Teacher Professionalism in New Times

Contemporary Education Debates - Semester 3, April 2021

“Teachers’ sole professional role is to ensure student academic achievement, and any failings for achievement are teachers’ responsibility.”

INTRODUCTION

This essay examines the professional role of teachers within schools, specifically whether or not their “sole professional role is to ensure student academic achievement”, and if academic failings are teachers’ responsibility. Teachers have been at the centre of debate surrounding education reforms for the last two decades (Holloway, 2017). Policy makers both nationally and internationally see teachers as key factors in education systems’ effectiveness (Mourshed, Chijoke & Barbet, 2010), raising the issue of how to assess teacher quality and hold teachers accountable for what they do in the classroom and the results of their work. To assess the stated proposition, I will examine the significance of the issue before presenting a multiplicity of perspectives arguing both for and against it. I will elaborate upon the impact of effective teachers on students’ academic achievement, before exploring how this is affected by high-stakes testing and marketisation, as well as exploring the Australian Professional Standards for Teaching. Finally, I will evaluate the arguments provided and synthesise my central claim. 

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE

The last decade has seen a shift in the approach to pursuing educational equity and school quality (Garver, 2018). Policies, funding from private institutions and the increased availability in student academic achievement data from federal accountability policies has led to a reform in teacher accountability and evaluation. Accountability focuses on measuring and rating teacher performance based on their students’ academic achievements (Amrein-Beardsley & Holloway, 2017). The development of value-added measures (VAMs), a framework that links the change in student achievement to teacher quality and performance such as NAPLAN, has been controversial amongst teachers and unions, raising concerns about the validity of aspects assessed through these frameworks (Patty, 2016). It remains doubtful whether these frameworks adequately assess teacher quality (Kleinhez & Ingvarson), as they place an emphasis on teachers’ sole responsibility being achieving acadamic success, and do not consider outside factors or responsibilities. Although research has shown that teacher quality and accountability is important for students’ academic success (Wright, Horn & Sanders, 1997), failing to consider the other responsibilities of teachers’ and their true contributions has led to a steady increase in consequences (Gill & Lerner, 2017). 

PERSPECTIVES FOR THE PROPOSITION

Teachers undoubtedly have the greatest in-school impact upon students' academic achievement. Achievement and teacher quality are highly related (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Research on teacher quality supports the idea that effective teachers help students feel good about their schooling and learning, leading to an increase in academic achievement (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Essentially everything a teacher does for a student is in service of improving their academic performance. William Sanders' work on developing the VAM Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System has been a key factor in arguing the importance of teacher quality upon student learning. A multi-year study focusing on the cumulative effect of teachers, saw students placed with high performing teachers three years in a row scored on average in the 96th percentile for a statewide mathematics assessment, whereas students placed with low performing teachers three years in a row scored on average in the 44th percentile in the same assessment (Tucker & Stronge, 2005). Sanders concluded that “the most important factor affecting student learning is the teacher” and “effective teachers appear to be effective with students of all achievement levels, regardless of the level of heterogeneity in their classroom” (Wright, Horn & Sanders, 1997).  Holding teachers accountable for their students’ academic achievements allows for recognition of gaps in teachers’ practices (Quint, Sepakink & Smith, 2008), therefore leading to opportunities for professional development and improved teacher quality.

PERSPECTIVES AGAINST THE PROPOSITION

There is a problematic emphasis on academic achievements seen throughout policy and pressures placed by parents and other stakeholders. The collection and analysis of students’ academic achievements in order to determine Australian teacher quality has been in place since NAPLAN (National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy) was introduced by the Rudd government in 2008. Test results are published on the MySchool website to enable comparison and transparency, and to hold schools and teachers accountable (Thompson, 2013). However, there is growing evidence that high-stakes assessments (those of which have “real or perceived consequences for students, staff, or schools'' (Chapman & Snyder, 2000)) such as NAPLAN have a negative impact on student learning (Thomspons & Harbaugh, 2013), and do not accurately reflect the knowledge of students and teachers’ capabilities. These consequences include narrowed curriculum focus, increased anxiety in both students and teachers, decreased motivation and less inclusive learning environments (Comber & Nixon, 2009; Polesel, Dulfer & Turnbull, 2012). Most notably, the learning experience encourages methods of teaching that promote “shallow and superficial learning rather than deep conceptual understanding and kinds of complex knowledge and skills'' (QSA, 2009). A survey conducted by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF, 2018) on student views on the quality of education they receive in Australia, found that schools are too focused on teaching students to pass exams and assignments, rather than providing knowledge that will be valuable throughout their life. This can lead to surface learning, where students focus on being able to reproduce content when required for assessments, rather than developing a deeper understanding (Harlen & James, 1997). When knowledge is actively understood and internalised by the student through intrinsic motivation, it becomes relevant to the student’s experiences, rather than being a collection of isolated facts. Passive learning and memorising through extrinsic motivation in order to meet assessment requirements does not produce an accurate representation of student knowledge or teacher quality.

High stakes accountability is consistent with the idea of schooling as a process that should be measured and marketised, and that teachers can be incentivised with materials in order to perform better and increase students’ academic achievement. Marketisation of schools, where schools govern under a business logic (Hogan & Thompson, 2018), put pressure on teachers to provide a high quality product of academic achievement. The idea of the student as a consumer (McMillan & Cheney, 1996) sees schools competing for students by providing higher quality teaching and academic products. Teachers and administrators become accountable to outside stockholders, such as parents, who may feel entitled to tell teachers what to do as they are the main contributors to school funding (Mahatmya, Brown & Johnson, 2014). This market-based system results in unfair education where low socio-economic status families with limited resources have no other option but to send their children to their local failing public school (Lubienski, Gulosino & Weitzel, 2009). These failing schools, often smaller or rural schools with disadvantaged students, subsequently do not receive the resources or help needed to adequately support both students and teachers (Anderson & White, 2011). As such, it is not credible to hold teachers accountable for these factors that affect student achievement that are beyond their control.

The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership describes the responsibilities of teachers beyond that of academic achievement within their Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. The history of teaching standards in Australia can be traced back to the Hobart Declaration in 1989, where emphasis was placed on providing high quality schooling for all young Australians (Call, 2018). The Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership was later formed in 2009, and in 2011, after extensive research involving 6,000 teachers and principles (AITSL, 2011), the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers were published. These standards were designed to create a framework that guided professional learning and teaching, reflecting and building upon national and internation evidence that teacher effectiveness has a powerful impact on students (Hattie, 2003). However, an understanding of what these standards are requiring is needed in order to have any effect (Hattie, 2013). AITSL describes a teacher’s role as being to “grow and develop the minds in your classroom” (AITSL, 2021). This idea is the central idea behind the standards, emphasising a strong focus on fostering student-teacher relationships and creating a safe environment. Standard 4.4 “maintain student safety” (AITSL, 2021) discusses the importance of supporting students’ wellbeing and safety. It has been understood that good teachers can affect students beyond more than impacted academic achievement (Terada, 2019), and those are the teachers that have a long-term and memorable impact. Although teachers do have the greatest impact on academic achievement, academic results capture only a fraction of what a teacher is capable of. Teachers develop students’ metacognitive skills, such as their self-regulation, motivation and ability to adapt to new situations (Terada, 2019), which are often unable to be captured within academic results. These skills lead to higher attendance and subsequent academic achievement, as well as contributing to a positive wellbeing and accomplishments beyond school life. 

EVALUATION AND SYNTHESIS

The arguments presented demonstrate the positive and negative effects of holding teachers solely accountable for students’ academic achievements. However, while it is important for teachers to understand and reflect upon their teaching practices through their students’ results (Quint, Sepakink & Smith, 2008), there is much more evidence suggesting teachers’ responsibilities and performance cannot  be entirely captured through these scores. I argue that the role of the teacher goes beyond ensuring academic success, and extends to providing support and value to other aspects of students’ lives. As expressed in the Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008), teachers should focus on enabling students to learn more than they would independently, and allow them to realise and reach their full potential, regardless of their situation in life. Therefore, teacher quality and accountability should be assessed by the differences that are made with a student, such as their academic, personal and social developments, rather than a culmination of test scores. 

CONCLUSION

Teachers’ professional role and responsibilities goes beyond that of ensuring students’ academic achievement. In order to accurately assess the quality and performance of a teacher, more factors should be considered beyond that of student academic data. It has been shown that teachers have the greatest impact on student success within schools, however current frameworks and policies that assess teacher performance in order to hold them accountable do not capture teachers’ true impact upon students, or consider other factors that may affect students’ academic achievements. The problematic emphasis placed on academic achievement throughout policy and frameworks as well as high-stakes testing such as NAPLAN and marketisation, fails to account for other responsibilities outlined within the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the Melbourne Declaration of Educational Goals for Young Australians. It is important to hold teachers accountable in order to develop their professional practice, however it is also important to recognise their role in developing change within students lives beyond that of academic achievement. 

Amrein-Beardsley, A. & Holloway, J. (2017). Value-Added Models (VAMs) for Teacher Evaluation and Accountability: Commonsense Assumptions. Educational Policy, 33(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817719519

Anderson, M. & White, S. (2011). Resourcing Change in Small Schools. Australian Journal of Education, 55(1): 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500106

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Understanding the Teacher Standards. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards/understand-the-teacher-standards

Call, K. (2018) Professional Teaching Standards: A Comparative Analysis of Their History, Implementation and Efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 93-108. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.6

Chapman, D. & Snyder, C. (2000). Can High Stakes National Testing Improve Instruction: Reexamining Conventional Wisdom. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 457-474. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(00)00020-1

Comber, B. & Nixon, H. (2009). Teachers’ Work and Pedagogy in an Era of Accountability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30(3), 333-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300903037069

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archive, 8(1). https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515

Gill, B. & Lerner, J. (2017). Here’s What Works for Teacher Accountability. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-heres-what-works-for-teacher-accountability/2017/01

Harlen, W. & James, M. (1997). Assessment and Learning: Differences and Relationships Between Formative and Summative Assessments. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 4(3), 365-379.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594970040304

Hattie, J. (2013). Maximising the Dividend of Professional Learning. Visible Learning. https://visible-learning.org/2013/02/john-hattie-presentation-maximising-the-impact-video-transcript/

Hattie, J. (October, 2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research Evidence? [Paper presentation]. The Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference, Melbourne, Vic, Australia.  http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Lubienski, C., Gulosino, C. & Weitzel, P. (2009). School Choice and Competitive Incentives: Mapping the Distribution of Educational Opportunities Across Local Education Markets. American Journal of Education, 115, 601-647. https://doi.org/10.1086/599778

Mahatmya, D., Brown, R. C. & Johnson, A. D. (2014). Student-as-Client. Kappan Magazine, 95(6), 30-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171409500607

McMillan, J. J. & Cheney, G. (2009). The Student as Consumer: The Implications and Limitations of a Metaphor. Communication Education, 45(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379028

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2008) Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Mourshed, M., Chijioke C. & Barber, M. (2010). How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey & Company.

Patty, A. (2016). The Problem with How We Measure Success in Schools. The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/education/the-problem-with-how-we-measure-success-in-schools-20160503-golfaa.html

Polesel, J., Dulfer, N., & Turnbull, M. (2012). The Experience of Education: The Impacts of High Stakes Testing on School Students and Their Families. Whitlam Insititute.

QSA (Queensland Studies Authority). (June, 2009). Student Assessment Regimes: Getting the Balance Right for Australia. (Working Paper). https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/qsa_paper_assess_balance_aust.pdf

Quint, J., Sepanik, S. & Smith, J. (2008). Using Student Data to Improve Teaching and Learning Findings from an Evaluation of the Formative Assessments of Student Thinking in Reading (FAST-R) Program in Boston Elementary Schools. MDRC. 

Riley, H & Terada, Y. (2019). Bringing the Science of Learning Into the Classroom. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/bringing-science-learning-classrooms

Terada, Y. (2019). Understand a Teacher’s Long-Term Impact. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/understanding-teachers-long-term-impact

Thompson, G. & Harbaugh, A. (2013). A Preliminary Analysis of Teacher Perceptions of the Effects of NAPLAN on Pedagogy and Curriculum. Australian Education Researcher, 40(3), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0093-0

Thompson G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and Accountability: Teacher Perceptions of the Effects of Testing. The International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 12(2), 62-84. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1017709.pdf

Tucker, P. D. & Stronge, J. H. (2005). The Power of an Effective Teacher and Why We Should Assess It. In Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning. ASCD. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.581.9316&rep=rep1&type=pdf

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). (2018). National Survey: Student Views on the Quality of Education they Recieve in Australia. https://www.unicef.org.au/Upload/UNICEF/Media/Documents/WCD-2018-National-Survey-Fact-Sheet.pdf