Professionalization of Teaching in Nz

Professionalisation of Teaching

This essay will identify issues relating to the professionalisation of teaching that have arisen as a result of the changing historical context of New Zealand education. It will show the advancement of teaching with a focus on teacher education, from an occupation with little skill, limited pedagogical training, low status but high autonomy to its current standing of a profession (albeit with little or no autonomy). Furthermore I will discuss the proposal of performance pay and the recent announcement regarding the staffing of charter schools. These two factors may diminish the status of teaching as a profession.
Teaching is now a publicly recognised profession. In determining what raises the status of an occupation, there are a number of generally accepted characteristics that all professions have in common. These include skills based on an established body of knowledge and practice, formal qualifications, registration and regulation, adherence to a code of conduct, monopoly of practice and autonomy (Cameron, 2002; Kane, 2008; McLean, 2009). Whilst teaching now complies with many of these ‘professional’ requirements, the question of whether teachers have the quality of skills required to fulfil their responsibility of educating young people has never been satisfied. Snook (as cited in Openshaw & Ball, 2006) asserts that two forms of teacher education “have historically jostled for supremacy... teaching as a practical craft centred on classroom management. The other accepts the need for these skills, but also sees teaching as a learned profession” (p.103). The question of autonomy is also debateable as the degree of autonomy within the teaching profession has diminished with the increasing level of state control. Does this affect our professional standing in society? Maybe not. Kane (2008) asserts “with a move to a more market-driven model in society, all professionals find themselves increasingly accountable to other stakeholder groups, such as client groups and government” (p.15).
Teacher training in New Zealand was initially an apprenticeship with a non-compulsory theoretical component. The pupil-teacher system, introduced from Britain in the 1860s, was considered a quick and cost-effective way to train teachers at a time when the population was undergoing massive growth. Trainees, often older school pupils, underwent 4 years of on-the-job training while they worked in the classroom under the guidance and instruction of a qualified teacher. Ball (2009) states that there was an expectation that this on-the-job training would be followed by two years at a training college or normal school with the opportunity for concurrent university study. Whilst many took advantage of the latter, many did not as it was costly on both a national and personal level and was not compulsory (Openshaw & Ball, 2006).
The change from provincial to state government and the passing of the 1877 Education Act increased the number of schools and teachers required due to the Act’s ‘compulsory clause’. Control of the education system was passed to the newly formed Department of Education and its primary objective was to supply a “steady stream of educated professionally trained teachers for the national system” (Butchers, as cited in Openshaw & Ball, 2006, p. 104). Two training colleges in Auckland and Wellington were established (colleges in Christchurch and Dunedin were already operating) and additional normal schools were built as models of ‘best practice’ where pupil-teachers observed ‘model’ lessons and taught, while after school hours they received classroom management and theoretical lessons (Openshaw & Ball, 2006). Eventually the Department of Education, whilst retaining overall control of the education system, delegated administrative control of the teachers and trainees to the local education boards. Ball (2009) asserts that teacher training remained largely decentralised, as the content and structure was controlled by the overseeing teachers. Critics of the system were concerned with the cheap labour, poor working conditions of the apprentices and that it “could not provide teachers of sufficient quality” (Ball, 2009, p. 103). Many teachers were taking control of classrooms without having undertaken any formal theoretical training. This added to society’s perception that teaching was a trade, although as stated by Ball “teachers themselves were actively campaigning to professionalise teaching and raise its social and political status and, as a result, they became unionised in 1883” (2009, p. 102).
The first quarter of the twentieth century was a time of great change and development in teacher training and the level of autonomy previously enjoyed by teachers diminished with the increasing level of state control. The Inspector-General of Schools and Secretary for Education, George Hogben’s growing concern for the education system, initiated a number of changes. Amongst them was the centralisation of the education system thereby achieving national consistency, and the introduction of a new curriculum that required annual examinations to ensure that not only the students were learning but to prove that effective teaching was occurring (Ball, 2009). Teachers’ personal behaviour and appearance was regulated and teacher training was restructured. The four year pupil-teacher apprenticeship was reduced to two years, and the training college and concurrent part-time university study was made mandatory, although this was not without problems (Openshaw & Ball, 2006). Whilst all of the training colleges pursued links with their associated university colleges, not all married the concurrent forms of study successfully for their trainee teachers. The two concurrent forms of study were restructured in the Education Amendment Act of 1920. The Department of Education authorised the training colleges to provide both general and professional education courses and “only academically talented trainees were allowed access to concurrent university study” (Openshaw & Ball, 2006, p. 107). University study was no longer a requirement to qualify.
The 1920s saw further restructuring in teacher education and eventually the demise of the pupil-teacher era. As a result of the 1925 Reichel-Tate Commission new trainees were required to have a full secondary education and successfully passed Matriculation, prior to commencing one year teaching practice in a school followed by two years at a training college (The New Zealand Gazette, as cited in Ball, 2009).
1935 marked the liberalisation of education in New Zealand. Following the Great Depression which saw the training colleges close for varying lengths of time and a pause in teacher training, the new Labour Government considered that “social equality could be achieved through opportunity” (Ray, 2009, p.18) and viewed education as important and teacher training high priority. The structure of teacher training was reversed, with the first two years at a training college followed by a year as a probationary assistant in a school, and certification upon completion (Allan, as cited in Openshaw & Ball, 2006). The government sponsored the tour of the New Education Fellowship Conference and schools were closed to enable teachers to attend. “The tour proved to be a turning point for New Zealand education” (Beeby, as cited in Openshaw & Ball, 2006, p. 108). Over the next ten years the education system was reformed with initial changes including the abolishment of the pre-requisite requirement of Matriculation for teacher trainees.
The abandonment of the Matriculation requirement for potential teachers prior to the Second World War caused concerns regarding the calibre of trainees. Many were considered too young to benefit from training college or had minimal entry level qualifications (Openshaw & Ball, 2006). However during the war, due to swelling pupil numbers and teacher shortage, the Minister of Education introduced an “emergency one-year course for teacher training in order to alleviate the acute teacher shortage” (Openshaw & Ball, 2006, p. 108).
In 1944, the New Zealand Educational Institute (teachers’ union) voiced its belief that professional teacher training could only be attained at university level and recommended that training colleges be given the same status of universities with trainees completing additional studies in their year as a probationary assistant. Universities, it suggested, should be responsible for training and certifying teachers (McLean, 2009). However the teacher training system remained unchanged.
Over the next fifty years the state maintained tight control over the expanding education system. More teachers were required to reduce the class sizes and debates regarding the duration, location and quality of teacher training continued. Recommendations in 1951 to change it to a three year college course were reluctantly rejected due to the post war baby boom and the need of an uninterrupted supply of teachers (Openshaw & Ball, 2009). Almost a decade later recommendations to amalgamate training colleges and universities were rejected, as were further suggestions to merge the two bodies. However a revised suggestion to extend the college component to three years and improve the quality of courses was approved and from 1966 the Diploma of Teaching was gradually extended from two to three years (Openshaw & Ball, 2006). By the mid 1970s, amid growing societal unrest and general dissatisfaction with an education system that appeared not to be providing equal outcomes for all students, debates regarding the education system and teacher training had recommenced (Ministry of Education, 2012, Openshaw & Ball, 2006).
The late 1980s saw a complete restructure of the education system as a whole. The Picot Report and the consequent Education Amendment Act of 1989 initiated the restructure of the administration of the education system. The Ministry of Education was established and replaced the Department of Education, taking over responsibility of educational policy. Financial and administrative responsibilities were decentralised to the schools themselves who were to be governed by Boards of Trustees. Individual school charters were developed, linking each school’s objectives to the national objectives and school inspections continued but undertaken by an independent Review and Audit Agency (NZCER, 2012, Openshaw & Ball, 2006). The focus was on schools acting autonomously with accountability to both their community and the government (NZCER, 2012).
The administration of teacher education was not ignored in this restructuring. Competition for providing it was “opened up to the free market conditions” (McLean, 2009, p. 61) and government funding based on the number of full time students meant that the various competitors were forced to jostle for prospective trainees (Openshaw & Ball, 2006). It was inevitable that the Colleges of Education would eventually amalgamate with their local Universities, and by 2007 this had occurred (McLean, 2009). Teacher training had finally become a university based education (with a practical component).
While schools and teacher education providers had relative autonomy, teachers were not so fortunate. Under the new reform teachers were purely transmitters of the state’s curriculum with no opportunity to be involved in policy development and with a growing demand for accountability, teachers’ performance was under constant scrutiny. McLean states teachers “were seen as functionaries with a narrow technical task subject to measurement rather than autonomous professionals” (2009, p. 66) The Teacher Registration Board and Teachers Council were established to manage teaching standards and in an effort to define ‘quality teaching’, a set of professional standards were formulated to improve student outcomes and as a vehicle for on-going professional learning (Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2007). Kleinhenz and Ingvarson assert that “the ability to define and apply standards is the main avenue by which professions demonstrate their credentials as a profession” (2007, p. v). Sullivan (1999) asserts that these professional standards should not be confused with performance measures.
Performance pay based on student achievement is one such proposed initiative and a subject of much debate. Arguments against the proposal argue that performance payments based on student achievement is not a valid measure of a teacher’s ability or performance. Student abilities can be immensely varied within the one environment and factors beyond the teacher’s control can affect a learner’s level of learning achievement. This initiative may result in teachers competing against each other, teaching for results not for the student’s overall potential (Leckie, as cited in New Zealand Education Review, 2012). Proponents for the proposal argue that highly skilled and enthusiastic teachers should be rewarded for their efforts. However student achievement should not be the only indicator of teacher performance, the value the teacher adds to the students learning should also be taken into account (Walsh, as cited in New Zealand Education Review, 2012). How does this affect teachings’ professional status? Sulllivan (1999) asserts that rewarding some and not others will not result in improved learning but will undermine teacher morale. This may ultimately undermine teachers’ professionalism.
The proposal to allow untrained and unqualified teachers to teach in soon to be established charter schools may also be considered a threat to the professionalisation of teaching, as this undermines the professional characteristic of monopoly of practice. Furthermore this proposal contradicts the recent suggestion that future qualifying teachers will require higher qualifications in the future. Does the state want teachers whose practical teaching skills are informed by theoretical understandings or people from the wider society? One must assume that these untrained and unqualified prospective teachers will have some qualifications to substantiate themselves, but this is still an unknown. Teachers have worked hard to achieve the characteristics of a profession and the debate on whether untrained individuals will benefit and improve learner achievement is continuing.
The professionalisation of teaching in New Zealand has been an on-going aspiration of teachers. Today, teaching employs practical skills and strategies to motivate, enthuse and inspire learners but these skills and strategies are largely underpinned by evidence based theory which is now reflected in today’s teacher education. With increasing external monitoring, evaluation and accountability the concept of autonomy has all but disappeared and new initiatives threaten to undermine teachers’ current status. The professionalisation of teachers will continue to be challenged.

Word count: 2217

References:

Ball, T. (2009) “Desirable models of behaviour”: learning to teach as a rite of passage: an historical study of initial teacher education in New Zealand (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://muir.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/1238/02whole.pdf?sequence=1

Cameron, M. (2003) Teacher status project: Stage 1 Research: Identifying teacher status, its impact and recent teacher status initiatives. Wellington, Ministry of Education and New Zealand Teachers Council. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ece/2535/10612

Howells, H. (2003). Teacher professionalism and curriculum power: a cautionary tale. English in Australia, 136, 27–39. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/

Kane, R.G. (2008). Perceptions of teachers and teaching: A focus on early childhood education. New Zealand: Ministry of Education. doi:978-0-478-13865-8

Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2007) Standards for teaching. Theoretical underpinnings and applications. New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers Council. doi:978-0-477-10034-2

Lee, G., & Lee, H. (2001). Teacher education in New Zealand, 1920-1980: Curriculum, Location, and Control. Education Research and Perspectives, 28(1), 83-104. Retrieved from http://erpjournal.net/

McLean, M. (2009). New Zealand teachers. In E. Rata & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Introduction to the history of New Zealand education (pp. 57-69). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Ministry of Education. (2012). OECD Review on Evaluation and Assessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/90729/966_OECD-report.pdf

New Zealand Education Review. (2012). The big debate: Performance pay for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.educationreview.co.nz/

NZCER. (2012). Impact of education reforms. Retrieved from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/

Openshaw, R., & Ball, T. (2006). New Zealand Teacher Education: Progression or Prescription. Education Research and Perspectives, 33(2), 102-123. Retrieved from http://erpjournal.net/

Ray, S. (2009). New Zealand education in the twentieth century. In E. Rata & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Introduction to the history of New Zealand education (pp.16-30). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Sullivan, K. (1999). Teacher standards and professionalism: Contested perspectives in a decade of reform. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 144-154. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/sul99090.htm

References: Howells, H. (2003). Teacher professionalism and curriculum power: a cautionary tale. English in Australia, 136, 27–39. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/ Kane, R.G Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2007) Standards for teaching. Theoretical underpinnings and applications. New Zealand: New Zealand Teachers Council. doi:978-0-477-10034-2 Lee, G., & Lee, H McLean, M. (2009). New Zealand teachers. In E. Rata & R. Sullivan (Eds.), Introduction to the history of New Zealand education (pp. 57-69). Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education. Ministry of Education New Zealand Education Review. (2012). The big debate: Performance pay for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.educationreview.co.nz/ NZCER Openshaw, R., & Ball, T. (2006). New Zealand Teacher Education: Progression or Prescription. Education Research and Perspectives, 33(2), 102-123. Retrieved from http://erpjournal.net/ Ray, S Sullivan, K. (1999). Teacher standards and professionalism: Contested perspectives in a decade of reform. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), 144-154. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/sul99090.htm