More than ten years have passed since
the publication of the ‘The Activist Teaching Profession’ Sachs (2003). In a new paper, Sachs “Teacher
professionalism: why are we still talking about it?” reflects on the changes that the ten years have made to the teaching
profession and I have chosen two themes to discuss which are accountability and
professional judgment.
Professionalism is conceived ‘of its
time’ through the political and accountability frameworks that either support
or constrain it and it is multidimensional. There is evidence to support the
fact that professionalism is not one thing but can be many different things. In
using the terminology of a ‘mature profession’ Sachs take the view that
professionalism is “no longer questioned or contested” (p422) and pulling on
Mocker (2005) works, Sachs continues by saying that this tries to help teachers
to develop as “creative designers of curriculum and innovative pedagogues”. Within this ‘mature profession’ teachers will
be both creators and consumers of research, individually and collectively, and
need to establish a trusting relationship with various stakeholders to become
less risk adverse in partnership working. Hargreaves (2000) however, has
cautioned that ‘positive new partnerships’ both in and beyond schools as
discussed as a way forward by the OECD report (2015) may lead to “the
de-professionalization of teachers, as teachers begin to flounder under
conditions of uncertainty, multiple pressures and intensified work demands”. However,
Sachs also cites Guskey who is more of the mind that “jointly planned
activities are consistently more effective and more efficient than those
planned by either school-based or district educators working alone (Guskey,
1999)”. This challenge then becomes about how we create ‘third spaces’ where
collaboration can develop and more importantly thrive.
Accountability
Accountability has become
a key element of professionalism and as such is a driver of the discourse around
professionalism. For Bovens, Schillemans, and T’Hart (2006, pp. 226–227) in practice, being accountable is seen as a
virtue, as a positive quality of organizations or officials. (p416). So how do
we balance this organisational accountability with professional autonomy? In
a performance culture, accountability impacts on teacher autonomy and how
teachers enact their professionalism. It is sometimes
difficult to discuss accountability in a form other than that of ‘perfect
information’, data that is easy to measure, which then becomes valued and is the
bases of quality indicators, (organisational accountability) in preference to
trying to measure the things we do value (professional autonomy). Sachs
draws on the work of Bolan and McMahon who argue that the political context
defines the direction of travel for the education system and thus does not always
support teacher agency, as it narrows the definition of professional learning
to a more technical approach of teaching.
However,
accountability is a multifaceted, Halstead (1994) distinguishes
between two forms of accountability, contractual accountability and responsive
accountability.
v Contractual accountability
Is
enacted through Standards, outcomes and results and is based on an explicit and
an implicit contract which tends to be measurement driven. Student test results, literacy and numeracy
rates are some examples. It is where the intent of government is compliance and
control, and at its worst, leaves teachers little agency or self-regulation.
v Responsive accountability,
Is
enacted through decision-making by teachers and is more concerned with process
than outcomes. It supports inclusion and the use of the collective wisdom of the
profession to self-regulate practice.
In the current global climate of
performativity, it is not surprising that contractual accountability is seen to
be preferred over responsive accountability.
Accountability
has, in some countries, been through the use of professional standards which have
become a tool for managing and overseeing teacher accountability. I would argue
that SFR is an accountability measure to ensure the high standards expected of
teachers in Scotland, but CLPL is far more about the individual teachers
learning journey. It is not a tick box standard
to be ‘got through’ but rather a measure of scope and remit for the individual
and thus is less about accountability and more about professionalism. Sachs claims
that “the opportunity for teacher professional standards to be a catalyst for
authentic professional learning is not being realized” (p417)¸ I would argue
that in Scotland this is not the case.
As
previously stated accountability is multifaceted and thus “different forms of
accountability circulate which in turn produce different outcomes and have
different effects on the enactment of teacher professionalism” (p415). Both
Sachs and Evetts hold common views of professionalism. Evetts ‘occupational professionalism’
aligns with Sachs ‘democratic professionalism’ and Evetts ‘organisational professionalism’
aligns with Sachs ‘managerial professionalism’. Both authors agree that occupations
professionalism (Evetts) or democratic professionalism (Sachs) supports a transformative
profession which leads to authentic professional learning. When teacher
learning is the focus of professional learning and linked explicitly with
student learning, then “teacher accountability is vindicated and at the same
time teachers expand their personal and professional horizons” (p421).
Transformative learning can be achieved
through teachers and school systems becoming research enriched by being both
consumers and creators of research. Teachers can develop the skills required to
undertake enquiry, becoming research literate, and by doing so would assume
more responsibility for their own learning. Through being “reflective
practitioners or inquirers who make decisions about how students learn, how to
assess student learning and appropriate pedagogy for the students, s/he teaches
based on evidence and experience” (p420), teachers could feel more ‘in control’
of their own learning and thus feel ‘more professional’ and be ready to ask
questions of policy and management systems. Within Professional Learning and
education systems it “takes courage to ask tough questions and have the skills
to find honest answers”(p421). I would encourage teachers to be courageous and
move beyond the ‘what works’ agenda to professional learning which meet the
needs of the teacher and their students in their situation. So Professional Learning
must serve many masters, it must support teachers to continue to ‘sharpen the
saw’ (Covey) and also understand and respond to the social element of education
and schooling.
Here I would add a note and caution
strongly against going down the ‘what works’ route as this does not mention
works for whom? Where? When? Or how? Or the social and cultural factors, Stoll states
that schools are “situationally unique” and so critical appraisal of an
intervention is crucial, we cannot adopt but we may be able to adapt.
Teacher professional judgement
As
discussed in recent OECD report (2105), professional judgement is one aspect which
can be improved upon in Scotland, Sachs cited Ravitch
(2010, p.
163) who states that professional judgement is a measure of a “good
accountability system”.
This
begs the question, how do we help teachers to develop and have confidence in
their professional judgement? Teacher confidence needs to be improved as until
recently this not been a driver of accountability, where ‘hard data’, (I would
argue easy to measure data) has not been considered more important. This lack
of investment in teacher judgement has led to teachers becoming ‘risk adverse’
and ‘more timid in their judgement’ as Sachs states (p432).
When teachers’
judgement and decision-making is questioned, it diminishes teachers’
self-confidence, creativity and the moral purpose that sustain them in
ambiguous and difficult situations. It also corrodes their ability to act with
confidence and authority and weakens trust.
This
works against the notion of the ‘professional’ with professional judgement being
the heart of a professionalism and leads to a technician approach to teaching –
doing teaching rather than thinking teacher. Changes in teacher attitudes or as
Sachs puts it ‘attitudinal development’ can support to develop confidence in
professional judgement as “it is intellectual and motivational and is concerned
with improvement of individual practice” (p420).
There
is a still a shift needed to move accountability from a managerial approach to
a more teachers autonomous approach where professional learning in the form of
enquiry into their own and others practice becomes a ‘way of being’ to support
the attainment and achievement of young people. This shift into becoming more
research enriched, being both creators and consumers of research would support
teacher professionalism through active engagement in policy discourse and
raised confidence in professional judgement, as a means of teacher agency.
Reference
Sachs , J. (2016) Teacher
professionalism: why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, VOL. 22, NO. 4, 413–425
