will it be possible for educators to use the standards to evaluate teacher practice? Question 6: Any additional comments? These questions show that the basic premise of standards had already been decided upon. Therefore, the claims to an extensive consultation process ‘shaped by the profession’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) are limited by the use of these pre-determined questions. Standards had already been decided as the solution, highlighting the gap in the discourse.

140


141

Validation was conducted by the University of New England between July and November, 2010 with the purpose of determining the appropriateness and reliability of the draft standards in all different types of schools across states and territories. This involved two online surveys and focus groups in every state and territory. Six thousand teachers are reported to have had their ‘direct say’. This is the only statistic reported in the actual document which states ‘an extensive validation process involving almost 6,000 teachers ensured that each descriptor was shaped by the profession’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). Media releases on February 9th, 2011 confirmed that state based standards such as the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) would still apply for the coming year while the National Standards would be trialled within existing processes and practices in schools, school systems and associated organisations. These pilot studies aim to determine what is further required for the implementation of national standards across Australia. The pilots are comprised of a number of Australian and two international trial partners. International trial partners will include the UK Teacher Development Agency (TDA) and the US Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). These international partners are expected to undertake two pilot projects each, based on the existing standards currently being implemented in these jurisdictions. The AITSL advertised in June 2011 for expressions of interest in the pilot study. These pilots are scheduled to take place from August to mid-November, 2011. Once again, the length of time allocated for the pilot studies is rather short and the inclusion of the international partners who already advocate for regulatory standards reveals that the consultation and validation processes are tightly controlled. The AITSL website also asserts that there are three different types of standards evident in this document. First, program standards which are standards for national accreditation of pre-service teacher education programs; second, mandatory standards which are used for attaining, renewing and maintaining provisional and full registration; and, third, voluntary standards where teachers choose to be assessed against standards for highly accomplished and lead levels. These types of standards are all regulatory in nature. There are two key analytic themes evident in this document. First, quality teachers are a key determinant in student achievement and are clearly linked to a healthy and competitive economy; and, second, professional standards are the


141

142

mechanism for obtaining quality as well as many other benefits for the teaching profession. The first key analytic theme highlights teachers ‘as the greatest resource in our schools’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) that have an impact on student achievement. Statements which support this include ‘[teachers] have the greatest impact on student learning, far outweighing the impact of any other education program or policy’ (p. 1) and ‘a teacher’s effectiveness has a powerful impact on students’ (p. 1). These statements are referenced from national and international literature from Professor John Hattie from New Zealand and Dr. Ben Jensen from the Grattan Institute respectively. The Grattan Institute is a firm that acts as an ‘independent think tank’ on domestic Australian public policy and have the Australian Government as one of its founding members. Information from the OECD report Teachers Matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers (OECD, 2005) is also cited, claiming that ‘teacher quality is the single most important in-school factor influencing student achievement’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). This report summarises the vast research on determinants of student learning. Even though social background and student abilities are flagged as causing the largest variation in student outcomes, the report claims that teacher quality is the only determinant ‘potentially open to policy influence’ (OECD, 2005, p. 26). The Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) and the National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality (Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 2008) are also cited, stating teacher quality as ‘an essential reform as part of Australia’s efforts to improve student attainment and ensure it has a world class system of education’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). The use of these contemporary policy texts to support the message of quality manifests intertextuality between Commonwealth statements. However, Sachs (2005) warns that the practice of policy borrowing and the use of international experts could lead to the homogenisation of practice. The latter statement referring to ‘a world class education system’ (p. 1) implies that globalisation and international competitiveness are still important. This message is repeated in the following statement declaring that ‘Australian education systems are well placed to be among the best in the world’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 7). Research from an OECD report Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

142


143

Development (OECD), 2009) and work from Barber and Mourshed (2007) (writers involved in the McKinsey Report on school improvement) are used to support the link between ‘improving instruction and student achievement’ internationally (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). McKinsey and Company who published Barber and Mourshed (2007) is a management consulting firm, leading organisations including governments in performance improvement. The legitimacy of these writers in relation to the teaching profession casts doubt upon the evidence presented. Needless to say, these documents’ imitative statements maintain the convergence between teacher quality, student outcomes and economic discourses put forward in previously analysed documents. Work from Ben Jensen also emphasises that teachers ‘account for the vast majority of expenditure in school education’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). Therefore, calls for improvements in quality would ensure that teachers are giving value for money. This statement clearly articulates the economic agenda: teachers cost money so quality should be demanded from them. ‘Quality’ is foregrounded throughout the document, mentioned thirteen times and co-located with ‘teaching’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1), ‘teachers’ (p. 1) and ‘learning’ (p. 7). This repetition persuades the reader that improvement in quality teaching and learning is what is needed for increased student achievement. There is nothing particularly new in this document overall, but what is different is that the references cited as voices of authority are mostly from the corporate world with the teaching profession including academics excluded from the discourse. This is a complete contradiction of the statement, ‘shaped by the profession’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). What is also contradictory is a footnote stating that ‘although Australian education systems perform strongly against other OECD countries, low equity is still a significant issue’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 22). This shows that the calls for improvements in quality are not justified by the OECD literature and that issues of equity are now being put forward as a problem. The second key analytic theme promotes professional standards as having multiple benefits. For clarity, these benefits have been divided into three categories. First, that standards improve quality in education (related to theme one); second, that standards increase the professional standing of teachers; and, third, that standards are a tool for professional learning and career development. Statements in relation to the first benefit proclaim standards as the ‘public statement of what constitutes teacher quality’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2); they ‘define the


143

144

work of teachers and make explicit the elements of high quality teaching in 21st century schools which result in improved educational outcomes for students’ (p. 2). They [standards] are ‘an integral part of ensuring quality learning and teaching in Australian schools’ (p. 7). These common statements recognise standards as the given incontestable solution for quality improvement, as outlined in key analytic theme one. However, no evidence is presented to support these claims, highlighting the gaps in the discourse. Hargreaves (2003) refers to these types of standards as performance training sects in that they do not permit alternative perspectives. Rather, they identify a number of ‘truths’ of teaching effectiveness and demand compliance and total allegiance. Not only are standards seen in terms of ‘attracting, developing, recognising and retaining quality teachers’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1), a statement cited from the OECD (2009) report Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices maintains that they [standards] are also seen as the solution to increasing ‘the public standing of the profession’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). The document states that the standards ‘present a common language for discourse between teachers, teacher educators, teacher organisations, and the public’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). Linked to this, professional standards are also reported as contributing ‘to the professionalisation of teaching’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). As outlined in Chapter Two, writers such as Hoyle (1974), Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) and Helsby and McCulloch (1996) maintain that professionalisation is the quest by members of an occupation to gain professional status. Therefore, the implication is that teachers are still striving for this recognition. Once again, teachers are positioned in deficit terms, their authority diminished. Particular voices of authority are introduced to the enunciative field to support these notions of professionalisation. They are American scholars Yinger and Hendricks-Lee. These writers advocate for a ‘professional accountability model’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). They maintain that the … key to successful professionalisation of any practice is to convince clients and the public that a professional, as a result of education and practical experience, possesses unique knowledge and skills that can be employed to

144


145

solve the particular problems of practice and thus serve client needs (Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000, p. 94). Their belief is that this leads to the development and empowerment of a profession, not a means of external control (Yinger & Hendricks-Lee, 2000). These statements represent a new discourse of accountability and transparency to the public/clients, revealing the marketisation of education. This is indicative of the government’s policies on transparency and parental choice displayed in accountability mechanisms such as the My School website. What is of note lexically is the use of the term ‘professionalism’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 4). As outlined in Chapter Two, the meaning for this term is in a state of flux and the glossary of the document under analysis provides no elaboration on this point. Contextually, ‘professionalism’ is used in terms of respect in interactions with students, colleagues, parents/carers and the community. The document states that teachers should be ‘sensitive to the needs of parents/carers and communicate effectively with them about their children’s learning’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 4). Even though some of the competing discourses of professionalism (Chapter Two) encompass relationships amongst stakeholders, none actually reduce professionalism to this sole point. The use of ‘professionalism’ in this document is vague and does not align with definitions from the academic literature but does align with the new discourse on accountability and transparency to clients. What is noteworthy is that the language used by Yinger and Hendricks-Lee (2000), for example ‘clients’, is that of ‘management speak’. As well as citing evidence from the corporate world, it would appear that AITSL have also selectively chosen work from people who support their discourses of accountability and transparency, while ignoring the extensive academic literature which offers more elaborated evidence to the contrary. The third benefit of standards mentioned in this document is as a method for enhancing the professional learning of teachers. Statements which support this include: they ‘articulate what teachers know and should be able to do at four career stages,’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1); they ‘provide a framework which makes explicit the knowledge, practice and professional engagement across teachers’ careers’ (p. 2); they ‘inform the development of professional learning’ (p. 2); and, ‘teachers can judge the success of their learning and inform self-reflection and self-assessment’ (p. 2) as well as use ‘the standards to recognise their current and developing capabilities,


145

146

professional aspirations and achievements’ (p. 2). The frequency of these statements makes standards appear beneficial to teachers, making them more professional and enhancing their careers. The descriptor ‘professional’ is repeated nearly fifty times and is co-located with upbeat nouns such as ‘aspirations’ (p. 2), ‘achievements’ (p. 2), ‘expertise’ (p. 2), ‘growth’ (p. 5), ‘knowledge’ (p. 3-4), ‘engagement’ (p. 2, p. 45, p. 7), ‘practice’ (p. 2, p. 4), and ‘learning’ (p. 2, p. 5-6). This furthers the positive connotations of standards as beneficial mechanisms for enhancing teachers as professionals and improving career development. Additionally, descriptors such as ‘success’ (p. 2), ‘productive’ (p. 1) and particularly ‘effective’ (p. 1- 2, p. 5-7) are scattered through the document furthering the representation of standards as upbeat, positive benefits to teachers. The repetition of ‘effective’ implies that standards will make teachers effective. The amalgam of these benefits shows that standards can do many things. Andrew (1997) claims that standards become the answers to all questions’ (p. 168); they ‘provide the magic ingredient to restructuring education’ (p. 168). Darling-Hammond (1999) concurs, stating that ‘teaching standards are not a magic bullet’ (p. 39) and Sachs (2005) maintains that the acceptance of a standardsbased framework for teacher on-going learning is nothing more than an ‘ideological tool for teachers to do more under the rhetoric of increasing their professionalism and status’ (p. 6). The 2003 national standards document referred to ‘professional elements’ and the QCT document referred to ‘clusters’; these most recent standards (AITSL, 2011) refer to ‘domains of teaching’. Regardless of the change in terminology, the categories used to describe a teacher’s work are similar. The following table highlights the changes through these three documents:

146


147

Table 3.4: Changes in documents’ terminology (2003 – 2011)

2003 FRAMEWORK

ELEMENTS: Professional knowledge

STANDARDS NOT ARTICULATED

Professional practice

CAREER LEVELS GIVEN: Graduation Competence Accomplishment

Professional values

Leadership

Professional relationships QCT STANDARDS

CLUSTERS: Professional practice – teaching and learning Professional relations

10 STANDARDS (see Appendix E) Practice

CAREER LEVELS NOT ARTICULATED

Knowledge Values (195 competencies)

Professional growth AITSL STANDARDS

DOMAINS OF TEACHING:

7 STANDARDS (see Appendix F)

Professional knowledge

(37 competencies at 4 career levels)

Professional Practice Professional engagement

FOCUS AREAS AND DESCRIPTORS AT 4 CAREER LEVELS: Graduate Proficient Highly accomplished Lead

As can be seen from Table 3.4, the most recent standards articulate what teachers know and should be able to do through four career stages. As career dimensions have been revisited, these standards in 2011 prescribe in more detail than ever before the authoritative specification of the official career path, specific competencies and standards needed at certain developmental stages of the career of a teacher (Beck,


147

148

2009). They basically set out a structure of lifelong learning. This eliminates the legitimacy of professional judgement which was once an important aspect of the more classical/traditional conceptions of professionalism. Like the QCT standards, the descriptors are just another list of ‘competencies’. I use Louden’s (2000) term competencies as the statements remain generic and technically-sounding, for example, ‘demonstrate knowledge of teaching strategies’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 8). Additionally, these standards do not take into consideration particular contexts, such as subjects and regions. Louden (2000) states that ‘without contextual information, the standard of a standard is very difficult to determine’ (p. 126). Where the QCT standards had a list of one hundred and ninetyfive competencies, the new National Standards has reduced this to thirty-seven per career level. However, this still makes a list of one hundred and forty-eight. Therefore, Louden’s (2000) comments that standards should not be limited to a long list of duties or competencies have still not been considered despite his role as the Deputy Chair of the Board of AITSL. Perhaps this shows that even AITSL are working within certain parameters and can only move within the brief they have been given by government. This is quite often the case in the development of curriculum documents, for example the new Australian Curriculum. Like the QCT framework, this framework also embodies a technical conception of teaching, with generic modes silencing by not permitting alternative possibilities of thought (Beck, 2009). This is investigated further in the following discussion where the format of the standards is further elaborated. The format for each standard is the same. Each standard includes the domain of teaching as the title. The focus areas for that standard and descriptors identify the components of quality teaching at the four career stages. These stages represent increasing levels of knowledge, practice and professional engagement for teachers as they progress through their careers and are portrayed using intensifiers. For example, standard 1, focus area 1.3 states a graduate should demonstrate knowledge of teaching strategies, a proficient teacher should design and implement teaching strategies, a highly accomplished teacher should support colleagues to develop effective teaching strategies, and a lead teacher should evaluate and revise learning and teaching. In effect, the use of these intensifiers promotes a managerial discourse particularly with regard to the more experienced teachers mentoring colleagues.

148


149

Highly accomplished or lead teachers ‘lead colleagues’ (p. 9), ‘provide advice and support’ (p. 9), ‘model high level teaching’ (p. 11), ‘evaluate the effectiveness’ (p. 15), ‘assess’ (p. 9), ‘revise reporting and accountability mechanisms’ (p. 17) and ‘conduct regular reviews’ (p. 13). The implicit theory underpinning these types of standards is one of post-fordist management practices involving collaboration, effective teamwork and evaluation; in other words, teachers checking on other teachers. This means that lead teachers will disavow their power at the same time as exercising it. This also suggests that graduates are incapable of supporting colleagues or designing and implementing effective strategies on their own initiative. By accepting these career levels, teachers are accepting continual retraining throughout their professional lives. Although fashioned in a different format, the content of the standards is similar to that of the QCT standards. However, some aspects of teaching appear to have been prioritised in the document. These include the ethical use of ICT resources; professional learning that is directly linked to the National Professional Standards and the more dominant position of the use of educational data to inform practice. The ethical use of ICT resources is now a focus area in its own right. Although it is probably an important safeguard for teachers and students, it also shows that in this era of social networking and child protection legislation, the conduct of teachers (both in and out of school) is being regulated and monitored. Having the professional learning needs of teachers guided by the professional standards also reveals control and regulation of what teachers know and should be able to do throughout their careers. The use of data is mentioned in the ‘organisation of the standards’ section as well as being repeated in focus area 5.4. This focus area for the lead teacher states ‘co-ordinate student performance and program evaluation using internal and external student assessment data to improve teaching’ (p. 17). This shows the importance of the federal and state government’s high stakes testing programs which measure student achievement. High stakes tests are accountability mechanisms which not only measure student performance, but also evaluate the performance of teachers. Therefore, these inclusions illuminate increased surveillance and controls over teachers with particular forms of teacher quality and professionalism prioritised. They represent part of the broader public sector reform,


149

150

imperatives of government and its instrumentalities to be more accountable and to have in place a system to monitor activities and outcomes (Sachs, 2005). According to Beck (2009), these types of documents are ‘difficult to combat, especially when they are promoted by a powerful and increasingly entrenched ensemble of government agencies’ (p. 12). Many teachers see professional standards as the road to increased professional status when really they are mechanisms to ensure their compliance. 3.4

CONCLUSION

The following summary first outlines the key points or discourses that were evident across the six selected documents: Strengthening Australia’s Schools (Dawkins, 1988), The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994), A Class Act (Crowley, 1998), National Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). Each key point is discussed by highlighting the mechanisms or strategies that were employed to emphasise the key discourse evident. This section responds to the first research question: How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? The mechanisms or strategies represent the ‘how’ and consider isomorphism in statements, contradictions, gaps and emergences, all parts of a Foucauldian archaeological analysis. These discussions also refer to the various voices of authority that entered the enunciative field as it was important to determine who was given the authority to speak, in effect shaping the discourse. Other policy text citations were also noted to illuminate interdiscursive themes between texts. For clarity, some of the analyses are represented in tabular form. There were three key discourses threading between these policies. 

First, that the quality of education (both teaching quality and educational outcomes) had to improve to ensure economic prosperity on a national and, later, global level. According to the documents analysed, this economic

150


151

discourse made for a more productive society that was able to compete in a national as well as a globalised market. 

Second, that in order to achieve improved quality outcomes, all educational stakeholders worked together on a national scale. In order to ascertain the degree of collaboration, the positioning of teachers across the documents was of particular importance.



Third, that professional standards were the main framework for achieving quality improvements and enhanced professional status, as well as other benefits including professional learning and career pathways.

3.4.1 Improvements in quality teaching and educational outcomes for national prosperity and international competitiveness

All of the analysed documents foreground the message of quality in education, particularly in relation to the economy. SAS (Dawkins, 1988) was the first clearly articulated statement for education to become part of the broader microeconomic reform agenda (Lingard et al., 1993) and represented a discontinuity from previous equity/equality discourses in education. In this document, schools were reframed in human capital terms. This reframing was maintained across all of the other analysed documents by regular and common statements linking the economy to quality in education. Some examples are shown in Table 3.5:


151

152

Table 3.5: Common statements relating to quality across the documents

Examples of common statements Strengthening ‘the issue here is not the level of our investment as a nation in Australia’s Schools our schools but rather the quality and appropriateness of their achievements’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 2) The Teaching Accord

‘improve the quality of teaching and learning in order to provide for the social and economic demands of the 1990s and beyond’ (DEET, 1994, p. 7)

A Class Act

‘a society which seeks to be democratic, vigorous and tolerant and economically successful must have a wholehearted commitment to good education’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 7)

A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching

‘a strong and effective school education system is integral to individual success, social cohesion, progress, and national prosperity’ (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 3)

Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers

‘a society faced with rapid social, economic, technological and cultural change’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3) needs ‘quality’ education as a central consideration in order to prepare ‘effective citizens’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3)

National Professional Standards for Teachers

‘improving teacher quality is considered an essential reform as part of Australia’s efforts to improve student attainment and ensure it has a world class education system’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1)

Frequency of statements and terms

Quality is mentioned 9, 11, 24, 35, 8, and 13 times respectively

This table shows the core repeatable claims made by the frequency of statements which present a mantra of the need for quality education in order to achieve prosperity. Through government policy which is both text and discourse, governments seek to establish a ‘correct reading’ or to promote certain ‘discursive truths’, in this instance that quality in education had to improve to make the economy prosper. These texts achieve this aim by using repetition. However, A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) reveal contradictions in these calls for improvement in quality, Crowley stating that ‘there [was] no major crisis of quality in the Australian teaching force’

152


153

(Crowley, 1998, p. 6) and a footnote from AITSL stating that ‘Australian education systems perform strongly against other OECD countries’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 22). These statements suggest that there was no a prior need for quality in education to improve. However, these contradictions are glossed over by the assertive mantra for quality improvements. In all documents, changes in society are given as the reason for the calls for improvement. However, in SAS (Dawkins, 1988) and The Teaching Accord (Crowley, 1998) no evidence is presented to support these calls. This represents a gap in statements; no link is provided to support improved teacher quality and educational outcomes to bring about economic prosperity. For the other four documents, various policy texts and voices of authority are introduced to the enunciative field to support the need for quality improvements. These texts and voices of authority are summarised in Table 3.6 below.


153

154

Table 3.6: Authoritative texts and voices of authority across the documents

Policy texts

A Class Act

A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching

Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers

National Professional Standards for Teachers

What Matters Most: Teaching and America’s Future

A Class Act

National Professional Standards for Teaching

Teachers Matter

Adelaide Declaration

Report of the Review of the Powers and Functions of the Board of Teacher Registration

Political campaigns in the UK and USA

Melbourne Declaration National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality

Education and Training Reforms for the Future Report on Indigenous Education Teaching Reading: Report and Recommendations of the Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy Voices of authority

None

DarlingHammond et al. (2001) Cuttance (2001)

None

Hattie (2003) Jensen (2010) Barber and Mourshed (2007)

Rowe (2003) Luke et al. (2002) – voice for globalised economy

154


155

With the exception of A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) and the use of Hattie’s work for the most recent document, the academic literature on teacher quality is neglected. Rather, supporting evidence for calls in quality improvement is sought from other national and international policy texts and political campaigns. Therefore, policy borrowing and intertextuality promote the interdiscursive theme of calls for quality improvements. Additionally, in the AITSL (2011) document, the use of the work of Barber and Mourshed (2007) and Jensen (2010), who all work for management consulting firms, confirm that the non-partisan academic literature is by-passed once again, this time with writings from the corporate world. These findings show that particular policy texts and certain voices of authority are selectively cited to legitimise the calls for improvement in quality to help the economy. In effect, this silences the more wellknown and respected academic writers in the field. Prior to A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), the economy was seen in terms of national significance with calls for improvement placed with education generally. A new ‘surface of emergence’ appears in this 2003 document that links the perceived need to compete in a globalised world, with a call for responsibility for improvements in student achievements to be more definitely placed in the hands of teachers. ‘Quality’ is colocated with ‘teaching’ and ‘teachers’ in all selected policies post-2003, which provides lexical cohesion across the documents of the perceived need for improvements in teacher quality. Quality is being demanded from teachers, the new National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) reiterating the message from A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) about how much teachers cost. Governments want to see returns for their investment in the form of improvements in quality. The constant calls for improvement diminish the authority of teachers and consistently portray them in deficit terms. In effect, governments stigmatise teachers’ authority and empower or ‘incentivise’ the idea that teachers should improve and need external assistance to achieve this. What emerges with the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) is a reductionist prescription of what counts as quality; in other words, a set of external competencies neatly packaged as professional standards.


155

156

Teachers’ professionalism is limited to this defined conception of standards, thus creating a discourse of quality assurance. This discourse of quality assurance is furthered in the most recent document with the prioritising of the use of student achievement data which can also be used as a measure of teachers’ performance or quality. This results in a discourse of accountability. With quality assurance and accountability regimes, these policies steer education to produce a more economically active society which is able to operate on the world stage. Basically, the government assembles policy objectives into a specialised discourse to use for its own purposes (Beck, 2009) or veiled interests related to the economy. 3.4.2 All stakeholders working together on a national scale

The second key point to emerge from these documents is that a collaborative national approach is needed in education for improvements to happen. The national approach is strongly evident in SAS (Dawkins, 1988), The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) and A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) with the word ‘national’ repeated thirteen, forty-five and eighty times respectively. The other three documents, although not as predominant, still have the national approach in the background. For example, the recommendation from A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) is the establishment of a national body, the QCT standards uses A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) as ‘a key influence’ (QCT, 2006, p. 3), and ‘national’ is in the title of the AITSL document. The repetition through these documents of a ‘national approach’ is used as a persuasive device to encourage readers to accept this approach as the ‘truth’. Not only is a ‘national approach’ promoted, the collaborative nature of such an approach is foreground in these documents also. In SAS (Dawkins, 1988) ‘collaboration’ is apparent with core repeatable claims of ‘cooperation’ and ‘consultation and negotiation’ (Foreword). In The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994), the descriptor is repeated nine times, and in A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), ‘national’ is co-located with ‘collaboration’, giving universal credibility of the notion that the development of these standards involves all stakeholders. In the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), statements such as ‘a public statement by the profession’ (QCT, 2006, p. i), and ‘shaped by the profession’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) normalise the idea of teachers

156


157

working in agreement with authorities. However, the voices of authority that enter the enunciative field to support claims for a national collaborative approach are mainly limited to ministers with the exception of a few union representatives. This reveals that this notion of a national collaborative approach is not necessarily indicative of reality; it simply has overwhelming political strength within government institutions at this time. Even with no ‘real’ supporting evidence, representing a gap in the discourse, A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) is approved. This document emphasises the ‘agreed’ nature of the framework through consultation processes, but as the consultation is conducted by a group working on behalf of MCEETYA, the so-called ‘agreed nature’ remains questionable. This ‘agreed nature’ of standards documents is further questioned by the short time frame for consultation periods for the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). Furthermore, the concluding sections of A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) contradict the national approach, suggesting that states and territories are better placed than the Federal Government to implement standards as they need to have relevance for teachers in local jurisdictions. Perhaps handing implementation to states and territories deflects attention from central government. These arguments cast doubt on a national collaborative approach as necessary in the first place. To examine this concept of collaboration further, the positioning of teachers across the documents is investigated. In the first three documents, teachers are positioned in contradictory terms using various linguistic devices. For example, the use of the word ‘we’ in SAS (Dawkins, 1988) gives the impression of inclusion in the discourse, but on occasion is also used as an exclusionary device, for example, ‘we have decided’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 3) with the government positioned as the decision makers. Dawkins also omits teachers from the discourse by referring to ‘those who work in schools’ (Dawkins, 1988, p. 2). This exclusionary strategy is also evident in A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) where teachers are never referred to directly. In SAS (Dawkins, 1988), The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) and A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) teachers are associated with connotations of quality. However, requests for improvements diminish their authority


157

158

and identify them as in deficit. Another mechanism used to marginalise teachers is positioning them as passive agents rather than being the ‘doers’ in teacher work. On the whole, even though the documents express a ‘discourse of collaboration’, many mechanisms or strategies are employed to take teachers effectively out of the equation (Thomas, 2005). Alongside these strategies, A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) further reports a position of subordination using the discursive construct of a profession in crisis. This surface of emergence is the perceived decline in education and, more particularly, the falling morale of teachers who cannot cope. The regular and repetitive use of negative descriptors paints a picture of teachers at crisis point, failing to meet the demands of students and their families. This coupled with the reported ‘discourse of derision’ (Ball, 1994) from media outlets and various ministers such as Amanda Vanstone meant that teachers’ authority to be part of the collaborative process is in question. In contrast, some documents such as The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) and the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) adopt different mechanisms to give the illusion of collaboration. For example, the former has a future-oriented upbeat language with photographs of teachers at work and the latter, rather than discourses of derision, presents ‘soft-cell invitations’ (Beck, 2009) or ‘charm offensives’(Beck, 2008) to convince teachers persuasively of their inclusion in the discourse. These political discursive strategies discredit teachers and de-legitimise their efforts to be respected as professionals. In all, these discussions show that the discourse of a national collaborative approach rests on ‘crumbling soil’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 137). 3.4.3 Professional standards as the main framework for improvements in quality, status and professional learning/career pathways

Although SAS (Dawkins, 1988) mentions the word ‘standard’ and The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994) refers to the need to support ongoing ‘development and validation of National Competency Standards for the teaching profession’ (p. 19), neither document elaborates about standards further. It is in A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) where standards are proffered as a new surface of emergence; the predetermined solution to perceived problems in education, including quality issues. Described as ‘unavoidable’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 16), Crowley, by the logic and coherence of her arguments, prevents any alternative solutions other than standards from entering the discourse. This exclusion is maintained by using a self-referential policy cycle with existing policies corroborating professional standards as 158


159

‘necessary’. This provides interdiscursive cohesion across these documents with professional standards as the solution. The only other texts referred to are the What Matters Most (NCTAF, 1996) study from America and the OECD (2009) report Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices. According to Sachs (2005), this unproblematic proposal of standards is ‘an intentional strategy used by policy makers to promote a natural and neutral view of standards as good sense or commonsense’ (p. 2). In other words, professional standards have become the normalised strategy to improve quality. ‘Professional’ and ‘standards’ are co-located in the MCEETYA (2003) document around ninetyfive times, and reiterated over thirty times in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006). In the most recent document, professional standards are described as the ‘public statement of what constitutes teacher quality’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). Therefore, by using assertive language blocking questioning, intertextuality, repetition and co-location, professional standards have become the given incontestable solution to improving quality in education. To provide further support for standards as the solution, many voices of authority are used to provide evidence for ‘school reform ... best approached by a focus on teachers and their professional standards’ (Crowley, 1998, p. 11). These are summarised in Table 3.7. Table 3.7: Voices of authority supporting professional standards Analysed Document

SAS (Dawkins, 1988)

The Teaching Accord (DEET, 1994)

A Class Act (Crowley, 1998)

A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003)

Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006)

National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011)

Voices of authority for professional standards

None

None

DarlingHammond (1992), Ingvarson (1995)

Porter, Rizvi, Knight and Lingard (1992), Hattam and Smyth (1995), Louden (2000), Whitty (1994), Reynolds (1999)

None

None


159

160

Table 3.7 shows that the voices of authority for most documents are limited. Where voices are used to promote standards, they are misrepresented. In A Class Act, Crowley (1998) cites work from Darling-Hammond (1992) and Ingvarson (1995), but these writers advocate developmental rather than the quality-assurance type of standard as defined in this document. In A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003), the writers listed are used to show a critical view of the competency approach with a shift to standards as more acceptable. However, these writers are not overtly in favour of standards either. As well as improving quality in education, professional standards are also proposed as having other benefits. These benefits include raising the status of the profession, along with professional learning and career development advantages. A Class Act (Crowley, 1998) narrates a crisis in teaching and education; Chapter Three reporting on the lack of consensus on what professionalism means and Chapter Four highlighting community perception of the ambiguity of the teachers’ role. It is suggested that articulating a set of professional standards is in the best interests for those within and outside the profession to counter these narratives. This message is repeated in all subsequently analysed documents. A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) states that the framework is ‘a powerful mechanism for raising the status and standing of teachers’ (p. 2), the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) claims that standards would ‘boost public confidence in the profession’ (p. 2), and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) acknowledges standards as contributing ‘positively to the public standing of the profession’ (p. 1). This final document also refers to a ‘professionalisation’ strategy (p. 2); a quest by members of an occupation to gain professional status. This promotes standards as being in the best of interests of teachers’ status and teaching in general. Another benefit proposed is the advantages standards have for professional learning and career pathways. This line of thinking emerges in A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) which states that the framework will ‘provide guidance, support and ongoing recognition for professional development’ (p. 2), a valuable strategy for teachers to use to direct and control their career profiles. In this document, ‘career’ is repeated eleven times and linked to achievements and aspirations. The Continuous Professional

160


161

Development Framework that was set up alongside the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) maintains the message of ‘a professional culture characterised by continual teacher self-reflection and ongoing professional development’ (QCT, 2006, p. 2). The latest edition claims that the standards can ‘guide professional learning, practice and engagement’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). These common imitative statements provide lexical cohesion across these documents that standards are beneficial to teachers’ careers. Various voices of authority are used to support these claims. These are summarised in Table 3.8 below. Table 3.8: Voices of authority for professional standards with regard to professional learning and career enhancement Analysed Document

SAS (Dawkins, 1988)



A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA 2003)



Voices of authority for professional standards for professional learning and status of the profession

None

None

None

DarlingHammond (2001), Coolahan (2002), Ingvarson (2002a, 2002b), Jasman and Barrera (1998)

None

Yinger and HendricksLee (2000)

Yet again, the voices are limited, with Darling-Hammond and Ingvarson being misrepresented. All other voices used are either from government departments or writers representing the corporate world. Academics are silenced, once again. As well as the strategies already mentioned, the use of the word ‘standard’ across all documents is ambiguous. The following table shows the inconsistencies around standards language across the documents.


161

162

Table 3.9: Type of ‘standard’ across the document Analysed Document

SAS (Dawkins, 1988)



A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (MCEETYA, 2003)



Type of standard

No definition provided

No definition provided

Quality assurance standards

Commonsense standards or minimal standards

Standards for licensing and registration

Program, mandatory and voluntary standards

As seen in Table 3.9 above, analysis shows that where standards are given a definition, they can all be classified as regulatory (Mahony & Hextall, 2000) in nature. Between the publication of the first national standards (MCEETYA, 2003) and the most recently revised edition (AITSL, 2011), there is a change in the title from A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching to National Professional Standards for Teachers. According to Sachs (2005) these words do not mean the same, nor do they do the same conceptual or practical work. Sachs (2005) maintains that ‘teacher standards’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 2) or professional standards for teachers (AITSL, 2011) are concerned with measuring teacher performance and encompass the work of regulatory standards, whereas professional standards for teaching (MCEETYA, 2003) are about improving teaching through a developmental approach. However, regardless of the title, the type of standards identified for the 2003 framework is minimal or commonsense standards. Sachs (2003) maintains that the purpose of commonsense standards is to prevent questioning of the approach. In this way, the development of professional standards is accepted uncritically and implemented as the approach to improve quality in education. This so-called ‘modernising’ (Beck, 2009) of the teaching profession through policy documents has redefined both what counts as being a profession and ‘being professional’ as well as who has the authority to determine these matters legitimately. In conclusion, many strategies were operationalised over two decades for professional standards to become the ‘regime of truth’ to enhance professionalism, including ambiguous and often contradictory messages about standards in education,

162


163

the use of various linguistic devices such as repetition and co-location, short consultation periods in policy development, and the establishment of an authorial voice through policy in order to suppress alternative ways of thinking about teacher quality. Teachers’ voices were silenced by international and national political rhetoric as well as handpicked corporate voices which promoted the government’s economic agenda and the creation of new institutional structures, such as the ever expanding role of MCEECDYA or the formation of the AITSL. These various discursive constructions have resulted in: professional standards becoming the dominant discourse, silencing the profession with the relentless march of government imposed prescription, audit and accountability demands (Beck, 2009); disempowering teachers and discrediting the profession with a combination of ‘discourses of derision’ (Ball, 1994); and, corporate federalism, marketisation, devolution and managerial discourses or what Ball (2003) refers to as policy technologies. These policy technologies see the reshaping of the professional knowledge base into a competency model rooted in trainability (Beck, 2008, 2009; Louden, 2000) and ‘cradle-to-grave’ frameworks (Beck, 2008, p. 135) for professional development and career progression. Alternative ways of thinking about the conception of professionalism are excluded by the assumption that they are irrelevant. Thus, the rationale for professional standards has been legitimised and a regulatory gaze has been deemed expedient and necessary (Osgood, 2006). As Beck (2009) states, ‘there is now no other game in town’ (p. 10). The following diagram summarises the use of policy and political strategy as a discursive practice and makes up part of the ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ that will be revealed in Chapter Five.


163

164

Figure 3.1: Political strategy as a discursive practice

Corporate federalism and associated discourses through agencies such as MCEECDYA

Ambiguity of the term ‘standards’

Linguistic devices, such as contradictions, imitative statements, repetition, co-location

Short and tightly controlled consultation and validation periods for standards documents, often controlled by government agencies

Deficit discourses and positioning of teachers

Inclusion of career levels and professional development profiles

Teachers and academics’ voices silenced in the discourse

Blocking or suppression of counter discourses

Discourses of derision

Deceptive strategies such as use of photographs

Volume given to corporate voices, misrepresentation of academic voices

International and national policy and political strategy used interdiscursively to promote the economic agenda

164


165

Chapter 4: Personal Discourses of Teacher Professionalism Introduction

Interviews

As demonstrated in Chapter Three, the implementation of professional standards as the way to improve quality in education and enhance professionalism in the teaching force has become the dominant or normalising discourse of professionalism in Australia as well as in other countries such as the UK and the USA. However, the understandings and experiences teachers have of both these concepts within and between jurisdictions can vary considerably (Coleman, 2007; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b; Helsby, 1995; Sachs, 2003). This chapter elaborates and contextualises the perception of professionalism in the real world of teachers constructing a ‘history of the present’ (O’Farrell, 2005, p. 64). These ‘personal discourses’ revealed in the course of open-ended interviews with twenty Queensland teachers document their experiences of professionalism and professional standards implementation. The development of professional standards may be an international phenomenon but as Hamel et al. (1993) point out, local cases, such as Queensland, can provide a reflection of this much larger global educational picture. Such cases are a way of illustrating how professionalism may operate in teachers’ daily routines. My objective in this chapter is to compare the discourses of the standards reform agenda and those from the academic literature with the personal discourses of selected teachers, in order to develop a history of the present moment in teacher professionalism. Whereas the analysis of policy documents in Chapter Three illuminated how mainstream government practices effectively silence or mute teachers’ voices in the public arena, this chapter gives volume to those voices, as it is necessary to make sense of their current understandings of professionalism in order to question professional standards as the reigning regime of truth for enhancing professionalism. Using an archaeological analysis, nine discourses of professionalism are identified from the interview data. These personal discourses of professionalism as Chapter 4: Personal Discourses of Teacher Professionalism

165

166

pronounced by teachers are first presented in tabular form, responding to the second research question of this thesis: What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism? Each discourse is further elaborated using selected quotations from the transcript data to illuminate common statements and thus the construction of teachers’ knowledge of professionalism. As well as looking for isomorphism in these statements, differences, discontinuities, contradictions and gaps are investigated by examining the intersection or divergence of these personal discourses with or from the academic literature on professionalism and professional standards. Furthermore, the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) are examined for alignment (or not) with these personal discourses. These two documents were selected since the interviews were conducted with teachers in Queensland and based on the QCT standards, with the AITSL standards bringing us to the current policy moment in teacher professionalism. Foucault argues that all discourses produce effects of power, so further analysis will apply Foucauldian notions of power to the interview data to reveal the effects that discourse/power have on physical practice. Foucault notes: … in thinking of the mechanisms of power, I am thinking rather of its capillary forms of existence, the point where power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies, and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes, and everyday lives (Foucault, 1980d, p. 39). In order to understand power relations flowing through networks such as schools, it is necessary to report on how teachers are enacting the effects of truth producing discourse while also themselves acting on a discourse (Foucault, 1980c). Foucault adds further: The individual is an effect of power, and at the same time, or precisely to the extent to which it is that effect, it is the element of its articulation. The individual which power has constituted is at the same time its vehicle (Foucault, 1980c, p. 98).

166

Chapter 4: Personal Discourses of Teacher Professionalism

167

Thus Foucault claims that power forms and works through the individual. As well as understanding power broadly by examining individuals, their subject positions and their micro practices, I will be able to understand power ‘finely’ or in the capillary sense. Foucault claims that in the modern era, one way power is enacted is through disciplinary techniques (Foucault, 1995). Hence, Foucault’s micro technologies of disciplinary power are used to interrogate the interview data. In his eyes, ‘the success of disciplinary power derives no doubt from the use of three simple instruments; hierarchical observation, normalising judgement and their combination … the examination’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 170). These three instruments are purposively sought in the participants’ responses. Foucault also argues that wherever power is exercised there will always be ‘resistance’ (Foucault, 1982, p. 211) and the possibility of the construction of a counter discourse and set of practices. This is investigated through the third research question of this thesis: To what extent do teachers regulate and control their own professional practice? Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland? Through the investigation and identification of forms of power in teachers’ daily routines, possibilities for resistance or subverting the current order for professionalism can be assessed. 4.1

WHAT ARE QUEENSLAND TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONALISM?

The table below outlines the nine discreet discourses that were identified from the interview data.


167

168

Table 4.1: Personal discourses on professionalism from the interview data

DISCOURSES 1. PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS 2. EFFICIENT ORGANISATION 3. KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS 4. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING/DEVELOPMENT 5. SPECIFIC PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES 6. ACCOUNTABLILITY 7. LEADERSHIP 8. REFLECTIVE PRACTICES 9. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

Each identified discourse will be supported by excerpts from the interview transcripts to show the construction of knowledge on professionalism. These excerpts are presented as quotations to support the qualitatively different ways in which these Queensland teachers perceive professionalism. To maintain the confidentiality of the participants, each quotation is labeled with a pseudonym. The commentary is supported by evidence from the academic and institutional literature as well as an application of the notions of disciplinary power. It should be noted at this point that although the archaeological dig through the academic literature’s archive (Chapter Two) uncovered activist, enacted, deduced and assumed discourses of professionalism, these discourses have not been used as part of the analysis in this chapter. The characteristics of ‘enacted’ professionalism (Evans, 2008, 2011; Hilferty, 2008) have not been deconstructed to the extent where their existence can be analysed in teachers’ daily practices. The same is true for deduced and assumed discourses of professionalism. On the other hand, whilst Sachs (2003) has described the characteristics of the activist professional at length, the

168


169

scale of the concept is much larger than teachers’ daily routines. Rather, this discourse is concerned with teachers being called to action as a collective. 4.1.1 Discourse One: Professional relationships

Three different kinds of relationships were found in the interview data related to this discourse of professionalism. These were relationships with students’ parents, with colleagues and with students. Relationships with students’ parents All twenty participants responded that relationships with the parents of their students formed part of their practice of professionalism. The dominant notion or main discursive theme in this discourse is that teachers see parents as partners or supporters of their work. Common statements such as those from Mike and Mary reinforce this notion of parental involvement. Mike says: ‘It’s a three way triangle that involves the staff, the boys and the parents. We look at developing that relationship’. Mary concurs, saying: ‘We always say that the parents, it’s a three way relationship; it’s the students, the school - being the staff and the parents… and that also means communication with them’. Here, parents are positioned as needing to be informed by teachers so that they can play their supportive role. The following comment by Judy highlights the prioritisation of school and how teachers position themselves as knowing what is best for their students through modals such as ‘should be doing …’, ‘need to be aware …’ and ‘should be keen …’. She continues: It is important the parents are involved, and know what their children should be doing at home and they need to be aware of the expectations of the school and what and how parents can support the school so we need to be working on the same page … I think parents should be keen to let the teachers move on with the education of the children at school but there’s certainly an expectation that the parents play a supportive role in that. In this supportive role as partner, teachers share their expertise and expect that parents, in return, trust the teachers and agree with their professional knowledge – ‘let the teachers move on with the education’ (Judy). These positions work as long as the parent is in agreement with the teacher. However, this is not always the case.


169

170

Sometimes, parents take on the role of challenger. Tia relays one of her experiences in this circumstance. She says: He was questioning my approach to teaching his daughter over a particular assessment and basically I had to behave professionally in terms of being able to explain to the father the syllabus requirements, the assessment details, my approach and justification to the approach I was using, and I felt that my dealings and handling the situation meant that I not only had to put my point forward but also had to deal with him in a way that was respectful to his opinion and to try and basically pacify him with the questions he had in challenging me. I guess at the end of the day he was questioning my authority and power of doing my job and I basically had to show him or reflect to him that I knew what I was doing and that I was working in the best interests of his daughter and her achievement in my subject. In this situation, Tia takes on the authoritative role of expert. When the parent questions her, her professional judgement or expertise, a norm on which she relies as part of being a professional, is challenged. To maintain her role as provider of expertise, Tia draws on institutional syllabus documents, assessment practices and pedagogical skills and tries to remain calm and respectful, a behaviour that she regards as imperative for her own professional status. She maintains her control in the situation and the partnership discourse by saying that she is working in their best interests. The relationship with parents is not represented as an equal partnership in this instance, but rather as a power relation in which the teacher has full control and must ‘pacify’ the parent. Cecilia has also encountered other difficult situations when dealing with parents. She maintains that teachers need to remain objective: ‘Sometimes there can be very difficult interviews or very sad interviews and you need to be very objective in what you are doing so therefore you have to make sure you’re bringing a sense of professionalism to those interviews’. She adds, ‘you have to stand back and act with professionalism’. Here, the expertise comes in the form of remaining ‘objective’, rather than being emotional. Janice elaborates, ‘don’t respond to emotional behaviour as far as possible … it’s a very matter of fact type relationship’. Janice continues by

170


171

describing keeping parents ‘at arm’s length’ or ‘trying to remain objective’ and ‘trying to maintain my cool’. Once again, these teachers position themselves as experts. James says, ‘if you can explain things very clearly for them then they go away and, they can accept what you are doing’. This somewhat condescending comment undoubtedly reinforces the expert status and again contradicts the notion of parents as partners. That said, however, to maintain the discourse of parents as partners, Holly suggests that teachers do need to be prepared to listen to what parents have to say – ‘I think it’s best to hear them out so they get whatever they want to say off their chests and then (you) can address what they say, point by point’. Linguistically, parents are being positioned as having a voice in educational discourse, albeit one that is stripped of power through the use of rhetorical strategies: ‘address what they say, point by point’ (Holly). This statement shows that communication is important; however, it suggests that didactic rather than dialectic forms of communication may be necessary to maintain professional status. Additionally, both James and Holly speak about having ‘professional confidence’ when dealing with parents. Once again, the position of authority or expert is implied in these comments. This discursive theme of professionalism sees the teacher as having status; the knowledgeable expert working in (controlled) ‘partnership’ with supportive but sometimes challenging parents. As professionals, teachers remain objective and keep their cool, even when faced with difficult customers. To maintain support, teachers keep parents informed and attempt to instill confidence at the same time as, at least nominally, listening to what they have to say. Although some of the more traditional or classical notions of professionalism are present in the discourse of partnership, for example expert knowledge (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a), the discourse shows teachers working more authoritatively but openly with parents. However, this openness is not the equal partnership suggested by Mike and Mary’s references to the ‘triangle’ or ‘three-way relationship’. Rather, the partnership is controlled and defined in terms of the balance of power being held by teachers. The participants do acknowledge parents as stakeholders who have a voice and are assigned a supportive role, but not one where they can dictate terms. Various voices of authority have referred to this as ‘new’,


171

172

‘principled’, or ‘post-modern’ professionalism (Goodson, 1999, 2000; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). These writers agree that instead of teachers struggling to retain autonomy, occupational heteronomy is more important, especially when working with parents. Sachs (2003) describes this collaboration as ‘transformative’ or ‘democratic’ professionalism; the latter describing teachers communicating with parents, demystifying their work by building strong alliances. This is achieved, not through equal partnership or equal distribution of power, but by making it clear to parents what the parameters of their role are, and by convincing the parents that the teacher knows their craft and their subject. There are also connotations of ‘occupational’ professionalism where teachers work in an environment of trust with the parents (Evetts, 2009). Instilling confidence in the teachers’ expertise is supported by research findings by Helsby (1995) in the UK where this notion characterised teachers ‘behaving professionally’. Professional confidence is identifiable in the voices of teachers interviewed. One participant deviates from this dominant discourse of ‘controlled’ partnership. Such deviations need to be described for, as Foucault maintains, archaeology is a comparative analysis; it is not meant to reduce the diversity of discourse but rather should have a diversifying effect (Foucault, 1972). The second discursive theme is the parent as the client or the consumer. Sachs (2001) claimed that with the corporatisation of education, professionalism is enacted through accountability to the client. Thus, James says, parents are ‘investing so much time and money and effort … they … are there all the time and they want to see you know, they want to see something for their investment’. James continues: ‘parents have amazing aspirations for what their kids can do, so that’s why they’re there all the time because they are trying to ensure that happens … a lot of the parents are like that these days’. This marketisation of education sees teachers as selling a service. The parental position is powerful; they want to be assured that teachers are effective, ensuring that they are getting quality returns for their investment. Therefore, in this type of relationship, the teacher’s subject position has changed; the focus is on accountability to parents in terms of their quality or effectiveness, effectively moving the balance of power from teachers to parents. On the one hand, in the partnership discourse, teachers have the power and exhibit the status of the expert, whereas when

172


173

the parent becomes the consumer, teachers are open to question and their authoritative position is diminished. The discourse of parent as consumer displays more of the characteristics of a corporate form of professionalism such as managerialism (Sachs, 2003), demanded (Evans, 2008, 2011) or organisational professionalism (Evetts, 2009). Here the emphasis is placed on effectiveness and quality in an accountability regime; teachers are answerable to the parents. Therefore, the dominant discourse present in the interview data is teachers and parents working in partnership in a ‘new’ professionalism, but in the voices of teachers, the managerial notion of effectiveness and accountability are evident. Examination of the discourses of parent/teacher relationships contained within the two most recent standards documents relevant to Queensland teachers reveals that this discourse linking professionalism and relationships aligns with Standard Eight from the QCT standards document (see Appendix E) and Standards Three, Five and Seven from the AITSL standards (see Appendix F). Standard Eight from the Professional Standards for Queensland teachers (QCT, 2006) states that teachers should ‘foster positive and productive relationships with families’ (p. 14). This standard is then elaborated into eighteen different dot points describing the knowledge, skills and values needed by a teacher to accomplish this. Statements include ‘respectful, productive and collaborative relationships’ and ‘the importance of positive, productive and proactive involvement’ (QCT, 2006, p. 14). These statements clearly show the partnership/supportive relationship as spoken by teachers. However, on further examination, it is evident that client discourses are also present. For example, the following statement shows the more dominant role of families/carers and their demand for quality: ‘the insights to be gained from effective school/family interactions and how these contribute to quality teaching and learning’ (QCT, 2006, p. 14). This is further illustrated by another statement from Standard Eight: ‘strategies for involving families, caregivers and other community members in the design, implementation and review of learning programs’ (QCT, 2006, p. 14). This statement gives an equal voice and role to parents and teachers where learning programs are concerned. Inevitably, this undermines teacher expertise which is central to their idea of being a professional. Standard 7.3, ‘engage with the parents/carers’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 19), and Standard 3.7, ‘engage parents/carers in the educative process’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 13),


173

174

from the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) continues the notion of parents as active partners in the most recent standards document. Through all levels of the career profile (graduate [G], proficient [P], highly accomplished [HA] and lead [L]), teachers are asked to ‘work effectively, sensitively and confidentially with parents/carers’ [G], have ‘respectful, collaborative relationships’ [P], be ‘responsive in all communications’ [HA] and ‘engage parents/carers in both the progress of their children’s learning and in the educational priorities of the school’ [L] (AITSL, 2011, p. 19). The latter statement in particular shows the pivotal position that parents/carers are given. This notion is furthered in Standard Five where teachers are asked to ‘report clearly, accurately and respectfully to parents/carers’, and reports are to be ‘informative and timely in order to meet the needs of parents/carers’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 17). These statements illustrate the client discourse; once again teachers’ authority is diminished with heightened accountability to parents. In summary, there are two distinct but contradictory discursive themes where teacher/parent relationships are concerned. The dominant one is where parents are (controlled) partners and the other is where parents are consumers. These two discourses indicate a site of struggle. Whereas teachers see themselves as the authoritative voice with knowledge and expertise, respectfully keeping parents informed in a ‘new’, ‘transformative’ or ‘democratic’ professionalism, policy documents give the balance of power to parents; teachers are answerable to their demands and needs within a managerial form of professionalism. Interviews reveal that teachers are aware of this latter discourse, but it is certainly not as dominant as the discourse of partnership/supporter. This provides evidence that the most recent standards documents promote ‘regulatory’ (Mahony & Hextall, 2000) or ‘quality assurance’ (Sachs, 2003) standards thus, in effect, being mechanisms of control with accountability and transparency strategies dominant; in this instance, teachers answering to their clients, the parents. What are absent from the policy documents, representing a divergence or gap between the personal discourses and policy, are the challenging situations with which teachers sometimes have to deal with as part of the parent/teacher relationship. This notion of somewhat strained relationships is strongly evident in the voices of teachers. Furthermore, policy documents realise a more integrated role for

174


175

parents/carers. This contradicts the notion of teachers respectfully keeping them [parents] at ‘arm’s length’ and ‘remaining objective’. Therefore, it can be seen that teachers are simultaneously in the position of exercising power whilst also being subjected to it. As Foucault argues, ‘they are not only its inert or consenting target; they are also the elements of its articulation’ (Foucault, 1980c, p. 98). In the discourse of parent as partner/supporter, teachers as knowledgeable experts have authority, whereas when parents are considered as consumers or clients, teachers become the target of the parents’ authority. In the latter, disciplinary power in the form of observation as a technology of surveillance is used as a way of controlling the conduct of teachers. In this instance, teachers have been inserted into a set of relationships in which the parental ‘gaze’ manipulates or coerces them [teachers] to perform effectively and produce quality results. Foucault reminds us that power operates on the field of possibilities in which the behaviour of active subjects is able to inscribe itself. He says: ‘it [power] is always a way of acting upon one or more acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action. A set of actions upon other actions’ (Foucault, 1982, p. 220). In this instance, the conduct of teachers is being directed or governed by the watchful eye of the parents. Teachers do not consent to this and are free to react to parents as they choose but where parental pressure is applied, this becomes disciplinary pressure in the form of observation. Individuals who know they are being observed and evaluated in particular ways tend to display behaviours that orient to the evaluation that they know is forthcoming. As Foucault (1995) has argued in his analysis of the Panopticon, the prototypical prison designed by Bentham in which each inmate is open to surveillance but is unable to see the observer, the possibility of surveillance induces the individual to behave as if they are continually under observation. In effect, teachers become the sustainer of disciplinary power by self-discipline and are expected to become more productive. Surveillance in this instance is a ‘decisive economic operator’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 175) to improve quality outcomes just as parents and the government want. Teachers are evaluated on their quality and effectiveness; in other words, they have once again become the examined. I use the term ‘once again’ as old examination systems which were set up in the nineteenth century, such as the inspectorate system, were relaxed through the 1970s and1980s. However, newer examination techniques, such as


175

176

professional standards, promote regulatory standards for quality assurance. It remains to be seen if this becomes the norm but if the heightened agenda of regulatory standards continues to dominate the educational discourse of professionalism, it would appear that this would be the case. Relationships with colleagues All participants mentioned relationships with colleagues as a part of their professional profile, using modals such as ‘should’ and strong declarative sentences beginning with ‘It involves …’ to indicate their assumption that this is normative practice. Two main discursive themes are evident in their discussions, namely a discourse of support/collaboration and a discourse of surveillance. The common statements evident in teachers’ responses indicating a discourse of support include: ‘you should be helpful’ (Genevieve), ‘feel supported by me’ (Mike), ‘don’t leave the teacher in the lurch’ (Jan), ‘professionalism for a teacher … involves supporting colleagues’ (Janice), ‘should be encouraged’ (Genevieve), ‘they do sometimes say that you are doing a good job’ (Genevieve). These statements demonstrate that teachers enjoy support from each other and, as the last two comments indicate, encouragement and praise. Within this discourse of support, there are expectations that the more experienced or expert teachers will support the less experienced. This is evident in Mike’s comment above and further elaborated by Jan: ‘I had to work with him … and then try to convince him to run his subject in a different manner’. This shows the marrying of the role of supporter with provider of expertise. In this case, Jan linguistically places herself in a position of power as mentor, with an active role and the obligation to improve her mentee’s practice – ‘I had to …’ Interestingly, Sally, a first year teacher, constructs this relationship a little differently, representing herself (the novice) as active in seeking professional guidance: ‘I have questions I need to find out, what other people are doing … I feel it is important to have positive relationships with other staff – it makes getting on, trying to find things … a lot easier’. Here, Sally uses the more experienced staff to gain knowledge. Therefore, regardless of position in the school hierarchy, the discursive theme of supportive relationships forms part of teachers’ regime of truth on professionalism. Within this discourse of support, the notion of respect is vital. Barbara says: ‘I think in order to work effectively as a teaching team, there should be respect’. The common statements about respect reveal a relationship where teachers communicate, 176


177

are not critical and do not complain about each other. Genevieve says: ‘you shouldn’t run to the boss with complaints about other people. If you have a problem with somebody, you should bring it up with them and try to resolve it’. Mabel agrees: ‘I don’t think it is professional to go around criticising other members of staff’. This also involves ‘not getting involved in idle gossip’ (Mabel) or ‘whining about other teachers’ (Marie). These statements assume that such practices occur; however, these participants use them as examples of unprofessional behaviour to highlight their position that teachers communicate with each other and try to work together in a respectful manner. This is confirmed by Marie: ‘you don’t have to… like every teacher you teach with but you have to respect them’. The statement above by Barbara also highlights a discourse of collaboration ‘to work effectively as a teaching team’. This is reiterated by other participants: ‘our teams’ (Marie), ‘people working together’ (Mary), and ‘everyone going in the right direction together’ (Mary). This does not necessarily mean that everyone thinks the same, but as Barbara states: ‘good harmonious relationships but being able to discuss a matter without taking difference in opinion as a personal affront’. Mary concurs by stating: ‘there are so many different ways that people can bring what they consider their professionalism to that community’. Therefore, the discourse of collaboration also values diversity. The collaborative mantra focuses on unity, but is mindful and respectful of difference. The discourse of collaboration aligns with ‘flexible’ professionalism where the emphasis is on teachers working together in cultures of collaboration (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a) and extended professionality (Hoyle, 1974) or extended professionalism (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b) where teachers engage in collective planning. ‘New’, ‘principled’ and ‘post-modern’ notions are also evident. An imitative statement from these discourses emphasises the commitment to working with colleagues in collaborative cultures of shared expertise in order to solve the ongoing problems of professional practice (Goodson, 1999, 2000; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a). For Hargreaves (2000), this ‘new’ professionalism that participants are describing is collegial and collective, rather than autonomous and individual. Evetts’ (2009) occupational professionalism and Sachs’ (2003) transformative professionalism, which incorporate collegial authority, are also


177

178

evident in the interview data. On first glance, managerialism appears to be absent in this discursive theme but closer examination of the references to ‘teamwork’ and ‘everyone going in the right direction’ could be interpreted to imply a more managerial tone. Ozga (1995) warns that cultures of collaboration can adhere to management discourses. Teamwork can indicate a strong corporate culture, one which she says creates ‘a cohesive workforce but avoids workforce solidarity’ (p. 3334). In effect, what can result is more control and compliance, perhaps concealing the increased monitoring and surveillance of teachers (Ozga, 1995). However, a comment from Genevieve: ‘they [teachers] don’t need to be pursued or watched’ shows that some teachers are aware of panoptic mechanisms working within schools. The narrative from Jan, ‘I had to work with him … and then try to convince him to run his subject in a different manner’ shows this mechanism at work. In this scenario, Jan as the deputy principal scrutinises the work of a less experienced teacher. Here, Jan as the mentor is controlling the conduct of this teacher and attempting to improve his performance. Foucault says: ‘the activity that ensures apprenticeship and acquisition of aptitudes or types of behaviour is developed by means of a whole ensemble of regulated communications (Foucault, 1982, p. 218). He refers to this as ‘spatial ‘nesting’ of hierarchised surveillance’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 171-172). He maintains that hierarchised structures in schools provide for an uninterrupted, multi-leveled network of supervision. This network is a discreet form of surveillance to increase its productive function. He continues: Although surveillance rests on individuals, its functioning is that of a network of relations from top to bottom, but also to a certain extent from bottom to top and laterally; this network ‘holds’ the whole together and traverses it in its entirety with effects of power that derive from one another: supervisors, perpetually supervised (Foucault, 1995, p. 176-177). Therefore, although schools have principals who exercise both power and authority, it is the whole hierarchised structure functioning ‘like a piece of machinery’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 177) that produces and distributes power. In this way, disciplinary power in the form of hierarchical observation is ‘indiscreet’ since it is everywhere, and at the same time ‘discreet’ as it functions in silence (Foucault, 1995). For schools, this means that all levels of the hierarchy are watched in order to

178


179

make them more productive. Once again, the overt aim is to produce improved quality outcomes. By means of such surveillance, disciplinary power is integrated into the system, linked from the inside to the economy (Foucault, 1995). Normalising judgement is present in this scenario, with Jan modifying the behaviour of the less experienced teacher. From her point of view, this teacher’s actions are incorrect. In this instance, disciplinary power is present in the form of corrective training – ‘intensified, multiplied forms of training, several times repeated’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 179). Problems are put right by training and the functionality of school operations are secured according to the criteria of normalcy, or by ‘going in the right direction’. Jan has manipulated, shaped and trained the less experienced teacher so that he becomes more skilful and productive (Foucault, 1995). This ‘art of the human body’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 137) is directed not only at the growth of skills but also to make the subject, in this case, the less experienced teacher, more obedient. Therefore, this teacher is docile in that he has been subjected, used, transformed and improved (Foucault, 1995). The examination is also at work in this case where the less experienced teacher is judged on his performance. Examination of discourses of teacher/teacher relationships contained within the two most recent standards documents relevant to Queensland teachers reveals that the discourse of ‘professional relationships’ aligns with Standard Nine from the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers – to ‘contribute effectively to professional teams’ (QCT, 2006, p. 15) and Standard Six and Seven from the National Professional Standards for Teachers – ‘engage in professional learning’ (AITSL, 2011, p.18) and ‘engage professionally with colleagues’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 19). Even though Standard Nine from the first document includes statements such as ‘partnership with colleagues’ and ‘sustaining collegial relationships’ (QCT, 2006, p. 15) which correlate with the voices of interviewed teachers, the main discursive notion in this standard is about ‘teamwork’, with the word ‘team’ repeated twelve times. As already mentioned ‘teamwork’ can indicate a strong corporate culture (Ozga, 1995) with the managerial discourse of professionalism dominant. Once again, this provides a strong indication that these standards are regulatory in nature, as the team can ensure that all members are moving in the direction preferred by the hierarchy of government. A statement from Standard Five corroborates these


179

180

findings where teachers should commit to ‘working collaboratively with colleagues in quality assurance procedures’ (QCT, 2006, p. 11). In the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), Standard 6.3 states that teachers ‘should engage with colleagues’, ‘seek and apply constructive feedback from supervisors’ and engage in ‘professional dialogue’ (p.18). Standard 7.4 furthers the notion of teachers working together by contributing ‘to professional networks and associations’ (p. 19). These common statements align with the discourse of collaboration evident from the interview data and ‘new professionalism’ notions from the academic literature. What is noteworthy in this document is the absence of the teamwork mantra. However, the career structure (graduate through to lead) underpinning this document as well as the mention of ‘supervisors’ does indicate a management discourse where hierarchical observation plays a part in order to make teachers more productive and improve quality outcomes. The words ‘improve’ or ‘improving’ are repeated across all the career level descriptors for Standard 6.3. What this analysis reveals is that Foucault’s notions derived from the examination of nineteenth century disciplinary techniques still apply to twenty-first century managerial discourses put forward in standards documents. These modes of corporate managerialism mean that techniques of disciplinary power are by no means dead but rather newer mechanisms such as professionalism promoted through standards are effective iterations of the old techniques. The only difference in the modern era is that the mechanisms are more discreet and more refined. In summary, there are two discursive themes concerning teacher/teacher relationships. The dominant one concerns teachers supporting each other in a culture of collaboration and the other concerns how the hierarchical structure of the school lends itself to a discourse of surveillance. The latter still shows teachers working together, but the architecture permits ‘an internal, articulated and detailed control – to render visible those who are inside it’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 172). In other words, the supervision of teachers in a management discourse ‘functions like a microscope of conduct … an apparatus of observation, recording and training’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 173). This discourse is evident in both standards documents investigated, although its presence is more discreet in the QCT document. Perhaps this is because these documents promote a ‘professional’ discourse whilst masking a very different

180


181

agenda, evident in the broader social context of standards development. What is absent from the academic literature and limited in the institutional literature is the notion of respect. Teachers’ voices include this notion implicitly in their regime of truth of professionalism. This represents a divergence or gap in the alignment of the discourses from these documents or texts and that spoken by teachers. Relationships with students All participants mentioned relationships with students as part of their practice of professionalism. Three main discursive themes are evident in this discourse. First, connection through mutual respect is strongly evident in the participants’ responses. Statements from Mary and Holly demonstrate this: ‘So if we want them to respect us, we need to respect them, so mutual respect’ (Mary); ‘I mean as in someone who is respected by their pupils and you give them respect’ (Holly). This respect is a result of many associated notions including: caring about students – ‘I’m talking about a love of students … you genuinely care about the young people’ (Barney); treating students as individuals – ‘rather than seeing them as a mass of students … you treat them as individuals, having some understanding of their identity’ (Kate); providing encouragement – ‘build their confidence so they’ll attempt it because they have to take a risk’ (Genevieve); and communicating with students – ‘communication is paramount’ (Xanthe). Where teachers exhibit these characteristics, students reciprocate with respect. However, a comment from Holly illustrates how some teachers use these strategies as a means of controlling behaviour. She states, ‘without respect, it is very hard to control and use behaviour management techniques’. Therefore, in gaining respect, the teacher assumes the authoritative position in order to manage behaviour. This second discursive theme of managing student behaviour is voiced by many teachers as a normal part of the teacher/student relationship. Statements which support this theme include: ‘I expect them to have manners’, ‘put their hands up when they speak’ and ‘take it in turns to listen to each other’ (Sue). By ‘keeping a check on that [behaviour]’ (Mabel), ‘they drop a lot of their bad behaviour’ (Genevieve). These statements show that disciplinary mechanisms in the form of normalising judgement are evident. The slightest departure from the teachers’ expectations is ‘punishable’ – ‘there is a point where if they step over it, that there are consequences’ (Sally). These days, ‘punishable’ usually means correcting defects Chapter 4: Personal Discourses of Teacher Professionalism

181

182

as a means to advance their progress (Foucault, 1995). The management of the classroom materialises through ‘the mechanics of training’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 180) and these corrective measures result in conformity. In cases such as this, students are ‘manipulated, shaped [and] trained’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 136) in order to obey the teacher and improve their learning to become more productive and effective. The students’ bodies are corrected and controlled in what Foucault refers to as ‘docility’. He says: ‘A body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 136). He continues by referring to working each body individually –‘of exercising upon it a subtle coercion, of obtaining holds upon it at the level of the mechanism itself – movements, gestures, attitudes, rapidity: an infinitesimal power over the active body’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 137). In this way, teachers have control of their classrooms which, from the interview data, they see as part of their professionalism. In complete contrast with the discourse of connection or behaviour management, the third main discursive theme teachers speak about is establishing clear boundaries. This third ‘discourse of professional distance’ is the most dominant discursive theme expressed in the teachers’ responses: ‘I keep the distance between them as students and me’ (Mary); ‘teacher/student relationship is not a friendship … a line is drawn in order so you know the distance and they know’ (Holly); teachers ‘make sure the boundaries are clear’ (Kory); ‘I always maintain my professional distance’ (Janice); and ‘everything that is done, is done in the presence of more than one person’ (Kory). These statements show that teachers are fully aware of the parameters within which they work and with what is deemed to be ‘appropriate’ behaviour towards their students. In one way, teachers have to be approachable so that if students have problems, they will feel comfortable enough to share. However, teachers’ responses demonstrate an air of caution, which must be seen in the context of numerous media related reports about inappropriate relationships and activities within schools. Teachers are aware that their conduct is being monitored by students, other teachers and the community so they are careful to operate within the legal requirements of the system. The following statements by Genevieve and Mary show that teachers are clear on procedures concerning delicate matters or matters of confidentiality:

182


183

Well if they confide in you and it’s serious then I, I go to the counselor and tell the counselor. (Genevieve) We have students who come to me about certain things, you need to weigh up, “do I take this further, who do I take it to.” Because you need to be assured that they can come to you knowing that you’re being a good listener for them, but they also need to be aware that if they mention something to you that needs to go further, especially in the legal sense. That I would say to them upfront, “if you say something to me that needs to go further, you need to be aware that I have to do that, it’s a requirement”. (Mary) These statements indicate that teachers take their professional duty of care seriously and are aware of the relationships of power between themselves and the students. Thus, this discourse is somewhat of a paradox. Teachers establish close relationships with students and manage their behaviour, but maintain their distance outside what they deem to be ‘appropriate’ boundaries. They simultaneously try to pretend it is not a power relationship, while being quite aware that it is. In the academic literature, ‘new’, ‘principled’ and ‘post-modern’ professionalism (Goodson, 1999, 2000; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a), refer to ‘a commitment to active care’, ‘embracing the emotional dimension of teaching’ and ‘caring communities’ where students are concerned. Democratic professionalism (Sachs, 2003) makes reference to building strong alliances with students, illustrating the discursive theme of connection, but these statements also refer to moral and ethical conduct, statements in line with the discursive theme of professional distance. This also aligns with one of the characteristics of transformative professionalism – a public ethical code of practice. Evetts’ (2009) categories of professionalism encompass both of these discursive themes; occupational discourse referring to codes of professional ethics monitored by institutes and associations, and organisational discourse referring to certification and training, sometimes called credentialism. Sachs (2003) has referred to credentialism as ‘standards of certification or control’ and maintains that they are bureaucratic, standardise procedures and reduce autonomy. However, there appears to be some overlap between ‘new’ discourses and more corporate discourses where professional ethics are concerned. What appears to


183

184

be absent in the academic literature on professionalism, even if available in education literature in general, is the management of student behaviour. Examination of discourses of teacher/student relationships contained in the two most recent standards documents relevant to Queensland teachers reveal that the discourse of professional relationships aligns with Standards Six and Seven from the QCT standards document – ‘support personal development and participation in society’ (QCT, 2006, p. 12) and ‘create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments’ (QCT, 2006, p. 13) respectively. The ‘discourse of connection’ is evident in the following statements: ‘create respectful, positive and safe learning environments and constructive relationships that are based on mutual trust (Standard Seven) (QCT, 2006, p. 13) and ‘support students by providing appropriate pastoral care’ (Standard Six) (QCT, 2006, p. 12). In Standard Six, the legalities of moral and ethical conduct (representing the discourse of professional distance) are evident in statements such as ‘maintaining ethical and professional relations with students’ (p. 12). The discourse of behaviour management is strongly evident in Standard Seven as is shown by the following statements: ‘communicate and maintain clear expectations’ and ‘promote responsible behaviour for all students’ (p. 13). These notions are furthered in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), mainly in Standard Four – to ‘create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 14). Within this standard, teachers ‘support student participation’, ‘manage challenging behaviour’, and ‘maintain student safety’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 14-15). These statements align with the discourse of connection and behaviour management. The discourse of professional distance is present in this document in Standard Seven where the lead teacher descriptor states that teachers should ‘model exemplary ethical behaviour and exercise informed judgements in all professional dealings with students’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 19). In summary, the three discursive themes of connection, behaviour management and professional distance are present in both standards documents investigated. Although behaviour management is widely available in educational literature, it is not mentioned as part of the academic literature on professionalism.

184


185

The following table summarises the intersection between the interviews, the academic literature and the two selected policy documents for the ‘discourse of professional relationships’. Table 4.2: Intersection between texts for Discourse One

Discourse

Discourse from interviews with teachers

Discourse from the academic literature

Policy as Discourse

Discourse of professional relationships

Partner/supporter

‘new’, ‘postmodern’

Standard 8 (QCT)

‘principled’, ‘democratic’, ‘occupational’

Standard 7 (AITSL)

1. Parents

‘transformative’ ‘behaving professionally’ Client/consumer

‘managerial’ ‘organisational’

2. Teachers

Supporter/ collaboration

Standard 8 (QCT)

‘demanded’

Standard 3 and Standard 5 (AITSL)


Standard 9 (QCT)

‘principled’, ‘democratic’, ‘occupational’

Standard 6.3 (AITSL)

‘transformative’


‘flexible’, ‘extended’ Surveillance

‘managerial’ ‘organisational’

Standard 9 (QCT) Standard 6.3 (AITSL)

3. Students

Connection


Standard 6 & 7 (QCT)

‘principled’, ‘democratic’,

Standard 4


185

186

Behaviour management

‘occupational’

(AITSL)

Not present

Standard 7 (QCT) Standard 4 (AITSL)

Distance

‘occupational’ ‘organisational’ ‘transformative’

Standard 6 & 7 (QCT) Standard 7 (AITSL)

4.1.2 Discourse Two: Efficient organisation

Although not mentioned by every participant, the discourse of efficient organisation is evident in many of the interview responses. There are two discursive themes within this discourse: first, the notion of preparedness or being well prepared; and, second, the notion of time. The first discursive theme is shown by the frequency of statements such as: ‘well planned’ (Cecilia), ‘well organised’, ‘highly organised’, ‘well prepared’ (Barney), having the ‘best lesson plan’ (Mike) and being ‘on top of things’ (Mary). Many reasons are given for these common statements and why teachers include this notion in their regime of truth on professionalism. These reasons range from providing ‘quality learning’ (Cecilia) experiences, ‘engaging productively in the learning process’ and ‘delivering effectively’ (Barney), ‘showing best practice’ (Mike) and providing ‘structure’ (Cecilia) for lessons. Holly adds that being organised means ‘you know exactly where you are going so the kids can be confident’. This teacher equates ‘being organised’ with instilling confidence in her students. The notion of structure is elaborated by Kory and Sally, both first year teachers. The purpose of efficient organisation for them is to eliminate any behaviour problems. This overlaps with the discursive theme of behaviour management (teacher/student relationship) from Discourse One. Sally states: I make sure that all my classes begin in a very business-like manner, settling the students before I walk into the room – once they are inside the room,

186


187

ensuring that everyone is settled before any work begins, going through the roll, taking attendance, sort of basic stuff. Kory concurs with Sally: I think it is important that you are there before the students, and the room is set up, you are prepared – if you can get there beforehand and have things up on the board, notes or points you want to cover, um, like today’s lesson, I got in there before first lesson and had what we are doing period one, what we are doing period two, the work that had to be done, the time it had to be finished by so we could go through it. These comments illustrate how two relatively new teachers to the profession pre-plan not just the learning in the lesson, but also the logistics of the classroom. What is evident in these scenarios is the use of Foucault’s (1995) notions of disciplinary procedures. Both these teachers organise their classrooms as a disciplinary space so that ‘each individual has his own place; and each place its individual’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 143). As Foucault (1995) points out, ‘one must eliminate the effects of imprecise distributions, the uncontrolled disappearance of individuals’ (p.143). By ‘going through the roll, taking attendance’, Sally establishes ‘presences and absences, to know where and how to locate individuals’, ‘to be able at each moment to supervise the conduct of each individual’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 143), practices that she refers to as ‘business-like’. This ‘functional site’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 143) is organised for supervision purposes as well as the need to ‘break dangerous communications’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 143-144). This is shown by Kory’s further comment – ‘when the kids get there, they walk in, you can just sit them down, start them, and they can get straight into it, because as soon as you turn your back, there is a chance for them to muck up’. This shows how Kory organises his class to riskmanage behaviour. Furthermore, statements such as ‘they can get straight into it’ and ‘the work that had to be done, the time it had to be finished’ show the creation of a ‘useful space’, what Foucault refers to as ‘a spatial arrangement of production’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 144-145). He says: ‘it [makes] the educational space function like a learning machine, but also a machine for supervising’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 147). According to Foucault (1995), organisation of space guarantees ‘the obedience of individuals but also a better economy of time and gesture’ (p. 148). Included here are


187

188

references to time, which is the second discursive theme in the discourse of efficient organisation. This theme can be further subdivided into notions of the ‘control of activity’, deadlines and punctuality. Foucault states: In the elementary schools, the division of time became increasingly minute; activities were governed in detail by orders that had to be obeyed immediately … an attempt is [also] made to assure the quality of time used: constant supervision, the pressure of supervisors, the elimination of anything that might disturb or distract; it is a question of constituting a total use of time … a time of good quality, throughout which the body is constantly applied to its exercise. Precision and application are, with regularity, the fundamental virtues of disciplinary time (Foucault, 1995, p. 150-151). According to participants, by organising their classrooms and controlling activities, they constitute a total use of time ‘delivering effectively’, providing ‘quality learning’ and ‘engaging productively in the learning process’. The second discursive theme of time also includes notions about deadlines. Mary states: ‘It’s important in life to be able to meet goals and deadlines’. Other participants agree, stating how important it is to ‘get things done on time’, be ‘prompt in returning marks’ (Barney), and getting ‘marking back to them by the due date’ (Holly). What is evident in these comments about deadlines is the reciprocal relationship between teachers and students – ‘If I expect that their work is to be handed in on time, then I make sure that I turn things around, get it back to them on time’ (Cecilia). This shows the role-modeling of good time management practices, but also reveals that teachers are subjected to temporal forms of discipline, just like their students. This reveals that the teachers’ sense of professionalism equates with the old disciplinary techniques. Participants also make reference to punctuality, but rather than saying it was professional to be on time, they refer to this notion in the negative, stating that it is unprofessional to be late. The comments below by Barney and Xanthe provide evidence for this: We have a lot of teachers who don’t turn up on time, and that’s a big problem. (Barney)

188


189

I have been at a school where the Principal is always late; hence the whole school runs behind time. I believe this is teaching students poor behaviours for the future. It’s teaching them that it is ok to be late and in my opinion as a professional it’s not actually ok to be late. (Xanthe) Once again, the role-modeling (or lack of it) for students is evident in the latter comment. This notion is repeated by both Holly and Sue: ‘Being a professional, as a teacher I think you have to set an example to your students by, um, being punctual, turning up on time’ (Holly); ‘Being on time … I am so adamant with them being on time, being punctual that when I am one minute late occasionally they all let me know’ (Sue). The latter comment shows that as well as teachers monitoring students, the reverse is also true as teachers feel the student gaze upon them. Once again, the body is the object and target of power; individual movements and gestures are prescribed so that bodies become efficient, useful and docile, allowing for the correct use of time (Foucault, 1995). However, it is not just students who are subjected to these mechanisms of discipline; teachers are also disciplined in their work. The comment below further elaborates how timetables are used as disciplinary mechanisms. This comment by Judy reveals how the actual work of teachers is standardised and normalised for the effective and efficient use of time: As a faculty we will always have a topic timetable and on the topic timetable there are outlines – what part of the work program people should be teaching at different times, so that when there is more than one class or cohort we are all kind of working on the same page and we can arrive at the same places for points of the assessment. In the light of Foucault’s ideas, it becomes obvious how power is embedded in the routine, and common, even trivial, practices of the daily routines of teachers. What is noteworthy about the discourse of efficient organisation is that it does not appear anywhere within the academic literature on professionalism. This could be because efficient organisation is a generic skill and not confined to the professional world of teachers, or perhaps this is a push to ‘do away’ with the modernist ‘discipline’ in the Foucauldian sense. Therefore, this represents an interesting mismatch or gap between what teachers have said in interviews and the academic literature on professionalism.


189

190

Examination of the two most recent standards documents relevant to Queensland teachers reveals some alignment between the discourse of efficient organisation and statements within these two documents. In the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006), Standard One makes a fleeting reference to ‘develop[ing] and document[ing] learning plans’ (p. 7). However, this statement does not directly relate to being organised. Standard Seven states ‘manage teaching time, resources and physical space’ (p. 13) for learning purposes which may correlate better with the voices of participants and their notions of being organised. No other mention is made of being prepared or preparedness in this document. In contrast, time management is mentioned in two different standards, Standards Seven and Nine, both referring to managing time within the classroom. Furthermore, in direct correlation with the voices of the participants, Standard Five makes reference to giving ‘timely feedback on their [students’] learning’ (p. 11). The National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) repeats the message about ‘timely feedback’ (p. 16) in Standard Five with this term used across all descriptors for the four career levels. The QCT standards only had fleeting comments about the first discursive theme, but this text requires teachers to ‘organise content into an effective learning and teaching sequence’ (Standard Two) (AITSL, 2011, p. 10). This message is repeated in Standard Three with ‘plan, structure and sequence learning programs’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 12). Furthermore, Standard Four requires teachers to ‘demonstrate the capacity to organise classroom activities and provide clear directions’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 14). In summary, there are two main discursive themes in the discourse of professionalism as efficient organisation which are being prepared and time management. Whilst absent from the academic literature, both discursive themes are present in both standards documents and are also shown to align with Foucault’s notions of disciplinary power. The gap between academic and institutional texts reinforces the standards as a list of generic competencies acting as disciplinary mechanisms which are not included in the broader literature on professionalism. The table below summarises the intersection between the academic literature, policy documents and spoken discourses.

190


191

Table 4.3: Intersection between texts for Discourse Two

Discourse

Discourse for interviews with teachers

Discourse from academic literature

Policy as Discourse

Discourse of efficient organisation

Being prepared

Not in literature on professionalism

Standard 1 (QCT)

(preparedness)

Standard 7 (QCT) Standard 2.2 (AITSL) Standard 3.2 (AITSL) Standard 4.2 (AITSL)

Time management

Not in literature on professionalism

Standard 7 (QCT) Standard 9 (QCT) Standard 5 (QCT) Standard 5.2 (AITSL)

4.1.3 Discourse Three: Knowledge and skills

The discourse of knowledge and skills is divided into two main discursive themes: first, content knowledge or knowledge of subject area; and, second, pedagogical knowledge and skills. Both themes are linked by accounts of a genuine and concerted effort by teachers to vary and maximise the learning opportunities for a diverse range of students. The first discursive theme describes the need for teachers to have a deep knowledge of the content of their subject or discipline. Thus teachers need to be ‘thorough in their understanding of their subject area’ (Barney), ‘up-to-date with developments in their subject area’ (Xanthe), and have ‘a great deal of expertise and knowledge in their area of teaching’ (Holly). Furthermore, Mike describes the need to be ‘competent’ and ‘confident’ in a discipline area. That said, James contradicts these statements acknowledging that he is ‘the facilitator of their [students’] learning, not the fount of all wisdom’ and does not always ‘have the answers’.


191

192

However, he turns his lack of specifics into a learning experience –‘I want them to challenge, we will find out the answers together’. No doubt, a solid knowledge base in subject content is important but by not having ‘all the answers’, alternative learning opportunities can materialise. This discursive theme aligns with two statements from the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006). The first one is from Standard One which states that teachers should know ‘the content, processes and skills of the areas they teach’ (p. 7) and the second is from Standard Three – teachers should know ‘the central concepts, modes of inquiry and structure and discipline areas they teach’ (p. 9). This correlates directly with the voices of participants from the interviews. Standard Two from the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) maintains this notion, stating that teachers should ‘know the content and how to teach it’ (p. 10). Common statements from this standard across the four career stages (graduate [G], proficient [P], highly accomplished [HA] and lead [L]) include the need to ‘demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the concepts, substance and structure of the content … of the teaching area’ [G], ‘apply knowledge of the content’ [P], ‘support colleagues using current and comprehensive knowledge of content’ [HA], and ‘lead initiatives within the school to evaluate and improve knowledge of content’ [L] (p. 10). These statements illustrate that where subject knowledge is concerned, a managerial discourse is promoted, and lead teachers regulate the discipline knowledge of less experienced teachers. Knowledge is usually controlled by curriculum guidelines or syllabus documents (see Discourse Six, professionalism as accountability) and with the onset of the National Curriculum in Australia, students’ access to knowledge will be defined and ‘disciplined’ into subjects more tightly than ever before. This discursive theme of course content should not just encompass covering prescribed content, but as the example from James shows, the learning should open up other opportunities for both teachers and students to expand their knowledge. The statements used above in relation to the first discursive theme refer to knowledge in terms of a deep understanding of ways of knowing and working within discipline areas so teachers can confidently choose appropriate content and strategies. They do not refer to prescribed content or teachers being told exactly what to do to cover content. Writers such as Stinnett and Huggett (1963) claim that a teacher professional should ‘command a body of specialised

192


193

knowledge’ (p. 57) and Goodson and Hargreaves’ (1996b) discourse of classical professionalism repeats the notion of specialised knowledge as part of the regime of truth on teacher professionalism. Transformative professionalism equally refers to knowledge building (Sachs, 2005). However, there are few, if any, statements in the analysed standards documents that refer to this ‘specialised knowledge’. Rather, the term used is ‘content’ which will be prescribed in a National Curriculum. This prescribed content is promoted through a managerial discourse with more experienced teachers scrutinising the work of the less experienced. Once again, as in Discourse One, where teacher/teacher relationships are concerned, this encourages hierarchical observation in the form of surveillance. The second discursive theme encompasses pedagogical knowledge and skills, namely using a range of different instructional approaches, resources and strategies that cater for differences in the classroom. For clarity, this discursive theme has been arranged into the following sub-themes: individual and group learner centred pedagogies; teacher centred pedagogies; pedagogical activities including media resources; and differentiated pedagogies. First, these sub-themes will be looked at through the teacher quotes, and then through the standards documents. Teacher quotes INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CENTRED PEDAGOGIES

Common phrases in relation to individual and group learner centred pedagogies include: ‘independent learning’ (Jean); ‘child centred learning’ (Kate); ‘student centred learning’ (Xanthe); ‘learning posts’, ‘group work strategies’, ‘pairs work’, ‘different teams’ (Jean); and ‘teamwork’ (Janice). Many reasons are given for the use of these approaches. For example, independent, child or student centred learning allows students to work at their own pace and set their own direction; in other words, they have control. James describes this as ‘letting students fly because they have the ability to do so’. Another example is the use of group work to promote social skills or, more specifically, allowing students to develop their ‘interpersonal and teamwork skills’ (Xanthe). This could also increase visibility to peers causing students to selfdiscipline and work harder. TEACHER CENTRED PEDAGOGIES


193

194

Teacher centred pedagogies are demonstrated in the following statements: ‘teacher led or facilitator’ (Kate); ‘direct teaching’ (Marie); and ‘chunking’ (Sally). Sally describes ‘chunking’ as ‘breaking the lesson up into smaller components’ with ‘different sorts of experiences to keep children’s attention throughout the lesson’. In contrast to the first sub-theme, here the teacher maintains the control and pace of the lesson. This notion could relate to Discourse Two (efficient organisation) where student engagement is coerced by the control of activity, time and space which provides for maximum use of time. PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING MEDIA RESOURCES

The third sub-theme encompasses a variety of creative pedagogical activities. Statements which illustrate this include: ‘active learning, hands on experiential learning in fieldwork – field trips’, ‘it’s great to take the students outdoors’ (James); ‘excursions’ (Holly); ‘paper making’, ‘building electronic gismos’ (Genevieve); using ‘guest speakers’ (Barbara); ‘oral lessons’ (Genevieve); ‘playing games’, and ‘role playing’ (Xanthe). Judy includes using assessment in teaching and learning – ‘using samples of assessment pieces to show what an ‘A’ assignment might look like’. Additionally, some participants incorporate technology as a pedagogical activity: ‘I make an effort to incorporate multi-modal and use media in my teaching’ (Sally); ‘TV programs and DVDs are good resources’ (Barbara); and ‘my students have benefitted from ICTs in the classroom’ (Xanthe). Participants voice the need to be innovative and creative in order to sustain student interest. There is no one-sizefits-all, so these approaches are used to engage students in the learning process, not just to entertain them. This shows the complexity of teaching, where deep knowledge needs to sit alongside a deep knowledge of pedagogical approaches. DIFFERENTIATED PEDAGOGIES

The last sub-theme is differentiated pedagogy which includes the use of pedagogical organisers. Common statements illustrating this are: ‘I use Bloom’s Taxonomy … about the different levels of thinking’ (Kory); ‘ you can cater for all the abilities – basic reading and comprehension for the lower order, all the way up to synthesising, analysing for the higher order, academically gifted’ (Kory); and ‘I use De Bono’s six hats as coordinator of gifted and talented’ (Marie). One of the main aims of using these organisers is to cater for the different ability ranges within the classroom. Other participants mention other differences that must be catered for. These include: ‘visual

194


195

impairment or ADD’ (Mabel), ‘cultural diversity’ (Genevieve), and ‘ESL’ (Mabel). As well as these differences, Genevieve and Holly also speak about different learning styles – ‘I am trying to find hands on and exciting topics for my kinesthetic learners’ (Genevieve), and ‘kids may be better seeing things, other kids might be better at listening’ (Holly). The frequency of these statements shows teachers trying new and different approaches in order to be creative and innovative and to differentiate and cater for all the diverse needs from one class to the next. Again, this is a complex task and requires skill. The diverse needs of students, the subject matter context and the use of a range of approaches demand ‘pedagogic weaving’; in other words, moving backwards and forwards between learning activities, in this instance to accommodate diverse needs. Sally’s earlier reference to ‘chunking’ is an example of this. This second discursive theme of pedagogical knowledge and skills aligns with five standards in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and three standards in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). The sub-themes that were used previously to organise the discursive theme of pedagogical knowledge and skills have been used again to organise statements from the standards documents. It should be noted that the standards documents have no direct reference to teacher centred pedagogies, so this sub-theme is not discussed here. Standards documents INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CENTRED PEDAGOGIES

Standard One from the Professional Standards for Queensland teachers (QCT, 2006) states that teachers should ‘design and implement engaging and flexible learning experiences for individuals and groups’ (p. 7) and Standard Four states that they should ‘assess, select and use a range of individual and group teaching’ (p. 10) This directly aligns with the sub-theme, ‘individual and group centred pedagogies’. No further detail is elaborated in this document in relation to this sub-theme. Investigation of the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) reveals even less detail. Standard 3.3 which states ‘include a range of teaching strategies in teaching’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 12) could possibly be linked, but the statement is so generic that interpretation is difficult.


195

196

PEDAGOGICAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDING MEDIA RESOURCES

Two types of pedagogical activities are prescribed in both standards documents that relate to the sub-theme of pedagogical activities. These are the incorporation of technology and the use of assessment for teaching. In the QCT document, the inclusion of ICT crosses three different standards with statements such as: ‘use teaching, learning and assessment strategies and resources in which ICT is embedded’, ‘make ICT integral to learning’ (Standard One) (QCT, 2006, p. 7); ‘actively use ICT to assess, organise, research, interpret, analyse, create, communicate and represent knowledge’, ‘adopt[ing] new digital technologies to achieve teaching practices more appropriate to the twenty-first century’ (Standard Three) (QCT, 2006, p. 9); and, ‘apply ICT to empower students with diverse backgrounds’ (Standard Four) (QCT, 2006, p. 10). The latter statement overlaps with the sub-theme of differentiated pedagogy, but what this statement actually means is difficult to determine. Standards 2.6 and 3.4 from the AITSL standards maintain the inclusion of ICT, stating that teachers should ‘use effective teaching strategies to integrate ICT into learning and teaching programs’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 11) and ‘use a range of resources including ICT to engage students in their learning’ (p. 12) respectively. The second pedagogical activity, using assessment in teaching, is present in Standard Five from the QCT standards which states ‘use assessment for teaching and learning purposes’ as well as ‘using assessment for learning as well as assessment of learning’ (QCT, 2006, p. 11). No details of any other pedagogical activities are mentioned in either document. However, the inclusion of these two pedagogical activities means that the statement from the QCT standards document – ‘while the standards outline clearly what teachers need to demonstrate, they do not attempt to prescribe how this should be done’ (QCT, 2006, p. 4) – is essentially untrue. Additionally, teachers may feel pressured to incorporate strategies such as ICT because it is prioritised in the standards, rather than being the best strategy for the learning process at hand.

196


197

DIFFERENTIATED PEDAGOGIES

Differentiated pedagogy is the sub-theme with the highest frequency within the standards documents. This sub-theme crosses four different standards in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and four focus areas in Standard One from the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). Illustrations of this sub-theme can be found in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) document with statements such as: teachers should have knowledge of ‘individual learning needs of students including those with particular needs, such as students with disabilities and learning difficulties and gifted students’ (Standard One) (p. 7); ‘monitor and evaluate students’ language, literacy and numeracy (including those for whom English is a second language or dialect’ (Standard Two) (p. 8); ‘design and implement intellectually challenging experiences’ and encourage ‘learning experiences that actively promote student inquiry, creativity and higher order thinking’ (Standard Three) (p. 9). Standard Four outlines the need to ‘design and implement learning experiences that value diversity’, ‘cater for diverse learning styles’, ‘support learning for all students, including those with particular needs such as disabilities, learning difficulties and gifted students’ as well as have knowledge of ‘Australian indigenous culture and history’ and ‘cross cultural sensitivities and perspectives, ensuring students have equity of access to the curriculum’ (p. 10) The AITSL standards also include statements that refer to cultural diversity and the range of students’ abilities. These statements encourage teachers to use ‘strategies that are responsive to the learning strengths and needs of students from diverse linguistic, cultural, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 8), have ‘broad knowledge and understanding … of culture, cultural identity and linguistic background’ (p. 9), ‘differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across a range of abilities’ (p. 9), use ‘teaching strategies that support participation and learning of students with disabilities’ (p. 9), as well as use ‘teaching strategies to develop skills, problem solving and critical and creative thinking’ (p. 12). In the academic literature, the discursive theme of pedagogical knowledge and skills relates to the discourse of practical professionalism (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). In this discourse, teachers’ knowledge of curriculum, teaching


197

198

strategies, the classroom environment and subject matter make up their toolkit in what Brown and McIntyre (1993) have referred to as craft knowledge. Other writers such as Stinnett and Huggett (1963), Purvis (1973), and Travers and Rebore (1990) also emphasise the notion of intellectual techniques and activities as being an integral part of being a teacher professional. Further, Goodson and Hargreaves (1996b) argue that professions should be judged by the complexity of work tasks and, according to the teachers interviewed, teaching is a highly complex form of work. This is complex professionalism. Participants’ responses also indicate that a positive learning environment is essential. For example they point to ‘a learning environment to help children learn’ (Barney) and ‘opportunities for students to speak and learn in a comfortable environment’ (Xanthe). Creating a positive learning environment aligns with Standard Six from the Professional Standards for Queensland teachers (QCT, 2006) which states that learning activities should ‘foster the social, emotional and physical development of students’ (p. 12). Standard Seven, with statements such as ‘creating safe, supportive and stimulating learning environments’ and ‘taking responsibility for establishing and maintaining a positive climate in the classroom and participating in maintaining such a climate in the school as a whole’ (p. 13) also aligns with this notion. There is only one reference to this notion in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) which states: ‘establish and implement inclusive and positive interactions to engage and support all students in classroom activities’ (Standard 4.1) (p. 14). Additionally, Xanthe comments that a classroom should be a mix of ‘fun, be interesting and businesslike’. However, these variables are not mentioned in either of the standards document representing a gap between the textual and spoken discourses. In summary, when professionalism is experienced as knowledge and skills, there is a balanced emphasis on flexibility, creating variety and openness to innovation in order to account for diversity in the classroom and maximise student outcomes. This discourse is covered extensively in the two analysed standards documents. However, the specialised knowledge from the more traditional discourses of professionalism is referred to as ‘content’. This content is usually decided elsewhere, for example by authorities such as the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (ACARA) and teachers are expected to effectively

198


199

implement these external mandates. In effect, teachers are repositioned as nonexperts who put into operation the designs and goals from those outside the profession. In other words, they are technicians who conform to government defined priorities. Implementation of these priorities is promoted through a managerial discourse evident in the career stages in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). Additionally, even though the QCT standards document claims that teachers have freedom to implement the curriculum in their own way, the inclusion of ICT and assessment strategies as pedagogical activities means that this is not the case. These external mandates are disciplinary mechanisms used as a strategy to control the work of teachers. The table below summarises the intersection between the analysed texts and the participants’ responses. Table 4.4: Intersection between texts for Discourse Three

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of knowledge and skills

Content knowledge/ knowledge of subject area

Stinnett & Huggett (1963)

Standards 1 and 3 (QCT)

Classical professionalism

Standard 2 (AITSL)

Transformative professionalism Pedagogical knowledge and skills

Purvis (1973) Travers & Rebore (1990) Practical professionalism

Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (QCT) Standards 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 2.6, 3.3 and 3.4 (AITSL)

Complex professionalism Positive Learning Environment – Standards 6 and 7 (QCT) and Standard 4.1 (AITSL)


199

200

4.1.4 Discourse Four: Professional learning/development (PD)

The discourse of professional learning has one main theme, namely being up-to-date with knowledge and practices and continuing to learn as a teacher. For example, participants note that teachers need to be ‘aware of what is going on elsewhere’ (Mabel),‘you need to get up-to-date with changes’ (Xanthe), ‘keep abreast of changes’ (Mabel), ‘keep current’ (Holly) and ‘keep up-to-date with learning’ (Marie). In this way, as Mabel claims, ‘you don’t go stale as a teacher’, and are ‘more in tune with students and up-to-date with information’. Participants’ responses indicate a variety of ways in which teachers keep themselves ‘up-to-date’ and ‘abreast of changes’. These range from personal forms of professional learning to more collegial forms. Common statements about personal forms of professional learning include: ‘I keep up my reading in what is going on’, ‘getting hold of articles’ (Holly); ‘current publications, current writings’ (Barbara); ‘studying’, ‘doing a Masters, a qualification more than an education degree’ (Mary); and, ‘doing extra qualifications’ (Xanthe). These statements illustrate how some teachers commit to research and higher degree activities in order to add depth and quality to their practice. Participants also identify forms of professional learning that are more collegial. These can be internal to the school – ‘in-service training’ (Kory) and ‘seminars that the school ran’ (Sally) – or external to the school – ‘being a member of a professional group’ (Xanthe), or ‘going to conferences’ (Genevieve). Participants see these activities as a way of ‘networking’ (Jan) or ‘sharing resources’ (Genevieve). Barney raises concerns about the lack of interest that some teachers demonstrate in participating in professional learning. Describing such teachers as unprofessional, he voices his disapproval in the following statement: My concern always is, when you look at someone’s record in terms of their professional development (PD) program, and the only PD they have done is the PD associated with compliance, and they have done nothing in terms of their own subject area, or in terms of pedagogical understandings, or in terms of assessment, that person isn’t growing as a teacher. I would argue quite often, that person in terms of the way in which they are behaving in a classroom, and behaving as a teacher, can be unprofessional.

200


201

Other participants voice their disappointment with some professional learning forums that they have attended – ‘I haven’t found some PD that useful’ (Genevieve), and ‘some of it [PD] is a waste of time’ (Mabel). Another concern voiced about PD is that sometimes teachers cannot pick the PD that they wish to attend. Xanthe says, ‘we can only go to PD if it fits in with the standards’. Jean has experienced this scenario firsthand – ‘I wanted to go to this workshop on de-stressing, but because it is not in the standards, I was not allowed to go’. These statements reveal that PD is reduced or limited to the notions of professionalism or professional learning that are prescribed in standards documents. Furthermore, participants also reveal that they have to keep an account of the PD that they attend on an online site in order to fulfill mandatory PD requirements. Jean says, ‘we have to keep account of the thirty hours that we have to do a year’. Cecilia explains, ‘even though I am doing a PhD, I failed the CPD [Continuous Professional Development] audit because I had not fulfilled all of their criteria’. What Cecilia is referring to is the QCT stipulation that teachers must achieve a balance of CPD across the following areas: (1) Employer directed and supported CPD; (2) School supported CPD; and, (3) Individually identified CPD. Thus, even though Cecilia is doing a PhD, she does not meet the criteria as set out by the QCT. This documentation is a disciplinary mechanism related to the examination where teachers are placed into a ‘field of surveillance’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 189). Foucault (even though not referring directly to teachers) explains that this field situates teachers: … in a network of writing; it engages them in a whole mass of documents that capture and fix them. The procedures of examination were accompanied at the same time by a system of intense registration and of documentary accumulation. A ‘power of writing’ was constituted as an essential part in the mechanisms of discipline (Foucault, 1995, p. 189). The register of professional learning enables the governing authorities’ (QCT) gaze to know the CPD habits of teachers – ‘the accumulation of documents, their seriation, the organisation of comparative fields making it possible to classify, to form categories, to determine averages and fix norms’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 190). In this instance, thirty hours is considered to be the normal professional learning hours for a full time teacher and if this is not achieved, then renewal of teacher registration


201

202

is refused. Teachers have little choice but to comply with the rules. Again, this reveals the standards and their governing institutions as regulatory in nature. In relation to the academic literature, professional learning aligns with ‘new’ professionalism (Goodson, 1999; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b) and ‘transformative’ professionalism. New professionalism asks teachers to commit to continuous learning rather than complying with external mandates, whereas transformative professionalism emphasises the need for teachers to be responsive to change. However, as professional learning becomes more restricted by external mandates in the form of standards, a gap is revealed between the academic literature and policy documents. Democratic (Sachs, 2003) and occupational (Evetts, 2009) discourses of professionalism are also present in the voices of teachers; the former encouraging collaboration and cooperation and the latter asking teachers to construct a professional occupational group. Early writers, Stinnett and Huggett (1963), place emphasis on professional organisation, a message repeated by Xanthe when she says, ‘being a member of a professional group’. ‘Flexible’ discourses (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b) of professionalism are also evident, encouraging teachers to share practice and engage in professional dialogue forming cultures of collaboration. This can be seen in the references to ‘networking’ and ‘sharing resources’. These statements reveal collegial forms of professional learning. Extended professionalism (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b) or extended professionality (Hoyle, 1974) align with personal forms of PD where teachers are interested in research and its relation to practice through ‘current publications’ and involve themselves in wider professional activities such as ‘doing extra qualifications’. Purvis (1973) agrees that research is an important part of being a professional. Standard Ten from the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and Standard Six from the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) align with the discourse of professionalism as involving ongoing professional learning. Standard Ten (QCT, 2006) requires teachers to ‘commit to … ongoing professional renewal’ (p. 16). Both personal and collegial forms of professional learning are mentioned, with teachers being asked to ‘engage in personal and collegial professional development to improve teaching practice’, as well as to ‘contribute to learning communities and professional communities’ (p. 16). The document states that these learning communities can be ‘within the school,

202


203

outside the school or online’ (p. 16), and have the overt aim of enhancing personal and team performance. Therefore, professional learning is identified as a mechanism to improve productivity. Teachers are also asked to participate in ‘mentoring, coaching and professional learning programs’ (p. 16), thus promoting surveillance in a managerial discourse. The QCT (2006) document states that teachers should use professional standards to ‘critically reflect on their practice’ (p. 16) and ‘to analyse professional strengths and weaknesses’ (p. 16), but which standards are to be used for this reflective exercise are not explicitly named. However, the AITSL document states that teachers should ‘demonstrate an understanding’ [G], ‘use’ [P], ‘analyse’ [HA] and ‘use comprehensive knowledge of’ [L] the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011, p. 18) to identify professional learning needs. This directly correlates with the voices of participants who describe the standards as criteria for release for professional learning purposes within their schools. This reveals a managerial or organisational discourse of professionalism. In summary, the main discursive theme relating to the discourse of professionalism as involving professional learning is ongoing professional renewal in terms of being up-to-date with knowledge and practices. However, CPD is limited to the standards documents and promoted through a managerial discourse where the activities of teachers are documented, in this instance as a disciplinary framework for renewal of licensure. The table below summarises the intersection between the analysed texts and the spoken discourses.


203

204

Table 4.5: Intersection between texts for Discourse Four

Discourse


Current/up-toDiscourse of date/abreast of professional learning/development change


Policy as Discourse

New

Standard 10 (QCT)

Democratic Occupational

Standard 6 (AITSL)

Flexible Extended Transformative Stinnett & Huggett (1963) Purvis (1973)

4.1.5 Discourse Five: Specific personal attributes

Professionalism as an amalgam of specific personal attributes is divided into three discursive themes, namely commitment, passion, and ‘striving to do your best’. The first discursive theme is demonstrated by statements such as ‘you are committed to the profession’ (Kate) and ‘you have a commitment and understanding of what it means to be a teacher’ (Jan). Participants indicate their ‘commitment’ through the linking of different terms. These include: ‘dedication’ (Xanthe); ‘responsibility’ (Jean); ‘engagement’ (Sally); ‘dependable’ (Kory); ‘going the extra bit’, ‘doing the hard yards’ (Jan); and, ‘focused’ (Judy). This builds lexical cohesion across the interview responses and provides insights into the ways in which teachers understand the discursive theme of commitment. Jan elaborates by commenting on her experiences. She says, ‘when I entered the profession forty years ago, there was a strong commitment’. She uses the term in this instance to indicate longevity and permanence in the job. She continues by criticising some young teachers’ lack of commitment:

204


205

These days we get young people who come in who are there until they find something better or something different … They don’t have the commitment we had … they don’t have a sense of security or permanence as we once did. (Jan) Other participants also refer to some teachers as being ‘too relaxed’ (Sally), ‘a bit too casual’ (Sue) or ‘disengaged’ (Xanthe) perhaps showing their lack of ‘commitment’. Jan also refers to a time when ‘teachers were held in very high regard in the community’, but she feels that because of the lack of commitment of some members of the younger generation that this sentiment has disappeared. The comments by the participants, and Jan in particular, reveal a degree of vocationalism, a personalised dedication to a lifelong career in the teaching profession, one where you go beyond the call of duty – you ‘have got to rise above the nine to three bit in the classroom’ (Jan). Cecilia concurs, stating that ‘it means pushing yourself beyond’. These statements align with traditional or classical discourses of professionalism (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a) where a strong service ethic is paramount. Other writers from the academic literature such as Stinnett and Hugget (1963) ‘exalt service above personal gain’ in a ‘life career [with] permanent membership’ (p. 57). Purvis (1973) claims that teaching ‘offers a life-time calling within a career structure’, giving ‘a specialised, unique service which is essential to society’ (p. 57), and Travers and Rebore (1990) refer to ‘social service’ and ‘a lifelong career commitment’ (p. 11). Research findings from a study in the UK by Helsby (1995) also identify behavioural traits in teachers such as dedication and commitment. The importance of commitment is also identified in Day, Sammons, Stobart, Kington and Gu’s (2007) large scale study of teachers’ professional identities as well as the more recently published, Swann, McIntyre, Pell, Hargreaves and Cunningham’s (2010) quantitative study of teachers’ conceptions of professionalism. Aligning with the academic literature, the experience of teaching as described by some of the participants is not short-lived but means identifying with the job in the long term, treating it as a vocation. However, the earlier criticisms by Jan illustrate that perhaps this sense of duty is gone and, in effect, teachers have lost their prominent place in the community. As outlined in Chapter Three, the structure of each of the standards in the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) is divided into


205

206

practice, knowledge and values. The stem for the values section states that ‘teachers are committed to…’ (p. 7-16). As well as this, Standard Ten asks teachers to ‘commit to reflective practice and ongoing professional renewal’ (p. 16). The only other mention of ‘commitment’ is the promise QCT makes to using professional standards for Queensland teachers (p. 2). The strong sense of vocation, dedication or going beyond the call of duty as expressed by participants is underplayed within this document, representing a divergence or gap between the personal discourses from the interview data and this policy document. In addition, the term ‘commitment’ is not used in any context in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), once again highlighting the gap. This is noteworthy as these standards have a lifelong career path mapped out where one would think commitment would be mandatory. The second discursive theme is passion. Common statements which illustrate this notion are ‘each teacher has to show their passion’ (Barney), ‘they have got to love what they are doing’ (Janice), and ‘you have to have a passion for teaching’ (Mike). Passion is not just expressed about teaching in general, but also about having a passion towards students and towards subjects. Sue refers to a ‘love of learning’ and Barney speaks of ‘love of students’. Words such as ‘enthusiastic’ (Sue) and ‘fantastic’ (Xanthe) are used to paint a picture of eager teachers doing their jobs. Mike comments that without passion, teaching would leave you ‘pretty disappointed or frustrated’. However, he offers no explanation as to why this might be the case. Other participants make mention of some teachers’ lack of passion by using words such as ‘floundering’ (Jan), ‘disengaged’ (Genevieve) and ‘apathetic’ (Xanthe), attitudes participants believe to be totally unprofessional. Even though ‘passion’ has become a buzzword in contemporary and management literature, strong emotive language is absent from academic and institutional discourses on professionalism representing the gap or divergence between texts and interviews. This could be because passion is not a quality that is limited to teachers, or it could be that the nature of policy documents means that the ‘teacher’ as a human being is somewhat removed. The lists of prescribed competencies are to be followed rather than showing descriptions of teachers having passion for their craft, their subjects or their students. Blackmore (2004) maintains that with the increase of accountability agendas, the ‘real’ and ‘passionate’ work of education is removed.

206


207

The third discursive theme is ‘striving to do your best’ which is shown by statements such as: ‘ensuring that they have the best possible and best quality educational experience that you can provide’ (James); ‘you are trying your very best’, ‘you are on your game’, ‘the best you can do at any point in time’ (Cecilia); ‘putting the job first’ and ‘continually setting goals to improve’ (Genevieve). Once again, these comments show dedication and a sense of duty or devotion to the profession. Such teachers put pressure on themselves to do the job to the highest possible standard, as Genevieve states: ‘I will have a go at anything if I think it might help the students’. What is notable in all these discursive themes is the lack of comment about a sense of reward, fulfillment or satisfaction that such loyalty should bring. Like passion, ‘striving to do your best’ is also absent from the analysed texts. On close examination of professionalism as specific personal attributes, Foucault’s notions of disciplinary power appear to be absent, but notions of selfgovernment are certainly in evidence. Committed, passionate teachers who continually strive to do their best are self-motivated, have an intrinsic self-discipline and do not need a set of professional standards to inform them of what quality in teaching is all about. This is expressed by Xanthe in the following comment: ‘Sometimes I have had to make really tough calls but that’s part of being a professional – having faith in yourself to do the job to the best of your ability’. This discussion shows the shift from government to self-governance where teachers are incited ‘to go beyond the call of duty’ (Xanthe) in search of rewards, in what Marie refers to as ‘careerism’ rather than professionalism. In summary, the specific personal attributes as spoken by teachers align with the traditional or classical literature on professionalism and in general these notions are absent from the policy documents. Teachers are either intrinsically motivated and believe in the equity discourses of education or are self-empowered individuals who wish to compete and climb the corporate ladder. The following table shows the intersection between the analysed documents and interviews.


207

208

Table 4.6: Intersection between texts for Discourse Five

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of specific personal attributes

Commitment

Classical or Traditional discourse

N/A

Stinnett and Hugget (1963) Purvis (1973) Travers and Rebore (1990) Helsby (1995) Passion

N/A

N/A

Striving to do your best

N/A

N/A

4.1.6 Discourse Six: Accountability

The discourse of accountability has two main discursive themes. The first is being accountable to the public or wider society (ethical issues) and the second is accountability to education systems (complying with curriculum and assessment processes). In the first discursive theme, it is evident that teachers are conscious of the considerable influence they have over their students. Participants’ responses indicate that they believe it is necessary to role model positive behaviours both within and beyond the school. Statements which illustrate this include: ‘teachers are significant adults in their lives, so therefore we need to be positive role models’ (Mary), and ‘I think it’s your responsibility to be a good role model not just for the school but also for the profession’ (Xanthe). Participants indicate their positive role modeling through the lexical linking of different terms including: ‘you should behave in a proper manner’ (Holly), ‘have good sense and be gracious’ (Xanthe), ‘friendly’ (Jean), ‘correct’ (Kory), ‘well mannered’ (Mary), ‘circumspect’ (Mabel), ‘aware’ (James), ‘self-critical’ (Mike) and ‘thinking before you act’ (Marie). This builds

208


209

cohesion across the interview responses providing insights into how teachers understand role modeling and what are considered to be positive social behaviours. Xanthe extends the role model position beyond the school – ‘I think it is important to be a good role model inside school but I also think it’s very important to be a good role model outside’. Many participants comment on how their day-to-day, ‘regular’ activities outside school might be perceived. The frequency of such statements reveals cautious teachers who are aware that the community expects them to act as particular kinds of role models for their students. I never get involved in conversations about school aspects in social situations. (Mary) I certainly would never be involved in alcohol or anything like that. (Xanthe) I was aware of not being seen with a gin and tonic in my hand. (Mabel) I think they [teachers] need to be aware that the community has high expectations of them. (Kate) I can’t go anywhere in this locality without seeing someone I taught. (Judy) It is important that wherever you go, I am a teaching professional, I am going to be seen, even if it is by the parents or the students, you are a professional. (Kory) However, you still have to act as a professional even outside school. (Xanthe) The repetition of definitive statements such as ‘I never get involved’, ‘I certainly would never’ and ‘I was aware of not …’ reveals how imperative it is for teachers to portray a conservative professional image to the wider community. This perception of how they should act is a legacy of past views about teachers’ conduct and their elevated position in society. However, Xanthe’s comment ‘you still have to act’ indicates that the professional persona that the community expects might not be the true identity of the person outside their job. Contradictory statements by participants reveal that for some, the work/life balance or establishing ‘professional’ boundaries can be difficult.


209

210

I also believe that teachers need time to themselves so that they can have their own private or personal life. (Mabel) I don’t think it [school] should invade too much in your private life. (Genevieve) These statements reveal a dichotomy for some teachers who wish to keep their private lives private. However, because some teachers feel the panoptic gaze from the community all the time, they modify and self-regulate their behaviours, even when they are not at school. James illuminates how community perceptions of teachers have changed over time: I think teachers today are seen in a different light. I don’t think teachers today have the same community role. The local teacher was someone who was put on a pedestal, an important person in society, educated, they were well read, they were entrusted with the education of people’s children. Not only does this comment from James illustrate that the perceived professional image of teachers in the community has diminished, but it also indicates a community lack of trust in relation to teachers in terms of their knowledge and level of expertise in educating children. James alludes to the ‘blame game’ – ‘they [teachers] are seen as whipping horses for societal ills so if something is wrong, the educational system isn’t doing it, teachers aren’t doing it’. This shows that the dim view taken by the public is perhaps not always warranted; teachers often being used as scapegoats for ‘societal ills’. However, these notions could also align with the discursive theme of commitment from Discourse Five, concerning specific personal attributes. Jan’s previous comment about the lack of commitment from some teachers of the modern era – ‘They don’t have the commitment we had …’ – could directly correlate with the diminished view in the eyes of some community members. As well as the need to portray a ‘professional’ image, participants’ responses also reveal their awareness of current legal requirements both within and beyond the school. The frequency of such statements reveals to what extent legalities are in the foreground in the minds of participants. Common statements include:

210


211

… teachers being deregistered, dismissed from teaching, finding themselves in all sorts of legal problems … (Cecilia) … nowadays with litigation at every corner … (Jean) … staying within the law, legal obligations … (Sue) … you have to behave perfectly outside teaching, otherwise you could be up for misconduct … (Kate) There are legalities in what we do in the classroom, what we do in our personal and private lives, as well as the relationships we have with students and teachers on site. (Cecilia) The repetition of phrases and words such as ‘legal problems’, ‘litigation’, legal obligations’, ‘legalities’ and ‘misconduct’ demonstrates that teachers treat these issues with serious care and attention. The comment below by Sue also reveals the care that teachers are advised to take when dealing with their students: … they tell us that if we are working with students one on one, that we should be within sight of other people, other teachers or if we have a group of students, we have doors open. We are very transparent in our dealings with kids. Once again, this scenario signifies lack of trust, this time between teachers and their students. This might also relate to the discursive theme of professional distance that participants felt they needed to maintain in Discourse One (professional relationships – students). Furthermore, James mentions the ‘litigious nature of a lot of people’, revealing a lack of trust more broadly. He adds that this litigious nature coupled with the pressures of ‘paper chains’, and ‘risk assessments’ have made teaching more complex – ‘things have been added to the job that take away teaching time’. In effect, what James is referring to is the blame/claim mentality and the proliferation of media discourses about parents’ and students’ rights and the public gaze which ensures that schools are dealing with issues rather than concealing them. Where teachers were once given automatic trust, in contemporary society where students have been given louder voices with the power to accuse and blame, teachers now tend to have to prove their innocence.


211

212

These statements show how power is wielded through normalisation. This discursive theme is concerned with the construction of a certain type of individual as a teacher with certain types of characteristics which can be readily managed. Both within and beyond the school boundaries, teachers are expected to conform to the rules. Any departure from correct behaviour, non-observance or ‘that which does not measure up to the rule’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 178) might result in deregistration or dismissal from the profession. Any misdemeanor is written down and becomes ‘a document for possible use’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 191). Teachers are in a position of strict subjection and are once again practising docility. Docility is achieved through discipline which emphasises self-control and compliance or obedience to the rules. The critical gaze of the public or wider community is fixed on the actions of teachers both within the school environment and beyond. Once again, this omnipresent surveillance acts as a mechanism of control. As Foucault describes, the gaze is ‘everywhere and always alert, since by its very principle it leaves no zone of shade and constantly supervises the individuals who are entrusted with the task of supervising’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 177). This critical and regulatory gaze can extend into the private lives of teachers which for some goes beyond what they see as required by their professional status. However, comments also suggest that teachers are watching students and the broader community in order to protect their jobs and reputations. From all perspectives, the picture painted is one of a generalised lack of trust and suspicion. This discursive theme can be seen in Standards Six and Eight (QCT, 2006). As well as mentioning the need to include community agencies in providing learning experiences for students, Standard Six states that teachers should be committed to ‘maintaining ethical and professional relations … with communities’ (QCT, 2006, p. 12) as well as knowing and understanding the ‘relevant legislation and school and employing authority policies related to ethical and professional behaviour’ (QCT, 2006, p. 12). In Standard Eight, the word ‘community’ is repeated fifteen times, showing the dominant role the community plays in education. Teachers are expected to be ‘respectful’, have ‘productive and collaborative relationships’ with community members, acknowledge ‘diverse cultures and communities’, ‘promote the value of education’ to community members, ‘promote the central role … of community members’ and be involved in ‘community-based learning activities’ (QCT, 2006, p.

212


213

14). These notions are in contradiction to James’ earlier statements about past views of the local teacher being ‘put on a pedestal’. Instead, these statements reveal a discourse of accountability, with teachers answering to a loud public voice, wherein lies the balance of power. In the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), Standard Seven, ‘engage professionally with … the community’ (p.19), encompasses meeting professional ethics and responsibilities (Standard 7.1) as well as complying with legislative, administrative and organisational requirements (Standard 7.2) (p. 19). The descriptors across the career stages show intensified levels of accountability in these areas. For example, in Standard 7.1, a graduate teacher should ‘understand and apply the key principles described in codes of ethics and conduct for the teaching profession’ and a lead teacher should ‘model exemplary ethical behaviour and exercise informed judgements in all professional dealings with … the community’ (p. 19). For Standard 7.2, a proficient teacher should ‘understand the implications of and comply with relevant legislative, administrative and organisational and professional requirements, policies and processes’ and for a lead teacher, the descriptor reads to ‘initiate, develop and implement relevant policies and processes to support colleagues’ compliance with, and understanding of, existing and new legislative, organisational and professional responsibilities’ (p. 19). The latter statement in particular reveals a managerial discourse with compliance strongly evident. Transformative professionalism refers to a code of practice and some of the traditional notions of professionalism refer to a code of ethics, for example, Purvis (1973) and Travers and Rebore (1990). However, these notions in the participants’ voices of being accountable to the public align with managerial or organisational professionalism as it is explained in the academic literature. Here, external forms of regulation and accountability act as disciplinary mechanisms to control the work of teachers. Quite often, this is achieved through certification or credentialism, in what Sachs (2003) has referred to as ‘standards of certification or control’. In this accountability regime, licensing replaces trust with the use of regulatory standards. The academic literature and, in particular, the standards documents assert that teachers must act ethically, but the idea that the public should act ethically towards


213

214

teachers is absent from these texts. This represents a gap or divergence in the spoken discourses and the texts, the balance of power resting with the wider community, diminishing teachers’ authority. As in the discourse of professionalism as specific personal attributes (Discourse Five), the nature of policy documents means that the recognition of the ‘teacher’ as a human being is somewhat removed. The lists of prescribed competencies are to be followed as a set of rules and complied with. The second discursive theme is accountability to education systems. There are two different but connected notions within this discursive theme. The first notion is concerned with adherence to curriculum guidelines and the second is the use of high stakes testing and assessment data. Statements which support the first notion include, ‘we follow the syllabuses’ (Xanthe) and ‘we follow QSA requirements’ (James). The Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) is a statutory body of the Queensland Government responsible for the provision of a range of curriculum services such as syllabuses, assessment, testing and moderation. Standard One from the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) aligns with the participants’ responses for this discursive theme. This standard states that teachers should have knowledge of ‘relevant curriculum frameworks and school authority and employers policies and procedures relating to curriculum frameworks and program documents’ (QCT, 2006, p. 7). Standard Five from the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) repeats this message of meeting or ‘complying with curriculum, system and/or school assessment requirements’ (p. 16). Adherence to curriculum documents is referred to in Discourse Three. Regardless of responses demonstrating that teachers attempt to follow these guidelines, there is an overwhelming feeling of frustration with these guiding authorities because of the number and frequency of changes imposed on teachers. Statements which demonstrate this include: ‘there are rapid changes in curriculum affecting Queensland schools’ (James); ‘Queensland schools are in a spin’ (Jan); ‘changing too many things too quickly’ (Xanthe); ‘let’s try fifteen things at once, then going onto the next without bedding down something properly’ (Janice); and, ‘we’ve got state agendas and national agendas and teachers are, you know, constantly being asked to revise things’ (James).

214


215

These statements indicate that perplexed teachers are tired of the constant changes being imposed on them by both state and national education systems. Reactions range from ‘feeling the pressure’ (Xanthe) and ‘worry’ (James), to exasperation – ‘just let me teach’ (Holly). Additionally, other comments such as, ‘just tell me what to do and I will do it well’ (Holly) and ‘we just want to be told what to do’ (Jan) demonstrate that some participants would be happy to forgo their autonomy as long as decisions are made and adhered to by curriculum authorities. Genevieve has reached the stage of not caring – ‘I don’t care if teachers have autonomy or not’. Kory also recognises that ‘sometimes [he] sees older teachers just giving up’. However, James alludes to a degree of resistance – ‘I don’t even think teachers are taking it [curriculum change] on board any more’. This correlates with Foucault’s idea that where power is exercised, there is always the possibility of resistance and the formation of a counter discourse. Such non-compliance contradicts the earlier statements in which teachers indicate that they follow curriculum authority guidelines. However, the dominant feelings in the participants’ responses are disillusionment and dependency. The proliferation of accountability measures and political games where changes are rapid are in effect creating a culture of apathy. Governments, in their efforts to score political points from the general public, have little regard for the craft of teaching where teachers make flexible choices for the good of their particular students and contexts. The second notion is the imposed accountability of assessment procedures and processes. Participants refer to the Queensland Core Skills Test (QCS), the Queensland Curriculum and Reporting Framework (QCAR) and the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). The latter are national high stakes tests introduced in Australia in 2008 which, according to these participants, have affected the work of teachers in various ways. Common statements reveal how some participants have welcomed their inclusion, whereas the reactions of others have been negative. James suggests: ‘With national tests, people just feel that they are constantly just being checked up on’. This time the gaze is exercised by employers and governing bodies. However, others have embraced the testing process and are using the data generated from the tests to improve their teaching. Thus, as Judy states, ‘I have been heavily involved in NAPLAN testing. We have developed a program to ensure our students are prepared in regards to literacy’. She continues,


215

216

‘you definitely need to use the data in a way that’s going to be supportive of the students’. Foucault asserts that the examination combines the techniques of an observing hierarchy – ‘people just feel that they are constantly being checked up on’ – and those of normalising judgement (Foucault, 1995). Examinations play a vital role in the surveillance and ranking of students and after a move away from examinations during the last three decades of the twentieth century, they are once again becoming increasingly dominant in the lives of teachers, as they say: ‘we have developed a program’; ‘you definitely need to use the data’. Foucault states that ‘the examination enabled the teacher, while transmitting his knowledge, to transform his pupils into a whole field of knowledge’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 186). Examinations are ‘a constant exchange of knowledge’ (Foucault, 1995, p.187) that guarantees the movement of knowledge from the teacher to the student, but also provides the teacher with knowledge about the student’s performance. As the examination is accompanied by a system of registration and documentation, this therefore permits the objectification of subjects. This accumulation of information makes it possible ‘to classify, to form categories, to determine averages, to fix norms’ (Foucault, 1995, p.190). As a result, each individual becomes a case that can be ‘described, judged, measured, and compared with others as well as trained or corrected, classified, normalised, excluded’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 191). Judy explains – ‘we had two trial tests, one in February and another one in March and that gave us the feedback we needed to see what they [the students] didn’t know’. However, what this also reveals is control of teacher activities because of their need or desire to prepare students for these tests. The external pressure from high stakes testing places a hold over teachers so that they not only operate the way governing bodies want them to, but also with efficiency in order to improve student outcomes. These disciplinary measures have produced ‘subjected and practised bodies, docile bodies’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 138). Further statements from Judy and Xanthe indicate how examinations are used to classify students’ performance – ‘the performance of the cohort was above state average’ (Judy) and ‘20% were under national benchmark’ (Xanthe). Additionally, Jan indicates that students’ examination results are also a key indicator of a teacher’s performance – ‘each teacher has a list of their class and the number of As, Bs etc, so there needs to be some discussion about each teacher and their performance’.

216


217

Therefore, student performances on standardised tests are being used as evaluations of teacher competency, in effect disciplining teachers. Thus, the examination not only individualises different student subjects who are caught within the panoptic gaze, but it also makes visible the teacher’s performance and, more recently, the schools’ performance with the publication of data in newspapers and online sites such as the MySchool website by ‘arranging facts in columns and tables’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 190). Once again, there is no ‘zone of shade’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 177). The spotlight is on everybody. Foucault says: ‘Their visibility assures the hold of the power exercised over them. It is the fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 187). In this instance, students, teachers and schools are disciplined into conforming with the government sanctioned high stakes testing programs. Foucault observes that examinations constitute ‘a comparative system that [makes] possible the measurement of the overall phenomena, the description of groups, the characterisation of collective facts, the calculation of the gaps between individuals and their distribution in a given population’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 190). Through the publication of students’ assessment data, school performances can be monitored and compared. Publication of data is central to surveillance. Examination of the two most recent standards documents affecting Queensland teachers illustrates that this discursive theme has priority positioning. In the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006), Standard Five specifically asks teachers to ‘prepare information on student performance and use this to communicate and report student progress to … certification authorities and other stakeholders through school reporting arrangements’ (p. 11). In addition, Standard One requires teachers to ‘gather and analyse student performance data’ (p. 7) and Standard Two asks teachers to ‘use a variety of inclusive assessment strategies to gather information and make judgements on students’ language, literacy and numeracy skills, and use these data in the design and implementation of learning experiences (p. 8). These statements reflect Judy’s preparation of her students for NAPLAN testing. Standard Five in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) continues this theme, calling on all teachers to ‘demonstrate the capacity to interpret student assessment data’ and lead teachers specifically to ‘co-


217

218

ordinate student performance’ and ‘evaluate and revise reporting and accountability mechanisms’ (p. 17). The prioritisation of this discursive theme within these standards documents suggests that governments are using high stakes testing as external forms of control over the work of teachers. Their performance can be measured and compared. Of course, this is not new, but what is new is the rate and frequency of such testing. What is absent from the standards documents, representing a gap between spoken discourses and policy documents, is the dissatisfaction that teachers are experiencing with the endless array of changes. In the academic literature, some of the principles relating to ‘new’ professionalism provide a counter-discourse to this constant change and perhaps align with the pockets of resistance evident in the participants’ responses. The discourse of ‘new’ professionalism asks teachers to commit to cultures of collaboration rather than implementing the external mandates of others and complying with the enervating obligations of endless change demanded by others (Goodson, 1999; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996b). However, in practice, this is a difficult option. Instead, the discourse of accountability aligns with managerial (Sachs, 2003), demanded (Evans, 2008, 2011) or organisational (Evetts, 2009) discourses of professionalism. In these discourses, teachers are discursively repositioned as the last in line of a management hierarchy. Educational decisions are made elsewhere and it is up to the teacher to work in a standardised and accountable environment. They rely on external forms of regulation such as high stakes testing, and accountability replaces professional judgement or autonomy. Sachs (2003) has argued that the emphasis is on quality control. The prioritisation of accountability mechanisms in the two most recent standards documents reveals that they are ‘standards for quality assurance’ and regulatory in nature. It should also be noted that in Queensland at the time of writing (2011), proposals are already in motion for the testing of pre-service teachers after they complete their university studies. After a relaxation in the examination of teachers in the 1970s and 1980s, teachers have once again become the examined. The following table summarises the intersection between the teachers’ spoken discourse of professionalism as being accountable and the analysed texts.

218


219

Table 4.7: Intersection between texts for Discourse Six

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of accountability

Being accountable to the public/wider community

Purvis (1973)

Standards 6, 8 (QCT)

Travers & Rebore (1990) managerial

Standards 7.1 and 7.2 (AITSL)

organisational transformative Being accountable to education systems:

new

Standard 1 (QCT)

managerial

Curriculum guidelines and authorities

organisational

Standard 5 (AITSL)

demanded

Assessment and data

Standards 1, 5 (QCT) Standard 5 (AITSL)

4.1.7 Discourse Seven: Leadership

Leadership as a professional attribute emerges in two main discursive themes. The first is the ‘principal as a leader’ and the second is ‘shared leadership’. Statements which illustrate the importance that teachers bestow on the notion of principal as leader include: ‘principals determine the flavour of the school, the culture of the school’, ‘they could make or break the school’ (James); and, ‘whether or not teachers are contented … really depends a great deal, to a great extent, on the person who is leading the school’ (Sue). Another participant, Barbara, suggests that the principal has to be ‘efficient’, ‘inspiring’ and ‘supportive’, and Janice argues that ‘leaders have to be proactive innovators for school improvement and effectiveness’. Although Barbara and Janice


219

220

both used the words ‘efficient’ and ‘effectiveness’, the amalgam of the comments above reveal that participants expect more than an efficient and effective line manager, as the whole culture of the school rests on the leader’s characteristics – ‘they could make or break the school’. This statement is in contradiction to the discourse of efficient organisation elaborated by participants elsewhere (Discourse Two). Furthermore, ‘whether or not the teachers are contented’ depends on the principal’s leadership qualities in the creation of a positive or happy school environment where teachers are satisfied. Interestingly, given the increased gaze of accountability, some participants state that they like their leader to be ‘visible’ – ‘the ones that come into the classroom and are interested in getting involved – to me that shows professionalism’ (Marie). This comment shows that teachers welcome being observed by the principal. His/her presence may provide reassurance; it may help them to focus or show that communication lines are open. They do not see this as power in the form of hierarchical observation or a managerial discourse; rather, they acknowledge this deprivatisation as an opportunity for critical evaluation to improve practice. Their view is that professional observation by the principal provides support and shows them [principals] ‘getting involved’. In contrast to this view, some participants are not very complimentary about their principals. For example, Sue remarks, ‘I don’t like dictatorial leadership’, and Marie says, ‘I think some principals equate leadership with a very autocratic view that their view is right and that is it’. Marie elaborates on an experience where she describes the principal as ‘a bully’, ‘picking her subjects’ and ‘targeting them’. In Marie’s opinion, this ‘was just horrible, very unprofessional’. The second discursive theme within the discourse of professionalism as leadership encompasses ‘shared leadership’. Common statements to support this discursive theme include: ‘I like that sort of leadership where people share in decision-making, collaboration’ (Sue), ‘I believe strongly in shared leadership’ (Kate), and ‘all teachers in some way have a leadership role; it’s part of being a professional’ (Sue). Kate elaborates on this viewpoint by saying: I believe that it’s not a hierarchy. I mean sometimes in organisations we use structures like that and there is a sense of authority and hierarchy, but I think

220


221

the more that’s played down, then you have people seeing themselves as leaders in their own right so it is about their skills, their knowledge. These comments show a collaborative model of leadership where teachers share a sense of purpose and responsibility. They have the chance to exercise professional judgement in the company of their peers where they develop a sense of self-efficacy and empowerment – ‘I like to feel … that my ideas are respected and that I am seen as an equal’ (Sue). Janice, a principal, supports the notion of shared leadership in the following statement: I don’t believe that you do your school any good by being the founder [sic] of all wisdom and the corner which everything has to go through because that means if you are not there … it all falls apart. People have to take ownership themselves and have to live that in a professional capacity. This illustrates how one principal surrenders some of her power for the benefits of building capacity and creating ownership. Furthermore, a comment from Judy reveals that, as a leader in a school, she believes it is part of her leadership role to instill in the students the qualities of being a leader. She says, ‘within the role of DP, I always had a session with the Year 12s about leadership’. In summary, the principal as leader sets the tone for professionalism that permeates through the whole school community. Where ‘shared leadership’ is practiced, teachers are empowered and have some professional autonomy. Leadership is not spelled out in the academic literature on professionalism, although it is widespread in educational literature in general. However, the notion of professional autonomy implied by participants’ responses relates to classical (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a) or traditional discourses of professionalism. Writers such as Hoyle (1974), Furlong et al. (2000) and Leaton Gray and Whitty (2010) agree that autonomy is central to a traditional notion of professionalism. The increased opportunity and responsibility to exercise judgement over issues of teaching is repeated in ‘new’, ‘principled’, or ‘post-modern’ professionalism (Goodson, 1999; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a), transformative professionalism (Sachs, 2003), as well as in Evetts’ (2009) notion of ‘occupational’ professionalism. The latter refers to collegial authority and trust from employers. Therefore, even


221

222

though there is an absence of discussions relating to leadership in the academic literature on professionalism, the notions of professional judgement and collegial authority that participants associated with leadership are to some degree present. Examination of the QCT standards document reveals an absence of the notions of leadership. However, AITSL, responsible for the National Professional Standards for Teachers (2011), gives the discourse of leadership priority positioning. The career profile structure has leadership potential inbuilt, or as Foucault would say, ‘distribution according to rank or grade’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 181). The words ‘lead’ or ‘leadership’ are mentioned seven times in the introductory section and repeated a further twenty-four times within the lead teachers’ career stage descriptors. The frequency prioritises the notion of leadership with lead teachers asked to lead colleagues in development areas such as ‘comprehensive content knowledge’ (AITSL, 2011, p. 10), ‘teaching strategies’ (p. 8), ‘professional learning opportunities’, ‘professional learning policies’ (p. 18), ‘behaviour management’ (p. 14), ‘ICT’ (p. 11), and ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ studies (p. 11). These statements imply that experienced teachers or lead teachers are given autonomy in these areas. However, on closer examination of other statements, for example, ‘lead processes to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching programs’ (p. 8), ‘lead initiatives within the school to evaluate …’ (p. 10) and ‘lead and evaluate moderation activities’ (p. 16), the impression given is not that of autonomy but of a managerial discourse where lead teachers ‘manage’ the performance and effectiveness of their less experienced colleagues. Therefore, teachers are distributed according to ‘rank’ which maintains hierarchical observation and normalising judgement. The less experienced teachers are under the critical gaze of the lead teachers, who train them in the areas that need to be developed. In Foucault’s words (although his reference is to students rather than teachers), constant pressure is exercised over them to: … conform to the same model, so that they all might be subjected to subordination, docility, attention in studies and exercises, and to the correct practice of duties and all the parts of discipline. So that they all may be like one another (Foucault, 1995, p. 182). In effect, ‘the Normal is established as a principle of coercion in teaching with the introduction of a standardised education’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 184). This shows that

222


223

the hierarchical structure built into the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) not only creates power relations, but also brings about a certain degree of standardisation of practices. Again, this reveals these standards as regulatory in nature. To conclude, leadership is included as part of these teachers’ regime of truth in relation to professionalism, but this notion is largely absent from the academic literature and the QCT standards documents representing a divergence or gap between the discourses. This is noteworthy as leadership is strongly evident in the teachers’ responses. However, with the inclusion of lead teachers in the career profile for teachers in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), this notion is quite dominant. That said, with a critical gaze, the references to leadership are a disguise for ‘management’. The table below shows the intersection between participants’ responses, the academic literature and policy texts. Table 4.8: Intersection between texts for Discourse Seven

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of leadership

‘principal as leader’

Not in professionalism literature

Not in QCT standards

‘shared leadership’ Classical/traditional ‘new’, ‘principled’ or ‘post-modern’ ‘occupational’

Not directly about the principal in AITSL document Not in QCT standards In all lead teacher descriptors in AITSL document

‘transformative’


223

224

4.1.8 Discourse Eight: Reflective practices

Discourses around reflection in relation to professionalism embody thoughtful judgement and evaluation of practice, but for two different purposes. The first purpose is to strengthen and develop teacher knowledge and skills, and the second is to improve outcomes for students. The first notion is described in statements such as, it [reflection] ‘made me focus’ (Mabel), ‘made me try harder’ (Genevieve), gave me ‘vision’ (Janice), and ‘made me realise I had to change that practice’ (Xanthe). These ideas are furthered by Genevieve reflecting on ‘what works, what doesn’t, what could I do better’. Additionally, Janice describes reflection as ‘important’, and disapproves of those teachers who do not reflect – ‘people who don’t reflect … that is not being fully professional’. These participants emphasise the importance of reflexivity and actively self-evaluate, seeking insight into their own instruction and classroom practices. This discursive theme reveals teachers as learners and critical reflective practitioners. This notion overlaps with the discourse of professional learning (Discourse Four). For some participants, reflection includes: ‘researching’, doing ‘a lot of reading on the topic’, ‘reading a number of reports and reviews’ (Janice); and, looking at ‘different technologies, different attitudes … different ways of doing things’ (Xanthe). In Janice’s case, her reflection is about the implementation of middle-schooling practices which were informed by educational literature. Janice also speaks about the ‘need to evaluate’. In this context, she is referring to evaluation in terms of investigating one’s own practice to improve student outcomes. This is the second notion within this discursive theme. Statements which embody this discourse include: ‘what we’re doing, why we’re doing it and is it meeting the needs of the kids’ (Janice) and to ‘always be on the lookout for things that will make the deal better for the kids’ (Mabel). These statements reveal a commitment by the participants to investigate their own practice for the benefit of their students. In summary, reflection is a commitment to teaching, the self and the learner. The discourse of reflection aligns with ‘practical professionalism’ (Bottery & Wright, 1997; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a) from the academic literature. This discourse of professionalism relies on the experience of teachers in practical

224


225

situations and embraces tacit knowledge as ‘a source of valid theory’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 11). These writers refer to ‘reflective judgement and developing and drawing on a wide repertoire of knowledge and skill, to meet goals of excellence and equity within relationships of caring’ (Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a, p. 13). As already outlined in Chapter Two, an extrapolation of this discourse is the idea of the ‘reflective practitioner’, a notion first coined by Schön (1983). Hoyle’s (1974) work on extended professionality adopted by Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) in ‘extended professionalism’ is also present. In this discourse, teachers selfevaluate and have an interest in theory and its relation to practice. This is evident in the ‘researching’ and ‘doing a lot of reading on the topic’ that some participants speak about. Although reflection is not mentioned directly in ‘new professionalism’ (Goodson, 1999, 2000; Goodson & Hargreaves, 1996a) discourses, statements such as ‘a self-directed search’ and ‘continuous learning’ (Goodson, 2000, p. 187) could imply that reflection has been undertaken. The discourse of reflection aligns with Standard Ten from the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and prescribes that teachers ‘commit to reflective practice and ongoing professional renewal’ (p. 16). The language used includes ‘reflective practitioners’, ‘self assessment’ and ‘critically reflect[ing] on their practice’ (p. 16). Teachers are asked to ‘analyse professional strengths and weaknesses’ and incorporate ‘strategies for reflective practice, professional renewal and lifelong learning’ (p. 16). The term reflection is only mentioned in one other standard, Standard Three. In the context of this standard, teachers are asked to encourage their students ‘to critically reflect on’, undertake ‘critical analysis, reflection and problem solving’ as well as ‘critical thinking’ (QCT, 2006, p. 9). This relates to the notion of improving student outcomes evident in the participants’ responses. In Standards One, Two, Four, Five and Nine, rather than the use of the verb ‘to reflect’, teachers are required to ‘review learning experiences’ (p. 7), ‘evaluate learning experiences’ (p.7), ‘monitor and evaluate student’s literacy’ (p. 8), ‘monitor and evaluate student learning’ (p. 15), ‘review critically their personal language’ (p. 8), and ‘review individual and group learning’ (p. 10). Here, teachers are the object of power and exercise this in the form of observation. A performance culture is promoted by the gaze from the teacher manipulating and coercing the students to produce improved outcomes. A further statement in Standard Nine


225

226

requires the ‘review of team activities and processes’ (QCT, 2006, p. 15) in order to enhance the performance of professional teams. Once again, this is a performance statement, but this time in relation to the conduct of teachers. Where teams work together, opportunities exist for their work to be visible to other members of the team. In effect, because of the critical gaze from colleagues, teachers exercise selfdiscipline and become more productive. The Preamble of the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) states that teachers can ‘judge the success of their learning and inform their self reflection and self assessment’ (p. 2). Other than this instance, there is no mention of reflection. However, the verb ‘to evaluate’ is used eleven times, sometimes co-located with ‘to monitor’ in statements such as ‘evaluate the effectiveness of teaching’ (p. 8) and ‘monitor and evaluate the implementation of teaching strategies’ (p. 11). The regularity of statements such as this is limited to highly accomplished and lead teachers in the career profile. Furthermore, to revise/review is used nine times, also restricted to the two upper career stages in statements such as ‘work with colleagues to review, modify and expand their repertoire of teaching strategies’ (p. 12), ‘conduct regular reviews’ (p. 13), and ‘revise reporting and accountability mechanisms’ (p. 17). Like the performance statements from the QCT standards, these standards promote hierarchical observation in a managerial discourse. Once again, this identifies these standards as regulatory in nature. Even though statements such as ‘to meet the needs of students’ indicate that these activities are taking place in the interests of improved student outcomes, the implication is that teachers higher on the career profile are watching the less experienced teachers to make them more useful and productive. The following table summarises the limited intersection between the texts highlighting the gap or divergences in the discourse.

226


227

Table 4.9: Intersection between texts for Discourse Eight

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of reflective practices

Reflection for improvement of teacher knowledge and skills

Practical professionalism

Standard 10 (QCT)

Reflective Practitioner

Preamble (AITSL)

Extended professionality or professionalism New professionalism Reflection for improved student outcomes

Practical professionalism

Standard 3 (QCT)

4.1.9 Discourse Nine: Professional standards

The definition of professionalism as meeting professional standards is mentioned by all participants. However, close examination of the interview responses reveals that ‘professional standards’ mean different things to different participants. This discourse is divided into two discursive constructions of standards. The first discursive theme reveals a ‘slippery’ perception of professional standards that appears to escape definition and encompasses a range of activities, whereas the second discursive theme is concerned with personal standards of presentation. However, before elaborating these discursive themes, the following table illuminates the knowledge that participants possess of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006). At the time of interview, these standards had been in existence for two years and made up the most recent standards document in Queensland. The following introductory section also details Queensland teachers’ perceptions of the implementation of standards. For clarity, responses have been arranged in tabular form identifying three categories: no knowledge of the standards, aware of their existence but little content knowledge, and comprehensive knowledge of the standards document.


227

228

Table 4.10: Knowledge of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006)

No knowledge

‘never heard of them’ (Mike) ‘um, nothing, professional standards, is that complying with what the government says you have do, no, I know nothing about them’ (Genevieve)

Aware of ‘I pay my membership every year so I can be registered. I think existence but no I flicked through them in a magazine that they send through the content knowledge door, but other than that I would not know explicitly what those standards were’ (Tia) ‘I am aware of them. I know there are ten, but I wouldn’t be able to rattle all ten off to you’ (Mary) ‘I am aware that it’s there, I am aware there are documents. I did read some of it at some stage but I wouldn’t be able to articulate, um, what the detail is’ (Barbara) Comprehensive knowledge

‘The ten QCT Standards were developed by the State Government, State Education to really look at – well I see them as something teachers can really look at and reflect on their own practice, so they can look at how well they are delivering content, how well they are forming relationships both with students and other staff members in and outside the classroom and how you are continually progressing to become a better educator. So there is a range of different standards and by taking a step back and looking at how you meet each of the standards, you are able to tell, well I am not doing this one really well, I can do this better, and they just allow you to reflect on your teaching and learning, your relationships and your professional development’ (Kory) ‘The 3 clusters I think are important, I guess everyone talks about the teaching and learning which I have already spoken a fair bit about now. The second one, the second group or cluster is about interpersonal relationships, and with those standards it goes beyond the classroom and even beyond the school and the importance of connecting with the community which I think is really important in schools especially in bigger schools where children tend to get lost a little bit in the crowd … And I guess the last standard of the QCT Standards is to keep, sorry, is for reflective practice and I guess it is essential especially when developing major assessment units – it is really important to be able to, I guess be able to critically and effectively reflect on the work that you have done to ensure that both the students and yourself, and myself as a teacher are reflecting and gaining from the learning experiences …’ (Sally)

228


229

These statements illustrate that some teachers are not engaging with professional standards – ‘never heard of them’ (Mike) or ‘I wouldn’t be able to articulate, what the detail is’ (Barbara), whereas others have a comprehensive knowledge of their formation and content – ‘the ten QCT Standards were developed by the State Government’ (Kory), and the ‘second group or cluster is about interpersonal relationships’ (Sally). It is noteworthy that Kory and Sally, who demonstrate most knowledge of the standards, are both first year teachers who explained that their knowledge of standards was obtained whilst at university. It would appear that higher education institutions (HEIs) are enforcing the standards reform agenda. This is not surprising as HEIs’ funding and accreditation of courses are linked to standards implementation. In this instance, it is universities that are under the gaze from governing authorities and must comply in order to have courses accredited. This reveals that the balance of power lies with the government. Writing about experiences in the UK, Furlong et al. (2000) claim that: The assumption behind policy within this area [professionalism] has been that changes in the form and content of initial teacher education will, in the long run, serve to construct a new generation of teachers with different forms of knowledge, different skills and different professional values’ (Furlong et al., 2000, p. 6). Kory and Sally are indicative of this new generation in Queensland whose initial teacher education training is based on the professional standards discourse. Therefore, as teachers, they have ‘different forms of knowledge, different skills and different professional values’ (Furlong et al., 2000, p. 6). Mary also demonstrates a reasonable knowledge of standards. Her role within her school is the supervision of pre-service teachers. She says: I meet with the beginning teacher, and go through the ten standards, and they need to show me … how they are reaching those professional standards, or not reaching them – which ones they think they are doing very well in, and not doing well in, and what is it that I can do to help them develop in those areas. This also reveals that university procedures are based on the standards discourse.


229

230

Participants’ responses show divided opinion about the usefulness of the QCT (2006) standards. Some describe the standards as: ‘important’, ‘a level that people should aspire to’ (Sue); ‘excellent’ (Jean); and, ‘comprehensive’, as well as having ‘application’ (Kate). The uses of these different terms indicate lexical cohesion across participants’ responses, giving insights to the value some teachers place on standards. Janice outlines her views about which teachers might benefit from standards implementation. She says: There are two lots of teachers who could need them. There is the beginning teacher who needs to know how the land lies and the standards you use for mapping the land … then there are the teachers at the other end of the spectrum who’ve been teaching some time – sometimes a long time and they’ve really forgotten why they are there in the first place and they need the standards to be reminded what is expected of them. Janice adds that ‘the public probably needs them too, to show that teachers do have standards’. According to this participant, standards described in this sense are a useful guide for beginning teachers, for more experienced teachers who may have become disenchanted, and for the public. However, other opinions challenge standards describing them as ‘old hat’ (Kate), ‘a reductionist way of thinking’ (Barney), and asking ‘why we actually have to write them, we never had standards prescribed to us before’ (Barney). Barney reveals his hopes by saying, ‘I hope professional standards become nothing more than just a framework for us’. Knowledge of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) is not specifically outlined in the QCT document, but in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), Standard 6.1 states that all teachers through the four career stages should ‘demonstrate an understanding of the role of’, ‘use’, ‘analyse’ and ‘use comprehensive knowledge of’ the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011, p. 18) respectively. The inclusion of this standard aims to give teachers a guide in order to identify professional learning needs. However, when investigated critically, the inclusion of a standard such as this prescribes in more detail than ever before the structure of lifelong learning (see Discourse Four, professionalism as professional learning).

230


231

Teachers’ professional learning is spelled out for them and is, in effect, standardised. This eliminates the legitimacy of professional judgement which was once an important aspect of the more classical/traditional conceptions of professionalism. This reveals the most recent standards document fundamentally as regulatory in nature, promoting a managerial discourse. In the discourse of professionalism as meeting professional standards, participants’ responses reveal that no clear definition for the word ‘professional’ is present and there is a lack of agreement on what ‘standards’ in education are. A number of statements suggest that teachers take their professional status for granted – ‘being professional is just part of the job’ (Barney), ‘as a teacher you should always behave in a professional manner’ (Xanthe), and ‘I would hope you are behaving in a professional manner all the time when you are teaching’ (Marie). These statements, however, do not explicate what the word ‘professional’ means. A multitude of definitions is offered where the word ‘standards’ is concerned. This ranges from an ‘acceptable level’, ‘working to your best’ (Xanthe); ‘codes of conduct’ (Mabel); ‘behaviour’, ‘number of hours you have to do’ or ‘basic day-today running expectations’ (Tia). Additionally, Tia describes standards as ‘something that is just assumed’ or ‘you know yourself intuitively’. According to Mabel, ‘if standards slip, you become unprofessional’. These various statements reveal a lack of cohesion across participants’ responses; there is no agreement on how standards should be defined in teaching. This aligns with the thoughts of Gipps (1990) who claims that ‘standards’ is one of the most loosely used terms in education. Many voices of authority including Hoyle (1974), Helsby (1995) and Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) have written at length on the word ‘professional’ and its derivatives, professionality, professionalisation and professionalism. As argued in Chapter Two, there is only partial agreement on their definitions. The same ambiguity exists in the academic literature around the word ‘standards’, again with many voices of authority such as Sachs (2003), Mahony and Hextall (2000) and Ingvarson (2002a) entering the debate, identifying various competing discourses. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is no clear definition of what ‘professional’ means and no agreement on a definition for ‘standards’ in the participants’ responses.


231

232

The ambiguity continues with the investigation of the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). ‘Professional’ is repeated thirty-two times and forty-seven times respectively in the two documents’ introductory sections, and is co-located in the QCT (2006) document with ‘standards’, ‘development’, ‘values’ (p. 1), ‘commitment’, ‘relationships’, ‘renewal’, and ‘teams’ (p. 4), and in the AITSL (2011) document with ‘knowledge’, ‘practice’, and ‘engagement’ (p. 3). Once again, a clear definition is lacking in these statements. The same applies for ‘standards’ mentioned thirty-two times by the QCT and forty-five times by the AITSL. In the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006), ‘standards’ are used to ‘support the complex and varied nature of a teacher’s work’, ‘enhance teacher professionalism’, ‘boost public confidence’, and ‘promote high quality teaching’ (p. 2). In the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), ‘standards’ are used in the context of ‘effectiveness’, ‘attracting, developing, recognising and retaining quality teachers’ (p. 1), ‘registration’, ‘accreditation’ (p. 2), ‘professional learning’ and ‘professional growth’ (p. 3). This evidence corroborates Andrew’s (1997) claim that standards have become the answer to all questions, or the magic ingredient needed to restructure education. Darling-Hammond (1999) agrees with Andrew, arguing that they are not a magic bullet. However, from the policy documents analysed, it appears that standards are ‘magic’. The second discursive theme within the discourse of meeting professional standards is standards as presentation. Although Mabel mentions the standard of presentation of students’ work – ‘it shouldn’t be on a dog-eared piece of paper’ – all other comments from participants are related to dress and appearance. The frequency of such statements suggests the importance participants place on presentation. Common statements include: ‘the dress code’, ‘smartly dressed’ (Mabel); ‘acceptable work clothes’ (Kory); ‘standard of dress’, ‘total presentation’ (Barney); ‘good impression’, ‘dressed very businesslike’ (Sally); ‘well groomed and dressed without being going overboard’ (Kate); ‘not like they have rolled out of bed’ (Jean); and, ‘well dressed or being dressed appropriately’ (Xanthe). By ‘appropriately’, Xanthe means that ‘you aren’t in a low cut top or short skirt and for men that you are well groomed and clean shaven’. Others agree with these ‘appropriate’ boundaries – ‘I don’t think having, um, parts of body on show that could cause kids

232


233

to talk about them very appropriate, like the midriff open or lots of piercing or tattoos and stuff, I think that’s pretty much inappropriate’ (Jean). The following comment from Mary relays a conversation she had with her students. The students said, ‘A certain teacher wears T-shirts and jeans and we don’t think that’s very professional, whereas others dress well’. As in Discourse Six (professionalism as being accountable), the focus of this discursive theme is about ‘professional image’. Barney suggests that even though ‘it’s [presentation] cosmetic, it does give an indication of the value a teacher puts around their profession’. Jean reminds us that other people judge on appearance – ‘we know that in the first three seconds people make up their mind about what someone’s like because of the care and attention to their grooming and dress’. Therefore, as well as being about image, this notion incorporates giving the right impression. Once again, this is a legacy of past views of teachers. Additionally, other participants include being ‘healthy’, ‘feeling good about yourself’ (Janice), ‘having positive self-esteem’ (Mike), being ‘self-aware’, ‘focused’, ‘self-managed’, (Barbara), ‘energetic’, ‘alive and well’, having ‘vitality and showing efficiency’ (Kate) as part of their notion of meeting professional standards. These statements illuminate how teachers subject themselves to restrictions in terms of dress and presentation. Although Xanthe has commented on male teachers being ‘well groomed and clean shaven’, most responses refer to female dress – ‘a low cut top’ or a ‘short skirt’ or the ‘midriff open’. This shows the policing of female appearances, more conservative attire being promoted as the norm. Some schools have taken this as far as having staff uniforms. Once again, disciplinary power is established through normalising judgement. Standards of presentation are absent from the academic literature on professionalism as well as the two most recent standards documents relevant to Queensland teachers. This represents a gap or divergence in the spoken discourses and analysed texts. This is probably because presentation or dress is a quality that is not confined to teaching. The following table summarises the knowledge teachers possess of the QCT standards document as well as the intersection between the spoken discourses, academic literature and policy documents.


233

234

Table 4.11: Intersection between texts for Discourse Nine

Discourse



Policy as Discourse

Discourse of professional standards

Knowledge of QCT standards

N/A


No clear definition

Gipps (1990), Hoyle (1974), Helsby (1995), Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a), Sachs (2003), Mahony and Hextall (2000), Ingvarson (2002a)

Interwoven across all standards in both documents with no clear definition

Standards of presentation

N/A

N/A

4.2

At the time of interview, two years after the introduction of the QCT standards, 3 teachers had comprehensive knowledge, 13 teachers had some knowledge, 4 teachers had no knowledge

CONCLUSION

In response to Research Question Two, Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism encompass nine discreet discourses which expand to twenty-four discursive themes. To avoid repetition, this is further elaborated in Chapter Five.

234


235

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Policy Documents

Academic Literature

Interviews

The aim of this chapter is to further examine how the discussions from the previous chapters on the competing discourses of professionalism in the academic literature, policy documents and teachers’ voices cross reference in general in order to summarise and draw conclusions. This involves looking for the intersections or continuities and the divergences or discontinuities between the different data sets. Foucault (1983) claims that anything that is not examined for hidden assumptions is dangerous. So, in this study, and following Foucault’s line of thinking and his archaeological approach, I have examined the development and implementation of professional standards as the ‘answer’ or ‘triumphant daybreak’ (Foucault, 1994a, p. 126) to enhanced professionalism and improved quality in education in Australia. Three core research questions have focused and guided this study: 1. How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’? 2. What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism and professional standards implementation? 3. To what extent do teachers regulate and control their practice as docile bodies? Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland? These research questions are used to order this chapter. First, I reveal what Foucault might describe as a ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77) for professional standards implementation to summarise the findings in response to the first research question. Then, I summarise the discourses of professionalism as spoken by teachers in response to the second research question. The resultant discourses from the interviews are then further cross referenced with the discourses from the academic literature and the two most recent selected policy documents to ascertain the intersections and divergences between the different data sets. Then, I


235

236

summarise the findings in response to the third research question by using Foucault’s theorisations on power-knowledge to argue that professional standards are being used as control mechanisms to regulate or govern teachers under the guise of enhanced professionalism. The extent to which teachers are conducting their practice as docile bodies is also summarised, as well as their discourses of resistance. The chapter finishes with some concluding thoughts. 5.1

RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTION ONE Research Question One - How have professional standards become the publicly accepted strategy to enhance teacher professionalism at this point in time? Or in Foucault’s terms, how have particular ‘discourses’ assumed importance in this particular historical context, leading to the emergence of a particular ‘regime of truth’?

As can be seen from Figure 5.1 below, Foucault’s archaeological research approach has unravelled the complex interplay of contingent factors in professional standards development constructing a ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77) for professional standards implementation. These contingent factors are a combination of (a) the broader social, economic and political happenings in Australia in the last two decades of the twentieth century (the non-discursive domain), (b) the carefully crafted and cultivated use of policy as a discursive practice to ensure that governments are able to create and maintain certain discourses in order to promote and instil their preferred truths, (c) the privileging of particular discourses of professionalism and professional standards from the academic literature, and (d) docility in the practice of Queensland teachers. The aim is not to show these factors and practices as causes, but to reveal the correlations that exist between them. Figure 5.1: Professional standards: A ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ KEY: Political factors

Social factors

Academic literature

Economic factors

Strategies in policy documents

Teachers conducting their practice as docile bodies

236


237 Competing discourses of professionalism and professional standards in the academic literature. Managerial discourses and regulatory standards are given a privileged position in policy documents

Formation of the NPQTL and later the AGQTP

Immigration numbers increased

Psychology of national decline Discourses of derision No retaliation from teachers and deficit points of view of teachers

Reduction in grants to the states

Push towards competencies and standards in response to economic rationalism

Reduction in funding to education Devolution

New Hawke Labor government – ‘progressive competitiveness’

Globalisation Social discourse subordinate to economic system – a swing to the politics of the ‘New Right’

International policy documents and OECD reports

Market based systems of accountability Business linked to education – a competency based outcome oriented pedagogy related to the world of work which divided public and private schools even further Teachers conducting their practice as docile bodies

Award restructuring and signing of the ‘Teaching Accord’

Economic crisis

‘Corporate federalism’ – neocorporatism, corporate managerialism, economic rationalism, human capital theory

Imitative statements Policy and related discursive strategies

Competency movement Teachers seduced by the dominant discourse

Use of managerial discourse (language)

Inclusion of career levels Creation of bodies such as QCT and AITSL

Perceived crisis in education, for example falling literacy and numeracy levels

Contradictory statements Teachers and academics silenced

Volume given to corporate voices

Discourses of derision

Co-location of terms Discursive construct of a crisis in education Deceptive strategies, for example use of photographs and charm offensives Short, tightly controlled consultation processes by agencies linked to government Misrepresentation of academic voices

Blocking or suppression of counter-discourses Ambiguity of the term standards


237

238

The polyhedron reveals the multiple strategies and contingent factors that have come into play in the ‘game of truth’ which allows professional standards to be read as unproblematic statements of fact. Through policy, political strategy and ‘discourses of derision’ (Ball, 1994), the Australian government has conveyed the message that professional standards are normal and are the necessary ‘truth’. However, an archaeological dig through the institutional and academic archive reveals that the status of the truth of professional standards as the mechanism to enhance professionalism at this point in time rests on fragile ground, or as Foucault says, ‘crumbling soil’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 137). Professional standards are not necessarily more right or more truthful than other possible mechanisms, but are the ones that have been given more political strength at this point in time, reflecting the shift from equity/equality to economic discourses and the marketisation of education. 5.2

RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTION TWO Research Question Two - What are Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism?

Examination of participants’ responses reveals nine discreet discourses of professionalism which expand to twenty-four discursive themes representing Queensland teachers’ perceptions of professionalism. These perceptions are illustrated in Table 5.1 below.

238


239

Table 5.1: Discourses and discursive themes evident in teachers’ responses

DISCOURSE Professional relationships

Efficient organisation Knowledge and skills Professional learning Specific personal attributes

Accountability

Leadership Reflective practices

Professional standards

DISCURSIVE THEMES Partner/supporter Client/consumer Supporter/collaboration Surveillance Connection Behaviour Management Professional Distance Preparedness Time Management Content knowledge Pedagogical knowledge and skills Current Commitment Passion Doing your best Being accountable to the public Being accountable to systems Assessment and data Principal as leader Shared leadership Reflection for improved practice Reflection for improved learning outcomes No clear meaning Standards of presentation

This table contextualises professionalism in the real world of the interviewed teachers. These personal discourses capture their current understandings of what professionalism is and how it operates in their daily routines. The statements from teachers are the basic units of a discourse forming the object of what Foucault refers to as a discursive practice (Foucault, 1972). Having analysed what participants said during the interview process, the knowledge on professionalism of these teachers is constructed and made visible. The next section weaves between the competing discourses of professionalism evident in the teachers’ spoken discourses, the academic literature and the two most recent policy documents. This involves looking for the continuities or intersections and the discontinuities or divergences between the data sets. The interplays between broad notions of professionalism and the discursive articulations


239

240

(Ryan, 2006) portrayed in teachers’ professional practice and behaviours are outlined in Table 5.2 below. Table 5.2: Intersection and divergence between discourses of professionalism in the academic

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9





 











 

 





 

 









 

  Various voices of authority referring to the difficulty in definition of standards

Table 5.2 reveals that participants include a number of both traditional and newer discourses of professionalism from the academic literature in their responses. What is noteworthy is the frequency of statements related to earlier discourses of professionalism that dominated before the 1980s and in the 1990s. For example, in the discourse of professionalism as knowledge and skills, teachers’ references to specialised knowledge align with classical professionalism. Notions of classical professionalism such as a strong service ethic are also evident in the discourse of professionalism as specific personal attributes, where teachers refer to commitment, passion and striving to do their best through vocation and dedication. Another interesting finding is the frequency of references to the neo-technical redefinitions of professionalism as outlined by Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) in the mid-1990s. This could illustrate that, for these teachers, having experiential knowledge is just as important as having a specialised knowledge base, or this could also be an indication of the era when a number of the participants trained as teachers. However, the most dominant discourses are ‘new’, ‘principled’, ‘transformative’ or ‘post-modern’ professionalism, with mentions of the closely related ‘democratic’ and ‘occupational’ professionalism also. The frequency of references to these discourses reveals that teachers believe that they define the nature and content of their work in a ‘new’

240

Organisational

Occupational

Democratic

Managerial (Demanded, prescribed, required, requested)

Spoken discourses

Transformative

New, post-modern, Principled

Complex

Extended

Practical

Classical

Discourses

Flexible

literature and spoken discourses


241

professionalism; in essence, that they have the control. That said, for Discourse One (professional relationships) and Discourse Six (accountability), ‘managerial’ and ‘organisational’ discourses are evident. Both these discourses relate to the economic agenda discussed earlier and the neo-liberal marketisation of education where teachers sell a service, and work in a multi-levelled network of supervision under the control of external forms of regulation. However, in the voices of teachers, managerial discourses are subordinate to classical discourse, the neo-technical redefinitions and new professionalism discourses. Before elaborating the alignment (and divergences) between the standards documents and the spoken discourses, the following table reveals the dominant discourses portrayed in the two documents that received an extended analysis, namely the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) policy documents. Table 5.3: Intersection between the standards documents and the academic literature

Standards document

Dominant discourse


Managerial or organisational discourse

The National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011)

Managerial or organisational discourse

As already discussed, although teachers’ responses show an awareness of the presence of this discourse, particularly in Discourse One and Six, this discourse is not the dominant notion in the voices of teachers and reveals a significant divergence. Table 5.4 shows the alignment between the spoken discourses and the QCT standards and Table 5.5 shows the AITSL standards’ alignment with the spoken discourses.


241

242

Table 5.4: Intersection between the spoken discourses and the QCT standards document

Standard

One Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven Eight

Nine

Ten

Discourse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

  







 

 



  









 Use of word ‘standard’ is ambiguous, no mention of standards of presentation



Table 5.5: AITSL standards’ alignment with the spoken discourses

Standard

One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

Seven

Discourse 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9



 

  

 

 





 







 



 

Use of word ‘standard’ is ambiguous, no mention of standards of presentation

Both Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 reveal that the participants’ spoken discourses encompass all of the standards from both the QCT document and the AITSL document. What is noteworthy about this finding is that most participants had little knowledge of the QCT document at the time of interview and the AITSL standards did not exist. For the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006), Standard One, ‘design and implement engaging and flexible learning experiences for individuals and groups’ (p. 7) and Standard Five, ‘assess and report constructively on student learning’ (p. 11), are mentioned the most. For the National Professional

242


243

Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), Standard Three, ‘plan for and implement effective teaching and learning’ (p. 12-13), and Standard Five, ‘assess, provide feedback and report on student learning’ (p. 16-17), have been mentioned the most. Therefore, effectively it is the same standards from both documents incorporating teaching, learning and assessment that show the highest degree of intersection. However, although high degrees of intersection in general are present, there are five main areas of divergence between the spoken discourses and the policy documents. First, Discourses One, Five and Six recognise the ‘human’ aspects of teaching which are absent in the policy documents; second, that Discourse Seven (leadership) is absent from the QCT document as well as being constructed differently in the AITSL standards; third, that standards of personal presentation are not mentioned in either document; fourth, the differences between ‘content’ knowledge and ‘specialised’ knowledge; and, lastly, that the discourse of reflective practices is absent from the AITSL standards. The first area of divergence concerns teaching as a human endeavour (Day & Smethem, 2009). Discourse One, professional relationships, refers to strained relationships with students’ parents and a love for students. Even though the Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers (QCT, 2006) refers to fostering ‘productive relationships with families’ (p. 14) and the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011) stresses the need to ‘work efficiently, sensitively and confidentially with parents/carers’ (p. 19), the policy documents neglect to mention that sometimes these parent/teacher relationships are difficult. Additionally, in the student/teacher relationship, participants speak of love and care for their students. However, in the policy documents, emotions such as these are not mentioned. Discourse Five, professionalism as personal attributes, refers to passion and a strong sense of vocation and dedication to the teaching profession. However, both policy documents underplay these qualities. Discourse Six, professionalism as accountability, refers to the frustration that teachers feel due to the number of external mandates being presented to them, but any references to accountability in standards documents are promoted as being in the best interests of the profession. Teachers make considerable investments, both individually and collectively, into the education of children. They practise affectivity, altruism, self-sacrifice and


243

244

conscientiousness, none of which are mentioned in the standards documents. For these teachers, their sense of professionalism is internally ascribed; an intrinsic motivation to do their best in the interests of the students in their care and this is the model that they see as the most appropriate for their professional practice. These notions align closely with ‘new’ professionalism where Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) and Goodson (1999) insist that professionalism must embrace the emotional as well as the cognitive dimensions of teaching. These notions could also be seen as a legacy of past views of teachers, aligning with classical discourses of professionalism, or what Marshall (1939) referred to as social service professionalism. However, governments fear this model and denigrate it because they cannot measure or regulate it (Osgood, 2006). It is neither quantifiable nor auditable. Instead, governments promote a construction of professionalism that values rationality where the emphasis is on being competitive, for example the promotion of voluntary standards in the AITSL document. Osgood (2006) argues that in this construction of professionalism, there is ‘little space for emotion’ (p. 9). The ‘discourse of emotionality’ (Osgood, 2006, p. 8) becomes marginalised. The second area of divergence is the lack of reference to leadership in the QCT document, but also how leadership is constructed in the more recent AITSL standards. Participants mention how important the principal’s leadership qualities are to the success of the school, but they also value shared leadership opportunities. There is no mention of leadership in the QCT standards at all. Furthermore, the construction of leadership in the AITSL (2011) standards is not really concerned with leadership, but rather management. This is represented linguistically by the use of verbs such as to ‘evaluate’ (p. 17), to ‘monitor’ (p. 11), to ‘revise’ (p. 8) and to ‘review’ (p. 9). This highlights the AITSL standards as regulatory in nature, promoting a managerial discourse of professionalism. This management discourse is not how leadership is portrayed in the teachers’ regime of truth on professionalism. Teachers’ responses highlight autonomy, sharing in decision making and being considered an equal partner. Once again these notions align with classical professionalism rather than the privileged voice of managerialism in the policies. The third area of divergence is concerned with standards of personal presentation. Although strongly evident in teachers’ discourses, there is no mention of professionalism as standards of presentation in standards documents. This legacy

244


245

of past views of teachers’ image is elaborated when responding to the third research question. The fourth area of divergence is concerned with the differences between ‘content’ knowledge and ‘specialised’ knowledge. Participants’ voices, once again, reveal traditional or classical discourses of professionalism which stipulate ‘specialised’ knowledge, but investigation of these documents reveals that knowing the content and how to teach it has priority over any specialist expertise. In effect, both of these standards documents construct the parameters of teachers’ working knowledge as ‘content’. They also shape teacher education with new kinds of teachers produced with new forms of knowledge. The responses from Kory and Sally and their training in a discourse of professional standards are testimony to this. According to Connell (2009), standards documents construct teachers as technicians ‘enacting pre-defined ‘best practice’ with a pre-defined curriculum, a situation for which skill, but not intelligence is required’ (p. 224). However, she argues that, as part of the job of a teacher is to interpret the world for his/her students, a great deal of intellectual work is needed. She refers to teachers not just as knowledge workers in a knowledge economy, but as ‘intellectual workers’ (Connell, 2009, p. 224). She maintains that ‘knowledge and its applications in teaching are inherently dynamic’ (Connell, 2009, p. 225) and as teachers do not know what knowledge their students are going to need for the future, this process is intellectually complex. Connell’s thoughts are congruent with those of Evans’ (2011). Applying Evans’ componential structure of professionalism framework (see Figure 2.2), she depicted that standards documents focused on what teachers do (behaviourial) rather than what they think (intellectual) and the attitudes they hold (attitudinal). Following a list of competencies which promotes ‘content’ knowledge is far removed from the intellectual work that Connell (2009) and Evans (2011) are referring to, or the ‘specialised’ knowledge that teachers mention in their interview responses. In both of the standards documents, the conception of teaching as an intellectual discipline is replaced by levels of competence in the form of ‘auditable performances’ (Connell, 2009, p. 218). The last area of divergence is concerned with the discourses of reflective practice. Teachers include reflection as part of their regime of truth in order to critically analyse their own practice so they can develop professionally and improve


245

246

student outcomes. Standard Ten in the QCT document is concerned with reflective practice, but in the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), teachers are only required to use the standards for ‘self reflection’ (p. 2). This means that reflection is reduced to what is prescribed in the standards documents only. In this document, ‘reflecting’ is replaced by ‘reviewing’ and ‘evaluating’, once again revealing a managerial discourse of professionalism. In stark contrast, the construction of reflection by teachers aligns with Schön’s (1983) ideas of the reflective practitioner and a more practical discourse of professionalism. According to Ryan and Bourke (in press), it is crucial to include the element of reflexivity (critical reflection) in any representation of professionalism to foreground the importance of understanding the ways in which teachers mediate their subjective and objective circumstances and make the decisions that they do. 5.3

RESPONSE TO RESEARCH QUESTION THREE Research Question Three - To what extent do teachers regulate and control their practice as docile bodies? Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland?

This section is divided into two subsections. The first section, Section A, reveals the extent to which teachers are regulating and controlling their practice as docile bodies and details the presence of Foucault’s disciplinary technologies, that is, hierarchical observation, normalisation and the examination. The second section, Section B, details teachers’ discourse of resistance to the current order for professionalism in Queensland. 5.3.1 Section A: To what extent do teachers regulate and control their practice as docile bodies?

All nine discreet discourses of professionalism reveal Foucault’s notions of disciplinary power in one form or another. The following tables summarise the presence of these disciplinary technologies in the discourses proclaimed by the teachers.

246


247

Table 5.6: Hierarchical observation (surveillance)

Discourse Discourse One – relational

Discourse Two – efficient organisation

Form of hierarchical observation or surveillance 

Parental gaze in a marketplace mentality to ensure sound investment in quality student outcomes



Colleagues’ gaze in order to control other teachers’ conduct to improve outcomes



Students’ gaze in order to monitor the legal conduct of teachers



Management of students’ behaviour



Students monitor teachers’ behaviour

Discourse Three – knowledge and skills

Colleagues’ gaze

Discourse Four – professional learning

Cyberspace professional learning records allows regulatory authorities’ gaze

Discourse Five – specific personal attributes

Gaze is from teachers on themselves

Discourse Six – being accountable



Gaze from the community/wider public



Gaze from employing authorities and education systems,

Discourse Seven – leadership

Principals’ gaze and colleagues’ gaze

Discourse Eight – reflection

Self gaze

Discourse Nine – standards

Universities are under the gaze from governing authorities Gaze from regulatory authorities, accreditation and registration systems


247

248

Table 5.7: Normalising judgement/normalisation


Form of normalising judgement 

Teachers regulate and modify their practices for client satisfaction



Colleagues regulate and modify the behaviour of other teachers



Management of student behaviour


Control of space, time and activity are normalised


Teacher centred activities to control the pace of lessons, curriculum prescribed


Professional learning has to fit with the standards and fulfil the QCT criteria (30 hours per year)


Legacies from the past where teachers self-regulate


Conservative behaviour is normalised. Also a legacy of past views of teachers


Colleagues regulate and modify the practices of other teachers


Normal to reflect critically on own work

Discourse Nine – standards

Professional standards documents have become institutionalised disciplinary structures for professionalism and quality Standards of presentation – a legacy of past views of teachers

248


249

Table 5.8: The examination


Form of examination 

Parents judge teachers’ effectiveness by student outcomes



Teachers examine each other’s work



Student outcomes measure teacher effectiveness


Behaviour is examined


Assessment practices


Auditing of professional learning profile


Teachers examine themselves


Codes of conduct and ethical behaviour are examined Assessment and use of data to measure teacher effectiveness


Teachers examine each other’s work


Teachers self-examine

Discourse Nine –standards

Teachers are measured or examined against the standards

It appears that teachers’ notions of professionalism in the twenty-first century align directly with Foucault’s notions of disciplinary technologies. Thus one could argue that the notion of professionalism is simply a revamped version of nineteenth century disciplinary techniques. These concepts also resonate with the Foucauldian idea of ‘docile’ bodies and investigation of the participants’ responses reveals that they are regulating and controlling their practice as docile bodies extensively. According to Foucault (1995), a body is docile when it can be ‘subjected, used, transformed and improved’ (p. 136). He notes: What was being formed was a policy of coercions that act upon the body, a calculated manipulation of its elements, its gestures, its behaviour. The


249

250

human body was entering a machinery of power that explores it, breaks it down and rearranges it. A ‘political anatomy’, which was also a ‘mechanics of power’, was being born; it defined how one may have a hold over others’ bodies, not only so that they may do what one wishes, but so they may operate as one wishes, with the techniques, the speed and the efficiency that one determines. Thus discipline produces subjected and practised bodies, ‘docile’ bodies (Foucault, 1995, p. 138). Educational institutions have always embodied disciplinary technologies and practices aimed at producing docility, for example the buildings, the timetable or the old inspectorate system or testing and assessment. However, in the modern era, the scale and rate of disciplinary technologies has intensified, becoming much more abstract and sophisticated but equally if not better at securing the exercise of power. Unlike the older forms of regulation which were overt, this ‘secret invasion’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 170) is now a less visible form of control, a self-regulating regulation, governing in what Rose (1996) has described as an ‘advanced liberal way’ (p. 58). The purpose and success of this covertness is predicated upon making bodies (students, but more particularly teachers in this study) obedient and practically valuable, in other words ‘docile’. Even though teachers’ knowledge of the QCT standards document is limited, the fact that their spoken discourses encompass all of the published standards reveals that they are yielding to the discourse of professional standards in what Morley (as cited in Ball, 2003) has referred to as ‘forms of ventriloquism’; that is, teachers are speaking the vocabularies of the standards texts and acting out docility. As mentioned in Chapter One, the state relies on the co-operation of a whole network of local and individualised tactics of power, and thus professional standards can only be enforced because individual teachers as part of this network are willing to go along with them. The disciplinary technologies employed to render teachers docile are now elaborated. Hierarchical observation Hierarchical observation is ubiquitous, coming in many different forms and from various different players. As shown in Table 5.6, the multidirectional gaze comes from parents, students, colleagues, the school hierarchy, governing authorities, the community/wider public, regulatory authorities and education systems. These increased modes of surveillance, epitomised by Bentham’s Panopticon, mean that the 250


251

teachers, just like Bentham’s prisoners, behave as if surveillance is omnipresent. Being subjected to the assumed gaze means that they self-monitor and that selfregulation occurs naturally. Whether this is through accreditation and registration processes, parental demands, the online audit of professional learning or the publication of high stakes testing data, the monitoring system or the ‘eyes that must see without being seen’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 171) produce information so teachers are knowable and hence can be regulated. This ‘visibility is a trap’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 200), locating teachers in a political field invested with power relations rendering them docile and productive. A hold is placed on their conduct as they are coerced by means of observation. Teachers, in their quest to conform to the dominant constructions of professionalism, become regulated and controlled by disciplinary technologies of the self (Osgood, 2006). Normalisation Foucault maintains that ‘correct training’ is central to disciplinary power (Foucault, 1995). Any deviance is classified as ‘abnormal’ and in need of correction. Even though many of the discursive practices associated with normalisation as spoken by the participants are concerned with correct training for students in terms of behaviour and performance, Table 5.7 above reveals that teachers are also subjected to processes of normalising judgement. Processes of successful normalisation produce ‘self-controlled’ bodies and, in contemporary schools, some of these processes include the need to satisfy both parents’ and students’ needs and work productively with colleagues. However, some of the normalised behaviours are legacies from the past, for example, the conservative image teachers portray both in the ways they dress (Discourse Nine) and how they present themselves publicly (Discourse Six). Over many years, the constant pressure to conform has conditioned teachers to subordination and docility so that they perform the ‘correct practice of duties’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 182). Even though teachers’ knowledge of the QCT standards is limited, their responses reveal that they are adhering to these disciplinary mechanisms. Whether consciously or in order to keep their jobs or to further their careers, teachers to a great extent abide by the standards, for example in Discourse Four where they fulfil the time requirements for professional learning. This reveals that the professional standards have become the rules, the norm; in Foucault’s (1995) words, ‘the rule to be made to function as a minimal threshold, as an average to be


251

252

respected or an optimum towards which one moves’ (p. 183). The Normal is established as a principle of coercion and acts upon teachers and moulds them into recognisable shape. Developments such as standards have become the value-giving measure and facilitate the production of levels of conformity in the teacher population which are contrary to the ideals of the need for teachers to be critically aware. These current reforms are used so that teachers become accustomed to acquiring the practices that are prescribed in the standards documents, for example, the obligatory thirty hours for professional learning. Examination Whereas the examination in schools used to be ‘a question of jousts in which pupils pitched their forces against each other’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 186), now it has become a situation where teachers are placed under almost perpetual, uninterrupted examination by parents, colleagues, regulatory authorities or education systems. The production of knowledge is about the teachers’ effectiveness and is open to examination by employers, governing authorities and the public. Teachers’ productiveness is visible and it is this visibility that ‘maintains the individual in his subjection’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 187). As well as the ‘visible brilliance’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 185) of the examination, ‘a system of intense registration and document accumulation’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 189) also occurs. For teachers, this comes in the form of accreditation and registration procedures which monitor their conduct, online auditing of professional learning and publication of student data to show their performance. There is always a sense of being judged, producing indicators that make teachers ‘continually accountable and constantly recorded’ (Ball, 2003, p. 220). Through the disciplinary technology of the examination, teachers are describable or analysable objects whose value can be measured and compared with other teachers. They are ‘trained, corrected, classified, normalised, excluded etc.’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 191). In short, they become docile. According to Bloomfield (2006), with the introduction of professional standards, teachers judge and limit themselves in their desire to meet the standard or normal in this monitoring system. This covert surveillance epitomises the neoliberal distrust of teachers’ judgement. The standards documents enshrine this distrust in that they ‘codify teachers’ work in such a way to make them auditable and allow control at a distance’ (Connell, 2009, p. 222). Beck refers to this as ‘performative professionalism’ (Beck, 2009).

252


253

5.3.2 Section B: Are there ways that they resist or subvert or ignore the current order for professionalism in Queensland?

Foucault argues that there can be no power without resistance, (Foucault, 1982). Although the previous section reveals that teachers are practising docility extensively in their work, the participants’ responses also reveal various discourses of resistance to the dominant construction of professionalism as professional standards. Analysis of interviews reveals pockets or spaces for the possibility of opening up counter discourses. There are four main areas of resistance evident in the participants’ responses. The first is the teachers’ lack of knowledge of the QCT professional standards document. This shows that they are sidelining or potentially disregarding the current order for professionalism in Queensland by withdrawing. Results from a survey in the UK in 2010 carried out by the General Teaching Council for England revealed similar results. In this study, it was found that more than half the teachers interviewed were not aware of the standards or their purpose (Poet, Rudd, & Smith, 2010). From these findings in the UK, Evans (2011) came to the conclusion that perhaps governments are still not ‘call[ing] the shots when it comes to shaping professionalism’ (Evans, 2011, p. 864). Helsby (1995) argues that professionalism is a social construct and, therefore, teachers play a key role in what they resist and what they accept. She states that: Educational improvement depends on teachers wanting to make a difference. It depends upon their feeling professional. Neither raising standards by regulation nor professionalising by prescription will work. Teachers have power in the sense that they have to want improvement for improvement to happen (McCulloch, Helsby, & Knight, 2000 p. 118). Perhaps the passive resistance to the standards documents reveals that teachers do not think that standards will result in improvement and therefore they choose to ignore them, or it could be that they are still clinging to older professionalism discourses which they approve of and see as better (Evans, 2011). The second area, a more overt form of resistance, is expressed by James – ‘I don’t even think teachers are taking it on board any more’. This reveals defiance on the behalf of teachers where they openly ignore directives. According to Evans


253

254

(2011), teachers will resist a professionalism being thrown upon them, especially if they do not perceive it as ‘better’ than the one they have helped to shape. However, this could also be a coping mechanism where teachers protect themselves from the endless array of externally imposed mandates. Reflecting on my own story, as one of the first generations of post-performative teachers in the UK, it becomes obvious that the regulatory regime was diluted by the counter-influence of veteran colleagues and their discourse of resistance. The third area is a subtly nuanced form of resistance where teachers look to create alternative truth games. In playing the truth game in a different way, teachers make other options visible by destabilising the dominant discourses. For example, recognition of the ‘human aspects’ of teaching is predominant in the participants’ regime of truth on professionalism. As mentioned earlier, by incorporating the emotional dimensions of teaching in a ‘new’ professionalism, teachers reposition themselves in an active, competing, alternative discourse to the managerial discourse preferred in policy documents. Osgood (2006) argues that teachers can choose to perform their professionalism differently. According to this writer, teachers can ‘muddy the water’ (p. 12) by actively challenging the dominant discourses that position and define them. She maintains that by doing this, the possibility of resisting the regulatory gaze exists (Osgood, 2006). Discourses around human notions which are difficult to monitor could form a counter discourse which would oppose the dominant market-oriented construction of professionalism. Other examples that reveal playing the truth game differently to destabilise the dominant constructions of professionalism include participants’ references to specialised knowledge. The last area is concerned with teachers maintaining their own professional confidence. In Discourse Four, relating to professional learning, some participants were forced to select learning experiences based on the standards and fulfilling the credentialism agenda. However, participants’ responses reveal that they are engaging in higher degree qualifications which encourage critical reflexivity of both themselves and of the practices they are subjected to. Being an expert with specialised knowledge is a form of resistance as then one can do more than parrot a curriculum – one can manipulate the knowledge and use it to critique. Osgood (2006) asserts that teachers need to maintain their professional integrity and have professional confidence to find ‘wriggle room’ (Hoyle & Wallace, 2009) so they can

254


255

do their jobs irrespective of the external mandates in government documents. They need to be critical of imposed accountability and claim their own licensed autonomy (Osgood, 2006). Ball (2003) asserts that teachers need to retain self-belief and confidence in their own practice rather than becoming ‘ontologically insecure’ (p. 220). He maintains that standards reform agendas are a direct threat to professional integrity (Ball, 1990). However, if teachers can promote their own discursive truths, they can subvert the hegemonic discourses and position themselves differently. Rather than managerial discourses functioning to create pliant individuals or docile bodies, teachers and others involved in education can construct alternative discourses on teacher quality and professionalism so they can maintain their own professional and intellectual integrity. When a definition is sought from within the professional community, counter-positioning is possible. 5.4

CONCLUSION

By investigating the research questions at the beginning of this chapter, this study has found that the implementation of professional standards neither ensures the enhancement of professionalism nor is a necessary precondition for doing so. In constructing a ‘polyhedron of intelligibility’ (Foucault, 1991a, p. 77) in relation to professional standards, it has been determined that the development of these as the mechanism for enhancing professionalism is based on ‘crumbling soil’ (Foucault, 1972, p. 137). Professional standards have been justified using economic policy discourses and derisory comments under the guise of enhancing professionalism. However, what these professional standards documents posit are regulatory standards in a managerial discourse of professionalism in order to regulate or control teachers. Although standards documents claim to be inclusive of teachers’ voices, the findings from this study reveal otherwise. Teachers’ voices demonstrate ‘new’ and ‘classical’ discourses with neotechnical redefinitions of professionalism mixed in. It is encouraging that ‘new’ discourses of professionalism are present, with teachers actively fighting to reclaim territory lost to government through ideas of discretionary judgement, self-direction, advocating the moral and social purposes of education and the active care of students. Referring back to Chapter Two, Sachs’ (2003) notion of the activist professional is brought to mind. In this discourse of professionalism, Sachs calls


255

256

teachers as a collective group to action so that they make things happen rather than having things happen to them. What is also noteworthy in this context is that none of the standards documents refer to teachers joining unions or being policy active as Sachs (2003) calls it. The inclusion of the more traditional/classical discourses of professionalism and the neo-technical redefinitions take us back to notions from the eighteenth century (the learned professions) and the late twentieth century respectively. The classical discourse of professionalism is evident in the ‘discourses of emotionality’ (Osgood, 2006), the strong service ethic and the need for specialised knowledge that teachers proclaim. Analysis in Chapter Three revealed that the QCT (2006) standards are supposedly inclusive of teachers’ voices. However, these Queensland teachers’ voices have not been heard. If this standards document truly is ‘a public statement by the profession’ (QCT, 2006, p. ii) then the human aspects, the social service aspect of teaching, and specialised knowledge should be included. With regards to the human aspects and social service factors, Ball (1990) has asserted that these types of beliefs are no longer important. His view is that, in the new market regime, ‘it is output that counts’ (Ball, 1990, p. 223). He continues by saying that ‘beliefs are part of an older, increasingly displaced discourse’ (p. 223). He maintains that in this century, personal beliefs and commitment are substituted by calculation (Ball, 2003) as well as value replacing values (Ball, 2003; Day & Smethem, 2009). However, this is not the message in the teachers’ voices. The findings from the interviews revealed that the reality of teaching for these teachers needed emotion and a sense of ‘vocation’. To them, every teaching situation is a unique and complex interplay of interacting, interdependent, often incompatible contexts grounded in human need. For these teachers, a list of competencies cannot possibly represent all the complexities of context and relationships that occur in teaching situations every day – interacting with different people in different ways in different contexts. These lived experiences cannot be mandated by a structured agenda of standards imposed from an external source. Even though policy documents may give the rational managerial discourse a loud voice, this is not the dominant notion as spoken by teachers. Teachers’ voices protest loudly and dominantly for the heart and soul to be left in teaching.

256


257

Teachers’ voices are also amplified on the concept of leadership. Once again, this aligns with the classical notion of professionalism and particularly the ongoing contentious theme of autonomy. Ball (1990) has asserted that professional judgement is subordinate to performativity in the new market regime, but once again this is not the message that is coming from teachers. The teachers’ notions of leadership all but contradict the construction of management and performativity within the newest standards document. Many other writers have also suggested that the classical discourses are redundant, for example, Goodson and Hargreaves (1996a) have criticised ‘classical professionalism’ for being self-serving and Hanlon (1998) has suggested that there is less ‘elbow room at the table’ (Hanlon, 1998, p. 59) for traditional discourses as they are not relevant in the corporatised market of education. However, it would appear that whether they are relevant or not, teachers still regard these traditional notions as part of their regime of truth in relation to professionalism. This aligns with Evans’ (2011) notions of deduced or assumed professionalism. Hoyle and Wallace (2009) have also commented on this, speculating that despite the advance of managerialism, the worthwhile elements of traditional discourses survive in many schools. My findings, rather than speculating, provide evidence for this. The neo-technical redefinitions are also present in the teachers’ voices. These teachers realise the importance of reflection (practical discourse) especially when amalgamated with specialised knowledge (classical discourse). In the past, Hoyle and John (1995) have suggested that teachers experience an emancipatory professional empowerment when knowledge (classical discourse) and practice (practical discourse) work together. Other early writers such as Friedson (1970) stressed the need for case study knowledge and practical experience to be included in any discourse on professionalism. This also aligns with the thoughts of Shulman (1987) who emphasised the importance of an amalgam of content and pedagogy. Teachers continue to hold on to older discourses; this time, ones which give credence to teachers’ experiential knowledge especially in the form of reflective practice. In summary, the teachers in this study proffer what I have called a ‘new classicalpractical’ discourse of professionalism as a counter-discourse to the managerial agenda. This is their way of playing the professionalism game differently.


257

258

That said, however, by subjecting the interview data to Foucault’s theorisations on power-knowledge, it becomes obvious that teachers are highly conformist. The value of a Foucauldian perspective is that it encourages a closer look at how power works and uncovers what may be hidden. Although teachers’ responses reveal a counter discourse to the managerial agenda, the fact remains that their regime of truth on professionalism encompasses all of the standards from the two most recent documents, even though their knowledge of the QCT document was limited and the AITSL standards did not exist at the time of interviewing. This may be because, over many years, there has been constant pressure to conform; teachers forever subjected to docility and subordination. The bottom line could also be that in the last two centuries of schooling, practices have not really changed. Instead, the old overt forms of control have now been replaced by the new covert form – professionalism. Where once professionalism was seen as a discourse of resistance or the ‘enemy’ of economic rationalism and the discourse of performativity (Sanguinetti, 2000, p. 241), now the notion has been hijacked by governments and remodelled into a neo-liberal conceptualisation which has been normalised through professional standards. These new policies are aimed at producing a new reality of professionalism to serve political and economic interests. Defined by the power of the state and the pressure of the market, professionalism has been reduced to a set of professional standards – the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011). This means that teacher quality or professionalism is determined by a list of competencies, a form of discipline that ‘trains the moving, confused multitudes of bodies’ (Foucault, 1995, p. 170). These bureaucratic measures result in ‘control’, ‘management’ and ‘discipline’ of teachers, in other words ‘training’ rather than ‘educating’ teachers with the emphasis on ‘specialised knowledge’, ‘leadership’ and ‘reflection’. The discourse of regulatory professional standards and the associated notions of managerial professionalism have already extensively colonised education, schools and teachers, undermining their ability to resist or oppose them. In twenty-first century Australia and other Western nations, registration authorities and professional standards are a reality and do not appear to be open for debate. However, the way these authorities work is contestable. The list of competencies against which courses and teachers are accredited can be questioned, not least due to the lack of conclusive evidence to support standards as the

258


259

mechanism for quality improvements in teaching and student outcomes. Generic frameworks of teacher competencies are shaping education and defining the work knowledge of the profession. Teaching, however, is a social act, defined by its sociocultural, biographical and historical contexts. These multiple contexts of teachers’ work demand more than knowledge of generic competencies. In 2010, a media report in the UK damned the state sector for producing teachers who had ‘formulaic’ classroom methods and were uncomfortable teaching ‘off-piste’ (Barker, 2010). Teachers from the professional standards discourse generation were described as ‘unduly focused on targets’, as well as bringing the ‘kiss of death to imaginative teaching’ (Barker, 2010). In Barker’s report, James Noble-Rogers, executive director of the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers, is quoted, stating, ‘The very detailed teaching standards and closely prescribed content of teacher education programmes can raise the floor but also lower the ceiling. It can help, but also act as a straitjacket’. In Australia, what remains to be seen is if the floor is raised or the ceiling lowered as teachers ‘do’ rather than ‘think’. Professional standards are a productive form of power (as the term is defined by Foucault) in that they are generative of particular knowledge and behaviours, but whether these are positive or negative is yet to be determined. Foucault’s methodology can direct us back in history to other times when teachers’ work was controlled in every aspect. In England and Wales in 1862, ‘The Revised Code’ was notorious for restricting every aspect of teachers’ work. According to the testimony of its own inspectors, growth rates in literacy were held back by the insistence on petty procedures of observation and assessment tied tightly to a rigid curriculum (Hall & Millard, 1994). Robert Lowe, an educational administrator at that time argued that teachers deciding to criticise the Code were ‘as impertinent as chickens deciding in which sauce they should be served’ (Lawton, 1980, p. 16). With the expansion of the standards agenda in Australia, a choice of sauce is not even an option as the goose has already been cooked, served and eaten.


259

261

Bibliography Akerlind, G. (2002). Principles and practice in phenomenographic research. Paper presented at the Current Issues in Phenomenography Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, November. Andrew, M. D. (1997). What matters most for teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(3), 167-176. Apple, M. (1996). Power, meaning and identity: Critical sociology of education in the United States. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(2), 125-144. Ashenden, D. (1990). Award restructuring and education. Queensland Teachers Union Professional Magazine, 8(1), 8-13. Aspland, T. (2006). Changing patterns of teacher education in Australia. Education Research and Perspectives, 33(2), 140-163. Australian Education Council. (1989). The Hobart declaration. Melbourne: Australian Education Council. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Melbourne, VIC: AITSL. Australian Labor Party (ALP). (1972). Election policy speech. 13 November, 1972. Canberra: Australian Labor Party. Ball, S. (Ed.). (1990). Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge. London: Routledge. Ball, S. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Ball, S. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. Banks, F., & Shelton Mayes, A. (Eds.). (2001). Early professional development for teachers. London: David Fulton Publishers. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world's best-performing schools come out on top. London: McKinsey and Company. Barker, I. (2010, October, 1). Top public schools state staff fail to inspire. Times Educational Supplement. Beare, H. (1982). Education's corporate image. Unicorn, 8(1), 12-28.

Bibliography

261

262

Beck, J. (2008). Governmental professionalism: Re-professionalising or deprofessionalising teachers in England? British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 119-143. Beck, J. (2009). Appropriating professionalism: Restructuring the official knowledge base of England's “modernised” teaching profession. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(1), 3-14. Beyer, L. E. (2002). The politics of standards and the education of teachers. Teaching Education, 13(3), 305-316. Blackmore, J. (2004). Leading as emotional management work in high risk times: The counterintutive impulses of performativity and passion. School Leadership and Management, 24(4), 439-459. Bloomfield, D. (2006). A new discourse for teacher professionalism: Ramsey, standards and accountability. Paper presented at the AARE 2006 Conference, Adelaide, 27-30 November. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://www.aare.edu.au/06pap/blo06777.pdf Bottery, M., & Wright, N. (1997). Perceptions of professionalism by the mentors of student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3), 235-252. Boyt, T. E., Lusch, R. F., & Naylor, G. (2001). The role of professionalism in determining job satisfaction in professional services: A study of marketing researchers. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 321-330. Brennan, M. (1996). Multiple professionalism for Australian teachers in the information age. Paper presented at the AERA Conference, New York, April. Brown, S., & McIntyre, D. (1993). Making sense of teaching. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Business Council of Australia (BCA). (1986). Report on education. Melbourne: BCA. Carr, D. (2000). Professionalism and ethics in teaching. New York: Routledge. Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons. Chipman, L. (1980). Teachers and the tenure trap. Quadrant, XXIV(12), 42-44. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievment in high school. The Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655-681.

262

Bibliography

263

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge. Coleman, A. (2007). Leaders as researchers: Supporting practitioner enquiry through the NCSL research associate programme. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 35(4), 479-497. Committee for Economic Development (CED). (1985). Investing in our children: Business and the public schools. New York: Committee for Economic Development. Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-229. Coolahan, J. (2002). Teacher education and the teaching career in an era of lifelong learning. Paris: OECD. Cope, C. (2004). Ensuring validity and reliability in phenomenographic research using the analytical framework of a structure of awareness. Qualitative Research Journal, 4(2), 5-18. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2008). National partnership on improving teacher quality. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Crowley, R. (1998). A class act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. Canberra: Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee. Cuttance, P. (2001). The impact of teaching on student learning. In K. Kennedy (Ed.), Beyond the rhetoric: Building a teaching profession to support quality teaching (pp. 35-55). Canberra: Australian College of Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Creating standards of practice and delivery for learner-centered schools. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 4, 37-52. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Reshaping teaching policy, preparation and practice: Influences of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

Bibliography

263

264

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Darling-Hammond, L. (2001). Standard setting in teaching: Changes in licensing, certification and assessment. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 751-776). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Darling-Hammond, L., LaFors, J., & Snyder, J. (2001). Educating teachers for California's future. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 9-55. Davies, M., & Edwards, G. (2001). Will the curriculum caterpillar ever learn to fly? In M. Fielding (Ed.), Taking education really seriously: Four years' hard labour (pp. 98-109). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Dawkins, J. (1988). Strengthening Australia's schools: A consideration of the focus and content of schooling. Canberra: Australian Government. Dawkins, J. (1990). Quality of teaching: An issue for all: An initial statement. Canberra: AGPS. Dawkins, J. S., & Holding, A. C. (1987). Skills for Australia. Canberra: AGPS. Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kington, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting lives, work and effectiveness. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Day, C., & Smethem, L. (2009). The effects of reform: Have teachers really lost their sense of professionalism? Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 141-157. Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. London: Sage. Department for Education. (2010). The importance of teaching: The school's white paper. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2002). Raising the standards: A proposal for the development of an ICT competency framework for teachers. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). (2005). Teaching reading: Report and recommendations of the inquiry into the teaching of literacy. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). (1998). Government response to the March 1998 report of the Senate Employment,

264

Bibliography

265

Education and Training References Committee. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). (1992). Teacher education: A discussion paper. Canberra: DEET. Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). (1994). Agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the teaching profession through their unions: Providing for an accord to advance the quality of teaching and learning. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training. Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). (2000). Teachers for the 21st century: Making the difference. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1997). The advanced skills teacher: A missed opportunity? Unicorn, 23(3), 36-49. Doherty, R. (2007). Critically framing education policy: Foucault, discourse and governmentality. In M. A. Peters & T. Besley (Eds.), Why Foucault?: New directions in educational research (pp. 193-204). New York: Peter Lang. Dreyfus, H., & Rabinow, P. (Eds.). (1982). Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Eisenmann, L. (1991). Teacher professionalism: A new analytical tool for the history of teachers. Harvard Educational Review, 61(2), 215-224. Englund, T. (1996). Are professional teachers a good thing? In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 75-87). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organization: Teachers, nurses, social workers. New York: Free Press. Evans, L. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20-38. Evans, L. (2011). The ‘shape’ of teacher professionalism in England: Professional standards, performance management, professional development and the changes proposed in the 2010 White Paper. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 851-870. Evetts, J. (2009). The management of professionalism: A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher

Bibliography

265

266

professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 1930). London: Routledge. Flexner, A. (1915). Is social work a profession? In Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (pp. 576-590). Chicago: Hildman. Flowers, C. P., & Hancock, D. R. (2003). An interview protocol and scoring rubric for evaluating teacher performance. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 161-168. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception (A. M. Sheridan, Trans.). London: Tavistock. Foucault, M. (1980a). Questions on geography. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 63-77). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980b). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 109-133). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980c). Two lectures. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 78-108). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1980d). Prison talk. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (pp. 37-54). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault, M. (1983). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (pp. 229-252). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1984). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 76-100). New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1988). Power, moral values, and the intellectual. An interview with Michel Foucault by Michael Bess. History of the Present, 4, 1-2 + 11-13.

266

Bibliography

267

Foucault, M. (1991a). Questions of method. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 73-86). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1991b). Remarks on Marx: Conversations with Duccio Trombadori (R. J. Goldstein & J. Cascaito, Trans.). New York: Semiotext. Foucault, M. (1994a). Critical theory/Intellectual history. In M. Kelly (Ed.), Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate (pp. 109-138). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foucault, M. (1994b). Dits et ecrits, 1954 - 1988. Paris: Gallimard. Foucault, M. (1994c). Power (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1996). Foucault responds to Sartre. In S. Lotringer (Ed.), Foucault live: Interviews 1961-1984 (pp. 51-56). New York: Semiotext(e). Fournier, V. (1999). The appeal to ‘professionalism’ as a disciplinary mechanism. The Sociological Review, 47(2), 280-307. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage. Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1991). What's worth fighting for? Working together for your school: Strategies for developing interactive professionalism in your school. Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Administration in association with the Ontario Public School Teachers’ Federation. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition: Reforming professionalism? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond left and right: The future of radical politics. Oxford: Polity Press.

Bibliography

267

268

Gipps, C. (1990). The debate over standards and the use of testing. In B. Moon, J. Isaac & J. Powney (Eds.), Judging standards and effectiveness in education (pp. 32-46). London: The Open University. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Goode, W. J. (1957). Community within a community: The professions. American Sociological Review, 22(2), 194-200. Goodson, I. (1999). Towards a principled professionalism for teaching. Keynote address presented at the New Professionalism in Teaching Conference, Chinese University of Hong Kong, January. Goodson, I. (2000). The principled professional. Prospects, 30(2), 181-188. Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996a). Teachers’ professional lives: Aspirations and actualities. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 1-27). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996b). Teachers’ professional lives. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 1-52). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gottliebsen, R. (1985). Six of the best. Business Review Weekly. Melbourne. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Judging the quality of fourth generation evaluation. In E. G. Guba & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Fourth generation evaluation (pp. 228-251). Newbury Park: Sage. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 205-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hakel, M. D., Koenig, J. A., & Elliott, S. W. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced-level certification programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Hall, C., & Millard, E. (1994). The means of correct training? Teachers, Foucault and disciplining. Journal of Education for Teaching, 20(2), 153-160. Hall, S. (1996). Reflexivity in emancipatory action research: Illustrating the researcher’s constitutiveness. In O. Zuber-Skerritt (Ed.), New directions in action research (pp. 28-48). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

268

Bibliography

269

Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 7281). London: Sage. Halsey, A. H., Heath, A. F., & Ridge, J. M. (1980). Origins and destinations: Family, class and education in modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamel, J., Dufour, S., & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hammersley, M. (1974). The organisation of pupil participation. Sociological Review, 22(3), 355-368. Hanlon, G. (1998). Professionalism as enterprise: Service class politics and the redefinition of professionalism. Sociology, 32(1), 43-63. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151-182. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). Whats worth fighting for out there? New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A., & Lo, L. N. K. (2000). The paradoxical profession: Teaching at the turn of the century. Prospects, 30(2), 167-180. Hargreaves, D. H. (1980). The occupation culture of teachers. In P. Woods (Ed.), Teacher strategies: Explorations in the sociology of the school (pp. 125-148). London: Croom Helm. Hargreaves, D. H. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of professional and institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 423438. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hattam, R., & Smyth, J. (1995). Ascertaining the nature of competent teaching: A discursive practice. Critical Pedagogy Networker, 8(3&4), 1-12. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference. What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on Building Teacher Quality, Melbourne, October.

Bibliography

269

270

Helsby, G. (1995). Teachers’ construction of professionalism in England in the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 21(3), 317- 332. Helsby, G. (1996). Defining and developing professionalism in English secondary schools. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(2), 135-148. Helsby, G. (2000). Multiple truths and contested realities: The changing faces of teacher professionalism in England. In C. Day, A. Fernandez, T. Hague & J. Møller (Eds.), The life and work of teachers: International perspectives in changing times (pp. 93-108). London: Falmer Press. Helsby, G., & McCulloch, G. (1996). Teacher professionalism and curriculum control. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 56-74). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hilferty, F. (2007). Contesting the curriculum: An examination of professionalism as defined and enacted by Australian history teachers. Curriculum Inquiry, 37(3), 239-261. Hilferty, F. (2008). Theorising teacher professionalism as an enacted discourse of power. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 161-173. Holroyd, C. (2000). Are assessors professional?: Student assessment and the professionalism of academics. Active Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 2844. Hoskin, K. (1990). Foucault under examination: The crypto-educationalist unmasked. In S. Ball (Ed.), Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge (pp. 29-53). London: Routledge. Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. London Educational Review, 3(2), 13-19. Hoyle, E. (1980). Professionalization and deprofessionalization in education. In E. Hoyle & J. Megarry (Eds.), Professional development of teachers: World Yearbook of Education 1980 (pp. 42-54). London: Kogan Page. Hoyle, E. (1995). Changing conceptions of a profession. In H. Busher & R. Saran (Eds.), Managing teachers as professionals in schools (pp. 59-70). London: Kogan Page. Hoyle, E. (2001). Teaching: Prestige, status and esteem. Educational Management Adminstration and Leadership, 29(2), 139-152. Hoyle, E., & John, P. D. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. London: Cassell.

270

Bibliography

271

Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2009). Leadership for professional practice. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall & A. Cribb (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 204-214). London: Routledge. Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Hughes, E. C. (1963). Professions. Daedalus, 92, 655-668. Ingvarson, L. (1995). Professional credentials: Standards for primary and secondary science teaching in Australia. Canberra: Australian Science Teachers Association. Ingvarson, L. (2002a). Development of a national standards framework for the teaching profession. Alexandria, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Research. Ingvarson, L. (2002b). Strengthening the profession? A comparison of recent reforms in the UK and the USA. Melbourne: ACER. Ingvarson, L. (2010). Recognising accomplished teachers in Australia: Where have we been? Where are we heading? Australian Journal of Education, 54(1), 4671. Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2003). A review of standards of practice for beginning teaching. Alexandria, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Research. Jasman, A., & Barrera, S. (1998). Final report: Teacher career structure: Level 3 classroom teachers. Perth, WA: Education Department of Western Australia. Jensen, B. (2010). What teachers want: Better teacher management. Melbourne: Grattan Institute. Karmel, P. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. Canberra: AGPS. Karmel, P. (1985). Quality of education in Australia: Report of the Review Committee. Canberra: AGPS. Kendall, G., & Wickham, G. (1999). Using Foucault's methods. London: Sage. Kenway, J. (1993). To market to make it: The sorry tale of Australian education in the 1990s. In A. Reid & B. Johnson (Eds.), Critical issues in Australian education in the 1990s (pp. 1-23). Adelaide, SA: Painters Prints. Kowalski, K., Chittenden, E., Spicer, W., Jones, J., & Tocci, C. (1997). Professional development in the context of National Board for Professional Teaching

Bibliography

271

272

Standards certification: Implications beyond certification. Papers presented at a symposium at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 24-28 March. Larson, M. S. (1977). The rise of professionalism: A sociological analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Larson, M. S. (1990). In the matter of experts and professionals, or how impossible is it to leave nothing unsaid. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 24-50). London: Sage. Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257-277. Lawton, D. (1980). The politics of the school curriculum. London: Routledge. Leaton Gray, S., & Whitty, G. (2010). Social trajectories or disrupted identities? Changing and competing models of teacher professionalism under New Labour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(1), 5-23. Lingard, R. L. (1991). Policy-making for Australian schooling: The new corporate federalism. Journal of Educational Policy, 6(1), 85-90. Lingard, R. L., Ladwig, J., Mills, M. D., Bahr, M. P., Chant, D. C., & Warry, M. (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study: Final report. Brisbane: Education Queensland. Lingard, R. L., O'Brien, P., & Knight, J. (1993). Strengthening Australia’s schools through corporate federalism? Australian Journal of Education, 37(3), 231247. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Louden, W. (2000). Standards for standards: The development of Australian professional standards for teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 118-134. Luke, A., Mayer, D., & Leitch, P. (2002). Producing the new Australian teachers: A modest proposal. Unpublished manuscript. Lustick, D. (2011). Certifiable: Teaching, learning and National Board certification. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing teaching: Standards, performance and accountability. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

272

Bibliography

273

Marginson, S. (1997). Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since 1960. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marsh, C. (1996). Handbook for beginning teachers. Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman. Marsh, I. (2010). Suicide: Foucault, history and truth. New York: Cambridge University Press. Marshall, J. D. (2007). Michel Foucault: Educational research as problematisation. In M. A. Peters & T. Besley (Eds.), Why Foucault? New directions in educational research (pp. 15-28). New York: Peter Lang. Marshall, T. H. (1939). The recent history of professionalism in relation to social structure and social policy. Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 5(3), 325-340. Martin, L. (1964). Tertiary education in Australia: Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission. Canberra: Government Printer. Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers: A case study of professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 159-179. McCulloch, G., Helsby, G., & Knight, P. (2000). The politics of professionalism: Teachers and the curriculum. London: Continuum. McLaughlin, M. (1997). Rebuilding teacher professionalism in the United States. In A. Hargreaves & R. Evans (Eds.), Beyond educational reform: Bringing teachers back in (pp. 77-93). Buckingham: Open University Press. McMeniman, M. (2004). Report of the review of the powers and functions of the Board of Teacher Registration. Brisbane: Department of Education and the Arts. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mills, S. (2003). Michel Foucault. London: Routledge. Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational Renewal. (2004). Report on Indigenous education. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (1999). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for

Bibliography

273

274

schooling in the twenty-first century. Adelaide: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2003). A national framework for professional standards for teaching. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). (1996). What matters most: Teaching and America's future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. O’Farrell, C. (2005). Michel Foucault. London: Sage. O’Farrell, C. (in press). Michel Foucault: The unconscious of history and culture. In N. Partner & S. Foot (Eds.), The Sage handbook of historical theory. London: Sage. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2009). Teacher evaluation: A conceptual framework and examples of country practices. Paper presented at the OECD-Mexico Workshop,Towards a teacher evaluation framework in Mexico: International practices, criteria and mechanisms, Mexico City, 1-2 December. Osgood, J. (2006). Deconstructing professionalism in early childhood education: Resisting the regulatory gaze. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 5-14. Ozga, J. (1995). Deskilling a profession: Professionalism, deprofessionalisation and the new managerialism. In H. Busher & R. Saran (Eds.), Managing teachers as professionals in schools (pp. 21-38). London: Kogan Page. Parsons, T. (1954). Essays in sociological theory. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Partington, G. (1985). After the Sheridan affair: Australian education in 1985. Quadrant, no. 212, v. 219(6), 48-54.

274

Bibliography

275

Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. (Eds.). (2007). Why Foucault? New directions in educational research. New York: Peter Lang. Poet, H., Rudd, P., & Smith, R. (2010). How teachers approach practice improvement. London: General Teaching Council for England. Porter, P., Rizvi, F., Knight, J., & Lingard, R. (1992). Competencies for a clever country: Building a house of cards? Unicorn, 18(3), 50-58. Purvis, J. (1973). Schoolteaching as a professional career. The British Journal of Sociology, 24(1), 43-57. Queensland College of Teachers (QCT). (2006). Professional standards for Queensland teachers. Brisbane: QCT. Queensland College of Teachers (QCT). (2007). Program approval guidelines for preservice teacher education. Brisbane: QCT. Queensland Government. (2002). Education and training reforms for the future: A white paper. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Quicke, J. (2000). A new professionalism for a collaborative culture of organizational learning in contemporary society. Educational Management Adminstration and Leadership, 28(3), 299-315. Ramsey, G. (2000). Quality matters: Revitalising teaching: Critical times, critical choices. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and Training. Reid, A. (1993). Controlling Australia’s teachers: An agenda for the next decade. In A. Reid & B. Johnson (Eds.), Critical issues in Australian education in the 1990s (pp. 125-137). Adelaide, SA: Painters Prints. Reynolds, M. (1999). Standards and professional practice: The TTA and initial teaching training. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(3), 247-260. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (1996). Foreword. In J. P. Gee, G. Hull & C. Lankshear (Eds.), The new work order: Behind the language of the new capitalism (pp. vii-ix). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Robertson, S. L. (1996). Teachers’ work, restructuring and postFordism: Constructing the new ‘professionalism’. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 28-55). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Rose, N. (1996). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Barry, T. Osborne & N. Rose (Eds.), Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism and rationalities of government (pp. 37-64). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bibliography

275

276

Rowan, B. (1994). Comparing teachers’ work with work in other occupations: Notes on the professional status of teaching. Educational Researcher, 23(6), 4-17 + 21. Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of teacher quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Paper presented at the ACER Research Conference: Building teacher quality: What does the research tell us?, Melbourne. Ryan, M. E. (2006). Critical pedagogy and youth: Accounts of enactment in multiliterate culture (PhD thesis). Griffith University, Brisbane. Ryan, M. E., & Bourke, T. (in press). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 34(3). Ryan, P. (1986, September 6). Teaching, now and then. The Age. Melbourne. Sachs, J. (2001). Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Educational Policy, 16(2), 149-161. Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sachs, J. (2005). Professional standards: Quality teachers for the future. Paper presented at the Sharing Experience: Ways forward on standards conference, Melbourne, August 21. Sandberg, J. (1994). Human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Göteborg, Sweden: BAS. Sanguinetti, J. (2000). An adventure in ‘postmodern’ action research: Performativity, professionalism and power. In J. Garrick & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case-studies and innovative strategies (pp. 232-249). London: Routledge. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. School's Council. (1989). Teacher Quality: An issues paper. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Sheridan, G. (1985, 2 February). The lies they tell our children. The Australian, pp. 1, 12.

276

Bibliography

277

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Start, B. (1989, 24 June). Education: Who runs the state system. Newsweekly. Stinnett, T. M., & Huggett, A. J. (1963). Professional problems of teachers. New York: Macmillan. Stronach, I., Corbin, B., McNamara, O., Stark, S., & Warne, T. (2002). Towards an uncertain politics of professionalism: Teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of Education Policy, 17(1), 109-138. Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Swann, M., McIntyre, D., Pell, T., Hargreaves, L., & Cunningham, M. (2010). Teachers’ conceptions of teacher professionalism in England in 2003 and 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 549-571. Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H., & So, W. W. M. (2006). Supporting student teachers’ professional learning with standards-referenced assessment. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(2), 223-244. Thomas, S. (2005). Taking teachers out of the equation: Constructions of teachers in education policy documents over a ten-year period. Australian Educational Researcher, 32(3), 45-62. Thomas, S. (2011). Teachers and public engagement: An argument for rethinking teacher professionalism to challenge deficit discourses in the public sphere. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(3), 371-382. Travers, P. D., & Rebore, R. W. (1990). Foundations of education: Becoming a teacher (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Troman, G. (1996). The rise of the new professionals? The restructuring of primary teachers’ work and professionalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17(4), 473-487. Whitty, G. (1994). Deprofessionalising teaching?: Recent developments in teacher education in England. Deakin, ACT: Australian College of Education. Wilensky, H. (1964). The professionalisation of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 137-158. Winch, C., & Foreman-Peck, L. (2005). What do we mean by teachers’ professionalism and professional knowledge? How useful are these concepts?

Bibliography

277

278

Paper presented at the Changing teachers' roles, identities and professionalism seminar series, Seminar 3: Conceptions of professionalism and professional knowledge, King’s College, London, 16 May. Wragg, T. (2001, 23 February). Welcome to the dalek factory. Times Educational Supplement. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yinger, R. J., & Hendricks-Lee, M. S. (2000). The language of standards and teacher education reform. Educational Policy, 14(1), 94-106.

278

Bibliography

279

Appendices Appendix A: Archaeology as method – Bibliographic references

Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of Medicine: A study of the sociology of applied knowledge. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company. Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Furlong, J., Barton, L., Miles, S., Whiting, C., & Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher education in transition: Reforming professionalism? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Goodson, I. (1999). Towards a principled professionalism for teaching. Keynote address presented at the New Professionalism in Teaching Conference, Chinese University of Hong Kong, January. Goodson, I. (2000). The principled professional. Prospects, 30(2), 181-188. Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996a). Teachers' professional lives: Aspirations and actualities. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 1-27). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Goodson, I., & Hargreaves, A. (1996b). Teachers’ professional lives. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Appendices

279

280

Appendix B: Template for recording information from texts Name of article

Teaching: Prestige, status and esteem

Author and

Emeritus Professor Eric Hoyle, Graduate School of Education, University of

institution

Bristol

(Who was speaking and with what authority?) Cross-referencing

Englund, T. (1996). Are professional teachers a good thing? In I. Goodson &

citations – (Who did

A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teachers' professional lives (pp. 75-87). London:

this author cite and

RoutledgeFalmer.

who was he cited

Hargreaves, D. H. (1994). The new professionalism: The synthesis of

by?)

professional and institutional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 423-438. Helsby, G. (1995). Teachers' construction of professionalism in England in the 1990s. Journal of Education for Teaching, 21(3), 317- 332. Hoyle, E. (1974). Professionality, professionalism and control in teaching. London Educational Review, 3(2), 13-19. Hoyle, E. (1995). Changing conceptions of a profession. In H. Busher & R. Saran (Eds.), Managing teachers as professionals in schools (pp. 59-70). London: Kogan Page. Hoyle, E., & John, P. D. (1995). Professional knowledge and professional practice. London: Cassell. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Publication (where

Educational Management Administration and Leadership 2001, 29: 139

and when?)

Online at http://ema.sagepub.com/content/29/2/139

What did they say? Statements/notes/extracts Renewed attention to the status of teaching. Status divided into status, prestige and esteem. Occupational prestige defined as the public perception of the relative position of an occupation in the hierarchy of occupations. Information on research methods used to generate a hierarchy including the criticisms of the approach. Teaching found in the upper quartile in the semi-professions category. Perceptions of Britain as opposed to Europe and primary as opposed to secondary. Level of prestige is shaped by the perceived image of teacher which usually comes from children. Other factors – size of teaching profession, paid from public purse – this affects prestige. Wages lower than model professions and also sometimes lower qualifications, also class issues, market situation, frequency of visits – no professional mystique, everyone has been to school. Figure 1 – hypothetical determinants of the occupational prestige of teaching. Ambiguity is a big factor – all the different facets of a teachers’ work are hard to define which has led to expansion and intensification of role. Knowledge- knowledge of content and knowledge of transmission. Theories of transmission always

280

Appendices

281

been questioned as has the acquisition of skills to teach through a practical apprenticeship (construction of personal methodologies). Relationship between teachers and pupils most intractable barrier to prestige. Only profession that faces problems of control of children with so few sanctions. Classifies 4 dimensions of intermediates roles - p143 All point to no chance of increasing status. Discussion on the meaning of the word profession, teaching in the second category. Office of National Statistics reclassified teaching in category 1 for Census 2001 in UK Now designated a profession with the traditional professions. Hughes (1958) – ‘profession’ is a symbol for a desired conception of one’s work and hence of one’s self (p 63). Different methods given for classifying a profession – criteria approach and functionalist theories. Alternative perspective was through gaining control over a market for a service by and social exclusion and credentialism. Consensus on some criteria – autonomy, higher education, knowledge-based practice, code of ethics, self-governing. Heuristic value for semi-professions gaining status through professionalisation. Professionalisation – process by which occupations become increasingly profession-like. This has 2 components – enhancing status and improving the quality of service. Professionalisation used for the former, professionalism used for the latter. Professionalisation in process for 20th century – all graduate profession, university based, autonomy protected, strong voice in shaping policy. Refers to Helsby’s study in the UK differentiating between behaving professionally and being a professional Occupational esteem-regard that a profession is held in by the public by virtue of personal qualities – 3 categories – dedication, care and competence. Dedication – vocation and giving of time, competence = effective teaching, classroom management, control and care = pupil welfare. Esteem generated more interpersonal (intrinsic reward) than technical Image of teaching also shaped by the media as well as the discourses of derision termed by Ball by politicians (failure to respond to education reform) New Professionalism – used by D. Hargreaves and others. Connotations of this phrase in policy documents is that the new professional will have acquired a set of skills through competency-based training which enables one to deliver, according to contract, a customer led service in compliance with accountability procedures collaboratively implemented and managerially approved. Implied that enhanced teacher status will flow from this. Words include efficiency, targets, competition and results. Approaches to encourage teachers to comply – naming and shaming, league tables, inspections, advanced skills teachers etc. Questionable if this type of new professionalism will enhance prestige, esteem or status. New professionalism does connote a shift from producer-interest to consumer-interest which could improve quality. Professionalisation may create opportunities for professionalism or de-professionalisation may constrain professionalism. Focus should be on teachers’ professional work. Andy Hargreaves,

Appendices

281

282

contributor to this, also Helsby. Hoyle and John (1995), professional responsibility rather than accountability

282

Appendices

283

Appendix C: Initial table of themes

THEMES

SUB-THEMES

PROFESSIONALISM AS SPECIFIC PERSONAL

6. COMMITMENT

ATTRIBUTES

10. PRESENTATION 11. PASSION 15. COMMUNICATION 23. COMMONSENSE 24. ATTITUDE 33. FAIR 34. HONEST 39. RESPECT 40. GOOD LISTENER

PROFESSIONALISM AS PROFESSIONAL

8. PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

DEVELOPMENT

30. MEMBER OF PROFESSIONAL

PROFESSIONALISM AS DEVELOPING A ROLE IN THE

9. R’SHIP WITH STUDENTS

WIDER COMMUNITY

17. R’SHIP WITH PARENTS

ASSOCIATION

19. R’SHIP WITH STAFF 20. R’SIP WITH COMMUNITY 2. ROLE MODEL PROFESSIONALISM AS ORGANISATION

4. WELL ORGANISED 12. PREPAREDNESS/ ORGANISED 21. TIME MANAGEMENT/ DEADLINES 26. A MANAGER 35. PROCEDURAL 5. PUNCTUAL

PROFESSIONALISM AS SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND

13. KNOWLEDGE

SKILLS

14. TEACHING & LEARNING STRATEGIES 25. QUALITY T & L/ ACHIEVEMENT 27. ASSESSMENT 7. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT 28. RISK TAKING

PROFESSIONALISM AS BEHAVING IN SPECIFIC

18. CONFIDENTIALITY/ SENSITIVITY

WAYS

22. LEGAL ISSUES 31. COMPLIANCE/OPINIONS/DECISIONS 32. GOAL SETTER FOR IMPROVEMENT 36. CHALLENGING OPINIONS 37. ACCOUNTABLITIY 3. HIGH EXPECTATIONS 38. DOING YOUR BEST

PROFESSIONALISM AS LEADERSHIP OF OTHERS

29. LEADERSHIP

PROFESSIONALISM AS MEETING PROFESSIONAL

16. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

STANDARDS (EXTERNAL (eg., QCT) OR INTERNAL)

1. BEING PROFESSIONAL (no definition)

Appendices

283

284

Appendix D: Framework for the National Standards for Teaching 2003

284

Appendices

285

Appendix E: Queensland College of Teachers – Professional Standards

Teachers’ Standards 1

Design and implement engaging and flexible learning experiences for individuals and groups

2

Design and implement learning experiences that develop language, literacy and numeracy

3

Design and implement intellectually challenging learning experiences

4

Design and implement learning experiences that value diversity

5

Assess and report constructively on student learning

6

Support personal development and participation in society

7

Create and maintain safe and supportive learning environments

8

Foster positive and productive relationships with families and the community

9

Contribute effectively to professional teams

10

Commit to reflective practice and ongoing professional renewal

Appendices

285

286

Appendix F: AITSL Standards

Domains of Teaching Professional Knowledge

Standards 1. Know students and how they learn 2. Know the content and how to teach it

Professional Practice

3. Plan for and implement effective teaching and learning 4. Create and maintain supportive and safe learning environments 5. Assess, provide feedback and report on student learning

Professional Engagement

6. Engage in professional learning 7. Engage professionally with colleagues, parents/carers and the community

286

Appendices