Research-Informed Teacher Learning: Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice 9780367133139, 9780429025822

Research-Informed Teacher Learning explores career-long improvements in knowledge building and the skills required in cu

502 48 9MB

English Pages [203] Year 2020

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Research-Informed Teacher Learning: Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice
 9780367133139, 9780429025822

Table of contents :
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
List of figures
Book Synopsis
Dedicated to Carey Philpott (1965–2017)
List of contributors
A personal response to the idea of research-informed teacher learning: A
Prologue: Critical perspectives on teacher learning in the 21st century
Editor’s introduction: Professional self-determination via teacher learning
Professional self-determination
Continuing practitioner dialogues with policy-practice
1. Research-informed teacher learning as professional practice
Playing with language
Establishing position in research
Key dates on evidence-based teaching
Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
peoples in ITE
The Australian education policy context
Culturally Responsive Pedagogies
Concluding statements
2. Community-oriented pre-service teachers: The limits of activism
New globalised colonising of education spaces and places
Strategies of slow activism and horizontal alliances
Philpott’s careful ‘working within’ the system
Researching communities in a teacher education programme
But the limits of ‘slow activism’
3. New directions in headship education in Scotland
The influence of international drivers in shaping Scottish
education policy
The genesis of the Specialist Qualification for Headship
Towards coherent leadership pathways in Scottish education
The Specialist Qualification for Headship – Into Headship
The nature of the population
Area of focus of Strategic Change Initiatives
Findings and discussion
4. Musing on teacher mentoring and calls for clinical practice
Teacher mentoring
Research-informed teacher learning
The importance of collaboration and teacher learning communities
The medical model
The way forward
5. The “view from now”: What are the effects of recent changes to ITE policy for the future?
The ITE policy context
Approaches to searching literature on ITE policy changes and effects.
Effects of policy changes in ITE: themes in the literature
6. The problem with randomised controlled trials for education
RCTs and human agency
Meta-analysis and beyond
Research is not just experiments
Concluding remarks
7. Professional learning communities as sites for teacher learning
Professional learning communities
Communities of practice
Teacher agency and PLCs
8. Teacher learning: Schön and the language of reflective practice
Reflecting on practice: Schön and the Quist/Petra case study
An example of imitation: a mother and her baby
An alternative perspective
Conclusion: Schön and the language of reflective practice
9. Teachers’ professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage
Teachers’ professional knowledge about poverty and disadvantage
Knowledge mobilisation
Translational research
‘Leading Learning’ as research-informed teacher learning
An exemplary teacher inquiry project
Becoming critical: the contribution of teachers’ research knowledge
10. Supporting student teachers with minority identities: The importance of pastoral care and social justice in initial teacher education
Identifying social justice in evidence-informed teaching
Negotiating policy ideas
The need for pastoral care in teacher education
Minority stress
Student teachers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer
Rethinking initial teacher education programmes
11. What do we mean when we speak of research evidence in education?
Engaging Philpott: a view from abroad in comparative perspective
Defining the field
Consequences of lack of agreement in the field
What is the knowledge needed to engage with and produce research,
and how does it help to develop learning communities?
What do we know about the evidence that informs teacher education?
Other disciplines entering the field with a weak response
by educators.
A view toward the future
Epilogue: Developing research-informed teacher learning

Citation preview

Research-Informed Teacher Learning, edited by Professor Lori Beckett, serves two significant purposes. The first is to honour the work on the professional learning of teachers of the late Professor Carey Philpott. The second is to disseminate and develop further the central proposition of Carey’s work that research must be one central intellectual resource to ensure teaching is a research-informed profession and, as such, to ensure teachers are able to take leadership of the profession. Research-Informed Teacher Learning succeeds admirably on both counts. Emeritus Professor Bob Lingard, the University of Queensland, and Professorial Fellow, Australian Catholic University Policy makers in particular need to take notice of this important new collection. In the global neo-liberal conceptualization of education, performativity and accountability are valorized and the role of the professional teacher and teacher educator is too often defined and delimited by a focus on results and outcomes. A radical shift is required that places attention on the role of education as a public and social good that can make a difference in the lives of young people and contribute to more equal and healthy societies. Urgent consideration should be given to educational professionals and practitioners as purveyors of public good and more general questions asked about the purpose of education. This book is timely in offering such a critique. It pays homage to Professor Cary Philpott, to whom the book is dedicated, and the important question he asked: ‘Who has all the answers in education (and why should we believe them)?’. The reflections of contributors offer a wide ranging, nuanced and critically reflective response that should be of interest to a wide range of educational stakeholders. Professor Joanne Hughes, UNESCO Chair/Director of the Centre for Shared Education, School of Social Sciences, Education and Social Work, Queen’s University Belfast This insightful and timely book builds on the considerable legacy of Carey Philpott in the field of educational research. The chapters in the book use Carey’s work as a springboard to address a wide range of important contemporary questions about teacher learning, the complex relationships between theory and practice, and what constitutes effective research in education. This book is essential reading for teachers and teacher educators. Ian Thompson, Associate Professor of English Education, University of Oxford This crucial book answers some critical questions about teaching and teacher education. Can the traditional model of ‘teacher education 1.0’ be challenged? Can practitioners manage their own professional learning in the classroom, researching real problems of practice that help them build professional knowledge with their colleagues and community? Can educators critically and creatively respond to policy that works to constrain social

justice for some children but also pro-actively advocate for better informed policies? The contributors assembled here say yes. They provide evidence of how research-active professionals can lead change, show us that this ambition is still alive and well in our profession, and give us much-needed hope for the future of our profession. Jo-Anne Reid, Professor of Education, Charles Sturt University This excellent book, bringing together a distinguished group of critical scholars, has important messages for teachers and teacher educators that deserve to be read. Taking a cue from the late Professor Carey Philpott, each contributor goads teachers to think about ‘from whom and how’ they can learn more effectively in order to encourage research-informed critical conversations among professional communities, including teacher unions. This is so urgent in the face of ever-changing government policy directions, inspired by global neo-liberal agendas with their emphases on performativity and accountability that not only threatens the status of teachers but also to eradicate their professional judgement. Research-informed teacher learning will surely help to safeguard teachers’ roles as professional educators marked by professional autonomy and professional self-determination. The book is a credit to all concerned and a fitting memorial tribute. John Carr, Former General Secretary of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO) and Chair of the Vere Foster Trust This book provides an insightful and lively continuation of the work of Professor Carey Philpott and his exploration of the issues surrounding teachers’ professional learning. It provides a clear discussion and dissection of the thorny issues of models for teacher education, and how the conceptual space between theory and practice may be bridged. In doing so, this book starts to do just that: providing an essential resource for teacher educators, teachers, education researchers and those involved in constructing professional learning policies. The tripartite golden threads of theory, research and practice run through each chapter to build to a powerful conclusion, to motivate, inspire and celebrate the professional discourse in teachers’ professional learning. Graham French, Postgraduate Lead & Tutor to the Outdoor Activities PGCE Group, School of Education and Human Development, Bangor University

Research-Informed Teacher Learning

Research-Informed Teacher Learning explores career-long improvements in knowledge building and the skills required in curriculum reform, transformations in teaching methods, alterations to assessment, and restructurings in school administration and management. This extends to meeting the needs and interests of different and diverse students and groups of students, mentoring student teachers and beginning teachers, and supporting experienced teachers, so they are all responsive to their local school-communities, thereby contributing to democratic schooling and the public good. The book mainly focuses on the professionals working in teaching and teacher education from pre-service training and development through early-mid career and into later stages of career mobility. It pinpoints the ways that practitioners need to be involved in the design and delivery of changing models of teacher education which helps in the development of their own professional activities at all levels of the teaching service. Dedicated to the late Professor Carey Philpott, the book takes his ideas forward, particularly in the current conjuncture when teacher learning is curtailed and constrained by power brokers, politicians and policy makers in various undemocratic ways. This book will be of great interest for academics and researchers in the fields of teacher education, educational policy and politics, and lifelong learning and development. Lori Beckett is an Adjunct Professor at the Griffith Institute of Educational Research, Australia, and Visiting Professor at the School of Education, Bangor University, Wales. She also works with the Vere Foster Trust, Ireland.

Routledge Research in Teacher Education The Routledge Research in Teacher Education series presents the latest research on Teacher Education and also provides a forum to discuss the latest practices and challenges in the field.

Professional Development through Mentoring Novice ESL Teachers’ Identity Formation Juliana Othman and Fatiha Senom Research on Becoming an English Teacher Through Lacan’s Looking Glass Tony Brown, Mike Dore and Christopher Hanley Intercultural Competence in the Work of Teachers Confronting Ideologies and Practices Edited by Fred Dervin, Robyn Moloney and Ashley Simpson Teacher Representations in Dramatic Text and Performance Portraying the Teacher on Stage Edited by Melanie Shoffner and Richard St. Peter School-Based Deliberative Partnership as a Platform for Teacher Professionalization and Curriculum Innovation Geraldine Mooney Simmie and Manfred Lang Technology-Enabled Mathematics Education Optimising Student Engagement Catherine Attard and Kathryn Holmes Integrating Technology in English Language Arts Teacher Education Donna L. Pasternak Research-Informed Teacher Learning Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice Edited by Lori Beckett For more information about this series, please visit: Routledge-Research-in-Teacher-Education/book-series/RRTE

Research-Informed Teacher Learning Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice

Edited by Lori Beckett

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Lori Beckett; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Lori Beckett to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-0-367-13313-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-02582-2 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Taylor & Francis Books


List of figures Book Synopsis Dedicated to Carey Philpott (1965–2017) List of contributors Acknowledgements A personal response to the idea of research-informed teacher learning: A vignette

ix x xi xiii xvii



Prologue: Critical perspectives on teacher learning in the 21st century



Editor’s introduction: Professional self-determination via teacher learning



1 Research-informed teacher learning as professional practice



2 Community-oriented pre-service teachers: The limits of activism



3 New directions in headship education in Scotland



4 Musing on teacher mentoring and calls for clinical practice



5 The “view from now”: What are the effects of recent changes to ITE policy for the future?



6 The problem with randomised controlled trials for education TERRY WRIGLEY


viii Contents 7 Professional learning communities as sites for teacher learning



8 Teacher learning: Schön and the language of reflective practice



9 Teachers’ professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage



10 Supporting student teachers with minority identities: The importance of pastoral care and social justice in initial teacher education



11 What do we mean when we speak of research evidence in education?



Epilogue: Developing research-informed teacher learning






3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10

The revised national model of professional learning 2018 Diagrammatic representation of the Specialist Qualification for Headship Illustration of the ‘Teaching for Understanding Framework’ Student demographics for Into Headship cohort 2017 Focus of Strategic Change Initiatives for cohort 2017–2018 Illustration of over-arching themes The quality of student experience/pedagogy Furthering understanding of strategic leadership Affordances of Into Headship Poster illustrating Strategic Change Initiative in the form of an academic poster presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association Conference, 2017

30 31 33 33 34 35 35 37 38


Book Synopsis

Research-Informed Teacher Learning: Critical Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice is about the professional matter of career-long improvements in knowledge-building and the skills required for teaching and teacher education. This includes decision-making about curriculum and its reform; transformations to pedagogies, instruction and teaching methods; alterations to assessment; and restructurings in school administration and management. This extends to meeting the needs and interests of different and diverse students and groups of students, mentoring student teachers and beginning teachers, and supporting experienced teachers, so they are all responsive to their local school communities, thereby contributing to democratic schooling and the public good. The central argument of the book is that these crucial concerns, while of interest to government, need to be the provenance of professionals working in teaching and teacher education from pre-service training and development through earlymid career and into later stages of career mobility. This pinpoints the ways that practitioners need to be involved in the design and delivery of changing models of teacher education, which includes school-based activities but is not confined to them, and where they benefit by actively participating in the development of their own professional activities at all levels of the teaching service. This was the main message in the research output of the late Professor Carey Philpott, who died suddenly and unexpectedly in January 2017, aged 51, while in post at Leeds Beckett University. This was not long after his inaugural professorial lecture and keynote address at the 2016 Teacher Education Advancement Network (TEAN) conference, each making teacher learning a central concern for the profession. Carey’s thinking and theorising greatly impressed and influenced his colleagues and students, who worked with him in different institutions across England and Scotland, indeed across transnational and international borders. Many also shared platforms with him: in staff seminars, as co-authors in writing projects, at conferences such as TEAN, the Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA) and British Educational Research Association (BERA), and in research projects in school–university partnerships and in multiple collaborations. As a mark of their respect, his colleagues and students have come together here as contributing authors to take his research on teacher learning forward and to dedicate this volume to his memory.

Dedicated to Carey Philpott (1965–2017)

Photograph copyright: Leeds Beckett University, 2019

Carey’s passion and commitment to education and especially teacher education was deeply motivated by his own experiences of disaffection from schooling as a teenage boy aged 15, sensing there was no place for him in the system. Born into an English working-class family, he left school as soon as it was legally practicable with two ‘O’ levels, fortunate to secure an apprenticeship in a local factory where he intensely disliked the practical work but came to enjoy the study of electrical engineering. Again he left, but this time without any qualification, and worked as a barman in local pubs before gaining work as a temporary clerical assistant in the Department of Housing and Social Security in London, where he then gained insights into that system. As luck would have it, he worked very near to the British Museum where he found solitude reading, only to come to the realisation that he wanted to return to study.

xii Dedicated to Carey Philpott (1965–2017) That Carey rose to become Professor of Teacher Education with distinction is all the more remarkable because he had to negotiate so many systemic barriers to ‘get back in’ to education. There was no easy re-entry for a lad with no evidence of commitment to study, but at 21 years of age he managed night school to gain his A levels, graduate and secure a place at Stirling University in Scotland to study English. Then when he had his BA he declared his intention to do a PGCE to become a teacher with the explanation that he felt duty-bound to give something back in return for his opportunities. This took him back to England but later he re-joined family in Scotland. As a newly qualified teacher, Carey was required to spend a year as a supply teacher in high-poverty community schools on housing estates in the east end of Glasgow; then he responded to an ad for a long-term temporary teaching post in English and Drama once again in a high-poverty community school, this time in London. His first permanent position was in yet another similar school in London and by this time the seeds were sown for his MA study to make more sense of the challenges in teaching teenage boys not only marked by high poverty but by immigration with multi-lingual needs as well as learning disabilities. This coincided with Carey’s responsibilities for mentoring student teachers, which provoked a concern for the twin issues of researchinformed teacher learning and systemic change, and which precipitated his PhD study and an academic career in both England and Scotland. He came to publish on both systems with great acumen, witness to his impressive life’s work and his important research output, which really deserves to be read, discussed and debated, and above all, carried forward.


Lori Beckett, PhD, was the inaugural Winifred Mercier Professor at Leeds Metropolitan University, having been recruited from the University of Technology Sydney. Her work in the north of England was geared to support and mentor research-active teachers in schools in communities which experience poverty and cumulative multiple deprivation, and in Ireland to build capacity for teacher-union research. Now semi-retired in North Wales, she continues to work with the Vere Foster Trust in Ireland but also as an Adjunct Professor, Griffith Institute of Educational Research, Griffith University in Australia, and Visiting Professor, School of Education, Bangor University in Wales. Her research efforts are geared to building local, transnational and international collaborations on poverty and schooling for social justice. Pete Boyd, PhD, is an education consultant working in higher education and in schools. He is Emeritus Professor in Education at the University of Cumbria and Visiting Professor of academic development at Newman University. Pete supervises doctoral education research by teachers and lecturers. He was a high school teacher for 15 years, mainly of geography but including some mathematics and outdoor education, before moving into higher education as a teacher educator and academic developer. His research interests include assessment in higher education, the pedagogy of teacher education and close to practice collaborative research with school teachers. Pete worked with Carey Philpott at St Martin’s College and the University of Cumbria and they pursued their part-time doctoral studies together at Lancaster University. Marie Brennan, PhD, is Adjunct Professor, University of South Australia. Her research interests include teacher education; social (in)justice, curriculum reform and environmental justice. Jonathan Glazzard, PhD, is Professor of Inclusive Education at Leeds Beckett University. He is the Professor attached to the Carnegie Centre of Excellence for Mental Health in Schools. Jonathan teaches across a range of QTS and non-QTS programmes and is an experienced teacher educator. Jonathan is a qualified teacher and taught in primary schools before moving into higher education. He is editor of the Positive Mental Health series by Critical Publishing and has produced

xiv List of contributors an extensive range of books on mental health, special educational needs and disabilities, and early reading development. Linda Harris was an English teacher in various secondary schools across Glasgow City, East Renfrewshire and East Ayrshire before joining the University of Strathclyde in 2004. She retired in 2017 after 37 years of teaching. Melitta Hogarth is a Kamilaroi woman who is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Melbourne. Prior to entering academia, Melitta taught for almost 20 years in all three sectors of the Queensland education system, specifically in secondary education. Melitta’s research interests are in education, equity and social justice. Alison Iredale, PhD, was until recently a Course Director with responsibility for postgraduate distance learning provision in the Carnegie School of Education at Leeds Beckett University. Alison has worked in teacher education since 2003, predominantly in the further and adult education sector, and has research interests in professional knowledge and practice, work-based learning, online professional learning communities and educational change through technology. Ian Menter, PhD, is a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in the UK and was President of the British Educational Research Association (BERA), 2013–15. He is Emeritus Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Oxford and was formerly the Director of Professional Programmes in the Department of Education at the university. He previously worked at the Universities of Glasgow, the West of Scotland, London Metropolitan, the West of England and Gloucestershire. Before that, he was a primary school teacher in Bristol, England. He is now a Visiting Professor at two UK universities (including Bath Spa) and is a Senior Research Associate at Kazan Federal University, Russia. He was President of the Scottish Educational Research Association (SERA) from 2005–2007 and was a member of the steering group for the BERA/RSA Inquiry into Research and Teacher Education. He led the team at the University of Glasgow that carried out a literature review for the Review of Teacher Education in Scotland. His main research interests are in research, policy and practice in teacher education, including comparative studies of this topic. Recent and forthcoming publications include: Learning to Teach in England and the United States (Tatto, Burn, Menter, Mutton and Thompson; Routledge, 2018); A Companion to Research in Teacher Education (Peters, Cowie and Menter, Eds.; Springer, 2017); Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning to Teach: A Cross-National Study (Tatto and Menter, Eds.; Bloomsbury, 2019). Joan Mowat, PhD, is Course Leader for Into Headship at the University of Strathclyde. Her principal research interests are inclusion and leadership for social justice. Her most recent work has focused on the poverty-related attainment gap which she has examined through the lenses of policy, leadership for social justice and the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. Stephen Newman, PhD, is Senior Lecturer in Education and Professional Development in the Carnegie School of Education, Leeds Beckett University.

List of contributors


His research interests include philosophy and philosophy of education, and the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and its application to issues of social, educational and political concern. Amanda Nuttall is a Senior Lecturer in Primary Education at Leeds Trinity University, where she leads undergraduate initial teacher education provision. Prior to working in ITE, Amanda taught for 13 years in primary schools in Leeds and surrounding areas. She is currently undertaking DPhil study at the University of Oxford. Her research is focused on understanding tensions, contradictions and conflicts in identity that teachers may experience when they engage in research activity. Her research focus is influenced by her own experiences as a research-active teacher in disadvantaged schools, alongside her recent work in teacher education to develop research literacy for student teachers. Helen Scott, PhD, is a Professor with a background in art and design. She has worked in initial teacher education and teacher continuing professional development for the last two decades in a variety of teaching and leadership positions at different English universities. Samuel Stones is an Associate Researcher and doctoral scholarship student in the Carnegie School of Education at Leeds Beckett University. His research outputs are linked with the Centre for LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Education and the Carnegie Centre of Excellence for Mental Health in Schools. Samuel’s research explores the experiences of teachers who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, with specific emphasis on the impact of sexual orientation on teacher agency, resilience, identity and mental health. He also works with initial teacher training students in university and school contexts and is an Associate Leader of maths, computing, economics and business at a secondary school and sixth form college in North Yorkshire. He continues to produce texts for a range of publishers and has co-authored the Positive Mental Health series by Critical Publishing as well as the Supporting LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Education series with Professor Jonathan Glazzard. Maria Teresa Tatto, PhD, is Professor in the Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation, and the Southwest Borderlands Professor of Comparative Education at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. She is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Education, University of Oxford and a Visiting Professor at the Department of Education at Bath University. Previously she was a professor at Michigan State University and worked as a researcher in the Department of Educational Psychology at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She has served as co-editor of the journal Educational and Policy Analysis Archives, as Editor-in-Chief for the Journal of Teacher Education, and as a guest editor for the Oxford Review of Education and the International Journal of Educational Research. She is a former president of the Comparative and International Education Society, and studies the effects of educational policy on school and teacher education systems.

xvi List of contributors Diana Tremayne is currently undertaking doctoral research into informal online teacher-learning communities and how they support professional learning and teacher agency. She was initially supervised by Professor Carey Philpott. She also teaches part-time at Leeds Beckett University and has a background in further education. Terry Wrigley, PhD, is Senior Lecturer at Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. He has written extensively on education, particularly school development, policy and social justice. His books include Changing Schools: Alternative Ways to Make a World of Difference (co-editors Pat Thomson and Bob Lingard) and Living on the Edge: Rethinking Poverty, Class and Schooling (co-author John Smyth). He is actively involved in challenging neoliberal policy and practices, and helps coordinate a researcher network Reclaiming Schools, which works closely with the National Education Union (England and Wales) and parent campaigns.


When Carey Philpott (1965–2017) died so suddenly and unexpectedly, his family, many friends and colleagues were left bereft. At the time, he had been Professor of Teacher Education at Leeds Beckett University for just on 18 months, and in that term it was apparent that Carnegie Faculty had appointed a man of great stature. His teaching and research, publications, staff seminar presentations and conference presentations, as well as his work in networks of local schools, academic partners and professional associations, were widely acclaimed. An avid reader, voracious thinker and critical friend, one could say he was just ‘hitting his stride’. Indeed, it was telling that on hearing of his death, so many people across his different places of work in England and Scotland, from senior management and academic staff through to administrative staff and students, expressed their condolences. It was a mark of the man that Carey’s office door in Leeds became a pin-board for overt expressions of admiration and loss while the emails circulating became a great comfort to friends, colleagues and students, near and far. The idea for this edited memorial book was borne of that time. While Carnegie School of Education management developed a plan to establish the Carey Philpott Fund for Research Partnerships, academic staff and students also wanted to do something to commemorate his name and to continue his work. This led to some warm conversations with different colleagues about a Festschrift that resulted in an email enquiry to Routledge Editor Heidi Lowther, who not only responded but took the trouble to make two extremely sensitive phone calls: firstly to explain the idea that such a book would ordinarily honour someone well-respected during their lifetime, and secondly to talk through the significance of Carey’s oeuvre of work and what might be the focus for a book proposal. Wholehearted thanks therefore must go to Heidi as well as her Routledge colleagues Anna Clarkson and Will Bateman for their expert editorial advice and guidance, and academic colleagues Ian Menter (Oxford) and Pete Boyd (University of Cumbria) for their help and advice to hone the idea. Special thanks are due to Carnegie School of Education Dean Professor Damien Page, PA Elizabeth Birch and Research Director Professor John Sharp for their genuine encouragement and support. Likewise, special thanks are due to Julia Morris at Critical Publishing for her equally genuine encouragement and support. This all led to the sharing of knowledge of some of Carey’s colleagues and co-authors.

xviii Acknowledgements The networks then worked and it is crucial to acknowledge and thank the contributing authors who became known to each other in the course of preparing the book proposal and subsequently the book manuscript. Their commitment to this very special project is heartfelt because they made it possible but more than that they embody the spirit of Carey’s work, which is to equip practitioners in teaching and teacher education with the intellectual resources to become research-active and take a leadership role in their chosen profession. Special acknowledgement and thanks are also due to the anonymous reviewers of the book proposal because they really made us home in on the significance of Carey’s work for an international audience, and to Routledge Editorial Assistants Emilie Coin and Swapnil Joshi for so capably steering the project towards completion. Another special note of thanks must be made to Ian Menter and Pete Boyd as well as Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona) for their willingness to respectively become part of the editorial team, review each chapter and make their own chapter contributions. Marie Brennan (University of South Australia) also helped with this too. Finally, everyone assembled here would especially like to acknowledge and give their sincerest thanks to Carey’s family, particularly Jane Gordon, who remained steadfast in her support for the project, and who generously provided access to Carey’s contact list, work records and portrait photograph, and gave consent where necessary. Jane also caringly responded to many phone calls, provided his biographical details, and courageously remained attentive to all the broadcast emails. She periodically sent messages of encouragement with her love and best wishes and that of the children Patrick, Katherine and Elizabeth. This is our gift to them in the hope it will bring some small comfort in the knowledge that Carey will be long remembered by those of us who are so privileged to share in his professional conversations and engage with his prodigious work output.

A personal response to the idea of research-informed teacher learning A vignette Melitta Hogarth UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

It was not until late in my teaching career that I recognised and acknowledged that I was actually a teacher and a researcher. I had never really considered the amount of data I handled as anything significant, even though my analyses informed my professional decisions. Reviewing assessments and grades was accepted as “daily practice” or just what the job entailed. It took my further study to fully grasp that my role as a classroom teacher had never been positioned nor discussed as that of a researcher, and that teaching was far more complex than I had first imagined. It is no simple matter collaborating with peers and colleagues; providing guidance and advice to mentees and student teachers on the profession as a whole; and provoking critical insight into behaviour management and cultural understandings, for example. Perhaps, as I reflect now, that was the issue. If the link between teaching and research is not made explicit within Initial Teacher Education programmes, it is likely that we disconnect from the student life of research-informed teacher learning in the transition from pre-service in university into the practical settings of the school. Then, in the process of enacting the pre-requisite standards and what-not prescribed by government, it is possible to lose sight of the theories that inform our practice and validate our professional decision making. Without conscious effort to uphold that which makes teaching an intellectual pursuit, it is plausible we could unconsciously diminish our role, ultimately becoming “only a teacher”. Then consistently under policy- and time pressures, we are “running” to prepare not only for the upcoming year, creating lesson plans, units of work and resources, but also incessant inspections, eventually operating in survival mode. And when we get to a place where we think we can finally breathe, the government changes direction, new policies are imposed, and we are back to “running” simply to meet the changing environment and policy expectations.

Prologue Critical perspectives on teacher learning in the 21st century Ian Menter EMERITUS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

Critical perspectives on teacher learning in the 21st century For many years and in many settings, the ‘theory–practice’ relationship in teacher education has been ascribed a problematic nature. Politicians, policymakers, teacher educators and teachers have often commented from their own perspective, suggesting variously, for example, that teachers do not need to know any theory as they learn to teach, that contemporary teacher education has been ‘subverted’ by the wrong kinds of theory, or that teachers will never develop their full potential without a significant theoretical understanding of their activity. The project that was Carey Philpott’s working life was to explore the relationship between theory and practice in learning to teach – and to carry out this exploration in a rigorous and systematic manner. That this project came to such an untimely end, when Carey died, sadly means that it is left to others to pursue this crucial work. But at least Carey pointed us in some fruitful directions, some of which are picked up in this volume. An excellent starting point to understand Carey’s contribution to this project is his short book, Theories of Professional Learning (Philpott, 2014). At the outset he asks the questions ‘What do we want a theory of professional learning to do for us?’ and ‘What are some of the key differences between theories of professional learning?’ These two questions demonstrate very well the clarity and precision of Carey’s thinking and set him on a course to provide some invaluable insights. He works through some of the key theoretical contributions that have been made to the development of effective teacher education and assesses each of them critically. But he also gives serious consideration to practice, for example analysing the idea of ‘clinical practice’ and indeed, offering a very positive account of ‘apprenticeship’ models of learning to teach, some versions of which have recently been especially popular with politicians in England and elsewhere. His conclusion to the work is to argue that professional learning is a complex matter and that the context for that learning is all important. He further argues for the need to involve ‘people who have a good understanding of the professional learning process’. His respect for his professional colleagues is revealed in this sentence:

Prologue xxi We need to value such people and recognise their particular expertise as important not only for the future of individual learners but also for the practice of the whole profession. (Philpott, 2014: 75) So, as we seek to develop and improve the quality of teaching and the quality of teacher education, we need to draw attention to the importance of ‘making connections’, especially connections between theory and practice. It is important to communicate complex social and educational theories in straightforward language and to demonstrate the relevance of those theories to professional practice in teaching. Such connections are more important than ever in today’s educational contexts where performativity and accountability are dominant forces in the working lives of teachers and teacher educators, and where so much attention is paid to outcomes and results rather than to processes and experience. But it is equally important to undertake critical policy analysis as a necessary complement to educational research. We have seen how politicians and policymakers – as well as teachers – are frequently attracted to the craft-based view of teaching and the apprenticeship models of professional learning that are associated with it. In England this led during the second decade of the 21st century to a situation where entry routes into teaching have become incredibly diverse and, for those seeking to enter the profession, the decisionmaking process about how and where to pursue this aspiration has become more complex than ever (Whiting et al, 2018). Nevertheless, following Philpott (2014), there is an important philosophical and theoretical basis to the experiential learning that underpins all effective professional development. This has been demonstrated time and again in various carefully designed models of teacher education, including ‘learning rounds’ (which interested Carey greatly – see Philpott, 2017), ‘internships’ (see Hagger and McIntyre, 2006) or ‘research-informed clinical practice’ (Burn and Mutton, 2014). We can see in Carey’s work how his commitment to making connections between theory and practice was played out in relation to each of each of the subthemes of the present book: theory and research on the one hand and practice on the other. Carey’s work demonstrated so much of what is needed in today’s turbulent world of teacher education – clarity, care, creativity, systematic thinking and criticality. When he died he was working on the first volume in a series which he was planning to edit, under the title ‘Evidence-based Teaching’. That volume was published posthumously having been completed by Val Poultney (Philpott and Poultney, 2018). The book again clearly demonstrates his commitment to the intellectual engagement of teachers with their work and explores not only the theory–practice relationship but the relationship between educational research and the practice of teaching. All of these interests and Carey’s careful (and caring) approach to them need to be followed through with further empirically and theoretically based studies of teacher education policies and processes. The chapters in the present book offer some ways forward to build upon Carey’s enduring legacy.

xxii Ian Menter

References Burn, K. and Mutton, T. (2014) Review of ‘Research-Informed Clinical Practice’ in Teacher Education. London: BERA. Available at Hagger, H. and McIntyre, D. (2006) Learning Teaching from Teachers: Realizing the Potential of School-based Teacher Education. Maidenhead: Open University. Philpott, C. (2014) Theories of Professional Learning. Northwich: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C. (2017) Teacher agency and professional learning communities: what can learning rounds in Scotland tell us? In Peters, M., Cowie, B. and Menter, I. (Eds.) A Companion to Research in Teacher Education. Singapore: Springer. pp. 269–282. Philpott, C. and Poultney, V. (2018) Evidence-based Teaching. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Whiting, C., Whitty, G., Menter, I., Black, P., Hordern, J., Parfitt, A., Reynolds, K. and Sorenson, N. (2018) Diversity and complexity: Becoming a teacher in England in 2015–2016. Review of Education 6, 1, 69–96.

Editor’s introduction Professional self-determination via teacher learning Lori Beckett

Professional self-determination via teacher learning

Introduction Teacher learning is a matter of great concern to practitioners in teaching and teacher education, including student teachers. The twin question about what teachers learn and why is of paramount importance, professionally, because it directs and influences teaching practice. It happens that currently in most nation-state systems of schooling, schools are held tightly accountable by governments for what they do, notably in regard to student attainment and performance. This includes developing teaching programmes and schemes of work, curriculum reform, teaching methods and assessment in the first instance but it extends to school administration and management, inspections and reporting at local, state, national and international levels. In so many ways such a scenario is familiar in so many places given global directions from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Education Directorate, the McKinsey and Company reports (Mourshed, Chikioke and Barber, 2010), the World Trade Organization and, in the case of one sample region, the European Union (EU). This can be seen in myriad social media quotes from Andreas Schleicher, the Division Head and coordinator of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the OECD Indicators of Education Systems programme, when he claims the OECD is about: Fostering education & skills to help individuals and nations identify and develop the knowledge and skills which are key to a better and fairer society.1 Without putting too fine a point on it, governments’ pre-occupation with teacher learning has consequences but it needs to go beyond lip service given to the role and function of schooling and education to help individuals and nations oriented to a better and fairer society. At the risk of sounding naive, wide policy consultations with stakeholders including local communities, local governments, local businesses and local universities can mean much to teachers wanting to do the best

xxiv Lori Beckett by their students, making a difference to their lives and those of their families in local communities. It follows that teacher learning has the potential to effect the sort of nation-state we live in, along democratic lines where teachers have input into school policy development. This may be through professional associations and teacher unions, given concerns, for example, about addressing the ways in which state institutions are geared to implementing consecutive governments’ policy programmes, especially at the expense of the public good. Teachers are witness to this at the chalk-face in local schools in local communities; therefore, some urgent consideration needs to be given to the ways in which our increasingly multi-cultural, multi-faith societies are organised. This includes the ways their political economies are experienced at local levels, notably where deep-seated problems like poverty manifest. To carry through on this more realist note with regards the UK, particularly England, there is a need to reckon with some major problems with ideologically driven austerity politics and commitments to multi-national businesses. This focus on England is deliberate because it is central to Anglo-American corporate system reforms and actions, which find some expression in other jurisdictions of the UK, Ireland, the EU, Australia and other nation-states opening up schools and teacher ‘training’ institutions to vested interests, paving the way for free trade. These policy solutions are often seen as a panacea to the cyclic fortunes of political economies, especially after the global financial crash in 2008, which have given rise to populism and potential threats to democracy. This requires careful consideration in order to identify how such threats operate, which necessitates reasoned and powerfully expressed analyses.2 In many respects, these policy solutions echo down the 21st century as the product of feverish responses from government to be seen, for instance, when the Cameron–Clegg Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition Government was first elected in 2010. Education Secretary of State Michael Gove launched a programme of education and schooling reforms from 2010–2014, which instigated a major overhaul of teaching and teacher education, and consolidated dominant policy emphases on teacher and student performativity. The plethora of such Conservative policies continue to reverberate nearly a decade later, after the Cameron–Clegg Coalition Government (2010–2015) was replaced by the Cameron Conservative Government (2015–2016) then the May Conservative Government (2016–2019). They will no doubt continue under the Johnson Conservative Government (2019–present). Brexit and other threats to national and regional stability notwithstanding, such Conservative schools policies on teacher learning need attention, especially where it is subjected to ideological drivers to do with teaching standards, the standardisation of teaching, performance demands for teachers and students, and tight accountability. This is all part of a push for the marketisation, commercialisation and privatisation of schooling, which are being policed and sanctioned in authoritarian ways, most noticeably in England, especially where the national testing of schools and their concomitant examination results fall short in both primary schools with Statutory Assessments Tests (SATs) and secondary schools with the General Certificates of Secondary Education (GCSEs).

Editor’s introduction


This is most apparent in contexts where teachers are confronted by students grappling with major familial and social problems, the result of austerity politics that are part of an ideological response to the global financial crash but that compounded well-entrenched inequalities (see Lupton et al., 2016) or, more pointedly, social, educational and health inequalities (see Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009, 2018; Dorling, 2015, 2018). These all have major effects in the classroom (see Lupton, 2004, 2014; Bibby, Lupton and Raffo, 2017). There are many teacher research reports about poor student performance and targets not being met, which can result in student exclusions and disaffection from schooling, if not alienation from civil society (see Beckett, 2014). These experiences can also give rise to more distressing hardship for families already dealing with the pressures of daily life, compounding the real lived experiences of social, educational and health inequalities. These can also lead to schools being designated ‘failing’, often then forced to install corporate sponsors, which can result in staff sackings and replacement. This then dovetails with more official accounts of departmental problems with teacher recruitment and retention. Is it any wonder that teacher learning is a contested matter, professionally, precisely because it has its effects on teaching practice in highly regulated and standardised policy climes. This begs another multi-pronged question about who decides what teachers learn, that is, a rationale and justification in regards what for and to what end? On the one hand, there are politicians, policy-makers and power-brokers who buy into the global neoliberal policy agendas, free-market capitalism and profit-making schools. This is colloquially known as the GERM or the global educational reform movement (Sahlberg, 2012), which characterises a highly regulated teaching profession, and which has little chance of a considered voice being heard even through professional associations never mind teacher unions. This sort of scenario is actively promoted by dominant policy players like England’s Michael Gove, who became Secretary of State for Justice (2015–2016) in Cameron’s Conservative Government and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2016–2019) in the May Conservative Government, then, on her demise, stood as a candidate to be Prime Minister and was ultimately knocked out of that election. In fact, Gove is a renowned right-wing Tory spokesperson for Brexit who has strong links to Murdoch and others with likeminded world views3 supportive of multinationals like Pearson angling to take some control of nation-state systems of schooling (see Hogan, Sellar and Lingard, 2016; Hursh, 2017). On the other hand, there are research-active teachers and teacher educators working in schools, whether as practitioners in the classroom or as mentors in a support role, who both struggle with and resist these vernacular forms of global neoliberal policies, especially in the light of their findings. Given the emphases on teacher ‘training’ rather than teacher education in England, for example in the Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (DfE, 2015), such policies could be seen as mechanisms for securing compliance. The limited support for teachers’ practitioner research activity tends towards operating as impediments not only to teachers’ judgements about what is best for their students and local communities

xxvi Lori Beckett but also to research-informed teacher learning for democratic schooling and social justice (see Thrupp and Lupton, 2006; Francis, Mills and Lupton, 2017;). This is indicative of important concerns for the ways democracy works, or not as the case may be, in schools and universities as major social institutions, which in the present seems to be in the grip of politicians in thrall to ideological policies (see Held, 2006; Schmidt, 2006). This is principally pertinent to England and the USA, given Anglo-American corporate system reforms. In view of such developments, it is important not to discount the relevant, influential if not coercive institutions of the state that play key parts in this process and give some consideration to an appropriate professional response.4 In this edited memorial book it is argued that this work in support of democratic schooling is best done by practitioners individually and collectively engaging in research activities that contribute to teacher learning. In turn, this should give rise to the collective leadership of education and professional self-determination undergirded by necessary partnerships with stakeholders like students and local community representatives as well as local businesses and local universities, not to forget professional associations and teacher unions. This should herald critical perspectives on schooling and education in a democracy, which means naming the theories that underpin practitioners’ professional knowledge work; identifying the research in teacher education that underpins collaborative and coordinated policies and programmes of teacher learning as well as contextually sensitive and locally responsive teaching practice; and instituting schooling and educational practices that are research-informed, progressive and democratic, insofar as there is meaningful consultations and respected contributions at all levels of teacher learning. This extends from Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and the induction of New Qualified Teachers (NQTs) through to provision for learning for experienced practitioners and leaders in schools, universities and system offices. Such is the substance of this edited memorial book, which is written by, and for, research-active practitioners in teaching and teacher education.

Professional self-determination This focus on research-active professionals contributing to the leadership of systemic change in practice and policy was the substance of the work undertaken by our dear friend and colleague, Professor Carey Philpott, who died suddenly and unexpectedly in January 2017. Revisiting his work for this edited memorial book demands much of the reader because his teaching and research interests were broadly named as professional learning, teachers’ collaborative professional development, teachers as researchers, and evidence-based teaching, language and learning and narrative research, among other matters. These aspects of his life’s work helped to build an incomplete oeuvre, indicative of an agenda, which of course is open to critical interpretation. That said, a close study of his publications suggests he was engaged in critical conversations with his colleagues in print to not only accord teachers a central place but to identify those stakeholders who

Editor’s introduction


would mentor and support teachers and those who would displace teachers and potentially ignore their practical concerns. In doing so, Carey encouraged teachers to articulate their knowledge claims about teaching to inform their own practice. He also encouraged practitioners in teaching and teacher education to engage in the research for policy discussions, which was a means to consolidate their claims to decision-making. For example, Philpott (2013) titled his book chapter ‘Who has all the answers in education (and why should we believe them)?’ This was a provocative question and a catchy way to capture practitioners’ attention, but he went further to posit who is it who understands how effective teaching should be carried out? He simultaneously offered a tentative answer as to whether it is teachers, university lecturers, academic ‘theorists’ or researchers, government ministers, commercial CPD companies, or some other group entirely. At once, he identified two related contentious policy directions: firstly, effective teaching, given it is often couched as a ‘tips for teachers’ approach that ignores the complexities of teacher practice; and secondly, the possibilities of commercial if not corporate take-over that confront the profession and the practising teacher. At issue was the source of their knowledge, coupled with another provocative question, ‘why should we find their knowledge more credible than anyone else’s?’ The intention was to constructively goad teachers to think about ‘from whom, and how’ they can learn most effectively. It was a clever provocation to make the link between teacher learning and other peoples’ vested interests in the enterprise of schooling, pre-empting more considered attention to the prevailing twin notions of commercial activities and profitmaking. In other words, Carey in his own inimitable way was encouraging critical conversations among teachers, school leaders and managers, teacher educators, academics and inspectors, among other stakeholders with a professional interest in schools, who may have taken issue with these contentious policies and practices. It was a salutary lesson to engage in research-informed discussions about contemporary educational research and policy, and given the publication years of his books (see also Philpott, 2014; Philpott and Poultney, 2018), it could be said Carey’s publications were his timely replies to the then dominant policy players. These were not only politicians, policy-makers and power-brokers but those who would oversee the institutionalisation of ideologically driven school policies and those who would have to implement them. In taking further Carey’s critical point about those who claim to understand teaching and learning, the back-cover blurb of Theories of Professional Learning (Philpott, 2014) makes the point about it being a critical guide for teacher educators: This is an essential guide to a number of important theories of professional learning, of particular value to those taking on new responsibilities in relation to initial teacher education (ITE) and those interested in new ways of working in partnership. Each chapter provides a concise and critical overview of a key theory and then considers how it might impact on the processes and organisation of teacher education.

xxviii Lori Beckett This could be read as a clever reply to the politicians, policy-makers and powerbrokers, including Ofsted and civil service staff, who also used ad hoc theorising about how teachers learn to shape policy. The reply would have timed with then Conservative Education Secretary Michael Gove (2010–2014) and his appointees like Carter who were seemingly the ones to initiate if not dictate policies without the necessary recourse to theories about teacher learning. As Carey noted in his Introduction, his intention in setting out a critical overview was an identification of those theories that had had some influence on ITE in recent years, together with an introduction to the key points of the theories, and to some of the main shortcomings, objections to, and developments of each. Carey also provided suggestions for further reading in the interests of an exploration of further ideas and arguments to be put by practitioners. At the outset, one of these was about description or prescription: It is worth noting at this stage that providing an insightful account of how professional learning takes place does not lead automatically to providing a prescription for designing professional learning experiences and contexts. (Philpott, 2014, p. 1) This was effectively another invitation from Carey to practitioners to get involved in research-informed critical conversations about teacher learning at the local school level, which could be taken into their local family of schools and beyond, say, professional associations and teacher unions. Carey, like so many professional spokespeople, was acutely aware of the necessity to make clear the erratic and uninformed policy-making that has occurred in the sector and that had provoked such stern opposition among the profession. At the same time, Carey was provoking practitioners and policy-makers to think about the professional learning theories that were being encouraged in the reforms of ITE and to theorise the concomitant [policy] prescriptions. He posed the question: ‘are these theories descriptions, prescriptions, or descriptions that give rise to prescriptions?’ His tentative answer was that ‘we might assume that prescriptions are more useful than descriptions, given what we want a theory for, but both have their limitations’ (Philpott, 2014, pp. 1–2): Prescriptions, by their very nature, need to simplify what they represent. If they do not they might not be useful. However, this simplification can underrepresent what might be important aspects or variables in real life situations. Descriptions may be able to represent these, and we can reflect ourselves on how we use these descriptions to inform what we do. (Philpott, 2014, p. 2) This too was a clever provocation because it went past a critique of ideologically inspired reform policies to nudge those who would impose them to consider their assumptions. It was simultaneously a critical guide to tease out the thinking and theorising that underpinned not only what the profession was resisting but what it

Editor’s introduction


was arguing for in the interests of professional self-determination. That his work was so tragically cut short is to say the very least because it showed such promise and had it run its course it would have been notably significant to the profession, so it is fitting that colleagues have shown a preparedness to take it forward. Carey’s last work, Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers (Philpott & Poultney, 2018), was co-authored and published posthumously. A close read shows once again that he was concerned to focus on the new policy orthodoxy and invite practitioners to get involved in research-informed policy dialogues. As the back-cover blurb stated: There are many strong voices, including policy voices, advocating its adoption. Understanding the underlying principles allows you to better evaluate the benefits of different approaches to evidence-based teaching and how they relate to your own school context. As with Carey’s earlier sole-authored book, this one too provided a critical overview of the key ideas associated with a major policy initiative. It was said to provide balanced and reflective consideration of the arguments for and against the use of evidence in teaching, which was not to ignore the doubts or problems with the different approaches to yet another contentious policy direction. At the same time, the co-authors offered practical advice about implementation as well as help with reflective evaluation. It should come as no surprise that their Introduction names the contentious policy conundrum of devolution of local government control of schools in England, and names the final report of the BERA-RSA (2014) Inquiry into the role of research in teacher education. This preceded descriptive analyses of the Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011), the Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (DfE, 2015), and the White Paper Educational Excellence Everywhere (DfE, 2016) interspersed with critical commentary about major thinkers. These major policy documents were successively released by the Cameron–Clegg Conservative– Liberal Democrat Coalition Government (2010–2015), the Cameron Conservative Government (2015–2016) and the May Conservative Government (2016–2019), and will likely be supplemented by Brexit-inspired policies under the Johnson Conservative Government (2019–present) with the appointment of Gavin Williamson as Secretary of State for Education. These key ideas, including policy mapping laid out in Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) book, are there to be interrogated by practitioners. As they noted: …we explore such issues in more depth and offer links not only to school practice but in ways that may challenge your own thinking about how you use evidence-based approaches in your own work. (Philpott and Poultney, 2018, p. 2) Carey’s published work, albeit cut short by his untimely death, is theoretically, politically and strategically important and the inspiration for this edited memorial book. As a tribute to his contribution to the field of teacher learning, the


Lori Beckett

contributing authors gave a commitment to study his published output, engage in critical conversations with him and take the arguments further. Without exception, each one has both admiration and appreciation of Carey’s professional values and principles along with his commitment to professional self-determination and progressive democratic forms of teaching and teacher education. No doubt Carey would have loved to be here to continue to argue the points the authors raise in response not only to his work, but also the themes that can be identified in their own work. It soon becomes apparent that this is not just a matter of responding to government calls for evidence of ‘what works’ but rather what teacher learning should/could look like.

Continuing practitioner dialogues with policy-practice Interrogating Carey’s work in this way, this edited memorial book is designed to be engaging for the readers: teachers and teacher educators, along with student teachers, are all invited to come in on these critical conversations about the theories, research and practices of teacher learning as part of their research-informed contributions to democratic schooling. The contributing authors provide some direction by drawing attention to doing research specifically on one’s own practice, something they take seriously in relation to their own work in teaching and teacher education, including academia. Threaded throughout their critical conversations with Carey’s work, which is situated in their critical reviews of literature on teacher learning, are responses to some sample practitioner research questions: 1 2

What do teachers learn on pre-service and in-service courses and why? Who decides what teachers learn, what for and to what end?

The tentative answers provided are intended to be contextually sensitive and locally responsive. This should be a great help in building partnerships with stakeholders like students, local community representatives, local business, local universities, teacher professional associations and teacher unions. Such partnerships are crucial when it comes to policy advocacy for research-informed teacher learning, in local school communities but also in nation-state systems of education. This is a far cry from leveraging commercial activities and profit-making schools because it takes seriously the concern to not only develop a progressive and democratic contemporary education system in their particular location, taking into account its unique history, culture, educational politics and school policy-making. It also takes seriously the necessity for schooling and education to make a contribution to nation-states’ capacities to compete in local, regional and global economies in research-informed and ethically viable ways that are democratically determined. In each chapter and across the book, each of the contributing authors identify some of the key areas of teacher learning that lend themselves to researchinformed teaching practices, partnership work and policy advocacy.

Editor’s introduction


At this point it is fitting to introduce the contributing authors and provide a thumbnail sketch of their chapters in this edited memorial book, here noting the significance in acknowledging First Australians first in this work with Aboriginal academic Melitta Hogarth’s Vignette about becoming research-active: In the Prologue, Critical perspectives on teacher learning in the 21st century, Ian Menter grapples with the perennial issue of the theory–practice relationship and draws attention to Philpott’s (2014) Theories of Professional Learning where he posed two questions: what do we want a theory of professional learning to do for us, and, what are some of the key differences between professional learning theories? Menter also focuses on practice and the need to make key critical connections between the two, and then with critical policy analysis, before alerting practitioners and policy-makers to the need to follow through with further empirically and theoretically based studies of teacher education. As a long-term colleague of Carey’s in England and Scotland, Menter is key to showing the way to ensure Carey’s enduring legacy. In Chapter 1, Research-informed teacher learning as professional practice, Melitta Hogarth (University of Melbourne) begins by imagining what her conversation with Carey might have been had she met him, and follows through with an engagement with Philpott’s published work. Hogarth not only expounds Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing but brings the reader to a critical understanding of evidence-based teaching as a theory for teacher learning about Indigenous education/First Nations. She then turns to focus on ITE, investigating the underrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics in Faculties of Education in Australia and what this actually means for teacher learning. At issue are the contrasts between the reconciliatory discourses of government with the lack of Indigenous educators in the teaching workforce, and the necessity for Culturally Responsive Pedagogies. In Chapter 2, Community-oriented pre-service teachers: The limits of activism, Marie Brennan (University of South Australia) scopes a connection between Australia and Britain in an historical frame to name early British colonisation that had such profound effects on the Indigenous peoples, an on-going ‘civilising’ mission that prioritised Eurocentric knowledge, and finally its more recent concern with colonisation of the human services with the USA and others by way of a global, neoliberal-inspired economic agenda. This sets the scene for a critical discussion of teacher education given dominant policy directions, and shows some admiration for Philpott’s work as a way into considering what forms of resistance might look like. To this end, Brennan interrogates what it means to be building community partnerships in regional and remote areas in Australia as the basis for developing a teacher education programme for communityoriented, knowledgeable, ethically minded and committed prospective teachers. In Chapter 3, New directions in headship education in Scotland, Joan Mowat (University of Strathclyde) draws inspiration from published work by Philpott, with whom she shared an office, to develop some critical perspectives on the underpinning theories of professional learning in the education of school Heads. She posits an argument that high-quality leadership at all levels of the system in Scotland is identified as one of seven key drivers of school improvement within the

xxxii Lori Beckett context of creating equitable, inclusive school systems. Her chapter traces the influences on the development of a headship preparation programme called ‘Into Headship’, which is the middle stage of the Specialist Qualification for Headship; the learning theories which underpin it; and the process by which aspiring school Heads take on the identity of headship, drawing from empirical data. This takes place within the context of the Scottish Attainment Challenge and the need to specifically teach about the impact of poverty in children’s lives, calling for contextually sensitive innovation in practice. In Chapter 4, Musing on teacher mentoring and calls for clinical practice, Linda Harris (University of Strathclyde, retired) critically engages with arguments about medical education and its stimulus for teacher education in aligning clinical practice and teacher mentoring. She too draws inspiration from published work by Philpott, with whom she worked on staff when they were young lecturers in Glasgow. It is a telling testament that Harris secured and studied his inaugural professorial lecture in Leeds to thoroughly mine his ideas about evidence-based teaching, clinical practice models, and professional learning in medicine to inform her own in-depth research on teacher mentoring. This research is crucial because it provides critical directions to some potential policy specifications in regard to the content and approach that could inform a research-informed mentoring programme in Scotland, which could in turn lead the way given the distinct lack of policy in the UK on such a vital area of teacher education. In Chapter 5, The “view from now”: What are the effects of recent changes to ITE policy for the future? Helen Scott (Arden University) examines policy effects which have the potential to challenge, unbalance or possibly strengthen established university and school partnerships supporting beginning teachers. Scott brings a unique perspective, not only given her standing now as DVC (Research) and formerly as a Dean of a Faculty of Education and Humanities, a Director of ITE and CPD Partnerships, a Head of School of Secondary ITE, a Course Leader of MA in Education and of a Secondary PGCE Art and Design in different universities. She also re-engages with her collaborative publication with Carey (see Philpott, Scott and Mercier, 2014) as it relates to an overview of the ITE policy landscape in England in the last 5–10 years. Scott also references Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) chapter on ‘Systematic Literature Reviews’ as it has influenced her evaluation of others’ accounts of changes to ITE policy. In Chapter 6, The problem with randomised controlled trials for education, Terry Wrigley (Queen Margaret University) brings a unique perspective on Philpott’s work too, having been a Visiting Professor in Leeds at the time of Carey’s appointment, part of his 2016 BERA conference symposium, and in attendance at his inaugural professorial lecture. Here Wrigley converses with Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) chapter on randomised control trials (RCTs), particularly the debates around whether they are a useful approach for generating evidence in education, and skilfully guides the reader through the pitfalls of using RCTs in education. Wrigley draws on a deep understanding of the philosophy of science to refute some of the arguments put by the proponents of RCTs and policy-makers, said to provide necessary ‘scientific’ evidence for government-preferred elements

Editor’s introduction


of teachers’ practice. Wrigley then shows how the profession has responded to some ill-considered policy decisions about ‘evidence-based teaching’, for example, in order to draw lessons from this experience. In Chapter 7, Professional learning communities as sites for teacher learning, Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne (Leeds Beckett University) take Carey’s work forward, having shared a special working relationship in Leeds, respectively as academic colleague and co-supervisor of postgraduate students and as a PhD student. They draw on their considerable experience to scope a range of teacher learning communities in the USA and the UK in an historical frame that goes back 30 odd years to the 1990s, and they converse with Philpott’s (2014) chapter on communities of practice, which was taken up again by Philpott and Poultney (2018) and supplemented by Philpott and Oates (2016). This enables a critical consideration of the interconnections between teacher agency and professional learning communities (PLCs). Through this, Iredale and Tremayne aim to explore the conundrum raised by Philpott and Oates (2016, p.3) of whether PLCs are ‘an affordance for agency’ or if teacher agency is ‘a pre-requisite for professional learning communities’. In Chapter 8, Teacher learning: Schön and the language of reflective practice, Stephen Newman (Leeds Beckett University) is well placed to grapple with Philpott’s (2014) consideration of experiential learning and the reflective practitioner in the work of Schön (1983, 1987a, 1987b, 1991), having worked with Carey on faculty in Leeds with whom he had many professional conversations. Newman draws on a deep understanding of the philosophy of education to critically interrogate Schön’s account and at the same time to address Philpott’s concerns, and then to ask how Schön’s model of professional learning might help in developing practitioners’ critical understandings: what the limitations might be, and what might be the possible implications for ITE. In attending to the minutiae, Newman constructs an argument for an alternative perspective to draw out the implications for the organisation and practices of teacher education both pre-service, as posited by Philpott, and in-service. In Chapter 9, Teachers’ professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage, Amanda Nuttall (Leeds Trinity University) and Lori Beckett (Griffith University, Bangor University) express their concerns about teachers in urban schools in England having to focus attention on ‘raising achievement’ and ‘narrowing the gap’. They too are well placed to engage with Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) chapter about translational research and knowledge mobilisation to grapple with teacher learning about poverty and disadvantage, which can be construed as a problem for schools to fix. This negates adequate space or opportunity for teachers to conceptualise complexities or build contextual understanding in order to challenge those policy discourses that have become canonical. Having worked with Carey in Leeds on the BERA Research Commission on Poverty and Policy Advocacy and in the 2016 BERA conference symposium, Nuttall and Beckett take inspiration for refining their efforts to co-develop long-term sustained CPD, mentoring and supporting teachers and multi-agency workers to become ‘research-active’.

xxxiv Lori Beckett In Chapter 10, Supporting student teachers with minority identities: The importance of pastoral care and social justice in initial teacher education, Jonathan Glazzard (Leeds Beckett University) and Samuel Stones (Norton College) bring further insights to the calls for mentoring and meeting pastoral needs in both teacher education and in schools. They not only draw attention to student teachers’ experience of stress and anxiety but also expound it, alert to disabilities and marginal sexual and gender identities as well as their vulnerability to prejudice, harassment and discrimination and the challenges they face in the course of schooling and teaching. Glazzard and Stones converse with Philpott’s (2015) article about pastoral care in tandem with Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) conclusions about evidence-based teaching, and tease out an argument for social justice in ITE. Against this background, Glazzard and Stones examine what is required to develop student teachers’ insightful understanding of marginalisation in children and young people. They do so through critically examining the extant policy expectation in regard to schools’ use of national-school data on achievement, which disaggregates results and alerts practitioners to the needs of different and diverse groups of students at the local level. In Chapter 11, What do we mean when we speak of research evidence in education?, Maria Teresa Tatto (Arizona State University) brings a valuable critical perspective on Carey’s work (Philpott, 2013, 2014; Philpott and Poultney, 2018) together with the discussions and the debates it provokes, notably taken up in the work of this edited memorial book. Tatto situates this in the context of England’s Thatcherite policy climate, and draws on a deep understanding of epistemology in education to critically interrogate not only Carey’s concerns about the ways to develop and use evidence in the practice of teaching but also how this might be used, say, for the regulation of teaching. Her experiences working in the UK and her research collaborations with colleagues situated in the UK stand her in good stead as she goes on to further interrogate what all this might be worth to practitioners in the USA. This is strategically important given the policy contentions in regard to research evidence in education on both sides of the Atlantic but also because of the global reach of Anglo-American corporate system reforms, likely to be boosted now Johnson has commandeered the UK Conservative Government with intentions of interconnecting with Trump. Tatto’s penultimate chapter provides a sober assessment of what is needed to support teaching and teacher education. In the Epilogue, Developing research-informed teacher learning, Pete Boyd (University of Cumbria) is well placed to frame this closing chapter and reflect on whether or not this edited memorial book delivers on the promise made by the contributing authors: to take samples of Carey’s work and critically discuss his inspiration for developing research-informed teacher learning, especially the ways some of his major themes need to be taken forward. Boyd draws on a deep knowledge of Carey’s work, given his long-standing working relationship that goes back to when they were young academics at St Martin’s Teachers College, now the University of Cumbria. Indeed, it was Boyd who developed the tripartite structure of theory, research and practice for the book, and he scrutinises Philpott’s oeuvre for its contribution to developing a shared language for discussion

Editor’s introduction


and debates. He then turns his attention to the critical conversations presented by contributing authors to highlight their focus on the theories, research and practices of teacher learning. Boyd’s closing chapter, like the book itself, is a fitting tribute to a valued friend and colleague, who would no doubt be pleased to see his efforts continued not only in building partnerships with stakeholders like students, local community representatives, local business, local universities, teacher professional associations and teacher unions. This extends to policy advocacy for more research-informed teacher learning in local school communities as well as in nation-state systems of education.

Notes 1 2 This was a call made by Richard J Evans in a review of two books, one to do with a warning on fascism and the other on unfreedom, published in The Guardian, Saturday 21 July, 2018. Also see Michael Apple’s tribute to Geoff Whitty at the UCL IoE on 5 July, 2018: lebration-geoff-whittys-50-years-ioe 3 Gove is a noted author and columnist for The Times, owned by Murdoch: see https:// (accessed 31 July 2018). 4 See two items in the print media: ‘Teachers need a pay rise but Tory damage goes deeper’ (Guardian editorial, 23 July 2018) n-journal/20180723/281509341975061; ‘How parents and teachers are frozen out of schools’ (Aditya Chakrabortty, 30 July 2018) 2018/jul/30/outsourced-schools-parents-primary-academy-trusts (both accessed 31 July 2018)

References Beckett, L. (2014) Editorial: Raising teachers’ voice on achievement in urban schools in England, Urban Review, 46, 5, pp. 783–799. BERA-RSA (2014) Research and the Teaching Profession: Building the Capacity for a Selfimproving Education System: Final Report on the Inquiry into the Role of Research in Teacher Education. London: BERA. Bibby, T., Lupton, R. and Raffo, C. (2017) Responding to Poverty and Disadvantage in Schools: A Reader for Teachers. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DfE (2011) Teachers’ Standards. DfE (2015) Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training. tions/carter-review-of-initial-teacher-training DfE (2016) Educational Excellence Everywhere government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508550/Educational_ excellence_everywhere__print_ready_.pdf Dorling, D. (2015) Injustice: Why Social Inequality Still Persists. Bristol: Policy Press. Dorling, D. (2018) Peak Inequality: Britain’s Ticking Time Bomb. Bristol: Policy Press. Francis, B., Mills, M. and Lupton, R. (2017) Towards social justice in education: Contradictions and dilemmas. Journal of Education Policy, 32, 4, pp. 414–431.

xxxvi Lori Beckett Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hogan, A., Sellar, S. and Lingard, B. (2016) Commercialising comparison: Pearson puts the TLC in soft capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 31, 3, pp. 243–258. Hursh, D. (2017) Education policy, globalization, commercialization: An interview with Bob Lingard by David Hursh. Policy Futures in Education, 15, 4, pp. 526–536. Lupton, R. (2004) School in Disadvantaged Areas: Recognising Context and Raising Quality. CASE paper 76. London: CASE, London School of Economics. Lupton, R. (2014) Raising teachers’ voice on achievement in urban schools in England: An afterword. Urban Review, 46, 5, pp. 919–923. Lupton, R., Burchardt, T., Hills, J., Stewart, K. and Vizard, P. (eds) (2016) Social Policy in a Cold Climate: Policies and Their Consequences Since the Crisis. Bristol: Policy Press. Mourshed, M., Chikioke, C. and Barber, M. (2010) How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. McKinsey and Company. how-the-worlds-most-improved-school-systems-keep-getting-better/ Philpott, C. (2013) ‘Who has all the answers in education (and why should we believe them)?’ In Mercier, C., Philpott, C. and Scott, H. (eds) Professional Issues in Secondary Teaching. London: Sage, pp. 7–22. Philpott, C. (2014) Theories of Professional Learning. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C. (2015) Creating an in-school pastoral system for student teachers in schoolbased initial teacher education. Pastoral Care in Education, 33, 1, pp. 8–19. Philpott, C. and Oates, C. (2016) Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Development in Education, 1–16. doi:10.1080/19415257.2016.1180316 Philpott, C. and Poultney, V. (2018) Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C., Scott, H. and Mercier, C. (2014) Initial Teacher Education in Schools: A Guide for Practitioners. London: Sage. Sahlberg, P. (2012) Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?New York: Teachers College Press. Schmidt, V. (2006) Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987a). Changing patterns of inquiry in work and living (The Thomas Cubitt Lecture). Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 135(5367), 225–237. Schön, D. A. (1987b). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (Ed.) (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press. Thrupp, M. and Lupton, R. (2006) Taking school contexts more seriously: The social justice challenge. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 3, pp. 308–328. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2009) The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Good for Everyone. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wilkinson, R. and Pickett, K. (2018) The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-being. London: Allen Lane.


Research-informed teacher learning as professional practice Melitta Hogarth

Introduction As an Australian Aboriginal secondary classroom teacher for some 20 odd years prior to entering higher education to work in teacher education, I was drawn to the work of Carey Philpott, including his book published posthumously. Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) chapter, Mapping the area of evidence-based teaching, took my attention for a number of reasons. It provoked me to critically consider the case about this theory for teacher learning, which lends weight to the idea of teachers as researchers and collaborative professional development. It spoke to me as an early career researcher with an interest in the power of language and the interrelationships between identity, position, lived experience and how we interact with others (Hogarth 2015, 2018a). It was also their eloquence in articulating their own critical understandings that truly drew me in because I was able to find similarities with some of my own ponderings and musings about the world and teacher education as well as the influence of policy and analyses of discourses (Hogarth 2017, 2018b). I lament that I never got to meet Carey, which is a shame as I think we could have spent many an hour sharing a story or two about our experiences as teachers and researchers. The transnational and transracial conversations of the shared and differing experiences as we transverse the ‘intersections’ would have surely helped us find commonalities and differentiations and broaden our horizons. Therefore, in this chapter, I wish to share some of the conversation that could have been and consider what Carey might have said to me now that I have my PhD and I am building my research portfolio in teacher education with a focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Using the introductory chapter of the book, Evidence-based teaching: A critical overview for enquiring teachers (Philpott & Poultney 2018) as a conversation starter, I consider the case of the theory of mapping the area for teacher learning and ponder ‘What is evidence-based teaching?’ in relation to Indigenous education in Australia. I reflect on the inclusion of specific courses/units within Australian Initial Teacher Education (ITE) to build teacher knowledge on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures as well as students/peoples and the underlying assumptions made by policy makers and writers in promoting

2 Melitta Hogarth reconciliation. I investigate the underrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics in Faculties of Education in Australia and discuss what this may mean for teacher learning. Finally, I highlight the contradictions between the reconciliatory discourses of government and the lack of Indigenous educators in the teaching workforce, and provide a case study that endeavours to make amends. Much like the statements made by Philpott and Poultney (2018) in their initial chapter, perhaps anticipating the antagonistic reader, these discussions are not to dismiss the policy work that is currently being done but, more to the point, to bring an alternative perspective.

Playing with language The fact that Philpott and Poultney (2018) began their book with the chapter, Mapping the area, offering a holistic overview of the elements of evidence-based teaching prior to looking intricately at each of the evidentiary methods used, intrigued me from the start. Firstly, as someone who likes to play with words and as an academic interested in critical discourse analysis, the notion of extending the landscape as human experience metaphor that Philpott (2013) had explored in his paper, How is teacher knowledge shaped by the professional knowledge context? Minding our metaphors, appealed to me. The landscape talks to the metaphorical structuring of the human experience and yet retains its links to our connection to the world. Therefore, I wonder if the intent was indeed as I have interpreted it to be – that is, the notion of mapping (visual representations, surveying, description) of the area (phenomenon, evidence-based teaching but also a semi-corpus analysis of the arguments for and against)? Or am I simply overthinking it? I wonder if Philpott and Poultney (2018) would see that I too had played with the notion of mapping the area; or essentially, scanning the environment, in my PhD; namely, through the metaphors of self as the emu and research as an ocean using narrative and story to further position myself within the research (Hogarth 2018a; see also, for example, Hogarth 2018c, Hogarth, under review). I also wonder if they would note the similarities. In the traditionally identified Literature Review chapter of my doctoral thesis, I extended the metaphor of self as the emu by drawing on the physical elements of birds; and more specifically, the emu, and titled the chapter, Gathering the knowledge winds under my wings. Much like Philpott and Poultney (2018), I sought a means of mapping or in my analogy, gaining a bird’s eye view of the area.

Establishing position in research The importance of a systematic literature review, one of the forms listed by Philpott and Poultney (2018) as drivers towards evidence-based teaching, is advocated for and necessitated in Indigenous research (see, for example: Rigney 1999; Nakata 2007; Smith 2012). As an Aboriginal teacher researcher, the notion of surveying the literature is essential to gain an informed understanding of the knowledges already positioned, maintained and normalised, and to be able to

Research-informed teacher learning


speak back to the deficit discourses and assumptions held about Indigenous peoples, knowledges and issues (Nakata 2007; Smith 2012; Hogarth 2018a). That is, we “defend from the position of knowledge about knowledge” (Nakata 1998, p. 4). To do this, we mustmap the area. The notion of gaining an understanding of the whole prior to dissecting and investigating each of the elements into their finite details, or in other words – a holistic approach, which Philpott and Poultney (2018) have either consciously or unconsciously done in their book, exemplifies Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Martin & Mirraboopa 2003). By taking such an approach, Philpott and Poultney demonstrate the relationality and interrelationships between ideas driving evidence-based teaching. In turn, this positions the ideas within the historical, political, cultural and social constructs that shape and are shaped by society as a whole. Ultimately, they present the arguments for and against evidencebased teaching, providing a holistic overview of the landscape (the current understandings and knowledges) of evidence-based teaching. By positioning these factors within policy and current schooling environments, these authors provide future and current classroom teachers with a broad synopsis of the pros and cons for evidence-based teaching. By listing the various types of strategies used to provide the basis of the foundational evidence that informs teacher practice, Philpott and Poultney (2018) bring to the forefront some of the actions that teachers tend to dismiss as ‘everyday practice’. In doing so, they highlight to classroom teachers that they are indeed researchers and contribute to the conversation. This came to me in my own latter years as a classroom teacher when I understood my role as both teacher and researcher. I too had fallen victim to diminishing my vocation in the phrase ‘I am just a teacher’ in many a conversation and yet, I had conducted systematic literature reviews, supervised pre-service teachers on practicum as well as participated in and led several professional learning communities. I would suggest their section titled Key ideas associated with the drive towards evidence-based teaching provides the methods for ascertaining the discoursal landscape used to ensure evidence-based teaching occurs. It was interesting to note that as I read through the various elaborations and definitions provided by Philpott and Poultney (2018), I began looking for alignments and synergies with my own Indigenous lens, albeit with a more holistic view. You see, in recent years, I have been interacting a lot more with educators and academics within the social justice field and have found many synergies in their calls for action to that of the Indigenous struggle. The definitions and elaborations provided by Philpott and Poultney (2018) in their chapter saw me looking for connections to my own position and means of understanding their purpose and application in Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. It was here that I could see practitioner research aligning with the notion of self-determination. That is, Philpott and Poultney describe practitioner research as “an idea and a practice that exists independently of the current drive for evidence-based teaching” (p. 4). This suggests that the desire for improving current practice is driven by the practitioners themselves; a notion of self-

4 Melitta Hogarth determination or, moreover, that practitioner research acts as “an emancipatory approach through acquiring knowledge which would in turn help them become ‘extended professionals’” (Hoyle, 1974 as cited in Philpott & Poultney 2018, p. 7). For Indigenous peoples, self-determination is a human right as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations General Assembly 2008). It asserts the rights of Indigenous peoples to “freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development” (p. 4). In educational terms, self-determination ensures Indigenous peoples rights “to govern and control, to determine and participate in the foundations of education decision making” (Hogarth 2018a, p. 90). Discussion on how the notion of self-determination is (or is not) enacted and/or encouraged in Indigenous education is provided later in this chapter.

Key dates on evidence-based teaching It is really helpful that Philpott and Poultney (2018) provide an extensive list of key dates and documents that have called for the implementation of evidence-based teaching, from Hargreaves’ (1996) lecture for the Teacher Training Agency where he questioned the impact of educational research on practice, through to the British Educational Research Association’s (2017) commissioned report seeking strategies to develop and support partnerships and collaborations between the medical and education fields. Australia’s approach to education and evidence-based teaching has been articulated in commissioned evaluative reports too, almost like a reflection of the happenings in the perceived ‘Mother Country’. In their introductory chapter, Philpott and Poultney (2018) discuss the emphases placed on certain key drivers for evidence-based teaching, namely systematic literature reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). They then ask the poignant question: “Does this mean that the dominant model of evidencebased teaching will become one in which systematic literature reviews based on RCTs will ‘over-rule’ practitioner research in deciding what happens in classrooms?” (p. 6). This has resonance for Australian education and, more specifically, Indigenous education, given a lack of large-scale quantitative studies, but it is worthwhile pausing on what could be considered evidence-based teaching in Indigenous education.

Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in ITE In 1979, the National Aboriginal Education Committee reported that there were only 72 teachers who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander (National Aboriginal Education Committee & Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute 1979). It is worthy to note that within the historical context, Aboriginal at this time within governmental terms of reference was inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In the 1980s, Hughes and Willmot (1982) set the target of 1,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers within the

Research-informed teacher learning


national teacher workforce by 1990 to work towards ensuring population parity and representation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within the schooling sector. However, a parliamentary report in 2001, the National Report to Parliament on Indigenous Education and Training (Department of Education, Science and Training 2001), found that while the challenge set by Hughes and Wilmot had been achieved (with a reported 1,390 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander teachers employed within the national education workforce), representation was still well below population parity. This was further evidenced in 2012, when the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers in Initial Teacher Education Initiative (MATSITI) found that “the estimated proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers [was] 1.2% of the total teacher workforce [–] well below the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in Australian schools at 4.9%” (Johnson et al. 2016, p. 21). Reportedly, by 2014 and after the MATSITI project, the number increased by just over 1,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers; however, this increase in physical numbers only increased representation to just under 1.7 percent of the teacher workforce. What this means in regard to Indigenous education in Australia is that the majority of the teacher workforce is indeed non-Indigenous. This not only reduces possibilities for role models emulating the benefits of education; the lack of representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at all levels of decision-making in education has also been a consistent concern identified in policy and reports (see, for example: Aboriginal Consultative Group 1975a, 1975b; Schools Commission 1975). This is further exacerbated when we consider the recent changes within Australian educational policy. Let me explain.

The Australian education policy context Since 1975, there have been calls for the increased representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the educational context (Aboriginal Consultative Group 1975a, 1975b; Schools Commission 1975). However, also included within the recommendations proffered by the Schools Commission in collaboration with the Aboriginal Consultative Group was the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives within the curriculum, which in turn would “create an Australia where the values and cultures of both people thrive” (Aboriginal Consultative Group 1975b, p. 62). Policies and reviews to date, including but not limited to Australian Directions in Indigenous Education 2005–2008 (Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs 2006) and the most current policy, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy (Education Council 2015), have reiterated the importance of addressing what essentially is a cultural gap that exists between schools and classroom teachers and students from diverse cultural backgrounds. In this chapter for Carey’s memorial book, the cultural gap is understood to be the disconnectedness or lack of cultural understanding of classroom teachers,

6 Melitta Hogarth especially if they come from a largely Eurocentric and/or non-Indigenous background. They simply may not have the necessary crucial insight about or into First Nations’ cultural backgrounds, heritage, identity, histories and cultures. As a result, the classroom becomes a space in which White, middle-class teachers, who are predominantly monolingual and whose cultural backgrounds and beliefs differ to that of their students, are invested with power that gives pause for thought. Driven by certain policies and practices, these teachers are empowered to dictate and determine the educational experiences of diverse students, which ultimately privileges Western knowledge and ideologies (Gay 2000). Regarding the current policy preferences for evidence-based teaching, there is clearly a need to address the cultural gap between teachers and students, which could only benefit students’ meaningful and critical engagement and, therefore, improve the educational attainment of both Indigenous and nonIndigenous students. It is no coincidence that there is a growing push in research and ITE programmes globally for Culturally Responsive Pedagogies. Indeed, “the risks of not engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in schools are principally those of delivering a biased program, from a white, middle class perspective, using pedagogies and delivery styles that do not take the needs of students into account” (Perso 2012, p. 17). Let me demonstrate how Culturally Responsive Pedagogies seemingly draw on almost all of the evidence-based teaching examples provided by Philpott and Poultney (2018).

Culturally Responsive Pedagogies In Australia, the lack of Indigenous representation within the schooling sector continues to be an issue in so many school communities, which are reliant on nonIndigenous educators and allies for the uptake of Indigenous education (AEEYSOC et al. 2014). Further to this, very little has been written about Culturally Responsive Pedagogies in Australia and yet, with the changes in curriculum and policy, I would argue that as a pedagogical approach formed and informed by practitioner evidence-based teaching, notably in all the aspects listed by Philpott and Poultney (2018), Culturally Responsive Pedagogies are essential for schools, teachers and students. I have drawn on Perso’s (2012) review of the literature on cultural responsiveness in this chapter to provide an Australian context and understanding of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies as it is particularly and politically significant in what should be called colonial Australia. That is to say, as Gay (2000) asserts, culturally responsive teachers analyse and interpret curriculum. They determine its cultural strengths and weaknesses and, in turn, make pertinent decisions regarding their classrooms, their teaching and learning, their approaches and so forth to improve the overall quality of the learning experience for their students as a whole. Their own cultural strengths and weaknesses come into play here too. This is important because, as Sims (2011) asserts, “cultural competence requires more than an awareness of Indigenous culture, but a willingness to engage with heart as well as mind” (p. 11).

Research-informed teacher learning


To do so, teachers are required to critically reflect on themselves and their own beliefs, values and understandings of ‘Others’, but also the curriculum and how they can build cultural bridges by differentiating their teaching to accommodate student diversity. Rather than maintaining patterns of failure by ‘dumbing down’ the curriculum (Gribble 2002), using ‘fillers’ to keep students busy such as worksheets (Dent & Hatton 1996) or using methods that worked for them as students (Perso 2012), teachers are challenged to extend their teaching repertoire. In turn, if adapted, schools and teachers are providing a holistic approach to education for all students. In Australia, ITE degrees must ensure that all pre-service teachers in Australia complete at least one standalone course on Indigenous education or are judged competent to address the Graduate Teacher Standards inclusive of Focus Areas 1.4 and 2.4 (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2014). These are exclusively focused on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures into the teaching and learning of all disciplines. I teach a standalone course, and I can only do it as a research-active teacher educator. I enter the teaching and learning of this course critically alert to the need to accrue evidence of any cultural gap and to tailor my role: more often than not I must begin addressing the cultural gap evident and demonstrate the need for teachers to emulate that learning is indeed lifelong. However, the burden of such a task, to address the hidden histories of colonial Australia and the consistent challenging of the dominant norm, has a toll to pay (Hogarth 2019). Padilla (1994) refers to the ‘extra’ and hidden responsibilities as persons of colour as cultural taxation whereby our duties are increased simply so that institutions can address their own objectives regarding diversity in the workforce and inclusivity. But I digress, albeit to draw attention to yet another predicament for Indigenous teachers and academics. Culturally Responsive Pedagogies encourage research-active teachers to look beyond the disciplines to the classroom as a whole, encompassing students, the environment, building rapport and critical literacies, for example (Perso 2012). To do this, such teachers need to be aware of and regularly engage in the literature (Philpott & Poultney 2018). Within my own course, particular attention was placed on finding readings that informed student teachers about teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students but also papers that countered and also questioned stereotypes and assumptions made. It was intentional to ensure that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics were drawn on to also illustrate the varying positions of these authors. Particular attention was also placed on finding ways in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures can be embedded within disciplines, as well as online sites that would be beneficial after the course, to continue developing the student teachers’ knowledge and understanding. These formed part of the assessment, which purposefully highlights the importance of research to be disseminated to the teaching workforce and educational institutions.

8 Melitta Hogarth Spaces in this standalone course were provided to allow for critical discussions, both face-to-face as well as online, encouraging student teachers to discuss their responses to the readings or the course as a whole. Encouraging a professional learning community (Philpott & Poultney 2018), I recognised and acknowledged that for many of my students, this was most likely their first time to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. Accordingly, it was important to challenge their biases, assumptions and stereotypes while I was being supportive and open to their resistance. Pedagogically, I shared anecdotes, strategies and procedures on a regular basis from my own experience in the classroom, encouraging them to draw on their observations from Practicuum as well as their own experiences as a student in the classroom to form and inform their professional practice. In introducing Culturally Responsive Pedagogies to student teachers, I emphasised their future roles in the classroom as teachers and researchers (Perso 2012). There is a need for them to not only know the curriculum content but, more importantly, to know the students, their parents and the community (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2014). The relationships that they build with the students, parents and community are often overlooked but for Indigenous peoples, relationality, respect and recognition is of great importance if students are to engage and participate in the classroom (Education Council 2015). The inclusion of simple yet effective pedagogical strategies such as ensuring the inclusion of texts that represent the diversity within the classroom or an alternative lens to the dominant norm not only develops students’ critical literacy skills but, moreover, demonstrates to the student that they and the unique attributes they bring to the classroom are valued. Recognition and respect of the differing worldviews allows for critical engagement with differing viewpoints and builds empathy and understanding. In turn, such simple practices work towards promoting reconciliation by informing students about the hidden past of the lived and shared experiences of colonial Australia. Culturally Responsive Pedagogies encourage practitioner research as teachers need to familiarise themselves with the knowledge and understanding that the students bring with them to their classrooms (Perso 2012). Teachers need to share about students’ abilities, skills, barriers and so forth. In other words, the teacher learns about the student as a whole to cater their planning, design and teaching to facilitate learning which, in turn, ensures a holistic approach to education is undertaken. Further to this, Culturally Responsive Pedagogies insist that teachers are informed in their decision-making. This is only possible if they are well read, cognisant of the evidence of cultural gaps and aware of the successes and failures that have been observed and reported on by others. In my course, I am introducing future classroom teachers to research-informed teacher learning about the applications and demands of Culturally Responsive Pedagogies so that they can use their agency to effect change. And, as the one and only standalone course, all this and more is done in a 10-week teaching schedule within a 4-year degree.

Research-informed teacher learning


Concluding statements In Australia, policy rhetoric espouses the need for teachers to work with community, parents and students to ensure that the education provided is inclusive and addresses the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (see, for example: Education Council 2015). Culturally Responsive Pedagogies requires classroom teachers to embrace research-informed teacher learning and practitioner research activities to draw on the evidence to inform their approaches in the classroom. Within my own course in one university’s ITE program, I have endeavoured to introduce emerging classroom teachers to purposeful alternative ways in approaching the classroom and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students by introducing to them, as well as modelling, culturally responsive practices. Emphasis is placed on shifting the common psyche of a pre-service teacher from simply ‘I am a teacher’ to acknowledging their role, incorporating a research component as they work with data on a regular basis. Storytelling and examples of my own experiences and those of others are shared to encourage critical discussions about the role of the classroom teacher in relation to policy so they can consciously effect what and how to teach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. At the end of the course, my student teachers are challenged to go forth into schools to be agents of change in Indigenous education. But more realistically, my goal for each semester is to simply change the mindset and position of just one student, having them question and adjust their understandings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, histories and cultures. In my mind’s eye, it means that there is at least one more ally out there in schools than there was before.

References Aboriginal Consultative Group 1975a, ‘Education for Aborigines: Report to the Schools Commission by the Aboriginal Consultative Group – June 1975’, Aboriginal Child at School, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 3–26. Aboriginal Consultative Group 1975b, ‘Education for Aborigines: Report to the Schools Commission by the Aboriginal Consultative Group - June 1975’, Aboriginal Child at School, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 60–64. AEEYSOC, National Teaching Workforce Dataset & MATSITI 2014, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teacher workforce analysis. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership 2014, Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, standards/list. Dent, JN & Hatton, E 1996, ‘Education and poverty: An Australian primary school case study’, Australian Journal of Education, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 46–64. Department of Education, Science and Training 2001, National report to parliament on Indigenous education and training, 2001. Commonwealth Government, Canberra. Education Council 2015, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015, %20documents/NATSI_EducationStrategy_v3.pdf.

10 Melitta Hogarth Gay, G 2000, Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice, Teachers College Press, New York. Gribble, SJ 2002, Kimberley Schools: A search for success, Curtin University of Technology, Perth. Hogarth, M 2015, A critical analysis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Hogarth, M 2017, ‘Speaking back to the deficit discourses: A theoretical and methodological approach’, The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 21–34. Hogarth, M 2018a, ‘Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous education policy’ (PhD Thesis), University of Queensland, Brisbane. Hogarth, M 2018b, ‘Talkin’ bout a revolution: Transformation and reform in Indigenous education’, Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 663–674. Hogarth, M 2018c, ‘I am the emu’, Cultural and Pedagogical Inquiry, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 61–63. Hogarth, M 2019, ‘Racism, cultural taxation and the role of an Indigenous teacher in rural schools’, Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 45–56. Hogarth, M (under review), ‘The musings of an Aboriginal researcher: Disrupting the thesis template’, Australian Journal of Indigenous Education. Hughes, P & Willmot, E 1982, ‘A thousand Aboriginal teachers by 1990’, in J Sherwood (ed.), Aboriginal education: Issues and innovations, Creative Research, Perth, pp. 45–49. Johnson, P, Cherednichenko, B & Rose, M 2016, Evaluation of the More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Teachers Initiative Project: Final report, -content/uploads/2016/05/MATSITI-2016-Project-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf. Martin, K & Mirraboopa, B 2003, ‘Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re‐search’, Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 27, no. 76, pp. 203–214. Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs 2006, Australian directions in Indigenous education 2005–2008, resources/Australian_Directions_in_Indigenous_Education_2005-2008.pdf. Nakata, M 1998, ‘Anthropological texts and Indigenous standpoints’, Australian Aboriginal Studies, vol. 1998, no. 2, pp. 3–12. Nakata, M 2007, Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines, Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra. National Aboriginal Education Committee & Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute 1979, Report of the first National Aboriginal Education Committee Aboriginal Teacher/ Teacher Aide Workshop: Discussion on NAEC rationale aims and objective paper, NAEC, Balmain, NSW, Australia. Padilla, AM 1994, ‘Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current and future issues’, Educational Researcher, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 24–27. Perso, T 2012, Cultural responsiveness and school education with particular focus on Australia’s First Peoples: A review & synthesis of the literature, Menzies Schools of Health Research, Centre for Child Development and Education, Darwin Northern Territory, Australia. Philpott, C 2013, ‘How is teacher knowledge shaped by the professional knowledge context? Minding our metaphors’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 462–480. Philpott, C & Poultney, V 2018, Evidence-based teaching: A critical overview for enquiring teachers, Critical Publishing, St Albans.

Research-informed teacher learning


Rigney, L 1999, ‘Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and its principles’, Wicazo Sa Review, vol. 14, pp. 109–121. Schools Commission 1975, ‘Schools Commission Report for the Triennium 1976–1978: Chapter 9 – Education for Aborigines’, Aboriginal Child at School, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 42–54. Sims, M 2011, Early childhood and education services for Indigenous children prior to starting school, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, edia/c091cf6b-c4ca-4e36-ac61-25150b0b92b9/ctgc-rs07.pdf. Smith, LT 2012, Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples, vol. 2, Zed Books, New York; London. United Nations General Assembly 2008, The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,


Community-oriented pre-service teachers The limits of activism Marie Brennan

New globalised colonising of education spaces and places Australia and England have always been strongly connected: what is now called ‘Australia’ commenced as a series of colonies, initially taking the convicts of ‘Mother England’ followed by increasing migration before the federation of colonies into states of a new ‘nation’ in 1901. Education and training institutions had already been instituted by colonial governments – largely through the colonial Anglican chaplains – early in the convict settlement era, including some provision for Indigenous children. Australian colonies later established free, public and secular school systems, mainly in the 1870s, with the first universities built in the 1850s (Campbell & Proctor, 2014). Formal initial teacher education (ITE) began to emerge in institutional form in the early twentieth century As members of the British Empire, Australian schooling was dominated by the red areas of the map of Empire, British history and literature – well into the second half of the twentieth century. Teaching was treated as a ‘civilising’ mission, taking Euro-centric knowledge out to tame the far reaches of the continent. This discussion may seem a long way from talking about contemporary teacher education. Yet, it is necessary to recognise that processes of colonisation did not disappear. Australia’s recent national curriculum continues to enshrine a Northern/European epistemology, with much local content relegated to the margins, or lost within disciplinary content. The first nations of this country are largely made invisible. We see new forms of colonialism continually produced through various forms of global interconnection in education (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010), with strong impacts on those who were already marginalised in previous waves of colonialism. In the last three to four decades, the UK, USA and many others have shared the colonisation of the human services through the travelling of a global, neoliberal-infused economic agenda: its most recent phase has emphasised vertical accountability via standardised data, with massive investments in standardised testing (that benefits major supranational publishing groups), in privatisation and in big data (Lingard et al., 2016). Bourdieu (1998) noted the spread of this problem, seeing governments deliberately unravelling the conditions won through many decades of struggle in the ‘left hand of the state’ – the human services such as education and health – while simultaneously strengthening the right hand of

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


the state – economics, policing, criminal justice – to enforce particular approaches to compliance with policy. Teacher Education, whose task has been to produce teachers for the ‘nation’, has been drawn into these struggles, pressured to comply with narrowed approaches to curriculum, through the use of standardised accountability, accreditation processes, tests for our graduates, along with ‘standards’ for their registration. In all fields of education, including early childhood, schooling, universities, technical and further education, close surveillance through the operation of standards, testing and accountability processes is experienced ‘up close and personal’. The policy context that frames our education workplaces results from decades-long efforts of supranational bodies such as the OECD to redefine the purposes of education as contributing to national economic competitiveness. It is why terms such as ‘evidence-based teaching’ are familiar to education workers in countries as diverse as South Africa, Canada, USA, Australia and England. Older forms of ‘solidarity’ such as protests, petitions, strikes – or even research that contradicts policy directions – do not seem to make much a dent. The question for many workers in public services which have provided much infrastructure for daily life is how to resist the standardisation agenda, while reinventing new forms of infrastructure that might better support Indigenous peoples, refugees, people living in poverty, under discrimination and/or violence. Teacher education has been accustomed to dealing with such questions but not under the current conditions. We are faced with a need to invent alternative forms of resistance and production of new practices. In this context, it is helpful to note the ways in which Carey Philpott used his scholarship in writing and teaching to work at multiple different levels to accomplish just that. After exploring the challenges of working within the system, I provide an example of a graduate-entry teacher education programme which worked in partnership with rural communities and their schools to provide a two-week professional experience in South Australia. Reflection on the challenges for ‘slow activism’ (Robins, 2014) leads to understanding the links between such work and the potential for wider systemic change.

Strategies of slow activism and horizontal alliances Teacher educators’ choices for active resistance are limited by extreme versions of privatisation and marketisation of schooling and teacher education in England (Whitty, 2016). Australian developments, unfortunately, are now moving quite fast to ‘catch up’, borrowing also from the USA – although it is clear there is no consistency within or across countries in how competition, accountability and monitoring of performance are accomplished. In such contexts, it is important to find ways to gain or keep a job – whether in universities or schools – which mostly means compliance with templates, testing, standardised curriculum and other excrescences. But having to comply does not mean giving up on better practice, which in many respects is best when it is underpinned by research-informed teacher learning and better analysis that comes with teacher research activities. Teachers, teacher educators and pre-service teachers are challenged under the current dominant policy to develop and extend dialogue about teaching practice

14 Marie Brennan that suits the local students and remains educative rather than narrowed outcomeand test-oriented schooling. To do this, all parties need to avoid competing with one another in a downward spiral of reduced options for action – what Eva Cox (1996) once called the ‘competing victim syndrome’. This means taking small steps on what needs to be seen as a ‘long revolution’, in the words of Raymond Williams (1961). By building dialogue, across teachers and teacher educators, and gradually expanding to include students and communities, new kinds of knowledge and practice can be built, shared and reflected upon. This will include construction of good description of what does NOT work, and the conditions that produce it, as well as articulation of alternative ‘readings’ of policy frames and practices which engage students in critical thinking and knowledge work. Such activities constitute ‘slow activism’ which can build the groundwork for wider activism over time. By ‘slow activism’ Robins (2014, p. 91) means the ‘patient, long-term organisational work’ (e.g. to develop informed judgement, bring people together to share and analyse stories, train people in dealing with conflict, develop networks), which brings arguments and evidence to the nation’s democratic infrastructure. He discusses this ‘slow’ strategy in relation to the ‘spectacle’ of protests at the barricades. Rather than contrast these two forms of radical and reformist strategies, Robins illustrates how the Equal Education NGO in South Africa has drawn on diverse activist traditions in complementary ways to bring issues to public and political attention. This group is able to achieve outcomes because they can combine legal challenges with public protests and media events: they are able to mobilise the networks and knowledge built through slow, patient work behind the scenes. What Robins helps us understand is the need for the underlying work over time, which then is able to service the eruptions into the public sphere. The policy ‘solutions’ of more tests, privatisation, competition between schools and ‘standards’ have succeeded in largely hiding from public view the appalling deterioration of learning and teaching conditions in many public schools. They have sucked the hope from many students and teachers who disagree with what is happening. It is in this context that I think Carey Philpott’s work as a teacher educator who writes (and teaches) from within the system as a form of resisting the dominant policy directions proves particularly useful.

Philpott’s careful ‘working within’ the system I never met Carey Philpott but I have read quite a bit of his writing. What strikes me is how carefully it is crafted for its diverse audiences. The textbook Theories of Professional Learning (Philpott, 2014a), for example, for teachers and pre-service teachers, clearly and accessibly shows how the term ‘clinical education’ can productively be co-opted to build teachers’ repertoires. By using the term, some might infer that he supports borrowing from the field of medicine and a scientistic orientation to ‘evidence’. On the contrary: he centralises teachers’ understanding of research and teacher judgement about how different forms of ‘evidence’ can be used to develop practice that serves pupils’ interests and needs. Furthermore, in

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


other work (Philpott, 2017) he develops systematic, carefully argued critiques of the misuse of medical models for thinking about evidence in practice. In the context of the debates on clinical practice in the UK, Philpott uses the work of Grimmett, Fleming and Trotter (2009) to argue against using ‘one organisation (ITE) seeking legitimacy by “aping” another (medicine)’ (Philpott, 2014a, p. 62). He wants teachers who are familiar with research, who are researchers, and who are able to use evidence from multiple sources as part of developing their teaching practice. In various papers and chapters, Philpott returns to the importance of coming to grips with ‘evidence-based practice’ and ‘clinical approaches’ so favoured by policy-makers in order to invent a practical and educative response that fits an approach to teaching by using a range of evidence to improve practice. In his work, Philpott centralises his commitment to teacher education as ‘learning from experience’, i.e. a practice-based approach to understanding teaching and teacher education that is more recently moving to the centre stage in teacher education scholarship (see Ellis & McNicholl, 2015; Green, 2009; Green, Reid & Brennan, 2017). This can be seen clearly also in his work using socio-cultural theory and learning from stories of practice through narratives (Philpott 2014b; 2015). He and Poultney marshal a very clear history of policy efforts to promote ‘evidence-based practice’ and summarise the main arguments for and against it in Chapter 1 of their book, published posthumously (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). This is a very accessible and reassuring map of the policy terrain and how it can be worked with in schools – while also confirming how systematic have been the efforts from governments to control schools, teachers and teacher educators. Philpott’s approach to writing for teachers, both in-service and pre-service, is careful and gentle. He understands that ‘compliance’ with the dominant policy discourse is necessary for employment purposes and needs to be made practical for incoming as well as continuing teachers. However, the writing’s effect is not to emphasise (mindless) compliance, but to focus on the opportunities for paying attention to pupils and their contexts: building judgement and capacity to understand and act with more wisdom. This is an ethical choice: placing student learning at the heart of teaching. Philpott and Poultney (2018, pp. 5–6) challenge education policy-makers to base their work on evidence from teaching practice, so that policy does not merely become just a ‘way of governments extending intrusive centralised control into individual classrooms, leaving no room for practitioners’ expert judgement in local circumstances’. Philpott and Poultney suggest it is important to have rigorous and clear bases for supporting particular approaches to classroom practice. Thus, a key question is what kinds of evidence help teachers to develop their practice, and – just as important – what kinds of relationships are needed between the different kinds of evidence that might help teachers reflect on and understand their practice better. The provision of questions at the end of chapters, encouraging discussion in staff meetings (and tutorials), presses for clear articulation of the current situation and consideration of what else is possible – what next steps could be taken.

16 Marie Brennan These are hard discussions to have in a climate where teachers are expected merely to comply with directives, but it is a discussion that refuses to ignore research-informed teacher learning. Beginning teachers especially, who will know no other set of practices other than those currently dominating in schools, will need to learn to participate in building a culture of reasoning about practice, discussing with colleagues and reading theory and other research to help reflection on their practice. Learning about the history of policies, understanding the history of schooling, of the role of teachers and of teacher education is also essential to build imagination about what might be possible. It is also useful, as Philpott suggests (2017), to learn new ways of thinking about social forms of evidence alongside other professions such as public and mental health workers who find similar dissonance in the use of medical rounds and ‘science’ in their practice with clients. Teacher education, according to Philpott (2014a, p. 56), should focus on the school as ‘a site of professional learning’ – for pre-service teachers, for in-service teachers and for teacher educators. He redefines ‘clinical reasoning’ in ITE, so that ‘all learning should be helping to answer the question what we should do now in this particular situation’ (2014a, p. 63). Clinical practice ‘relies on transforming practice in schools at the same time as it transforms ITE’ (p. 59). This is quite a different definition to the policy-makers who want to use ‘medical rounds’ as the model for clinical practice in teaching, choosing from ‘scientific’ evidence to diagnose and prescribe what to do. In Philpott’s view, however, good ‘clinical’ practice starts from ‘uncertainty’ (2017, p. 28) – about knowledge, about self and society, rather than presuming certainty of evidence from elsewhere. His stance that new knowledge is produced in and through practice undermines a biomedical view of evidence. Like their public health and mental health colleagues, teachers have to think about their practice in relation to community and societal trends such as employment, poverty and inequality, which are not under the control of ‘those professionals but whose effects they have to respond to’ (p. 23). Their work is social, their practice is based on knowledge of students (or health clients) in their contexts, and the practice needed is likely to be quite specific, tailored to those people in their place and time. There are no neat recipes that can be called ‘evidence’ to determine what to do. It requires professional judgement, a wide repertoire of practical options and co-operation with those being served. It is tough to work within a system which directs what is to ‘count’ as evidence (Randomised Control Trials are favoured; see Wrigley among others, Chapter 6, this volume). It is particularly tough if the school or university is poor, given under-funding and ever-decreasing budgets, and/or works with poor and marginalised communities. Yet teacher education which explicitly addresses questions of social justice is particularly important for those marginalised schools and communities (Burnett & Lampert, 2019). There are different forms of activism open to teacher educators. There will remain a need to work simultaneously within and against compliance in creative and careful ways if the stratification of schooling is not to be even further exacerbated. Philpott has had to steer a very careful course between substantial critique

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


(e.g. of the medical model and clinical practice; Philpott, 2017) and demonstrating ways for teachers and pre-service teachers to comply while going beyond a compliance mindset (e.g. Philpott, 2014a, 2014b; Philpott & Poultney, 2018). Philpott’s resistance is, I suggest, a form of ‘slow activism’. He provides resources to understand what is at stake if compliance is all that is achieved: the destruction of professional judgement and the dominance of a serious misinterpretation of how knowledge is produced in and through practice, through dialogue and through reading for reflection. Then, through careful redefinition of practice, of clinical practice, and pointing to a range of resources for building other kinds of evidence, Philpott opens the door for teachers and PSTs to build their judgement, to develop new practices, to build their professional networks through shared conversation, while still being able to ‘tick the boxes’ for accountability purposes.

Researching communities in a teacher education programme This chapter now presents a case study of research-informed teacher education, drawing on an Australian Research Council funded project, Renewing the teaching profession in regional areas through community partnership. This project spanned 2012–2018 and was a systematic partnership with community groups/agencies in regional and remote areas for developing our graduate-entry teacher education programme to build community-oriented, knowledgeable and committed prospective teachers (see Note). In Australia, regional, remote and Indigenous schools tend to be hard to staff, with high turnover of largely inexperienced, firstyear-out teachers. Most Australian rural and Indigenous schools are lower on achievement and participation than their metropolitan counterparts. Staff turnover contributes to lower performance on national tests, even as many teachers and family note the poor cultural fit of both the Australian curriculum and the test formats to the background and experience of the students (see Hogarth among others, Chapter 1, this volume). The programme began as a result of one regional community putting political pressure on a metropolitan university to address their lack of qualified specialist teachers and high turnover of beginning teachers. What we were able to offer was a placement of graduate-entry students from primary, middle, secondary and design/technology programmes. The university had a small campus with some accommodation in that region, thus able to provide low-cost living expenses for the two-week placement. Consultation with PSTs at the university underscored the importance of travel and living expenses, given that they would need to continue paying rent in the city and relinquish their part-time jobs for the time away. (Note that petrol, food and accommodation are more expensive in regional areas.) A partnership group in the region brought together local community agencies such as the Regional Economic Development Board, the Aboriginal Health Centre (AHC) and the Young Professionals Network (YPN), along with principals and teachers. Members planned orientation activities for when the cohort would ‘come to town’ and provided lectures at the university early in the semester. There

18 Marie Brennan was close coordination between the university programme staff and regional partners, with visits by academics, augmented by email and phone. Welcome BBQs were included – offering a ‘speed dating’ service to match PSTs with community members and with school mentor teachers. In-depth briefings, particularly from the AHC, were also put in place. Word of mouth spread after the first cohort, expanding the programme to four other regional sites – the Aboriginal-administered Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Lands, and two country areas in the state. Cohort sizes varied between 3 on the Lands (where housing is a problem) to 25 per region, varying across 2008–2012. Participation by application occurred in the first week of their programme, and was restricted to metropolitan-background students, given that rural-background students already knew something of living and schooling in the country, and were most likely to return, compared to their metropolitan colleagues. Employer authority partners, for example, a regional Catholic Education Office, emphasised the need for more metropolitan graduates to fill vacancies. Over the five years of its operation, the programme could only take some of those wanting to participate. In line with Philpott’s emphasis on learning from experience, we did not start our programme with the university but with schools. However, our form of ‘slow activism’ was to understand our students and their schools by starting with learning to understand their communities. We did not want to exoticise rural life, especially in Aboriginal areas, where forms of ‘educational tourism’ or ‘voyeurism’ were rejected by local communities. Nor did we want ‘missionaries’ who were out to ‘save’ students. Rather, we had an ethical commitment to building a teacher education programme which might meet the need for teachers in regional, rural, remote and Indigenous schools. For that ethical commitment to be realised, we argued, it needed to be supported by recognition of mutual agency among all the partners: the PSTs, the community and its agencies, the schools, the employer authorities and the academics. In this, we tried to avoid both dominant models: 1) in which the university designs the placement and sends out PSTs to schools or 2) the increasing emphasis on teacher education as largely a school responsibility. We had some money to support travel and living expenses, which meant most PSTs could apply to participate in the rural placements that had been negotiated with schools and community agencies. The closest region to the metropolitan area where the ITE programme was based was approximately 4.5 hours’ drive away (almost 400 km), while the more remote location was about 1300 km, a drive of over 14 hours. In the subsequent regional settings, the importance of living together was valued by PSTs: they experienced the opportunity to engage in research activities, share teacher learning and reflection, to plan together, and to analyse the lived community, thereby developing a practice of collective professionalism. The placement occurred at the end of the first semester, with a rationale that most PSTs already knew schools well and needed critical distance to understand schools from the perspective of a teacher. In designing our approach to learning to teach, we called on Ted Sizer’s argument: ‘I cannot teach a child I do not know’ ( Thus, a core activity in the on-

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


campus component was researching the rural communities in which PSTs would have their first professional experience, a two-week placement. Each regional cohort became an interdisciplinary team which investigated a number of aspects of the communities in which they would be working and living for two weeks and three weekends. Reid et al. (2010), in their model of rural social space, focus on relationships between demography (population, culture, people), economy (work, industry, production), and geography (environment, place) and how these are different in different rural communities. Working with this framing, we challenged the PSTs to be quite specific in investigating and mapping their communities, emphasising both historical and contemporary issues, including focus on Indigenous cultures, language and experience of colonialism, diverse uses of land and ‘resources’ (such as weather trends, water or mining), employment, industries, governance, political and population shifts, potential community knowledges, likelihood of disagreement(s) among communities, and regional infrastructure, such as professional services, health, schooling, food, shopping and transport. PSTs were asked to consider potential links to the Australian curriculum from the knowledge and expertise identified as likely to be in the community. Each regional cohort group made a presentation to the others, so that all, whatever their destination, would be aware of issues and could also volunteer resources that might be relevant to other PSTs. Through these collaborative research projects, PSTs developed a shared sense of professional investment in ‘their’ community. They could build on diverse research methods and sources of data among their peer group in order to understand dimensions of those communities which would have remained invisible if they had gone straight to the ‘official’ school data. They could see the assets in the community and its diverse knowledge bases, history and resources, thus avoiding deficit assumptions which underpin much policy and practice. Many principals and teachers in their feedback commented on how quickly the PSTs fitted into the community and built relationships with their students. They also surprised many locals with their knowledge and questions about community matters, and their interest in building local knowledge and resources into curriculum. Parallel to their group projects on communities, PSTs developed an individual digital photo-story, to be sent ahead to the schools and community groups, introducing themselves and what they thought they might be able to offer the community. This photo-story became the focus for the individual and group reflection on the work of a teacher, how their own expertise might match with local knowledges and assets for learning, and for thinking about what local knowledge and community resources could be built upon in the school for curriculum purposes. All groups of participants in the project reported favourably on their experience. The PSTs learned significantly about the role of the teacher as part of the community, about living and working with diverse communities in regional and remote locations, about building relationships based on mutual respect, about their students and the schooling system, about curriculum building that linked

20 Marie Brennan local knowledge and expertise with disciplinary official curriculum. Compared to many initial two-week placements in other programmes in this university, which were largely observational in orientation, the PSTs found themselves built into the school, taking classes, preparing units without notice, and participating in community activities such as sport, markets, trivial pursuit evenings, pub nights and following up briefings from community agencies. Some community groups were seen by PSTs as a bit too enthusiastic in offering social and other events after hours; they did not seem to realise quite how much preparation and debriefing was needed – especially for beginner teachers. After hours was a time for gathering resources for teaching. Internet connection was seen as essential for PSTs to develop appropriate materials for curriculum, sometimes provided by other PSTs many hours away but also using internet access. Email and e-phone were also needed to keep family and friends updated. Participating in community activities clearly helped the PSTs: they could begin to imagine ‘life in the country’. For some, this ended up a choice they would not want to make; principals saw that as a positive: one less person to be replaced. But over 90% agreed they would consider rural teaching, with the majority actively saying they would apply. Schools initially did not have much experience of supporting PSTs, and feedback from PSTs on inadequate induction was taken up by a number of principals, who also found this helpful to orient incoming teachers and for professional development. Others provided so much information that PSTs were confused and could not retain what they were told. The feedback loop between school, community agencies, PSTs and the teacher educators was formalised: PSTs debriefed, the regional partners gave feedback and suggestions for future cohorts, and a report was written for the regional groups and employer authorities by the university staff. Some regional groups met separately to academic visits; others got together in time to plan the following year and used the report to start their planning. Much of the organisation, however, relied strongly on the academic staff – to call meetings, to initiate phone calls or emails, to write the reports. Despite partners voicing strong commitment and willingness to provide services for the PSTs, only once did a local group initiate the planning meetings. If the ARC funding for a three-year project had not given workload time to some academics, the level of work, in initial stages especially, would not have been possible, which raises a question about support for research among teacher educators. It also added significant burdens on the professional experience coordinator who needed to liaise with schools and community agencies herself, rather than leaving it to the professional experience of office staff to match requests and schools. The cuts to higher education funding put pressure on academics to curtail the initiative, somewhat alleviated by the prestigious research grant for three to four years. But the question stands, especially if the intention is to promote research and co-develop teacher education in self-improving and researchrich education systems. (See Groundwater Smith & Mockler, 2009; and www.bera. Regional teachers and community members were adamant that we academics had to ‘learn the region’ as well as them learning to understand the intricacies and

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


formalities of teacher education programmes and registration requirements, thereby learning the breadth and depth of teacher learning. Face-to-face visits were expensive and time-consuming but essential for learning to know the issues from one another’s perspectives. We had to build what Edwards (2012) identifies as ‘common knowledge’, which derives from good relationships, based on knowledge and trust. Only after a few visits could we intersperse Skype with the regional travel. Relational expertise, according to Edwards, ‘is a matter of recognising what others can offer a shared enterprise and why they offer it; and being able to work with what others offer while also making visible and accessible what matters for you’ (2012, p. 26). For rural people, and especially Aboriginal communities, physical meeting, and understanding of place, was central to building respectful relationships. PSTs’ research into community gave them an important edge for learning community and made them open to being briefed about their students, and what their parents and wider community wanted from their schools. It changed all of our understandings and articulations about what counted as a ‘good’ teacher to include fostering teachers who nourish participation and engagement in communities, as well as in school life, and nourish community participation in schooling.

But the limits of ‘slow activism’ The regional professional experience interrupted our teacher education ‘as usual’: it demanded new practices. We found that such ‘slow activism’ – the behind-the-scenes work to foster research-informed teacher learning, resourcing people to analyse their work and its contexts and to develop practices that keep the profession ‘ticking over’ – can be achieved, even in the current policy framework. Building knowledge across the different partnering groups each year and developing good practice for inducting PSTs into community and school was also a means of resisting the slide into compliance with ‘standards’ or national curriculum. This form of slow activism produced new practices of making connections with communities, and in teacher education on-campus work. It certainly increased recruitment and willingness to work in rural areas among graduates. It built teacher–PST ethical discussion and strengthened teacher judgement and willingness to innovate. However, it did not work to change the ‘practice architecture’ (Kemmis & Grootenboer, 2008) of schooling or teacher education. While it developed new practices, and supported teacher research, it did not challenge the underlying policy framework oriented to compliance with testing and accountability. Like Philpott, we emphasised rethinking ‘evidence’ for developing improved practice and promoting teacher researchfulness in ITE. In doing so, our focus was on partnership with regional communities and their schools, rather than being only internal to the profession. The partnership work we undertook with education employer authorities and regional groups did last for some time. However, by 2013 it was unable to be sustained in the face of changing personnel and changing policy, particularly at the university. The move of key teacher educators from the

22 Marie Brennan programme, combined with regional changes of staffing among most of the partner groups, made it difficult to organise, particularly since there was no further money to support travel and living expenses beyond the funded research project. The university policy directed us to service regional areas through the provision of online subjects; this led to translation of the project into a single subject on teaching in rural areas without the partnership and action dimensions developed in our project. Despite the ‘evidence’ of increased applications for rural employment and the endorsement of our small-scale professional experience by all parties involved over five years, the programme was not ‘mainstreamed’. We suffered the common fate of many innovations: issues of scaling up, lack of resources for both academic staff and PSTs, and lack of workload time allocated to university organisation of professional experience and teaching associated with PST research and reflection. Few other academic staff were committed to partnership with regional communities: the model Kretchmar and Zeichner (2016) call ‘teacher education 1.0’, where university knowledge and habits of teacher education prevail. Despite the evolution of a successful approach which brought together the five partner groups into mutual engagement – PSTs, teacher educators, community agencies, employer authorities and schools – Teacher Education 3.0 as envisaged by Kretchmar and Zeichner could not be sustained. The ‘slow activism’ approach was important for individual schools, communities and PSTs, and for those academics involved, but was unable to be sustained without more political effect on policy domination. We can write about these problems, as Philpott has, as many colleagues have. We all have quite articulate critiques of policy, funding, teaching conditions… this is a necessary start but this is not enough. Michael Apple (2011) provides a set of tasks for critical activist scholars, starting with being secretaries to local activists but also moving further to more political work. With Robins, we find ourselves questioning how to bring the low-level but pernicious problems for teachers, schools and teacher education into public awareness. Slow activism seems to become ‘arrested’ if it cannot be scaled up and achieve more public results, and deeper changes in our institutional practices. What seems to be needed are partners who work on making changes in local practice but who can also link up with other locals to lobby for shifts on a larger scale, especially to policy directions. These horizontal alliances can help counteract the vertical pressures of accountability and performativity that operate in schools as well as universities (CochranSmith et al., 2018; Brennan & Zipin, 2019). Such public work could potentially erupt relatively quickly – such as the ‘Schools Strike for Climate Change’ or around government election cycles. Public, well-mediated ‘spectacles’, as Robins suggests, will rely on the grunt work of the slow activism, which builds knowledge and shared action. Thus we have to find ways of sustaining and continually producing such partnership. Our challenge is to invent, with our partners, new forms of media spectacle and new narratives that open up informed questioning of what communities think schools ought to be and what teachers need to be able to do. Our ongoing question, which feeds on the work of Carey Philpott, remains: What might be the images of public dissent that would attract the necessary groundswell to shift policy away from the neoliberal, authoritarian mess now in operation?

Community-oriented pre-service teachers


Note Research for this paper was drawn from the Australian Research Council Funded Linkage Program #LP100200499 which formally commenced in 2012 and finished in 2018. Entitled Renewing the teaching profession in regional areas through community partnerships, Chief Investigators on the project included: Marie Brennan, Michele Simons and Faye McCallum, with Partner Investigators: H. Strickland (RDA Limestone Coast), K. McEvoy (CESA, Pt Pirie), K. Griggs (DECS, SA) and L. Salomon (Ernabella School).

References Apple, M. W. (2011). Global crises, social justice, and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 62(2), 222–234. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of Resistance: Against the New Myths of Our Time. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Brennan, M. & Zipin, L. (2019). Seeking an institution-decentring politics to regain purpose for Australian university futures. In C. Manathunga & D. Bottrell (Eds.), Resisting Neoliberalism in Higher Education, Volume II: Prising Open the Cracks. pp. 272–292. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Burnett, B. & Lampert, J. (2019). The Australian national exceptional teaching for disadvantaged schools programme: A reflection on its first 8 years. Journal of Education for Teaching 45(1), 31–46. doi:10.1080/02607476.2019.1550604 Campbell, C. & Proctor, H. (2014). A History of Australian Schooling. Crow’s Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Cochran-Smith, M., Cummings Carney, M., Stringer Keefe, E., Burton, S., Chang, W-C., Fernandez, M. B., Miller, A., Sanchez, J. G. & Baker, M. (2018). Reclaiming Accountability in Teacher Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Cox, E. (1996). Leading Women: Tactics for Making the Difference. Sydney: Random House. Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1(1), 22–23. Ellis, V. & McNicholl, J. (2015). Transforming Teacher Education: Reconfiguring the Academic Work. London: Bloomsbury. Green, B. (Ed.) (2009). Understanding and Researching Professional Practice. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Green, B., Reid, J-A. & Brennan, M. (2017). Challenging policy, rethinking practice: Struggling for the soul of teacher education. In T. Are Trippestad, A. Swennen & T. Werler (Eds.), The Struggle for Teacher Education: International Perspectives on Governance and Reform. pp. 39–56. London & New York: Bloomsbury. Grimmett, P.P., Fleming, R. & Trotter, L. (2009). Legitimacy and identity in Teacher Education: A micro-political struggle constrained by macro-political pressures. AsiaPacific Journal of Teacher Education 37(1), 5–26. Groundwater Smith, S. & Mockler, N. (2009). Professional Learning in an Age of Compliance: Mind the Gap. Rotterdam: Springer. Kemmis, S. & Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling Praxis: Challenges for Education. pp. 37–62. Rotterdam: Sense.

24 Marie Brennan Kretchmar, K. & Zeichner, K. (2016). Teacher prep 3.0: A vision for teacher education to impact social transformation. Journal of Education for Teaching 42(4), 417–433. Lingard, B., Martino, W., Rezai-Rashti, G. & Sellar, S. (2016). Globalizing Educational Accountabilities. New York: Routledge. Philpott, C. (2014a). Theories of Professional Learning. St Albans, Herts: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C. (2014b) Socioculturally situated narratives as co-authors of student teachers’ learning from experience. Teaching Education 25(4), 391–409. 1080/10476210.2014.908839 Philpott, C. (2015). Analysing Learning in Initial Teacher Education as Socioculturally Situated Narrative: An Elaboration of Wertsch. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. Corvinus University, Budapest. Philpott, C. (2017). Medical models for teachers’ learning: Asking for a second opinion. Journal of Education for Teaching 43(1), 20–31. Philpott, C. & Poultney, V. (2018). Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans, Herts: Critical Publishing. Reid, J-A., Green, B., Cooper, M., Hastings, W., Lock, G. & White, S. (2010–11). Regenerating rural social space? Teacher education for rural-regional sustainability. Australian Journal of Education 54(3), 262–276. Rizvi, F. & Lingard, R. (2010). Globalizing Education Policy. London & New York: Routledge. Robins, S. (2014). Slow activism in fast times: Reflections on the politics of media spectacles after apartheid. Journal of Southern African Studies 40(1), 91–110. Whitty, G. (2016). Research and Policy in Education: Evidence, Ideology and Impact. London: UCL IOE Press. Williams, R. (1961). The Long Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus.


New directions in headship education in Scotland Joan Mowat

Introduction This chapter is written in memory of Professor Carey Philpott who shared an office with me when he wrote his first book – the inspiration for the chapter. The importance of high-quality school leadership in effecting school improvement has been long acknowledged within the literature (MacBeath, Dempster, Frost, Johnson, & Swaffield, 2018) and within the Scottish policy context (Scottish Government, 2016b; International Council of Education Advisers, 2017b). Central to achieving this aim is high-quality leadership education (Hamilton, Forde, & McMahon, 2018; Mowat & McMahon, 2018) and, in particular, preparation for headship (Schleicher, 2015), with implications for research-informed learning and practice for aspiring and novice headteachers1 (denoting the role of School Principal in Scotland). Arising from the Donaldson review of teacher professional development in Scotland, ‘Teaching Scotland’s Future’ (Scottish Government, 2010), and revisions to the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) professional standards for teachers in 2012, a framework for educational leadership and new pathways for headship preparation have been developed. To this point, whilst there is an emerging literature about the rationale for such developments (Forde & Torrance, 2016, 2017; Hamilton et al., 2018), there has been little empirical research focusing on the student experience as it pertains to cohorts of prospective headteachers who have undertaken Into Headship, other than the initial survey undertaken by the Scottish College for Educational Leadership (SCEL).2 This chapter will explore the genesis of the Specialist Qualification for Headship (and, in particular, Into Headship) and the drivers at the international and national level which have led to its development. It will then explore key aspects of the programme, drawing from the perspectives of a sample cohort of Into Headship students at a Scottish university/Higher Education Institution (HEI),3 here given the pseudonym, the University of Inverleven. It will examine the ways in which participation within the programme has shaped their understanding of the role of the headteacher and formed their identity as a prospective headteacher. The chapter concludes with a fuller discussion of the most pertinent

26 Joan Mowat professional learning theories which have shaped and underpin the development and delivery of the course and the implications for research-informed practice and headteachers’ learning.

The influence of international drivers in shaping Scottish education policy Over the past decade, the impact of the OECD in shaping educational policy globally has become increasingly evident (Lingard & Sellar, 2014; d’Agnese, 2018) and made manifest with regard to policy relating to teacher professionalism and educational leadership. This, in turn, is increasingly being aligned with the quest for equity, inclusion and social justice (Gomendio, 2017). It is reinforced by UNICEF’s Sustainable Development Goals, one of which is ‘to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (Goal 4) (UNICEF Office of Research, 2017), aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The above configuration is reflected in a raft of Scottish Government educational policies over the past decade focusing on building capacity in the sytem through high-quality professional development (Scottish Government, 2010, 2014; Black, Bowen, Murray, & Zubairi, 2016); the promotion of excellence and equity (Scottish Government, 2016b); and high-quality leadership at all levels of the system (Scottish Government, 2010, 2016b), realised through an empowerment agenda (Scottish Government, 2019).

The genesis of the Specialist Qualification for Headship An evaluation of provision for headship preparation in Scotland (Watt et al., 2014) concluded that there was a lack of coherence across pathways. Whilst the programmes were valued by headship students and local authorities, they were not necessarily perceived as equating to readiness for headship nor considered by the local authorities as essential for appointment. Key recommendations arising from the evaluation were the need to develop coherent and flexible leadership pathways across the career span, from initial teacher education onwards; to introduce a mandatory qualification for headship; and peer learning. Expectations held of headteachers Expectations of schools and their leadership teams have increased over time. This is reflected in three iterations of the GTCS Professional Standards and in a raft of Scottish educational policy such as the Scottish Attainment Challenge. Forde and Torrance (2016) identify structural barriers (such as the tension between autonomy and accountability) which can make it difficult for headteachers to fulfil these expectations. Recent changes in the governance of Scottish schools, arising from the Governance Review, 2016 (Scottish Government, 2016a, 2017b), have led to

Headship education in Scotland


the establishment of six Regional Improvement Collaboratives, representative of a broader empowerment agenda. These have brought together groups of local authorities to focus on school improvement. The Bill to the Scottish Parliament proposed a strengthening of the role and functions of headteachers, including greater powers over the recruitment of staff. However, it was subsequently rejected by the Scottish Parliament, necessitating a more collaborative approach between all parties in moving forward. A draft Headteachers’ Charter was published in February 2019, setting out the role and responsibilities of headteachers (Scottish Government, 2019). The rationale for the document is that headteachers, working in partnership with the wider school community, are best placed to make decisions relating to leading learning and teaching, empowering the learning community and making best use of the school’s resources. The GTCS has engaged in a further review of the professional standards to ensure that they meet contemporary imperatives, followed by a period of consultation4. All of these negotiations and developments will have significant ramifications for the future direction of headship education in Scotland. A paradigm shift Bush and Glover (2014) draw from Gunter (2004) who identifies a shift in labels used within the field from administration, to management to leadership. The movement towards shared, collaborative and distributive forms of leadership which is evident in the literature is indicative of a broader movement away from understandings which locate leadership within the individual to leadership within the collective. For Spillane (2013), leadership resides within the interactions between leaders and followers and their situation, and within the cultural tools which characterise and arise from them. As such, Lewis and Murphy (2008) argue: ‘If leadership is seen as a function of interactions within a system, then leadership development is a much more complex process than just the development of individuals’ (p. 143). A range of commentators (Lu, Jiang, Yu, & Li, 2015; Jäppinen, Leclerc, & Tubin, 2016; Greany, 2017; International Council of Education Advisers, 2017a) argue for the importance of collaborative approaches to school improvement, furthered through communities of practice. This paradigmatic shift, coupled with the change in focus from management functions (which largely characterised the former Scottish Qualification for Headship) to a leadership orientation together with the globalisation of educational policy, means that aspiring headteachers of today require a much more sophisticated and strategic understanding of school leadership. Brief summary There has been a convergence across a range of spheres, which has led to the need for new understandings of leadership education in Scotland and, within this, preparation for headship. This has highlighted the need for research-informed and evidence-based practice which takes account not only of current imperatives within the policy context but theoretical understandings of what educational leadership constitutes, particularly within the context of leading a school. The following

28 Joan Mowat discussion charts some of these developments and outlines the nature of the new qualification, focusing specifically on Into Headship.

Towards coherent leadership pathways in Scottish education Hamilton et al. (2018), having appraised a range of leadership education systems across the world, argue for a coherent pathway which meets the demands of the system whilst enabling flexibility and choice for individuals. The different components of such a pathway would bring together a leadership framework with the professional standards, built on a model of professional learning and facilitated by SCEL. The model of professional learning underpinning Scottish education has recently been updated (see Figure 3.1). The new model focuses on three aspects of professional learning – learning by enquiring, learning-as-collaborative and learning that deepens knowledge and understanding. It is research-informed, drawing on theoretical and empirical study within the fields of leadership for learning (Forde, 2011; MacBeath et al., 2018) and teacher leadership (Frost, 2016). The focus on learning by enquiring is an explicit acknowledgement of the increasing emphasis on evidencebased practice, which is a key element of the National Improvement Framework. However, within Scottish educational policy, there is little acknowledgement of the complexities of achieving this end, a problem highlighted more generally in the broader UK context by Philpott and Poultney (2018).

The Specialist Qualification for Headship – Into Headship The Specialist Qualification for Headship is a Masters degree which constitutes three levels (as set out in Figure 3.2) of which Into Headship is the middle stage. Into Headship is subsidised by the Scottish Government. It will be mandatory from August 2020 for appointment to the post of headteacher in Scottish schools. It was developed by a SCEL design group constituting representation from SCEL, HEIs and local authorities with the first cohort of students embarking on the qualification in 2015. It sought to build on what had been considered to be the strengths of the previous programmes. It should be noted that, as Course Leader and principal tutor, I represent the University of Inverleven within the National Design Group. Into Headship is delivered over two modules (60 and 120 SCQF credits,5 respectively) by seven HEI providers with either face-to-face provision or online delivery over a one-year period. Whilst the intention had been that students embarking on Into Headship would initially have undertaken Middle Leadership, the vast majority of headship students nationally on the programme enter at the Into Headship stage and only a small minority have proceeded onto In Headship.6 A range of actors come into play in delivering the programme – University Course Leaders and tutors, Local Authority Co-ordinators, Mentors (normally the headteacher of the headship student) and Professional Verifiers, experienced headteachers within the local authority. The Course Leader plays an important role in co-ordinating these functions and in training Mentors and Professional Verifiers, the latter of whom verify the account of the headship student, ensuring

Headship education in Scotland


that they meet the Standard for Headship. Course assessment is ultimately the responsibility of the HEIs working in collaboration with the Professional Verifier. Potential candidates for the programme must have a realistic chance of being appointed as a headteacher within two to three years of commencing the programme. Recruitment to the programme is undertaken by local authorities, working in partnership with SCEL. SCEL delivers online modules which focus on the management aspects of the role of headteacher. SCEL also facilitates the Emotional and Social Competency Inventory (360º questionnaire) which students complete on commencement of study, informing their learning plans. The programme is research-informed, drawing on a range of pedagogical approaches including experiential, work-based learning. The initial module has two principal components: firstly, a strategic analysis of the international and national policy contexts combined with a situational analysis of the school; and, secondly, a self-evaluation against the Standard for Headship, creating a personal learning plan. The former leads to the identification of, and rationale for, a Strategic Change Issue to be addressed within the school. The second module focuses on the creation of a strategic plan and proposal to take forward a Strategic Change Initiative to address the previously identified issue. Students are required to carry out an interim evaluation of progress addressing issues of sustainability. In their assignment submission, they have to demonstrate that they meet the GTCS Standard for Headship and create a professional portfolio to evidence this. The following discussion homes in on a case study of practice, undertaken by myself as Course Leader and tutor, for which ethical approval was sought from the School of Education for a three-year period commencing in session 2017–2018. As such, this chapter reports on interim findings drawn from a single cohort of students. It will explore how the programme was developed at a Scottish HEI – the University of Inverleven. Course development at the University of Inverleven In taking forward Into Headship at the University of Inverleven, I adopted a research-informed approach. Having been invited to take on the role of Course Leader at very short notice, I had not been involved in the initial development of the course at national level nor did I have the opportunity to co-construct the course with students. Working from the course specification emanating from the SCEL design group, the ‘Teaching for Understanding Framework’ was used to develop the course as illustrated in Figure 3.3. This derives from the work of Professor David Perkins and his colleagues at Project Zero, Harvard University (see Wiske, 1998). I initially identified broad themes for exploration (throughlines) which would enable students to develop and deepen their understanding of educational leadership and what headship entails. Thereafter, these were expressed through a series of understanding goals, posed as series of questions. For example, the throughline, The school and its wider community, examined through the understanding goal, How can the school work together with its community to build and sustain a shared

30 Joan Mowat vision of strategic improvement? These were then used to frame all aspects of the course design. Delivery of the programme There is a degree of flexibility afforded to HEI providers in the delivery of the programme, recognising the unique context of each. For example, delivery by HEIs serving remote communities is principally online. The course at the University of Inverleven is delivered through full-day seminars held during the working week as it was considered that this offered greater opportunities for peer learning, higher levels of student support and the opportunity for students to interact with a range of external speakers. In order to provide more individualised guidance and support to students in taking forward their Strategic Change Initiatives within their schools, directing them towards an appropriate literature, and to build strong relationships with students, we introduced a group coaching session7 facilitated by tutors. A presentation to peers and tutors on the final teaching day has been substituted for a proportion of the final assignment on the basis that one of the national criteria for the course is that students should be able to communicate effectively ‘in a range of ways for a variety of audiences’. The coaching

Figure 3.1 The revised national model of professional learning 2018 (Education Scotland)

Headship education in Scotland


session and presentation are unique features of provision for Into Headship at the University of Inverleven. Support for student learning Outlined below is a discussion of the approaches which the course team has adopted to promote research-informed headteacher learning, in keeping with Philpott’s (2014) focus on theories of professional learning. How the cohort of students who constitute the sample at the University of Strathleven has experienced this in practice is explored within the presentation and discussion of findings to follow. A key aspect was to build a team of experienced tutors by building on my networks and appointing new staff to support the work of students and to supplement my role as principal tutor. Student learning is supported by Participant Booklets, devised by myself as Course Leader, which encompass pre- and post-session readings and tasks. These are extensive and incorporate a wide range of current literature and policy documentation from the international to the national. The programme is delivered principally by HEI tutors with additional inputs from external speakers. Additional tutors support the work of groups of students by providing formative feedback on their learning and ultimately assessing their summative work. This enables tutors to gain insight into the professional context of the student and fosters positive relationships. Research-informed practice At various points during the course, students are asked to reflect on their learning, integrating insights gained from engagement with theory and experiential learning as they bring theory to bear on their practice. This is captured at the end of the course when students undertake a plenary activity in pairs or triads addressing the following questions: 1 2

In which ways has participation within this course challenged your thinking? How has this informed your understanding of yourself as a prospective headteacher?

Figure 3.2 Diagrammatic representation of the Specialist Qualification for Headship (Education Scotland)

32 Joan Mowat 3 4

How has it impacted upon your practice as a prospective headteacher or informed your future actions? How will it inform your future development as a leader?

Students are then invited to complete an evaluation (in the form of an openended questionnaire) which focuses on the ways in which their understanding has been furthered (Q1), the quality of support for student learning (Q2–4) and the key insights which they will take away from the course to inform their journey towards headship and shape them as a headteacher (Q5).

Methodology The study of the Into Headship programme at the University of Inverleven is a naturalistic enquiry conducted within a single setting – a case study. The case is defined as the cohort of students undertaking Into Headship at the University of Inverleven in session 2017–2018 and the key organisations and personnel which/ who support their study (as previously described). It draws on no other material other than what constitutes normal teaching practice. It was stressed that there would be no detriment to students who did not wish to take part in the study and that they could withdraw at any point. All students chose to participate. Analysis of data The following data-sets were analysed: 1 2 3

Quantitative data relating to student demographics Qualitative data derived from the plenary activity (PA) Qualitative data derived from the student course evaluations (CE).

Data were analysed by means of thematic analysis (see King & Horrocks, 2010, Figure 9.1, p. 153). Initially descriptive comments précising student responses were generated. These were then translated into descriptive codes which could be generalised across the data-set. Thereafter, these were classified, sorted and pruned to generate analytical codes. A similar process was then adopted to generate overarching themes.

The nature of the population Student demographics Students in cohort 2017 are drawn from five local authorities in the West of Scotland. Thirty-three students commenced the course in June 2017, three of whom are from an ethnic minority background. The demographics of the cohort are set out in Figure 3.4. There are more Primary than Secondary students (21:12), more female than male (2:1) and the mode age range is 40–44.

Headship education in Scotland


Figure 3.3 Illustration of the ‘Teaching for Understanding Framework’

Demographic Profile of Into Headship Cohort 2017 (age and gender) N=33 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 Primary Female

Primary Male

Secondary Female

Secondary Male

Figure 3.4 Student demographics for Into Headship cohort 2017

Academic aspects No students within the cohort registered previous credits (i.e. they had not undertaken Middle Leadership). One student withdrew on gaining a headship post, four students entered Voluntary or Academic Suspension for personal or professional reasons. All other remaining students successfully completed the course. No students from the cohort, to this point, have undertaken In Headship.

34 Joan Mowat

Area of focus of Strategic Change Initiatives Figure 3.5 illustrates the areas of focus selected by students to take forward a Strategic Change Initiative within their school. These largely reflect Scottish Government priorities to address the poverty-related attainment gap through the Scottish Attainment Challenge but are reflected also in international policy imperatives.

Findings and discussion Reflecting on student learning: the plenary activity and the student evaluation In analysing the data from both data sources, four over-arching themes emerged (see Figure 3.6). As the quality of the student experience is so bound in the quality of pedagogy, for the purposes of the analysis they are considered as a single theme. The affordances of Into Headship are determined by the quality and nature of student understanding which, in turn, is dependent on the quality of the student experience and pedagogy. The quality of student experience/pedagogy The principal themes to emerge are illustrated in Figure 3.7. Whilst the themes are distinctive, they are also inter-related. What became evident is that student responses are almost overwhelmingly positive.

Figure 3.5 Focus of Strategic Change Initiatives for cohort 2017–2018

Headship education in Scotland


Figure 3.6 Illustration of over-arching themes

Quality of Student Experience/Pedagogy (N=248)

Value of learning within a community of practice Affective 16% Response 7%

Quality of support for student learning: supportive mechanisms 15%

Quality of course delivery & student provision 21%

Quality of communication 6%

Quality/nature of support for student learning 35%

Figure 3.7 The quality of student experience/pedagogy

The quality of course delivery and taught provision was cited in around one-fifth of responses. This ranged over the professional attributes of tutors and speakers; the mode of delivery, balance of activities and pace; the interest, relevance and range of content; and the structure of the course:

36 Joan Mowat The quality of learning and delivery throughout the modules was first class. The programme was well thought out and carefully presented to best suit our needs. (Response 27 CE Q2) When considered together, the quality of support for student learning together with the mechanisms for such support (for example, coaching sessions, mentor support, Participant Booklets, 360º questionnaire facilitated by SCEL) accounted for 50% of responses. Teaching was closely aligned to student needs, building on prior learning and fostering a critical approach. Whilst expressing appreciation of the academic support offered, a few students would have liked additional support in academic reading and writing. Communication with the course team and administrator was prompt and efficient but a malfunction of the online platform led to a delay in accessing student results, causing upset and consternation. A key aspect of provision for many students was the fostering of a learning community in which students benefited from collaborating and networking with each other (across sectors and different local authorities) and the opportunities which this provided for professional dialogue and peer support: I think that the discussions and dialogue with peers and other professionals has given me greater understanding of the skills and qualities needed to be an effective headteacher. (Response 30 CE Q5) There were 15 statements expressing appreciation of the provision and/or enjoyment of the course: I really enjoyed the taught days, the content was thought provoking and stimulating and was presented in a really clear and considered manner… I am so glad I have had the opportunity to participate in the course and meet and work with great people. (Response 28 CE Q1) Furthering understanding of strategic leadership The key themes to emerge in relation to this over-arching theme are illustrated in Figure 3.8. Once again, whilst the themes are distinct, they are also inter-related. Engaging in academic/professional reading was identified as being a key benefit of participation within Into Headship. It was considered to be current and highly relevant to the students’ professional context. It served to further understanding of leadership theory, the policy context and research-informed practice: ‘Having the theory behind my practice has made a huge difference’ (Response 27 CE Q1). Students had furthered their understanding of the international and national policy context. They had gained insight into the nature of policy and the complexities of the

Headship education in Scotland


Furthering Understanding of Strategic Leadership N=115 Statements Gaining insight into headship 21%

Furthering understanding of leadership theory and its impact on practice 29%

Value of academic reading in furthering understanding of strategic leadership 22%

Furthering understanding of international/natio nal policy context and its impact on school policy and practice 28%

Figure 3.8 Furthering understanding of strategic leadership

policy process; the drivers of policy at the international and national levels; the impact of policy at the local level; and the implications of such for the role of headship: The impact of various policy imperatives on practice, often in a way that can become lost within a school and enacted unthinkingly. (Response 5 PA Q1) They had furthered their understanding of leadership theory and its impact on practice. Engagement with theory had encouraged a more considered and reflective approach to the strategic leadership of a school: (It has) also encouraged a more discerning approach to what we do in schools – what we’re trying to achieve and the relationship between our actions and the intended, and unintended, consequences. (Response 6, PA Q1) Students had gained insight into models/styles of leadership; the importance of understanding the context and culture of the school in building capacity and a shared vision for change; and of building community through partnership working. In the process, they had developed an understanding of how to manage people and teams effectively, build relationships and manage conflict. The final theme – gaining insight into headship – is more personal to the student. It relates to their developing sense of identity as a prospective/novice headteacher; their growing understanding of the role of the headteacher and the complexities of headship; gaining insight into their own leadership style and the

38 Joan Mowat desired attributes of headship; and gaining insight into the moral purpose of headship and their own personal values: ‘Vision and values – (the) importance of living the life of the school through these’ (Response 19 PA Q4). The affordances (value and impact) of Into Headship The key themes to emerge in relation to this over-arching theme are set out in Figure 3.9. The respects in which students identified personal benefits to be accrued from the programme related to greater confidence in their capabilities, developing greater criticality and academic skills and fostering lifelong learning. I found the critical analysis to be a very valuable experience. I found it difficult to engage with the literature at first but the class sessions, and presenters we heard, made this more manageable. Knowing how to properly access and evaluate literature will have a significant impact in the future. (Response 19 CE Q2) Participation within the programme had also highlighted for some students the importance of continuous professional learning: I will make a concerted effort to keep lifelong learning at the top of the professional learning agenda. Genuine reflection on practice, awareness of the wider policy landscape and responsive methods of planning improvement will continue to shape (my) progress as a leader. (Response 27 PA Q4)

Building capacity within the school 9%

Affordances of Into Headship N=119 Statements

Developing leadership and management skills 28%

Adopting a strategic approach/strategic planning 23%

Figure 3.9 Affordances of Into Headship

Personal 40%

Confidence Criticality Academic Skills

Headship education in Scotland


Other benefits were professional in nature and related to the development of leadership and management skills: ‘Importance of building relationships amongst the team – “the power of little things”’ (Response 2 PA Q1); ‘As a leader, developing distributive leadership more – supporting – stepping back’ (Response 18 PA Q4); ‘The importance of the school and teams – no more heroic leadership’ (Response 9 PA Q2); the adoption of a more strategic approach to school leadership and building capacity within the school: ‘School is not in isolation – building stronger communities/building capacity/building learning for everyone’ (Response 18 PA Q2). Reflections on findings It is seemingly evident from the findings that, from the perspective of the students themselves, the programme has been highly successful in forming their understanding of what headship entails and in shaping their professional identities as prospective/novice headteachers. An extensive range of facilitators to student progress has been identified through the analysis and some impediments to progress, principally relating to students’ readiness to engage with Masters-level academic study. Perhaps as the course consolidates and prospective candidates are encouraged to undertake Middle Leadership, this concern may dissipate over time.

Discussion It is incontrovertible that headship, at a global level, is becoming increasingly complex; that the pace of change, expectations of schools and the accountabilities on headteachers are growing exponentially. Schools reside within a wider macrocosym in which the ethical dilemmas facing society are becoming increasingly complex and in which we are largely ‘educating for the unknown’ (a reference to Perkins, 2014). As such, the pedagogies underpinning the programme (and underlying theories of professional learning) need to be sufficiently rich to capture this complexity as education systems throughout the world require headteachers who are critical, intelligent, responsive, principled, courageous and strategic in their approach (whilst also having the compassion, empathy, integrity, drive for social justice and skills to take people with them). Philpott (2014), in his critique of professional learning theory, poses a series of insightful questions which, although contextualised with regard to initial teacher education, provide a valuable lens through which to examine the professional learning of students on their journey to headship. One such question concerns the extent to which the emphasis should lie with the process of learning as apart from its substance. Perkins (1992) is adamant that ‘our most important choice is what we try to teach’ (p. 69): being clear about what we want students to do (and the knowledge and understanding which underpins this) is crucial to effective learning. It follows that if potential headteachers are to be critical in their approach, they need to be exposed to material (and pedagogy) which fosters this criticality and

40 Joan Mowat see it modelled by their tutors. For example, at the University of Inverleven, students (in pairs) are invited to critique an article in the Times Education Supplement using a critical frame (see Wallace and Wray, 2011) and then draw on Brookfield’s four critical frames – epistemological, experiential, communicative and political (see Brookfield, 1995, Chapter 9) – to devise a series of questions which they can subsequently use to critique the literature and policy context. Likewise, if the readings students undertake are to assume relevance in their working lives, there is a need to teach for transfer, encouraging them to ‘make the connections’. In this specific case, this is achieved through a series of searching questions posed in the Participant Booklets; class activities which help to make the applications of the new knowledge explicit; and through experiential learning in the workplace where the new knowledge can be applied. It is about fostering intellectual dispositions (such as strategic thinking) which lead to the development of ‘intellectual character’ (Ritchhart, 2002). It is the synthesis of subject knowledge with pedagogical knowledge which is of the essence. This aligns with the concept of pedagogical content knowledge as initially conceived by Schulman (see Philpott, 2014, Chapter 3). A further question posed by Philpott (2014) relates to the extent to which professional theories of learning should emphasise the learner as an individual or as a social being. Students in this sample cohort have engaged with a range of theories relating to reflective practice from those of Kolb, Schön and Brookfield to the more recent work of Zwozdiak-Myers and Cochran-Smith. Philpott (2014) highlights the potential pitfalls of experiential learning and reflective practice as being that they do not take sufficient account of the socio-cultural context and the role of identity, values and emotions in learning. However, students are not undertaking this activity in isolation. The learning of students is mediated by others and by the cultural tools which facilitate this, in line with a social constructivist perspective (see Daniels, 2001, on Vygotsky). Wenger (1998) (building on the earlier work of Lave and Wenger, 1991) provides a further lens through which professional learning can be understood, which conceives of learning as social participation within communities of practice, allied with the concept of legitimate peripheral participation (the means by which one becomes included within the community of practice). For Wenger, learning constitutes community – learning as belonging; identity – learning as becoming; meaning – learning as experience; and practice – learning as doing. This theory is highly relevant to those undertaking Into Headship whose legitimacy comes from their endorsement by acceptance onto the programme and their roles within their schools, with their work within the school being facilitated by mentors acting as a role model for them. As such, learning is situated within a particular socio-cultural context which shapes the learning and identity of the learner. The findings from this case study suggest that students have become immersed within the community of practice which is the HEI cohort and tutors associated with it as they have formed bonds and working relationships. This then shapes their individual identities, reflecting the differentiated nature of learners and the different experiences they bring to their learning.

Headship education in Scotland


Philpott and Poultney (2018) identify a range of barriers to the achievement of evidence-based practice (see pp. 106–107) amongst which are pedagogisation (the use of ‘research based’ practices without understanding their philosophical and theoretical underpinnings), leading to routinised practice; and practice based on untested assumptions, such as Brookfield’s causal (if A, then B), prescriptive (if A, B should be the case) and paradigmatic (grounded in our world view) (see Brookfield, 1995, Chapter 1). With regard to the former, students in this programme are encouraged to extend their literature to the field of enquiry relevant to their Strategic Change Initiative. For example, one student (from cohort 2016–2017 and now a highly successful headteacher) drew inspiration from the work of Philpott and Oates (2015) on learning rounds in taking forward a more organic approach to school improvement (see Figure 3.108). Tutors play an important role, particularly through the group coaching sessions, in directing students towards an appropriate literature. With regard to the latter, headship students engage with Brookfield’s work to identify examples of causal, prescriptive and paradigmatic assumptions in their own practice as a starting point for conducting a situational analysis of their school. This case study, as a sub-set of the wider national programme – Into Headship – quite modestly provides direction for research-informed professional learning for aspiring headteachers. The development of the national programme is testimony to the dedication and spirit of collaboration of the Design Team who worked collaboratively together. Its development at the University of Inverleven is underpinned by a range of theories of professional learning, including social constructivism. None of these theories on their own can fully account for the process by which students have begun to develop an incremental understanding of headship and have been able to take on the identity of a prospective headteacher, committed to the promotion of research-informed practice. Rather, a pragmatic approach has been adopted, drawing from theory to inform and shape practice as deemed appropriate. It could be argued that, at a national level, the model for the Specialist Qualification for Headship, and its three-step process, is not currently realised in practice with the majority of students undertaking Into Headship as a stand-alone qualification. This brings into question one of the national programme’s avowed intents to avoid the ‘dash to headship’ and provide a coherent, progressive pathway. It also means that students embarking on Into Headship without having initially undertaken Middle Leadership may lack the understanding of leadership theory and the development of academic skills and confidence which such study would have engendered to bring to their study of Into Headship, presenting greater challenges for them. As previously intimated, it may be the case that this problem will dissipate over time. Headship education in Scotland is at a crossroads. The future direction it will take is dependent on the convergence of a range of different policy imperatives at the international and national level and how these resolve and the challenges facing schools which, in turn are a reflection on wider society. To ensure that future developments in headship education are research-informed, what is required is further empirical (principally qualitative) research tracing the development of Into Headship students as they take up their headship posts; more robust

Figure 3.10 Poster illustrating Strategic Change Initiative in the form of an academic poster presented at the Scottish Educational Research Association Conference, 2017

Headship education in Scotland


means of gathering data nationally such that accurate information can be gained to inform the future development of the programme; and engagement with developments in educational leadership globally.

Notes 1 Whilst acknowledging the varied nomenclature internationally, the term headteacher has been utilised throughout this chapter as it is the common term used in Scotland to denote someone leading a school. 2 Arising from the Governance review, SCEL has been incorporated into Education Scotland. 3 I have chosen to refer to Higher Education Institutions throughout the chapter as not all Scottish universities are Higher Education Institutions. 4 See ‘A National Conversation’ 5 Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework. 6 There is no national reliable data pertaining to the number of students who have undertaken Middle Leadership prior to Into Headship. Discussions at Into Headship Design Group Meetings indicate that it may only be a minority. Since the inception of Into Headship in 2015, 31 students nationally have successfully completed In Headship and a further 20 students are expected to complete in Autumn 2019. 7 On the basis of very positive student feedback, we are introducing a further group coaching session in Module 1. 8 Reproduced with kind permission of the former student.

References d’Agnese, V. (2018). Reclaiming Education in the Age of PISA: Challenging OECD’s Educational Order. London: Routledge. Black, C., Bowen, L., Murray, L., & Zubairi, S. S. (2016). Evaluation of the Impact of the Implementation of Teaching Scotland’s Future. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer. Forde, C. (2011). Leadership for learning: educating educational leaders. In T. Townsend & J. Macbeath (Eds.), The International Handbook of Leadership for Learning (pp. 353–372). Dordrecht: Springer. Forde, C., & Torrance, D. (2016). Changing expectations and experiences of headship in Scotland. International Studies in Educational Administration: Journal of the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management, 44(2), 20–37. Forde, C., & Torrance, D. (2017). Social justice and leadership development. Professional Development in Education, 43(1), 106–120. Frost, D. (Ed.). (2016). Transforming Education through Teacher Leadership. Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Gomendio, M. (2017). Empowering and enabling teachers to improve equity and outcomes for all. International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

44 Joan Mowat Greany, T. (2017). Collaboration, partnership and system leadership. In P. Earley & T. Greany (Eds.), School Leadership and Education System Reform (pp. 56–65). London: Bloomsbury. Gunter, H. (2004). Labels and labelling in the field of educational leadership. Discourse –Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 25(1), 21–41. Hamilton, G., Forde, C., & McMahon, M. (2018). Developing a coherent strategy to build leadership capacity in Scottish education. Management in Education, 32(2), 72–78. International Council of Education Advisers. (2017a). Pedagogy, leadership and collaboration key to successful reform [Press release]. Retrieved from scot/news/international-council-of-education-advisers-3 International Council of Education Advisers. (2017b). Report of the initial findings of the international council of education advisers, July 2017. Retrieved from publications/international-council-education-advisers-report-2016-18/ Jäppinen, A.-K., Leclerc, M., & Tubin, D. (2016). Collaborativeness as the core of professional learning communities beyond culture and context: evidence from Canada, Finland, and Israel. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 315–332 King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE. Lewis, P., & Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(2), 127–146. Lingard, B., & Sellar, S. (2014). Representing your country: Scotland, PISA and new spatialities of educational governance. Scottish Educational Review, 46(1), 5–10. Lu, J., Jiang, X., Yu, H., & Li, D. (2015). Building collaborative structures for teachers’ autonomy and self-efficacy: the mediating role of participative management and learning culture. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), 240–257. MacBeath, J., Dempster, N., Frost, D., Johnson, G., & Swaffield, S. (2018). Strengthening the Connections between Leadership and Learning: Challenges to Policy, School and Classroom Practice. London: Routledge. Mowat, J. G., & McMahon, M. (2018). Interrogating the concept of ‘leadership at all levels’: a Scottish perspective. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 173–189. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart Schools: Better Thinking and Learning for Every Child. New York: The Free Press. Perkins, D. (2014). Future Wise: Educating Our Children for a Changing World. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Philpott, C. (2014). Theories of Professional Learning: A Critical Guide for Teacher Educators. Norwich: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2015). Learning Rounds: what the literature tells us (and what it doesn’t). Scottish Educational Review, 47(1), 49–65. Philpott, C., & Poultney, V. (2018). Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schleicher, A. (2015). Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative Approaches. Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Scottish Government. (2010). Teaching Scotland’s Future – Report of a Review of Teacher Education in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from scot/Publications/2011/01/13092132/0 Scottish Government. (2016a). Empowering Teachers, Parents and Communities to Achieve Excellence and Equity in Education: A Governance Review. Edinburgh: Scottish

Headship education in Scotland


Government. Retrieved from Scottish Government. (2016b). National Improvement Framework for Scottish Education: Achieving Excellence and Equity. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from Scottish Government. (2017a). Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, 6. Scottish Government. (2017b). Education Governance: Next Steps Empowering Our Teachers, Parents and Communities to Deliver Excellence and Equity for Our Children. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from Scottish Government. (2019). Empowering Schools. Education Reform: Progress Update. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from empowering-schools-education-reform-progress-update/pages/10/ Spillane, J. P. (2013). The practice of leading and managing teaching in educational organisations. In Leadership for 21st Century Learning, Educational Research and Innovation (pp. 59–82). Paris: OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. UNICEF Office of Research. (2017). Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development Goals in Rich Countries. Innocenti Report Card 14 (Vol. 14). Florence: UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti. Wallace, M., & Wray, A. 2011. Critical Reading and Writing for Postgraduates. London: Sage Publications. Watt, G., Bloomer, K., Christie, I., Finlayson, C., Jaquet, S., & Blake Stevenson Ltd. (2014). Evaluation of Routes to Headship. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. Retrieved from Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for Understanding: Linking Research with Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Musing on teacher mentoring and calls for clinical practice Linda Harris

Introduction A significant asset to teacher learning is that of mentoring, which takes many forms but generally speaking occurs when an experienced teacher professionally supports a less experienced teacher by means of discussions, observing teaching, questioning, offering advice, consulting literature and so on. This shows promise for research-informed teacher learning, albeit when there is recognition that mentoring can be consciously tied to practitioner research activities. Interestingly, mentoring has been an important focus in education globally since the 1980s and has enjoyed a renewed focus resulting from an increased commitment to the growth of professional review and development (Fraser, Kennedy, Reid, & Mckinney, 2007). Perhaps more importantly, though, mentoring is documented in a range of European countries as supporting the maintenance and development of standards of learning and teaching (Mitchell, 2013; Edwards-Groves, 2013, European Mentoring and Coaching Council, n.d.) and in the retention of new teachers to the profession (Forde & O’Brien, 2011). In Scotland, mentoring has taken many forms throughout past decades, partly because there is no one policy but rather a collection of separate guidance documents produced by various professional bodies. It has come to hold a central position in teacher learning, not least because of relevant publications by the General Teaching Council of Scotland (GTCS, n.d.), Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) (2008) and the leading teacher union, the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) (2008). Remarkably, also in 2008, the Scottish Government provided local authority funding to promote mentoring and coaching in their schools, although the strain on national resources has meant that this funding has not been sustained. It follows that teacher education institutions have had input into developing mentoring through, for example, professional learning courses for practising teachers, many accredited by the Scottish Qualifications Framework. Education Scotland, established in 2011, is a Scottish Government executive agency charged with supporting quality and improvement in Scottish education. This agency created an online, research-based mentoring resource in 2012 for teachers at all stages of their professional development. As such, there is a clear commitment to mentoring demonstrated by these groups. In Scotland, there has also been a renewed focus on mentoring apropos the introduction of Donaldson’s (2011) Teaching Scotland’s Future. This could be regarded as

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


seminal work by the former Senior Chief Inspector of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE), who was also Chief Professional Advisor on education to the Scottish Government. He outlined recommendations that further promoted the place of mentoring in Scottish education and his publication was the catalyst for a raft of developments nationwide. This built on Scotland’s “Teacher Induction Scheme” introduced in 2002 to support teachers entering the profession. The programme includes: a guaranteed paid year of teaching; a time allocation for professional development and the provision of a mentor, all of which are cited as examples of best practice (Donaldson, 2011). Donaldson asserts that effective mentoring is pivotal to the success of the Teacher Induction Scheme. Although I never had the honour of working on a project with Carey in Glasgow when we were both lecturers in the School of Education, I had nothing but admiration for Carey’s desire to advance the wherewithal of the teaching profession by exploring new frontiers, as evidenced in the presentations he delivered to staff and wider groups. He was always the first to point out there must also be critical questioning of approaches deemed efficacious, especially when applied in other professions. For example, he had a healthy scepticism for the statements proclaimed by England’s former Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove (2010–2014), about the efficacy of aspects of the medical model as applied to teaching (Furedi, 2013). It came as no surprise to see Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) book, published posthumously, examine the characteristics of the teaching profession only to demonstrate how they are fundamentally different to those of the medical profession. These authors viewed critically the penchant for adopting wholesale approaches from another profession and they advised considerable caution in bringing the clinical practice method to the teachers’ classroom. In this chapter, I aim to continue studying Carey’s work and its contribution to research-informed teacher learning. In my experience of visiting students in schools, it seems to me that the majority of experienced teachers committed to developing their practice and raising the status of the teaching profession would, at least, welcome valid research findings, if only to confirm the efficacy of their practice. In what follows I aim to marshal an argument to convince my teaching colleagues of its worth. I begin by sketching some initiatives that promote mentoring if only to show some political support for it and some models of mentoring that might prove attractive to those who see teacher education being an embodiment of teacher learning rather than merely “top tips” for teaching. I then come back to engage with Carey’s work on medical models to refine the terms of my argument before coming to a conclusion that positions my view very closely to Carey’s.

Teacher mentoring The current picture In any consideration of mentoring, it is useful to look within and outside the UK. Indeed, it was Her Majesty’s Inspectorate’s (2008) report (Mentoring in Teacher Education: Improving Scottish Education) that canvassed a co-ordinated approach in 32 states of the USA where mentors are recruited from the body of practising teachers

48 Linda Harris according to particular criteria and are then trained for three years. It could be said that in the UK a co-ordinated approach is lacking, though in 2005 the National College for Teaching and Leadership produced a National Framework for Mentoring and Coaching in England. It sets out ten principles, underpinned by evidence from research and consultation, to form the basis of effective mentoring programmes in schools. More recently, Leeds Beckett University formed a Coaching and Mentoring Hub and continue to publish an online Working Paper Series entitled CollectivED. Other bodies, including the Education Research Centre at the University of Brighton and the Centre for Education and Inclusion Research at Sheffield Hallam University, endorsed the idea of a national framework for mentoring (Hobson, Maxwell, Stevens, Doyle, & Malderez, 2015). But what is mentoring, specifically, and how may it support research-informed teacher learning? Models of mentoring As Carey made known (Philpott & Poultney, 2018; Philpott, 2016), it is simply not appropriate to adopt wholesale the medical model for professional learning in education (see Brennan elsewhere in this volume). First, it is important to consider approaches from peer-reviewed teacher education research. Hudson’s (2010) five-factor model of mentoring for effective teaching is a simple one that centres on the relevant components, though he seemingly balked at adopting a theoretical stance. Rather, his focus was on the personal attributes of the mentor, system requirements, pedagogical knowledge, modelling and feedback. Notably, in a later study he concluded that appointing mentors who addressed these five factors to a good standard would ensure very effective support for mentees (Hudson & Bird, 2015). This is not to discount a theoretical stance, an important component of mentoring consciously tied to practitioner research activities. The literature tends to reflect two general paradigms: the first is a process model that works through mentees being involved in reflection and inquiry in order to develop as a teacher, communicator, subject specialist and so on. The other model focuses on the goal of achieving competence as a teacher and works through observation of a mentor and others. Critics of the latter would point out the limitations and restrictions that are inherent in the mentee simply replicating the mentor’s methods and instead would argue for the development of new approaches based on collaborative study and reflection. The benefit of reflection and enquiry models of mentoring is that mentees can be positioned at the vanguard of pedagogical development, co-creating new and better ways of bringing about learning alongside their mentors. There are other insights to consider. Given the uneven power balance between mentor and mentee, it is understandable that mentees often experience a desire to adopt the practice of more experienced colleagues (Forde & O’Brien, 2011), thus potentially limiting the development of new knowledge. James, Rayner, and Bruno (2015) take the notion of collaboration further and advocate that “all stakeholders including students” (p.20) should be involved in the mentoring process. Overall, it has been found that the most effective approaches appear to comprise a combination of models (McNally,

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


2010), thus helping to ensure that high teaching standards are met in addition to extending pedagogical frontiers (Gardener, 2009). The importance of reflective practice One of the qualities of an exemplary teacher and, consequently, a teacher mentor is that of being a “reflective practitioner” (Meierdirk, 2016; Schön, 2017). (Also, see Newman elsewhere in this volume.) It is well documented that not only is there a connection between reflection and learning (Tonna, Bjerkholt, & Holland, 2017; Johns, 2017; Fullan, 2014; Sempowicz & Hudson, 2012; Brandt, 2008), but engaging in reflection is one of the most powerful strategies that teachers can adopt to hone teaching skills and develop their practice (Aderibigbe, Colucci-Gray, & Gray, 2014; Coffey, 2014; Resta, Huling, & Yeargain, 2013). Accordingly, Buhagiar’s examination of student teachers’ views on tutor feedback during teaching practice found that the trainees themselves were keen to become reflective practitioners through observation and discussion of practice with others (Buhagiar, 2013). Furthermore, Sempowicz and Hudson (2012) demonstrated that exemplary mentors articulated expectations for teaching, modelled reflective practices to their mentees, and facilitated time and opportunities for advancing teaching practices which influenced the mentees’ reflective practices and resulted in pedagogical development. Throughout the literature, there is agreement that feedback can be made more effective where mentors and tutors consciously reflect on and analyse what it is they are doing and how they are doing it (Philpott, 2016; Harrison & Yaffe, 2010). This also resonates with the view that learners (of any age or stage) benefit from taking responsibility for their own progress and that supporting learners to become reflective practitioners is a step towards such autonomy (Yaffe, 2010). The mentor–mentee relationship Undoubtedly, the quality of the relationship between the mentor and the mentee is crucially important to the mentee’s skill development (Hoxha, 2016), and the roles of coach, facilitator and counsellor are all valid and useful depending on the context. In recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on collaboration between the mentor and mentee (Philpott, 2016; Bradbury, 2010; Gardener, 2009), perhaps owing to the widening application of social constructivist approaches to teaching in general. Collaborative mentoring between teachers and student teachers can be supported by a more egalitarian relationship whereby both mentors and mentees can learn from each other (Philpott, 2016; Bradbury, 2010; Gardener, 2009). This equality is also documented as mentors adopting what has been termed an “educative stance”, which enables them to derive more professional learning gains for themselves (Trevethan & Sandretto, 2017, p.122). Mentors who adopt this stance see themselves more as facilitators and collaborators rather than educational sages. The mentee is also said to benefit in that the power in the relationship is more equally balanced; consequently, the mentee has the confidence to experiment and inquire with fewer restrictions (Trevethan & Sandretto, 2017; Trevethan, 2017).

50 Linda Harris In formal mentoring relationships, where a mentor has been appointed, there are often tensions between the dual roles of the mentor as supporter alongside that of assessor (Donaldson, 2011). However, if care is taken to create some degree of “mentor-mentee match” (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009), there is more likelihood of success. Formally appointed mentors are often thought to be more successful in their focus on the Professional Teaching Standards and they spend more time observing teaching and offering feedback, which is highly valued by the mentee (Desimone, Hochberg, Porter, Polikoff, Schwartz, & Johnson, 2013). Informal mentors, on the other hand, help mediate the tension between support and assessment roles, providing more support in the affective domain. (Desimone et al., 2013; Stanulis & Floden, 2009). However, a contrasting belief is conveyed by Desimone et al. (2014) who assert that an informal mentor provides support in all aspects of the teaching role. Without doubt, there are many influencing factors, including the knowledge, skill and diligence of the mentor, along with how much time he/she has to allocate to mentoring. Managing interpersonal relationships is, possibly, one of the greatest challenges mentors face. For example, in a 2008 HMIE review titled Mentoring in Teacher Education: Improving Scottish Education, it was found that newly qualified teachers (NQTs) regarded the personal attributes of mentors as key to the success of the working relationship; they described mentors in successful working relationships as supportive, empathetic, encouraging and approachable. Indeed, a network of relationships is often the most appropriate model of mentoring (McNally, 2010) or what could be termed a “hybrid model” of mentoring (Du & Wang, 2017, p.309) since a range of personalities, attributes and pedagogical approaches may contribute to the mentee’s development. The construction of feedback There has been growing emphasis over the last three decades on formative assessment, including feedback, (Desimone et al., 2013; Black & Wiliam, 2010; Pedder & James, 2012; Assessment Reform Group, 2002) the attendance to which is considered an essential aspect of learning (Boud & Molloy, 2013; Buhagiar 2013). There is also agreement that the process is more effective when students fully understand the nature and purpose of feedback so that they know what to expect and how to apply that knowledge effectively. These interventions are pivotal to the mentoring process (Hudson, 2010; Black & Wiliam, 2010). There are various factors affecting the form that feedback takes. Clearly, it should accord with the assessment being formative or summative, the knowledge and experience level of the mentee and is also likely to be affected by the mentor’s perceptions of his/her role (Desimone et al., 2013). Receiving and attending to feedback is also a means through which students develop into competent assessors, important in the teacher role (Desimone et al., 2013). However, feedback offered to trainee teachers is often both formative and summative simultaneously with mentors frequently having to provide both types of assessment because of the need for a summative grade in, for example, an initial teacher education course. Unlike their mentors, student teachers often welcome this dual-pronged

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


feedback in order to form clear and specific goals within a supportive and encouraging learning climate. Wright, Grenier, and Channell (2012) found in their study that some tutors believed that they needed to tailor their post-observation conference depending on what they perceived as being required by the student. These tutors perceived that some students needed more direct, concrete feedback while others required a more Socratic, question and answer based approach (Wright, Grenier, & Channell, 2012). This stance, though laudable, presupposes that the tutors’ perceptions of their students are accurate.

Research-informed teacher learning In further developing the terms of an argument to convince teaching colleagues of the worth of mentoring, it is crucial to consider what might count as valid research findings in their work. Evidence-based teaching is the buzzword phrase, but as Carey would say there are both advantages and disadvantages inherent in it (Philpott, 2016). He specified instances where he took issue with evidence, as in his inaugural lecture in 2016. He discussed previous work with a colleague and posited that teachers’ discussions focused on their ability to adhere to policy and to execute pedagogy efficiently. He was concerned that teachers often missed the bigger issues around the efficacy of policy in the first instance. Carey lamented the fact that teachers seemed almost blind-sided by their focus on the need for efficiency of implementation of classroom technique, perhaps owing to our inheritance of accountability from previous governments. Servage (2009) augments these findings, indicating that teachers did not question the overall policy or purpose, and Stickney (2015) is cited as having noted with regard to professional learning communities that all the important decisions about education are taken by others while practitioners focus on adhering to policy. This is a notion at odds with Philpott’s belief in the importance of teacher agency. Additionally, and also distressingly, it creates a scenario where policy discourses are accepted and used to later construct what had occurred in the teachers’ practice (Philpott & Oates, 2017, 2015). It is poignant that Carey came back to these concerns in one of his last public engagements, his inaugural Professorial lecture in October 2016, only some months before he died (see Philpott, 2016). He referred to the restrictions on teachers’ thinking and, in doing so, he issued a timely warning. He also noted that in his research it was teachers alone who comprised the members of the professional learning community, which alludes to the point made earlier about the need, in collaborative learning, for a variety of perspectives in order to disrupt thought processes rather than reify them. Another argument made by Philpott then was that at no point did the teachers have an opportunity to relay their findings back to national level, again undermining teacher agency. It could be said that Philpott (2016) synchronised with a wider, global picture of the negative results of evidence-based policy. Irrespectively, consecutive governments in the UK, the USA and many other countries lend it credence. Moreover, as previously discussed, the content of the mentoring conversations is patently important to the quality of the mentee’s learning. One of the ways in which the quality of these conversations can be augmented is through research activities, which include

52 Linda Harris reviewing literature for evidence. Research is, of course, seen as increasingly important to education in general (Philpott, 2017; Resta, Huling & Yeargain, 2013) and to teacher education (Philpott, 2017). As Philpott states, however, mentees need to be aware that abstract ideas from educational research should be considered carefully and reconstructed before being applied to their own particular contexts (Philpott, 2017; Resta, Huling, & Yeargain, 2013). Following pressure to develop evidence-based teaching arising from the Carter Review of 2015, Philpott (2016) asserted that learning about evidence-based teaching is the one area that could potentially benefit from mental health and public health, albeit with caveats. In public health literature, evidence can be a construct of culture, ideology, politics and economics, and is not “value-free” facts (Lee et al., 2013 in Philpott, 2016; Kirmayer, 2012). This aligns well with research evidence in education, where students’ culture, religion, beliefs and social capital are all factors. Moreover, in both types of literature there are questions about the transferability of existing “evidence” to diverse communities and circumstances (Lee et al. 2013 in Philpott, 2016; Green, 2008). Philpott also added that questions need to be asked about the relevant community, how they tackled problems and how a different community may learn from their learning. Rightly, he raised questions about where efforts would be placed and whether stakeholders would generate a body of evidence to disseminate to the workforce or, in line with his thinking about teacher agency, a development of workforce skills could occur so teachers could generate their own evidence and feed back into a national body of evidence. I would argue the latter as being clearly the more palatable option. It is also worth pointing out that Philpott noted that public health bodies work with universities as a matter of course. He noted that although the Cameron- and then May Conservative Government in 2016 was calling for evidence-based teaching, they tended to marginalise the role of universities in this. One lesson from medicine, Philpott believed, was to establish networks with universities. This comes to the crux of mentoring as a form of research-informed teacher learning. Research can play an important role in what could be termed a joint enquiry between mentors and mentees learning from practice and applying tools for learning that may include: co-planning, observation, feedback, analysis of student work and high-level discussion. (Washington & Cox, 2016). In this way, teacher learning could be founded on collaborative empirical observation and data could be gathered through evidencebased approaches (Philpott & Poultney, 2018), bearing in mind Philpott’s earlier points about the issues around evidence. Moreover, Philpott and Poultney (2018) noted that some schools did not demonstrate adequate improvement from applying evidencebased approaches and presented reasons for this in their work on The Medical Model.

The importance of collaboration and teacher learning communities In addition to the importance of research, often a collaborative approach is preferred to more directed forms of mentoring (Desimone et al., 2013; Tang & Chow, 2007). This view again seems to align mentoring approaches with constructivist rather than transmissive principles of teacher learning (Richter, Kunter, Lüdtke, Klusmann, & Anders,

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


2013). This is not surprising since mentoring is clearly a form of teaching and learning, if not consciously research informed. Similarly, Barrera, Braley and Slate (2010) assert that learning conversations which are pedagogical, collaborative, analytic, dialogic and evidence-based are more effective than traditional post-lesson feedback models which tend to consist mainly of mentor monologue. Collaborative mentoring relationships also provide opportunities for learning from different perspectives (Aderibigbe, 2013), for sharing practice and building knowledge within a context sensitive evidence-base. Also raised earlier was the point that a number of mentors may be more beneficial than one sole mentor. Opfer and Pedder (2011) argue that creating a community of practice for mentoring can result in an “interplay of individuals, communities and specific contexts” (p.386), as a means to understanding and improving teacher learning. When these come together and a learning community emerges, the participants are more likely to discuss their problems candidly and develop strategies and solutions, while also consulting and discussing literature where relevant. Learning communities are growing in popularity and could be becoming the prevalent form of teacher learning. Moreover, professional learning communities or communities of practice can empower groups of teachers to drive organisational improvement in addition to supporting them in producing knowledge (see Iredale & Tremayne elsewhere in this volume). Ultimately, they may avoid central prescription for practice and potentially become leaders of curriculum development (Philpott, 2011). Coincidentally, the research on teacher learning indicates that learning communities provide the most effective dynamic for teacher change, while also indicating that a focus on “‘assessment for learning’ is the most powerful and yet most neglected aspect of teacher practice” (Wiliam, 2006, p.21). By fusing these together, educators have the real possibility of providing effective teacher learning (Wiliam, 2006). The ability to learn Teachers are infused with past experiences and have personal beliefs about teaching which preface not only the decisions they make but also what they are willing and able to learn about their practice (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). It is these beliefs and perceptions that are the most significant predictors of change and, without doubt, development necessitates change. Teacher learning beliefs are more likely to change when learning activities have a conceptual and practical application across programmes of learning; importantly, those presented and endorsed by peers are more appealing to those new to teaching (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). A related and noteworthy point made by the Educational Institute of Scotland (2008) is that being supported to focus on skill, knowledge and effort is viewed as far more productive, helpful and practical than, for example, striving for personal charisma. This is important for newcomers to the profession who believe that they will succeed by relying primarily on personal charm. As alluded to previously, it is important in paired mentoring that the mentor works to build the mentee’s agency or capacity as a knowledge producer and to encourage them to question and even contest what their mentors advise. This is often challenging for new teachers who, although eager to discuss candidly, are also well versed in school

54 Linda Harris hierarchies. Significantly, Hilferty (2008) defines teacher agency as “teachers having the ability to control and manage their own work contexts within the contraints of the system”. Philpott supports such a stance, asserting that teachers working alone are more likely to be “constrained by the dominant discourses” of their school (Philpott, 2011, p.88) and require considerable strength and courage to unshackle themselves.

The medical model Is there a need for new models? At a time in which there is buy-in to the idea that standards of education are declining and schools are underperforming (DfE, 2016; OECD, 2012), the UK Government in addition to governments in other nations (Furedi, 2013) have seized the opportunity to blame teachers for failing to develop professional learning strategies and, in fact, for falling standards in education more generally (Brown & Greany, 2018). The UK Government claim that professional learning in medicine is often more effective than that in education and whereas medicine has progressed significantly, teaching has, in their view, declined (Furedi, 2013). The reason for this appears to be the perceived higher status of the medical profession. Both of these views are ardently opposed by many educationalists. Ironically, it is this view that has led to politicians, power-brokers and policy makers in education seeking approaches from another profession. Philpott (2016) examined the medical model and found that most progress had been made regarding health in bio-medicine. This branch of medicine is physiological and is not dependent on the identity or cultural background of the patient, nor any of their views. In fact, it neglects things that are fundamentally important in education like culture, identity, aspiration and so on, so consequently an intervention will work no matter who the patient is. On the contrary, in public health it is considered necessary to influence behaviours and it does matter who the patient is, what their culture is and so on. Philpott refers to Ben Goldacre, an Oxford academic, who has worked with the UK Government in the area of medicine. Goldacre wrote an influential Cabinet Office paper in 2013 and conducted an independent external review for the Department for Education on the creation and use of evidence in the teaching sector. However, as Philpott notes, Goldacre is engaged largely in bio-medicine and concludes that a bio-medical intervention applied to a social problem is not likely to be beneficial. Where Goldacre (2013) urges the collection of better evidence about what works in evidence-based teaching and asserts the need to use evidence as a matter of routine to set the profession free, Philpott sees the need to share a concept definition of evidence and also to be aware that its use can act as a constraint; this point will be returned to in the next section. Teacher Rounds In research on mentoring in recent years, there has been a renewed interest in what is referred to as “the medical model” or “Rounds” with regard to shaping teacher professional learning. The idea of Teacher Rounds, and similar, was derived from a method of

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


professional learning in clinical practice in which junior clinicians learn from a more experienced “mentor” as they execute their “rounds” on hospital wards (Philpott & Oates, 2017; City, Elmore & Fiarman, 2011). Roegman and Riehl (2012) argued, however, that the concept of Rounds is based on anecdotes, visits and conversations with doctors or even media portrayals rather than research evidence of the learning practices involved. This point dovetails with Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) assertion that there is much evidence that Rounds are under-researched, inefficient, based on teacher-transmission models and that they are dysfunctional because of hierarchies. There is also some evidence (Philpott & Poultney, 2018) that the junior doctors and the patients are less satisfied than the senior doctors with this method (AlMutar et al., 2013 in Philpott and Poultney, 2018; Birtwistle, Houghton & Rostill, 2000). Clearly, such superficial and uninformed approaches are less than desirable. I can only agree with Philpott and Poultney (2018) that it is unwise to assume the superiority of an aspect of professional learning, in this case within the medical profession, and adopt that approach without critical scrutiny. The limitations and the benefits of any method clearly need to be understood prior to adoption (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). The Rounds approach is rooted in bio-medicine (medication, surgery and other physical-based treatments) and it is this type of clinical practice that is envisaged by people who advocate Rounds in teaching; but as Philpott & Poultney (2018) underscore, this practice is radically different from teaching. Aspects of health, such as mental or public health, require the patient to be actively involved if the treatment is to be effective. Those aspects of health care appear to be similar to education in that evidence produced is likely to be culturally situated and descriptive (Lee et al., 2013 in Philpott, 2016; Kirmayer, 2012). Further, Philpott argued that schools needed substantial infrastructure and capacity development for introduction of any sort of clinical model. He observed that schools had been given no time or resources in which to develop evidence-based practice (Philpott, 2016).

The way forward In marshalling my argument about mentoring and its contribution to research-informed teacher learning, the literature cited here along with worthy documentation from professional bodies (Department for Education and Skills, 2016; HMIE, 2008; General Teaching Council for Scotland (n.d.); Educational Institute of Scotland, 2008) have demonstrated that teacher mentoring programmes generally have a positive effect with regard to student gains, increased teacher satisfaction and better commitment and retention (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011; Forde & O’Brien, 2011). The benefits to teachers from mentors who have regular and sustained contact with them are far-reaching. In light of these findings, I would suggest that there is need for education systems to introduce a framework of policy, training and qualifications for thus creating a professional status for mentors as advocated by Hobson et al. (2015). Importantly, as with teaching and approaches to mentoring, flexibility and latitude for variation across different contexts must be integral. Mentor learning and development, similar to that cited in the USA (HMIE, 2008), should be introduced nationally with specific, allocated time for mentoring activity in all

56 Linda Harris teachers’ careers. Co-ordinated development programmes should align with the principles discussed in this chapter to best support mentees within an approved training programme. All mentors should be supported in undertaking appropriate training for the role and training should, similarly, be implemented for mentor trainers (HMIE, 2008). Research findings should highlight the positive impact of mentoring to senior leaders, middle leaders, individual teachers and mentors to champion support for mentoring and encourage those parties’ involvement (Hobson et al., 2015). An external register of mentors for the various subject areas would support and elevate the status of mentors (HMIE, 2008). It would be beneficial for mentees to have some degree of choice in who mentors them (McNally, 2010) and to reduce the focus on assessment of teachers’ “performance” within what could be called a deficit model. Instead, developmental support should be emphasised and aspects of teaching and professional learning discussed frankly in a climate conducive to candid self-evaluation, exploration, experimentation and extending the frontiers of pedagogy. Thereafter, local authorities and national groups should develop approaches to quality assure and further develop mentoring (Donaldson, 2011; HMIE, 2008) while all teachers should see themselves as research-active and become trained mentors at an appropriate point in their career. At the time of writing, most local education authorities have developed or are developing programmes to build capacity in mentoring, with a focus on teachers at key stages within their careers but career-long professional learning has to be treated as such by policy makers and other stakeholders (EIS, 2008) with teachers being invited to mentor as soon as they are deemed ready to do so and continuing the practice throughout their professional lives.

Conclusion Many teachers, academics and policy makers advocate the adoption by teachers of the principles gleaned from medical practice but, as discussed, there needs to be more evidence of its applicability and effectiveness in education. Carey Philpott was a highly regarded figure in the professional learning domain who, with insight, highlighted the dangers of adopting educational methods from another field, however highly regarded by others. Educationists need to understand fully the positive and negative aspects of any approach and be aware of the very particular circumstances in which such an approach is to be applied. Although many officials and policy makers believe that a single method of evidencebased practice is transferable to another profession, the discussion in this chapter indicates the shortsightedness of this belief (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). It is possible that there are some approaches in public health that could be examined critically and reconfigured in order to enhance professional learning for teachers but thorough critical examination is essential. For example, the idea of teachers observing one another teach as part of their learning seems a laudable one that can offer many advantages, in the NQT year and beyond. Applying the points raised in this chapter to the best practice outlined in documents by the various professional bodies along with evidence from quality, peer-reviewed

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


educational research on mentoring as well as that produced by teachers conducting research on their own practice could lead to a rigorous mentoring policy for Scotland. A similar approach should be applied to the rest of the UK so that like those states in the USA discussed above, the UK will have rigorous mentoring programmes in each country, a robust policy and a sound quality assurance system. It is now time to coordinate a mentoring policy framework; it is a necessity for raising teaching standards and advancing the boundaries of teaching pedagogy.

References Aderibigbe, S. A. (2013). Opportunities of the collaborative mentoring relationships between teachers and student teachers in the classroom: The views of teachers, student teachers and university tutors. Management in Education, 27(2), 70–74. Aderibigbe, S. A., Colucci-Gray, L., & Gray, D. (2014). Mentoring as a collaborative learning journey for teachers and student teachers: a critical constructivist perspective. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (TEAN), 6(3), 17–27. Assessment Reform Group (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Accessed on 15/1/19 from http:// Barrera, A., Braley, R. T., & Slate, J. R. (2010). Beginning teacher success: An investigation into the feedback from mentors of formal mentoring programs. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(1), 61–74. Birtwistle, L., Houghton, J. M., & Rostill, H. (2000). A review of a surgical ward round in a large paediatric hospital: does it achieve its aims? Medical Education, 34(5), 398–403. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5–31 retrieved 18.1.19 in Glasgow. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2010). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90. Accessed on 15/1/19 from https://doi. org/10.1177/003172171009200119 Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (Eds.). (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: understanding it and doing it well. Abingdon: Routledge. Bradbury, L. U. (2010). Educative mentoring: Promoting reform based science teaching through mentoring relationships. Science Education, 94(6), 1049–1071. Brandt, C. (2008). Integrating feedback and reflection in teacher preparation. ELT Journal, 62(1), 37–46. Brown, C., & Greany, T. (2018). The evidence-informed school system in England: Where should school leaders be focusing their efforts? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(1), 115–137. Buhagiar, M.A. (2013). Mathematics student teachers’ views on tutor feedback during teaching practice. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1),55–67. City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., & Fiarman, S. E. (2011). What are instructional rounds? Learning, 69(2). City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Coffey, A. M. (2014). Using video to develop skills in reflection in teacher education students. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(9), 6.

58 Linda Harris Department for Education (DfE) (2016) Educational excellence everywhere. Cm 9230. First accessed on 15/1/19 and then new version accessed on 15.1.20 https://discovery.ucl. Department for Education and Skills (2016) Induction for newly qualified teachers (England): Statutory guidance for appropriate bodies, head teachers, school staff and governing bodies. Accessed on 15/2/18 from ds/attachment_data/file/580039/Statutory_Induction_Guidance_December_2016.pdf Desimone, L. M., Hochberg, D., Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Schwartz, R., & Johnson, L. J. (2013). Formal and informal mentoring: Complementary, compensatory, or consistent? Journal of Teacher Education, XX(X), 1–23. Accessed on 15.1.20 at https:// Desimone, L. M., Hochberg, E. D., Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Schwart, R., & Johnson, L. J. (2014). Formal and informal mentoring: Complementary, compensatory, or consistent? Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 88–110. Donaldson, G. (2011). Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a review of teacher education in Scotland. Scottish Government (Scotland). Du, F., & Wang, Q. (2017). New teachers’ perspectives of informal mentoring: quality of mentoring and contributors. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 25(3), 309–328. Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS) (2008). Coaching and mentoring: EIS policy paper. Acessed on 15/2/18 from ching-And-Mentoring Edwards-Groves, C. J. (2013). Creating spaces for critical transformative dialogues: Legitimising discussion groups as professional practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), 2. European Mentoring and Coaching Council (n.d.). Accessed on 4/11/17 from www.ismcp. org/ Forde, C. and O’Brien, J. (Eds.) (2011) Coaching and Mentoring: Developing Teachers and Leaders. Series: Policy and Practice. Edinburgh, UK: Dunedin Academic Press. Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & Mckinney, S. (2007). Teachers’ continuing professional development: Contested concepts, understandings and models. Journal of In-service Education, 33, 153–169. doi:10.1080/13674580701292913 Fullan, M. (2014). Teacher development and educational change. Abingdon: Routledge. Furedi, F. (2013). Authority: A sociological history. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gardener, W., (2009). Rudderless as mentors: The challenge of teachers as mentors. Action in Teacher Education, 30(4), 56–66. General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) (n.d.). Coaching and mentoring approaches to support the professional update process. Accessed on 18/01/18 from uk/professional-update/coaching-and-mentoring.aspx Goldacre, B. (2013). Building evidence into education. DfE Published 14 March 2013 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) (2008). Mentoring in Teacher Education: Improving Scottish Education. Accessed on 15/02/18 from 7/mite_Redacted.pdf Hilferty, F. (2008). Theorising teacher professionalism as an enacted discourse of power. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 161–173. Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207–216. Hobson, A. J., Maxwell, B., Stevens, A., Doyle K., & Malderez, A. (2015). Coaching for teachers in the further education and skills sector in England. Accessed on 2/03/18 from https://

Teacher mentoring and clinical practice


Hoxha, M. (2016). The mentor and the student-teacher: An important and delicate relationship. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 6(3), 87. Hudson, P. (2010). Mentors report on their own mentoring practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(7), 30–42. Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring pre-service teachers on school students’ differentiated learning. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 11(1), 112–128. Hudson, P. B., & Bird, L. (2015). Investigating a model of mentoring for effective teaching. Journal of Teaching Effectiveness and Student Achievement, 2(2), 11–21. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programmes for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. James, J. M., Rayner, A., & Bruno, J. (2015). Are you my mentor? New perspectives and research on informal mentorship. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41, 532–539. doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.009 Johns, C. (Ed.). (2017). Becoming a reflective practitioner. John Wiley & Sons. Kirmayer, L. J. (2012) Cultural competence and evidence-based practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics of pluralism. Social Science & Medicine, 75(2), 249–256. McNally, J. (2010) Success at a cost: The induction of new teachers in Scotland. In: Veiledning av nye lærere. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 164–175. Accessed on 15.1.20 at Meierdirk, C. (2016) Is reflective practice an essential component of becoming a professional teacher? Reflective Practice, 17(3), 369–378. doi:10.1080/14623943.2016.1169169 Mitchell, R. (2013) What is professional development, how does it occur in individuals, and how may it be used by educational leaders and managers for the purpose of school improvement? Professional Development in Education, 39(3), 387–400. doi:10.1080/ 19415257.2012.762721 National College for Teaching and Leadership (n.d.). National Framework for Mentoring and Coaching in England. Accessed 02/03/18 from Opfer, D. V., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). PISA 2012 results in focus. What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. Paris: OECD. Pedder, D., & James, M. (2012). Professional learning as a condition for assessment for learning. Assessment and Learning, 3(2), 33–48. Philpott, C. (2011). Post lesson debriefs as a site of teacher identity formation. In Centre for Learner Identity Studies (CLIS) Third Annual Conference on ‘Learner Identity’ July 2011 Edge Hill University. Philpott, C. (2016). Inaugural lecture. Lecture Theatre G, University’s Rose Bowl, Leeds Beckett University, UK (Wednesday 9 December 2015). Philpott, C. (presenting), & Oates, C. (2015). Teacher agency in collaborative professional development; Missing in action? Conference: ECER Education and Transition. Accessed on 15/2/ 18 from Philpott, C. (2016). Narratives as a vehicle for mentor and tutor knowledge during feedback in initial teacher education. Teacher Development, 20(1), 57–75. Philpott, C. (2017). Professional learning communities: Possibilities and challenges. In P. Boyd & A. Szplit (eds.), Teachers and teacher educators learning through inquiry: International perspectives. Kielce–Kraków: Wydawnictwo Attyka.

60 Linda Harris Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017). Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 318–333. Philpott, C., & Poultney, V. (2018). Evidence-based teaching: A critical overview for enquiring teachers. Critical Publishing. Resta, V., Huling, L., & Yeargain, P. (2013). Teacher insights about teaching, mentoring, and schools as workplaces. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 15(1), 117–132. Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., Anders, Y., & Baumert, J. (2013). How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers’ development in the first years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 166–177. Roegman, R., & Riehl, C. (2012). Playing doctor with education: Considerations in using medical rounds as a model for instructional rounds. Journal of School Leadership, 22(5), 922–952. Schön, D. A. (2017). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Abingdon: Routledge. Sempowicz, T., & Hudson, P. B. (2012). Mentoring pre-service teachers’ reflective practices towards producing teaching outcomes. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10(2), 52–64. Servage, L. (2009). Who is the. “professional” in a professional learning community? An exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional development settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1), 149. Stanulis, R. N., & Floden, R. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 112–122. Stickney, J. (2015). System alignment and consensus discourses in reforms: School Effectiveness Frameworks and Instructional Rounds. Philosophical responses with Oakeshott, Mouffe and Rancière. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(4), 487–513. Tang, S. Y. F., & Chow, A. W. K. (2007). Communicating feedback in teaching practice supervision in a learning-oriented field experience assessment framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1066–1085. Tonna, M.A., Bjerkholt, E., & Holland, E. (2017) Teacher mentoring and the reflective practitioner approach. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6(3), 210–227. doi:10.1108/IJMCE-04-2017-0032 Trevethan, H. (2017). Educative mentors? The role of classroom teachers in initial teacher education: A New Zealand study. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 219–231. Trevethan, H., & Sandretto, S. (2017). Repositioning mentoring as educative: Examining missed opportunities for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 127–133. Washington, R., & Cox, E. (2016). How an evolution view of workplace mentoring relationships helps avoid negative experiences: The developmental relationship mentoring model in action. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(4), 318–340. Wiliam, D. (2006). Assessment: Learning communities can use it to engineer a bridge connecting teaching and learning. The Learning Professional, 27(1), 16. London. Wright, S., Grenier, M., & Channell, K. (2012). Post-lesson observation conferencing of university supervisors and physical education teacher education students. Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(3), 379–392. Yaffe E. (2010) The reflective beginner: Using theory and practice to facilitate reflection among newly qualified teachers. Reflective Practice, 11(3), 381–391.


The “view from now” What are the effects of recent changes to ITE policy for the future? Helen Scott

Introduction In the last 5–10 years many have considered the effects of changes to ITE policy on universities, schools and teachers. This is important research intelligence because practitioners would do well to be familiar with some of the arguments about the situations in which they find themselves, especially if they wish to develop research-informed teacher learning. The chapter’s title signals my intention to consider how policy changes have played out from their introduction to the present, and how they might affect the future. I take a research-informed approach to develop a greater understanding of issues that have affected my own work in ITE (as Dean of a Faculty of Education and Humanities, a Director of ITE and CPD Partnerships, a Head of School of Secondary ITE, a Course Leader of an MA in Education and of a Secondary PGCE Art and Design in different universities). The most significant recent change to ITE is the move to a “school-led” system through “School Direct” (for example see Jackson and Burch 2016; McIntyre et al 2017;). Changes have been experienced differently by universities and schools (for example, see Whiting et al 2018) and policies implemented to differing degrees (Murray and Mutton 2016:62). In the view from “now” (2019), it is questionable whether policies have had their intended effects. The chapter begins by outlining the recent ITE policy context in England, referencing key documents, writings and research on ITE policy. The chapter concludes with observations about the possible future of ITE. On a personal note, I reference a book I co-authored and edited with Carey Philpott and Carrie Mercier (Philpott et al 2014) for teachers and teacher educators: Initial Teacher Education in Schools. The book is particularly relevant to this chapter in two ways. Firstly, as editors and contributing authors (school teachers and university-based teacher educators, all very committed to high-quality ITE), we anticipated the shift of responsibilities for ITE from universities to schools. Secondly, in their respective chapters, the contributing authors drew upon a range of research and literature related to ITE at the time, as well as their own professional experiences and how their practice might need to change in a more school-led system.

62 Helen Scott Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) chapter “Systematic Literature Reviews” is also referenced, for example, to inform and explain my approach to using literature in this chapter. Philpott and Poultney (2018:26) suggest that it is important to consider the focus, purpose and scope of the literature review when searching for relevant studies. The focus of this chapter is the effects of ITE policy changes. The purpose is to create a situated account of how changes played out, including my own experiences and others’. The scope is a specific time period (the last 5–10 years) and location (England). Philpott and Poultney also believe that “formulating or refining a research question takes place as knowledge of the subject under study is accumulated through reading” (2018:27). In tune with this, searching for and reviewing literature on ITE policy changes, I initially intended to focus upon effects on school and university partnerships. However, realising there are many other interrelated areas, whilst this focus remains, related themes are included to reflect upon: The “view from now”: what are the effects of recent changes to ITE policy?

The ITE policy context In this section, the current context is explored by examining views about the importance of ITE to governments and outlining policies thought to be significant. Effects of recent ITE policy are considered later, in the literature review. As already stated, whilst it is crucial for practitioners to be alert to policy changes, in this chapter I do not recount all of these as others have given very full accounts (for example Whitty 2016; Whiting et al 2018); neither do I analyse all policies in detail. According to some (for example see Menter et al 2010:17; Hulme 2016; Murray and Mutton 2016; McIntyre et al 2017), ITE has long been subject to political debate: it has been considered a “wicked” policy problem (George and Maguire 2019:20) and the means by which teacher professionalism could be transformed (Beauchamp et al 2013:7), leading to improved pupil attainment. Prior to the last ten years there were differences “on the ground” but the ITE “partnership” model of schools and universities was well established, mandated in legislation and already highly centrally regulated (Murray and Mutton 2016:58). However, in the last 5–10 years, policy changes to ITE have been more significant and rapid than previously (see Golding 2015; Brown et al 2016; Whitty 2016; Clarke and Phelan 2017; Whiting et al 2018). One policy document, The Case for Change (Department for Education [DfE] 2010a), issued by the Cameron–Clegg Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition government (2010–2015), pronounced that “England’s schools can be better”, unfavourably comparing pupil outcomes in England with those of other countries. The authors, likely civil servants, proposed more routes into teaching, improved induction and professional development and increased learning “on the job”. (DfE 2010a:7). Signalling significant policy change (Childs 2013:321), a following policy document, The Importance of Teaching (DfE 2010b) proposed: ceasing funding for ITE for graduates without a 2:2 degree or above, increasing time spent in schools, creating “Teaching Schools” to lead ITE, expanding Teach First

The “view from now”


and offering more financial support for those training to teach shortage subjects (adapted from Whiting et al 2018:73). The aim of Michael Gove (the then Secretary of State for Education) was for 50% of teachers to be trained through School Direct by 2015 (DfE 2012). Another policy document, Training the Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers (DfE 2011a) outlined “a rapid growth in school-led” ITE through School Direct’s implementation (DfE 2014:2). The Carter Review (DfE 2014, 2015) was commissioned to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of ITE across England. Brown et al (2016:12) note that whilst Carter acknowledged some existing strengths within partnerships and universities’ expertise in research and subject pedagogy, he found that the quality varied. Also, he recommended for the academic award of Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) to become optional. The review was thought likely to be highly influential on future policy. However, the then new Cameron Conservative Government (2015–2016) disagreed on how to implement it, especially the optionality of PGCE (Whitty 2016:24). Nonetheless, The Carter Review was followed by A Framework of Core Content for Initial Teacher Training (DfE 2016b) to address perceived inconsistencies in ITE courses’ content. The authors cast their plans not as “curriculum” but a mandatory “framework”. A recent House of Commons briefing paper (Foster 2018:22) states the ITT Content Framework is “adopted” with providers having to demonstrate “alignment” with it in their allocations requests for 2018–19; however, it is unclear how this works in practice. The content framework’s status is currently unclear; it is neither referenced in Ofsted inspection criteria (2015) nor in the ITT requirements (DfE/NCTL 2018), nor the latest guidance (DfE 2018) on allocations methodology for 2020–21 entrants. Educational Excellence Everywhere (DfE 2016a:6), issued by the recent May Conservative Government (2016–2019), states: Schools can now train their own teachers, and communities can set up their own schools…The school-led system is becoming a reality. And more importantly, it is delivering results. Despite this apparently positive evaluation, in common with previous government White Papers, pupils’ performance was reported as still behind that of other countries and teacher recruitment problematic, attributed to the stronger, growing economy (DfE 2016a:12). Compared to previous policies, there are more references to universities’ involvement with ITE, but only “the best” ones. A shift of the awarding of Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) from universities to schools was signalled, but this has not come to fruition. An “Early Career Framework” to support beginning teachers and an extended induction period (Foster 2018:26) has been proposed, broadly welcomed by the sector (for example, the Universities Council for the Education of Teachers [UCET]) with details to be finalised. To summarise, ITE policy, in recent and past times, has been the focus of successive governments’ attention; teachers’ work seen as the means to increase pupils’ attainment and prepare them to contribute to an economically successful

64 Helen Scott society. Recent policies have given schools more responsibility for training new teachers, but the system overall remains highly centrally regulated.

Approaches to searching literature on ITE policy changes and effects. There are numerous books, journal articles and reports on ITE policy changes in England in the last ten years, many written by people working in ITE. Searches of databases using terms like “ITE Policy England”, “School Direct” or “ITE UK Policy” produce many results. Whilst wanting to reflect the breadth and range of publications available, there are limitations when it comes to this one book chapter. With an aim to give a situated view of the effects of changes to ITE policy over time, I do not claim to have read all existing relevant publications. I have however gained reasonable knowledge of significant issues in ITE, taking account of both past and recent views, enabling some sense of potential future developments. I have sought to reference literature focusing on how policies have been implemented and the effects of this, in ways that are “often not those assumed by policy-makers, and with unintended and unforeseen consequences” (Hammersley 2001:549, cited in Philpott and Poultney 2018:29). In this attempt, I support Hammersley’s view that teachers researching their own practice must think about their own “tacit knowledge” alongside others’ views and how this broader scope of perspectives can add to knowledge in the field (ibid). Whilst I support Philpott and Poultney’s point that a systematic review of “evidence” should follow “a series of agreed well-defined and transparent steps that respond to the research focus, [and] provide a critical assessment of the available evidence in the field under study” (ibid:37), I also subscribe to the related view that qualitative researchers’ work “is highly contextualised and draws upon participants’ views and values” (ibid). This is what Philpott and Poultney call “qualitative synthesis” (ibid:30). This “synthesis” involves reflecting upon my own professional experiences in relation to others’ views and research encountered in the literature, as noted.

Effects of policy changes in ITE: themes in the literature In this section, I consider the usefulness of reviewing a range of literature on the effects of ITE policy changes over the last 5–10 years for practitioners. In my previous role as Dean of a Faculty of Education and Humanities, and as a former Director of ITE and CPD Partnerships, the following interconnected themes were identified to facilitate some consideration of the significance of changes to different organisations and stakeholders: universities’ role in ITE, fragmentation and complexity, stakeholders in ITE, and research and ITE. Universities’ role in ITE Universities’ diminished role in ITE resulting from policy changes is a recurring theme in the literature, largely seen as negative and part of a longer-term direction of travel (Jackson and Burch 2016:514; Mutton et al 2017:14). Policy

The “view from now”


documents (for example, The Importance of Teaching [DfE 2010: section 2.6]) strongly articulate that schools are better places – and better placed – to train teachers than universities. McIntyre et al (2017:6) note the lack of references to universities in 2010–15 policy documents, signalling their disappearance “from policy discourse”. Within the period considered, a range of views are expressed about universities’ future contribution to ITE. In my co-authored book with Carey (Philpott et al 2014), the opening chapter suggested “there was no going back” to previous ways of working in ITE. Similarly, Universities UK’s Parliamentary Briefing (Ensuring Sufficiency of Supply in Trainee Teachers in England 2017) proposed that universities would still be important in ITE, but the move towards schools would continue. McNicholl and Blake (2013:283) observed “nervousness” about university-based ITE and Whitty (2016:33) thought it unlikely to be maintained in all universities. More optimistically, Cater (2017:31) notes schools’ “waning interest” in School Direct, whilst Livingston and Flores (2017:560) see a mixed picture: that ITE’s future is unknown, but that this brings new possibilities. A UCET conference presentation on policy trends (Noble-Rogers 2018) stated that although 57% of ITE postgraduate places were allocated through School Direct for 2018–19 and that School-Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) has increased since 2011, most School Direct is undertaken with universities. Recruitment to university-allocated PGCE places nationally is better than through School Direct. Rogers (ibid) proposes the current “free market”, where providers can recruit as many applicants to most PGCE programmes as they choose for 2019–20, is likely to benefit universities more than schools. However, whilst in the “view from now” universities continue to be involved in ITE, effects of policy changes persist. For example, Jackson and Burch (2016:512) and Mutton (2016:209) believe School Direct has changed the relationship between schools and universities as schools have a much greater say in ITE courses’ content and structure than previously. These views reflect my years of experiences of planning School Direct with schools, particularly where some colleagues expressed strong beliefs on how beginning teachers should best be prepared for their careers. Previously such discussions had never really taken place, in my experience at least. A recurring, much-discussed theme with schools was the theory/practice “divide” in ITE (see Menter’s Prologue in this book), a crucial consideration in any development of research-informed teacher learning. Authors have long considered how theory and practice function in ITE (see Britzman 2003; Hascher et al 2004; Allen 2009; Korthagen 2010; Golding 2015). But significantly, recent literature suggests more school-led ITE inevitably neglects theory and widens the “divide” with practice further, emphasising “the experiential skills and knowledge necessary for new teachers to be ‘classroom-ready’” (Beauchamp et al 2013:2). Brown et al (2016:7) claim that universities have played a distinctive role in enabling beginning teachers to adapt their degree-level academic subject knowledge to teach in schools; and that this process is differently shaped by spending more time in schools as they practise subject pedagogical knowledge in certain

66 Helen Scott ways. Prior to School Direct, universities were well placed (in terms of time and course design) to enable students to make sense of differing and “taken for granted” practices in schools, in my experience. In one institution with which I am familiar, in the past students worked with tutors and peers to develop subject pedagogic knowledge and skills in university-based sessions. Also, some school mentors were highly adept in developing student teachers in this area during placements. Students identified their learning in different locations to be rich and complementary. In recent times, this provision is much diminished, due to reduced resources resulting from fewer PGCE students. Student teachers’ subject knowledge development, both theoretical and in practice, appears at risk in the school-led system; it is variable and possibly less research-informed (for example see Golding 2015). To summarise, universities’ reduced role in ITE has been a direct consequence of purposeful government policy changes. The subsequent greater influence schools have exerted on different areas of ITE is considered negatively in the literature. Less time spent in university and more in school may mean students’ experiences are limited and they may engage much less with theoretical perspectives. These developments may work against beginning teachers becoming research-active; if their early experiences are focused heavily on practice, and much less on theory, it may be unlikely they will look to other’s research, or undertake their own, to inform their practice in the present or the future. Fragmentation and complexity “Fragmentation”, “complexity” and similar words recur in the literature describing the recent ITE context (for example, see Golding 2015 and Brown et al 2016). Increased ITE routes is a pertinent example here. In their extensive ITE “topography”, Whiting et al (2018:72) state that in 2010, there were only three routes into teaching: HE-led (undergraduate and postgraduate programmes), School-Centred Initial Teacher Training (SCITT) and employer-based such as the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) and Teach First. Now there are many more options for would-be teachers. Mutton et al (2017:26) state that increased routes make comparisons of quality difficult. Also, applicants may be confused about the benefits or consequences of choosing one ITE route over another (for example, see McIntyre et al 2017). Responsibilities for different elements of ITE and how these relate to financial arrangements between schools and universities are further complexities resulting from ITE policy changes (for example, see Jackson and Burch, 2016:512). As School Direct places are allocated to schools, they can decide how monies are shared with universities, meaning the latter have become much more dependent upon certain financial and operational agreements than previously. As allocations (for both School Direct and university-based ITE), are made annually, it is almost impossible for universities to plan, creating uncertainty about teacher educators’ employment (for example see Brown et al 2016:12). Schools’ own finances in relation to ITE are not always positive either; anecdotally, schools have reported

The “view from now”


to me that funds for employing School Direct Salaried students fall far short of meeting the costs. Brown et al (2016:20) explore that responsibilities for ITE through School Direct have become very confused, changing the nature of university and school partnerships considerably. I have already noted that planning for School Direct prompted difficult conversations between universities and schools. In the case of my institution, once it was realised that payments to schools would increase considerably, many questions arose. These included (from universities): “if schools receive more money, what more will they do?” and (from schools) “what do universities currently spend all their money on for ITE students?” Responses that student university fees pay for a complex infra-structure of provision (libraries, admissions, teaching resources, learning support and so on, which teachers were largely unaware of) usually led to schools’ view being that perhaps after all they need universities for some things in ITE. To summarise, School Direct, the consecutive Conservative governments’ preferred policy driver for a more school-led ITE system, has caused fragmentation and complexity in multiple ways; relationships and activities have shifted as different responsibilities have been negotiated. Golding (2015:118) describes the ITE system as “very fluid and subject to local perturbation”; some wonder if it can be called a system at all. Functioning within an already fragmented education system (see Handscomb et al 2014:9), Bell (2012 npg, cited in Whitty 2016:29) calls ITE “a system of many small systems”. Stakeholders in ITE In tune with Kennedy’s (2018:651) plea for understanding “the human stories of policy which reveal so much about how and why things actually happen”, effects of ITE policy changes on particular stakeholders (beginning teachers, teacher educators and teachers) are evident in some literature reviewed. Positively, Murray and Mutton (2016:65) and George and Maguire (2019:32) suggest the School Direct Salaried route may have enabled people to become teachers who could not have done otherwise. However, McIntyre et al (2017:11) see student teachers as disempowered by their absence in ITE policy discourse. McIntyre et al also state that as School Direct ITE students are linked so closely to one school, or group of schools, they “are likely to feel less like they are joining a profession and more like they are joining an organisation” (McIntyre et al 2017:12). This is something Carey felt strongly about; he considered different theories about learning and how these relate to beginning teachers’ development, arguing that learning from experience alone is limiting (Philpott 2014:31). He challenged schools to take a wider view than “growing their own” teachers in the then new school-led system; and that schools should ensure beginning teachers “are provided with more than one way of understanding their experiences” to be prepared to work in different contexts (2014:32). Carey likened beginning teachers’ experiences to Argyris’ ideas of double-loop learning: where we question not only how well we achieve certain aims or goals, but also the nature and purpose of the

68 Helen Scott goals themselves (2014:28). Carey also believed that in school-led ITE, schools would have to take more responsibility for providing student teachers with access to educational research and theory, previously undertaken by universities (2014:32). However, some (for example Woodbury [2017:84] citing Ward [2014]) question schools’ capacity to do this important work. The negative effects of ITE policy on teacher educators are examined thoroughly in the literature. For example, Childs (2013:314) proposes that teacher educators are obliged to respond to policy changes in ways which their peers in other disciplines are not. Brennan et al’s (2014:npg) research finds teacher educators navigating “a changed economic bargain between schools and universities and shifting forms of trust”. Brown et al (2016:12–13) cite Ellis’ (2013) point that teacher educators’ work affects their ability to undertake research and gain “academic capital” in their workplace, an issue to which I return in the next section. Aside from effects on teacher educators, Lofthouse (2014:npg) suggests that as schools take on more direct responsibility for selecting and training students from universities, students become much more dependent upon teachers to undertake support functions previously shared with university teacher educators. Also, where School Direct results in a school, or alliance of schools, having few student teachers, Lofthouse (2014:npg) suggests that peer support that comes from being part of a larger university-based cohort is lost. A School Direct student participating in Woodbury’s research (2017:85) observed that students on the university route “have time to talk through the assignments, to share good practice” with each other, whereas she did not. In this situation, Lofthouse believes mentoring student teachers can become a “vulnerable practice”, where teachers become “preoccupied by the demands to meet the performance targets for both pupil achievement and compliance with teacher standards”. Recent moves by governments to reduce teacher workload (which could free up time for support for beginning teachers) have been reported in the national press (for example, see George, 2018) and welcomed by the profession. The effects of these proposals on teachers’ daily practices remain to be seen. To summarise, policy changes have resulted in complex work for university teacher educators. Agreements on operational and financial matters can create difficulties for both schools and universities. Teachers may be given additional responsibilities for ITE which they struggle to fulfil alongside their many other duties. Student teachers on school-based routes may miss out on learning from a larger group of peers and experience a narrow, very practice-focused beginning to their careers. Research and ITE There is evidence in the literature reviewed that recent policy has, and will continue to, negatively affect research in ITE. As noted, teacher educators’ diverse work means they may not have sufficient time to research their field; teachers may experience the same. In its 2014 report (Research and the Teaching Profession:

The “view from now”


Building the Capacity for a Self-improving Education System), BERA explores this issue and connects it to resourcing effects of School Direct (BERA 2014:28); research is considered “precarious” and the overall university staffing context as “destabilised”. Peiser (2016:164) argues that teachers need up-to-date knowledge based on research to meet differing needs of pupils; she also makes a key point in her reference to Mincu’s (2013:4) view that “it is very difficult to see how teachers can acquire such a repertoire without research-based teacher education” (see also BERA 2014:18). Interestingly, research is both absent and present in different policy documents, communicating a confused view of its importance and relevance to ITE. For example, there is little mention of research in the former Cameron–Clegg Coalition Government policy document Teachers Standards (DfE 2011b). Godfrey (2017:439) notes that likewise in the Cameron Conservative Government policy document Educational Excellence Everywhere (DfE 2016a) there are many references to research generally but none “to research-informed practice/teaching or education… [or] to teacher research or teacherresearchers”. Rather, in a different view of “research” promoted as “evidence” of “what works”, teachers simply need to locate these sources and put them into practice (Godfrey 2017:440). BERA (2014:18) also notes that “enquiry-oriented, research-rich practice… embedded in schools, universities and with policy-makers” is a feature of “high performing education systems” of other countries, which UK policy-makers aspire to, and therefore should be much better supported. It is suggested that other issues affect ITE research, connected to policymaking; for example, the uncertain basis and “epistemic doubt around the knowledge base” (Hulme 2016:44) of ITE as a relatively “young” academic discipline (see Beauchamp et al 2013:9; Peiser 2016:174). Beauchamp et al (2013) argue that as ITE is of such interest to governments, it is important that teachers, teacher educators and beginning teachers sustain research from which to build an evidence base. Research in ITE could but rarely does influence policy, which should raise questions of governments, politicians, power-brokers and policy-makers but also academics and their spokespeople. As I hope to have demonstrated in this chapter, there is plentiful research about ITE policy – its nature, purpose and effects – but it is not easy to see how this has actually affected policy. Sleeter (2014:147) proposes that this is because “academic researchers write for each other, rather than for practitioners or policy-makers”. Peiser (2016:170–171) proposes that ITE research faces difficulties “in providing answers to policy questions” on which kinds of ITE make for the most effective teachers. Again, from the perspective of a practitioner with major responsibilities for ITE, the quasi-government Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspection reports provide an accessible overview of “quality” but comparing providers is unreliable, as reports are historical, and reference different inspection frameworks. Also, new providers come into existence all the time, and whilst providers are inspected, significantly this does not extend to judging their differing routes into teaching separately (Whiting et al 2018:90). Whitty (2016:34) proposes “a major policy debate” about how to best prepare teachers for twenty-first-century schools. BERA also urges support for those working in ITE in producing research “directly

70 Helen Scott relevant to the educational system” to inform policy (2014:27). To achieve this, Sleeter proposes much more systematic collaboration between different ITE stakeholders, linking small-scale studies to create a stronger evidence base.

Conclusion It must be reiterated that not all the available literature on ITE policy changes and their effects has been reviewed for the purposes of this chapter, and there is much more to say on these matters to support an argument for research-informed teacher learning. Taking heed of Philpott and Poultney’s (2018:25) advice to “provide a fair and balanced account of the field”, my intention was to seek literature written by a wide range of stakeholders. However, I found much was written by research-active practitioners like me, working in ITE in universities. Some writings referenced were quite small scale in terms of their participants (for example, Brown et al 2016) and mostly qualitative; others reviewed policies as I have done, and posited views about those available at the time of writing. Important questions remain about who is critiquing and researching policy changes to ITE, how, for whom, and for what purpose. These questions could easily be raised about me as I set about to explore the recent ITE policy context in England and suggested various effects. The most significant effect of “school-led” ITE away from universities has caused changes to partnerships, the kinds of work teacher educators and teachers undertake, the choices and experiences of student teachers, and the financial stability and access to resources for universities and research in ITE. The ITE “system” (if it can still be called a system) has become fragmented and complex; many effects are viewed negatively, but not all. Although the loss of “power” felt by many university-based teacher educators has led to difficult negotiations with schools and some loss of ITE provision, recent collaborations with schools have often been, in my experience, useful in agreeing underpinning values and specific roles for both universities and schools in ITE. School and university partnerships have been disrupted and changed though. Previously “comfortable” (Mutton 2016:201), they have become much less so. Perhaps School Direct made previously hidden issues about how different elements of ITE function more visible. But, ITE has undergone significant changes and “teacher education has become deeply politicised” (Menter 2016:10). Furlong observed in 2013 that “so much is in flux, nothing will stand still” (2013:65). Mutton and Murray (2016), in tune with my own writings and those of many others (for example see Whitty 2016; Cater 2017;), express uncertainty about the future of ITE in England, related to teacher recruitment and destabilisation of partnerships. In the “view from now”, there are signs that the extent of effects of recent policy have slowed down, and not been as catastrophically damaging as first imagined eight or nine years ago. However, the overall system in which ITE in universities operates is also now experiencing policy change. With the rise (and possible fall?) of university tuition fees, the student as “customer” and the creation of the Office for Students, universities’ work is being submitted to much the same scrutiny and regulation as ITE has had previously. There may be lessons that universities can learn from their teacher educators and how, in the

The “view from now”


“view from now”, ITE partnerships have adapted to and survived the many and significant policy shifts in ITE over the last few years.

References Allen, J M (2009) Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, 647–654. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M and Murray, J (2013) Research and Teacher Education: The BERA-RSA Inquiry. Policy and Practice within the United Kingdom. http:// BERA (2014) Research and the Teaching Profession: Building the Capacity for a SelfImproving Education System. Final report of the BERA-RSA inquiry into the role of research in teacher education. Brennan, C, Murray, J and Read, A (2014) Teacher Educators’ Perceptions of Their Work in the Changing Landscape of School Direct. Presentation given at TEAN Conference, Let’s Talk About School Direct, 5 December 2014. teachers-and-educators-storehouse/partnerships/lets-talk-about-school-direct-report/ Britzman, D P (2003) Practice Makes Perfect: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. Albany, NY: State University of New York. Brown, T, Rowley, H and Smith, K (2016) The Beginnings of School Led Teacher Training: New Challenges for University Teacher Education. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Cater, J (2017) Whither Teaching Training and Education. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) HEPI Report 95. Childs, A (2013) The work of teacher educators: An English policy perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching International Research and Pedagogy 39:3, 314–328. Clarke, M and Phelan, A M (2017) Teacher Education and the Political: The Power of Negative Thinking. London: Routledge. DfE (2010a) The Case for Change. uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526946/The_case_for_change_The_ importance_of_teaching.pdf DfE (2010b) The Importance of Teaching. the-importance-of-teaching-the-schools-white-paper-2010 DfE (2011a) Training Our Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers: Implementation Plan. chers-implementation-plan DfE (2011b) Teachers’ Standards. DfE (2012) Michael Gove: Speech at the National College Annual Conference. uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-at-the-national-college-annual-conference DfE (2014) Carter Review of Initial Teacher Training (England): Call for Evidence. http s:// data/file/346051/Consultation_Document_-_Carter_Review_Final.pdf DfE (2015) The Carter Review. DfE (2016a) Educational Excellence Everywhere. government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/508550/Educational_excel lence_everywhere__print_ready_.pdf

72 Helen Scott DfE (2016b) A Framework of Core Content for Initial Teacher Training (ITT). https://assets. file/536890/Framework_Report_11_July_2016_Final.pdf DfE (2018) Initial Teacher Training Allocations Methodology: Guidance for the 2019 to 2020 Academic Year. DfE/NCTL (2018) Initial Teacher Training: Criteria and Supporting Guidance. www. g-itt-criteria-and-supporting-advice Foster, D (2018) Initial Teacher Training in England. House of Commons Briefing Paper Number 6710, 17 October 2018. UK Parliament SN06710._.pdf Furlong, J (2013) Education: An Anatomy of the Discipline. London and New York: Routledge. George, M (2018) DfE pledges new action to cut teacher workload. dfe-pledges-new-action-cut-teacher-workload George, R and Maguire, M (2019) Choice and diversity in English initial teacher education (ITE): Trainees’ perspectives. European Journal of Teacher Education 42:1, 19–35. Godfrey, D (2017) What is the proposed role of research evidence in England’s ‘selfimproving’ school system? Oxford Review of Education 43:4, 433–446. Golding, J (2015) What has the Coalition Government done for the development of initial teacher education? London Review of Education 13:2, 113–124. Handscomb, G, Gu, Q and Varley, M (2014) School-University Partnerships: Fulfilling the Potential. National Centre for Public Engagement. default/files/publication/literature_review_final.pdf Hascher, T, Cocard, Y and Moser, P (2004) Forget about theory – practice is all? Student Teachers’ learning in practicum. Teachers and Teaching 10:6, 623–637. Hulme, M (2016) Analysing teacher education policy: Comparative and historical approaches. Chapter 3 (p 37–54) in Teacher Education in Times of Change. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M, Jephcote, M, Kennedy, A, Magennis, G, Menter, I, Murray, J, Mutton, T, O’Doherty, T and Peiser, G (eds) (2016) Bristol:The Teacher Education Group Policy Press. Jackson, A and Burch, J (2016) School Direct, a policy for initial teacher training in England: plotting a principled pedagogical path through a changing landscape. Professional Development in Education 42:4, 511–526. Kennedy, A (2018) Developing a new ITE programme: A story of compliant and disruptive narratives across different cultural spaces. European Journal of Teacher Education 41:5, 638–653. Korthagen, F A J (2010) How teacher education can make a difference. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 36:4, 407–423. Livingston, K and Flores, M A (2017) Trends in teacher education: A review of papers published in the European Journal of Teacher Education over 40 years. European Journal of Teacher Education 40:5, 551–560. Lofthouse, R (2014) Mentoring is Critical but Vulnerable as a Component of Workplace Learning. Presentation given at the TEAN Conference, Lets Talk about School Direct, 5 December 2014. McIntyre, J, Youens, B and Stevenson, H (2017) Silenced voices: The disappearance of the university and the student voice in teacher education policy discourse in England. Research Papers in Education 34(2), 153–168.

The “view from now”


McNicholl, J and Blake, A (2013) Transforming teacher education, an activity analysis. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 39:3, 281–300. Menter, I (2016) UK and Irish teacher education in a time of change. Chapter 2 (p 19–36) in Teacher Education in Times of Change. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M, Jephcote, M, Kennedy, A, Magennis, G, Menter, I, Murray, J, Mutton, T, O’Doherty, T and Peiser, G (eds) (2016) Bristol: The Teacher Education Group Policy Press. Menter, I, Hulme, M, Elliott, D and Lewin, J (2010) Literature Review on Teacher Education in the 21st Century. Glasgow: University of Glasgow; Scottish Government. https:// Murray, J and Mutton, T (2016) Teacher education in England: Change in abundance, continuities in question. Chapter 4 (p 57–74) in Teacher Education in Times of Change. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M, Jephcote, M, Kennedy, A, Magennis, G, Menter, I, Murray, J, Mutton, T, O’Doherty, T and Peiser, G (eds) (2016) Bristol: The Teacher Education Group Policy Press. Mutton, T (2016) Partnership in teacher education. Chapter 12 (p 201–216) in Teacher Education in Times of Change. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M, Jephcote, M, Kennedy, A, Magennis, G, Menter, I, Murray, J, Mutton, T, O’Doherty, T and Peiser, G (eds) (2016) Bristol: The Teacher Education Group Policy Press. Mutton, T, Burn, K and Menter, I (2017) Deconstructing the Carter Review: Competing conceptions of quality in England’s “school-led” system of initial teacher education. Journal of Education Policy 32:1, 14–33. Noble-Rogers, J (2018) Teacher Education and the HE Sector: A Policy Overview. Presentation given at the Annual UCET conference, 6 November 2018. conference/ucet-annual-conference-2018-6th-7th-november/ Accessed 18 March 2019. Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2015, updated 2018) Initial Teacher Education Inspection Handbook. Peiser, G (2016) The place of research in teacher education. Chapter 10 (p 161–178) in Teacher Education in Times of Change. Beauchamp, G, Clarke, L, Hulme, M, Jephcote, M, Kennedy, A, Magennis, G, Menter, I, Murray, J, Mutton, T, O’Doherty, T and Peiser, G (eds) (2016) Bristol: The Teacher Education Group Policy Press. Philpott, C (2014) Models of professional learning and what they mean for those working with teachers. Chapter 3 (p 23–39) in Philpott, C, Scott, H and Mercier, C (eds.), Initial Teacher Education in Schools: A Guide for Practitioners. London: Sage. Philpott, C, Scott, H and Mercier, C (2014) Initial Teacher Education in Schools. A Guide for Practitioners London: Sage. Philpott, C and Poultney, V (2018) Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Sleeter, C (2014) Toward teacher education research that informs policy. Educational Researcher 43(3), 146–153. UniversitiesUK (2017) Ensuring Sufficiency of Supply in Trainee Teachers in England. Parliamentary Briefing. Whiting, C, Whitty, G, Menter, I, Black, P, Horden, J, Parfitt, A, Reynolds, K and Sorenson, N (2018) Diversity and complexity: Becoming a teacher in England in 2015–16. Review of Education 6:1, 69–96. Whitty, G (2016) Research and Policy in Education. London: UCL Institute of Education Press. Woodbury, J (2017) Stakeholder views of teacher training routes. Teacher Education Advancement Network Journal (TEAN) 9(1), 80–89.


The problem with randomised controlled trials for education Terry Wrigley

Introduction As a guest at Carey Philpott’s inaugural lecture as Professor of Teacher Education at Leeds Beckett University, I soon began to appreciate his powerful combination of an open-minded search for ways of improving educational practice with a critique of superficial thinking and false trails. At the time of his unexpected and untimely death, he was becoming a major figure in the field. Philpott’s guide to Evidence-Based Teaching (2018), in collaboration with Val Poultney who completed the book, brought together the increasingly dominant methods of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews with more collegial professional learning such as learning rounds. It explored potential gains that teachers could make in learning from medical practitioners while clearly exposing the differences between the two fields of practice. The book follows the theoretical lead of Hammersley (2015) and Thomas and Pring (2004), among others, but is positioned closer to practice, and was written at a time when RCTs are increasingly being portrayed as the only valid research method. Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) Chapter 3, Randomised Controlled Trials, explains a number of practical problems including the difficulties of randomisation, inconsistency of implementation and the impossibility of ‘double blinding’. I will attempt here to build on some of the most crucial issues which are, in my view, fundamental to understanding why research for teachers’ learning cannot be built on such a foundation. Examples will be taken from major projects receiving large amounts of government funding.

RCTs and human agency Philpott and Poultney (2018) make a sober and knowledgeable assessment of the difficulties of teachers seeking to emulate the role of medical practitioners in drugs trials. Unlike the administration of pills and placebos in ‘double blinded’ drugs trials, teachers cannot ask more open or higher-level questions without knowing what they are doing, nor indeed can students remain unaware that something different is going on.

The problem with RCTs for education


Basically, the ‘treatment’ in education cannot be carried out effectively without a positive commitment from the teachers, but that immediately introduces a distortion in the trial: the students are responding not only to a particular procedure but to the teacher’s enthusiasm, thus introducing a Hawthorne effect (Philpott and Poultney 2018: 43). Conversely, teachers who are assigned control groups can easily convey a lack of interest if they feel they are positioned as devaluing certain practices. In a major randomised control trial in England of Fresh Start, a resource and method to improve the reading of struggling 11-year-old readers (Education Endowment Fund 2015), the treatment group headteachers had chosen to join the programme because they are enthusiastic, and the teachers are explicitly told that passion is a requirement: The FS-specific teaching style is a core element of this intervention which encompasses teacher’s passion, praise for students and a dynamic pace for the lessons. (Education Endowment Fund 2015: 5) This is not just a practical difficulty in one instance, but is central to the use of RCTs in education. As Pawson (2006: 27) points out, whereas drugs trials try to eliminate the human factor because ‘human volition is seen as a contaminator’, social change is brought about precisely through the human agent. In other words, RCTs cannot by their very nature accommodate teachers’ enthusiasm and passion, which raises questions about the evidence being produced. This problem of agency is well illustrated by a recent attempt to evaluate project-based learning (Education Endowment Fund 2016): nearly half the intervention schools dropped out, suggesting a problem in convincing the teachers and also perhaps students that it is worth the effort. It should come as no surprise to those working in the classroom that implementing such pedagogies requiries an energetic professional commitment, especially when they break from the tightly controlled pedagogies which have become the norm in a high-stakes accountability regime. What do control groups actually do? Philpott and Poultney point to one important difficulty here. They emphasise that the practices being trialled can ‘leak’ into the control group. It can occur with students who share experiences with one another. It can occur when a teacher teaches classes (clusters) on both sides of the RCT. It can occur when teachers talk to one another about what they are doing. (Philpott and Poultney 2018: 42) To return to the hypothetical example of asking more open and challenging questions, are the control group teachers going to be asked:

76 Terry Wrigley a b

to do what they would normally do? or to stick rigidly to closed questions without cognitive challenge?

These two options will produce very different effect sizes, according to the distance between the experiences of the treatment and control groups. Pawson is again worth quoting, for the precision with which he punctures the myth of ‘control’: And what of the control? This is not a piece of apparatus at idle. This is not the world in repose. This is no vacuum, because there is no such thing as a policy vacuum. Control groups or control areas are in fact kept very busy. (Pawson 2006: 51) The problem can be quickly illustrated by another large randomised control trial also funded by the Education Endowment Fund in England, the key channel for government-funded research. The trial concerned ‘teacher observation’, though in fact it was limited to one specific approach which in many ways runs counter to the intended purpose of collegial peer observations to improve pedagogy. Not only did treatment group teachers fail to carry out as many observations as required, the control group were already committed to more fruitful modes of observation. Almost three-quarters of the control group schools were already doing some peer observation prior to the intervention. The lack of impact seen in this study may be because the structured Teacher Observation intervention was no more effective than existing practice rather than because general peer observation has no impact. (Worth et al 2017: 3) In the earlier example of a synthetic-phonics based approach to remedial teaching of reading at the start of secondary school (Education Endowment Fund 2015), the report gives no explanation of what control groups were doing; nor is there information on whether control group teachers were offered parallel training or additional staffing to reduce group size and put them on a par with the treatment group. Proofs of causality Among the claims made by proponents of RCTs in education, Philpott and Poultney (2018: 41) highlight the assertion that they are the only form of educational research that can identify causality in educational interventions (Torgerson 2001). Philpott and Poultney’s critique is very firmly that RCTs cannot, by themselves, tell us the mechanism through which something works. So the results of an RCT might show that a particular classroom strategy in mathematics produces improved mathematics scores. However, it

The problem with RCTs for education


cannot tell us what the ‘active ingredient’ is. Which part of the strategy is having the effect and/or how? (Philpott and Poultney 2018: 44) They add that there are also contextual and psychological variables to consider ‘such as gender, social class, ethnicity, identity and personal aspirations’ (p.46). The problem goes deeper, however, and at a philosophical level requires a criticism of empiricism. The word ‘empiricism’ does not mean that observations of reality are unimportant, but rather that we need to dig deeper than surface impressions of phenomena in order to identify the forces and structures which affect a situation. Bhaskar (1978) makes an important conceptual distinction between the real (the underlying forces), the actual (what happens), and the phenomenal (what we observe). Most natural and social situations are open systems in which different causal forces interact, reinforcing or blocking each other, and also encounter contextual factors in order to actualise. For this reason, a force (e.g. law of nature, social structure) can exist even when it is not effective or observed; conversely, observed regularities are insufficient to prove causality. Empiricists, in the tradition of David Hume (1711–1776) known for his philosophical empiricism and scepticism, act as if regularities are all. Indeed, Hume held that it is impossible to move beyond the regularities to get down to implied causes. The procedures used in RCTs deal with regularities but not with causes. Indeed, many designers of RCTs make no attempt to identify deep causes. There is considerable irony here. Gorard and See (2013: 4) argue that a causal model would require not only repeated association, but also a meaningful sequence (X must always precede Y), a measurable relationship (variation in the strength of X must link to variation in Y), and the ability to explain a coherent mechanism. However, in the practical conduct of a major RCT, the same researchers failed even to look for the causal explanations. Thus, in their study of a remedial reading programme (Education Endowment Fund 2015), there is no attempt to discover the reason why the target students are still finding reading difficult, why the program works – if it does – or why it appears to work well with some students but not others. As Philpott and Poultney (2018) rightly say, RCTs generally need to be complemented by various qualitative methods to identify causality: for example, close observation accompanied by interviews. Other researchers point to the importance of theory, which includes forming alternative hypotheses and building on accumulated theoretical knowledge. Pawson (2006: 47) argues that ‘medical treatments… are the embodiment of years of theory-testing… Whole episodes of pure science are played out, and their lessons digested, before the applied science kicks in’. Hammersley (2015: 4) points out that ‘in the drug field, RCTs are used as a complement to laboratory work, which will have produced a considerable body of knowledge about the drug’ whereas ‘in social fields RCTs are usually expected to provide the whole scientific knowledge base for the “treatment”’. We may contrast this with the argument presented by Tom Bennett, popular (and populist) founder of ResearchED, who works entirely from regularities but does not appear to recognise his own trivialisation of theory:

78 Terry Wrigley If I apply a Bunsen flame to water, I may be surprised (because I am an idiot) to see it bubble and vanish (let’s call it ‘boil’) when it gets to 100 degrees Celsius. If I propose that this is a routine event, and every time I do the same I obtain the same result, then I can reasonably be said to have a good piece of scientific explanation. Science normally proceeds on this formula:  Form a question: does sound travel faster in water than in air?  Make a hypothesis: yes it does. ‘Sound travels faster in water than air.’  Make a prediction: what would I observe if my hypothesis were true? Well, for a start, perhaps I would hear a noise more quickly underwater than I would on land.  Test the prediction: gather evidence to see if the real world behaves the same way as your prediction. Get your flippers on.  Analysis: what does the evidence show? What do we need to do next? And if the evidence proves the hypothesis to be false, what new hypothesis can we suggest? (Bennett 2013: 21) Bennett, who insists that RCTs and their synthesis are the only valid ‘scientific’ form of educational research, appears to regard experiments as a faithful reflection or re-enactment of reality, and portrays the process of designing trials as moving along smoothly from data or casual observations without theory, or indeed anything more than a superficial sequential hypothesis. This is a problem which permeates much of the work of the Education Endowment Foundation in England, including its ‘Teaching and Learning Toolkit’ (more later), a reflection of the hegemonisation of the RCT methodology. It also runs through John Hattie’s (2008) world-famous Visible Learning project. As Danish professor Steen Nepper Larsen, of Aarhus University, expresses it: John Hattie never explains what the substance of an effect is. What is an effect’s ontology, its way of being in the world? This question cannot be answered simply by providing a number, an ‘effect size’, as a supposed quantification of the impact of a pedagogic practice on student learning. (Larsen 2013: 70)

Meta-analysis and beyond Carey Philpott and Val Poultney (Philpott and Poultney 2018), clearly recognise the need to make research findings more accessible to teachers, but they make a plea for a more open and intelligent process of reviewing research where decisions do not just depend on technical criteria. Since the technical criteria usually exclude important qualitative approaches, this is extremely welcome. For example, they support Hammersley’s argument that ‘positivistic or scientific research should

The problem with RCTs for education


not be privileged over the academic-narrative approach to systemic view’ (Philpott and Poultney 2018: 29). They reiterate Maclure’s (2005: 398) argument that systematic review can ‘set limits on the ways that the world can be viewed and construed, and establishes what will count as truth’. Reviewing research must be intelligent and conducted with a deep understanding of the field, particularly when it comes to research-informed teacher learning. It involves decisions as to ‘what quality is and what it is not’ as well as an understanding of practitioners’ perspectives (Philpott and Poultney 2018: 29–30). In Hammersley’s words (2001: 549, cited in Philpott and Poultney 2018: 29), a review of the literature: can involve judging the validity of the findings and conclusions of particular studies and thinking about how these relate to one another, and how their interrelations can be used to illuminate the field under investigation. This will require the reviewer to draw on his or her tacit knowledge, derived from experience, and to think about the substantive and methodological issues, not just to apply replicable procedures. Unfortunately, in England and elsewhere, strong governmental pressure (including centralised control of research budgets) is being exerted in favour of the ‘meta-analysis’ approach which, after excluding many important studies on technical grounds, simply aggregates the ‘effect sizes’ from multiple RCTs. Firstly, this represents a misunderstanding of the term ‘effect size’. This expression does not mean how effective is this practice but rather how well has this RCT, as an experiment, managed to show that this practice has some effect. In other words, it is an evaluation of research design, not of teaching methods (see Simpson 2017, 2018). As Simpson demonstrates, effect size can be increased by how an RCT is set up, including:   

ensuring that the control group experience very limited teaching researching a more limited population (eg 11-year-old boys with reading difficulties) selecting outcome measures which are closely related to the nature of the intervention, rather than more general assessment tools.

Averaging the effect sizes of multiple RCTs simply compounds the problem. Although it can sometimes be appropriate to bring together RCTs which are fairly similar but too small to reach firm conclusions, the mean effect size is dangerously misleading when RCTs are thrown together which are very different – an error commonly known as ‘apples and oranges’. Thus, for example, the meta-analysis on Feedback included in the governmentfunded Education Endowment Fund, Teaching and Learning Toolkit (subsequently abbreviated to Toolkit) throws together many disparate studies under the heading ‘Feedback’, some of which are simply a repetition or clarification of instructions for a classroom task (Wrigley 2018). Confusion is sown by averaging

80 Terry Wrigley experiments involving detailed marking of completed written work, informal spoken advice directed to individuals while they pursue a practical activity, handing out test scores in the hope of stimulating students to try harder next time, advising students as they design their enquiry, and so on. It is not necessarily the case that 6-year-olds will respond to feedback in similar ways to 16-year-olds, nor that mathematics benefits from similar forms of feedback to drama. (See also Lilley 2018 for a critique of Hattie’s treatment of this same topic.) In evaluating the impact of sports participation on academic attainment, the Toolkit draws on systematic reviews of research which throw together such diverse activities as cheerleading by girls while the boys actually play the game, and the therapeutic use of yoga and massage to improve concentration. It is not surprising that the results are inconclusive. Averaging effect sizes is not only flawed for the reasons provided by Simpson (see above) but serves as a diversion from examining why a particular pedagogical method might impact on learning. The search for ‘what works’ tells us nothing about how it works. This can only be glimpsed by scrutinising the original studies which are hidden behind an average. In the case of sports participation, one unusually effective intervention involved Premier League football clubs setting up study centres for underachieving students from local schools. Participation was only for 20 hours spread across six months, but these young people enjoyed a boost to status and self-esteem through meeting star players and visiting the club’s boardroom and museum. The intervention was well resourced, including one-to-one mentoring and dedicated ICT suites. They enjoyed a personalised curriculum geared to their specific needs in literacy, numeracy and ICT skills and designed round practical and situated activities which were meaningful to the students: mathematics trails; counting the seats and measuring the pitch; using gate receipts and sales in the shop, restaurant and kiosks for work on numeracy and data handling; writing match reports; researching and writing player biographies; compiling a sports magazine or match programme; using sports-themed tasks to learn how to search the internet. An opposite error can be found in Hattie’s claim that ‘direct instruction’ is a superior mode of teaching. In fact, the research he is amalgamating is based on one particular ‘instructional design’ (to use the American terminology) based not on teaching ‘from the front’ alone but a carefully planned sequence involving learner engagement, modelling, guided practice, monitoring and independent practice/transfer (Hattie 2009: 205–6). Although Hattie insists (pp. 208–12) that inquiry methods and problem-based learning are less efficient for learning facts and concepts, he concedes that they are better for engaging students, understanding the principles that link concepts together, longer-term recall, applying knowledge, solving problems, critical thinking and scientific process! Unfortunately, the dials which decorate these pages are extremely misleading since they do not reflect such differences of purpose; the simple meta-analytic averaging of mean effect sizes could easily seduce teachers into discarding inquiry methods. It is worth noting that Gene Glass, who originated the idea of meta-analysis, has issued a sharp warning about heterogeneity (‘apples and oranges’):

The problem with RCTs for education


Our biggest challenge is to tame the wild variation in our findings not by decreeing this or that set of standard protocols but by describing and accounting for the variability in our findings. The result of a meta-analysis should never be an average; it should be a graph. (Robinson 2004: 29, my italics)

Meta-meta-analysis It should be obvious from the discussion so far that large-scale structures built on these methods will have shaky foundations. For convenience, we could call this ‘meta-meta-analysis’ or perhaps ‘mega-synthesis’. The Toolkit (Higgins et al n.d.) conducts and draws together meta-analyses under 35 different headings to pronounce on their relative effectiveness in assisting students disadvantaged by poverty. The mean effect sizes are translated into ‘months of additional progress’, ranging from +8 to –4 months. Such an approach would appear laughable to medical practitioners: imagine declaring that surgery is more or less effective than painkillers in prolonging life, regardless of whether the problem is a hernia or a headache. Hattie (2009) claims that his Visible Learning project synthesises over 800 meta-analyses involving 50,000 research studies. It is not surprising that this has global appeal to busy teachers, but it is seriously misleading. (See visablelearning. for an ongoing investigation of Hattie’s methods and conclusions.) All of this claims to be a rigorous and ‘scientific’ approach to educational research, but has little resemblance to the methods of natural science. As argued earlier, it neglects theory and fails to investigate causality. Furthermore, it misapplies techniques from one field of enquiry to another. It thus exemplifies the error known as reductionism, such as when biologists seek to explain animal behaviour solely in terms of biochemical change, or psychologists explain human behaviour solely in terms of neurological mapping of the brain. Educators could learn a lot from Hilary and Stephen Rose’s remarks about ‘biologism’, i.e. the misuse of biological explanations to account for psychological and social phenomena, for example when war is explained as a form of animal aggression or human thought by analogy with computer technology. They discuss the real-life consequences of these forms of scientific reductionism, including the use of ritalin, behaviourist punishment regimes, and beliefs in fixed genetically determined intelligence, all of which blinker practitioners to the complexity of social context and experience.

Research is not just experiments Scientific experiments, as Critical Realists such as Bhaskar (1978, 1979) explain, are not a simple reflection of reality but a deliberate move to create a closed situation by excluding or stabilising most of the factors operating in naturally open systems. Stephen Rose, as a biologist, does not propose abandoning experiments but places serious warnings of the dangers:

82 Terry Wrigley Effective experiments demand the artificial controls imposed by the reductive methodology of the experimenter, but we must never forget that as a consequence they provide at best only a very simplified model, perhaps even a false one, of what happens in the blooming, buzzing, interactive confusion of life at large, where things rather rarely happen one at a time. (Rose 2005: 28) Further: What happens in the test-tube may be the same, the opposite of, or bear no relationship at all to what happens in the living cell, still less the living organism in its environment. (Rose 2005: 79) Where they are used, the researcher must make an effort to rebuild the complexity of nature’s open systems – and almost every system that occurs in the real world is open. A parallel applies to RCTs as the supposed equivalent of experiments in education, which comes back to questions about the evidence being produced. They are marred by a failure to recognise key human characteristics such as agency, volition, intentionality, reflection, curiosity, confusion and understanding. They amount to pseudo-science when they fail to ask about purpose – what exactly are our educational aims? What is a particular practice effective for? Education is marked by a multiplicity of aims – acquisition of factual knowledge, problem solving, longer-term cognitive development, skilled performance, aesthetic or ethical qualities, socialisation. Tight notions of ‘evidence’ in the sense of numerical data (effect sizes) risk abandoning such values and aims as world citizenship, multiculturalism, enlightenment, democracy, solidarity, character, virtue, knowledge and Bildung (see Rømer 2014: 115). This is an even greater risk when government insists on ‘evidence-based teaching’ in a context of high-stakes accountability: the two reinforce each other, and even if the former produces higher scores in the latter, education is diminished. Education is unavoidably about openness, emergence and consciousness. As Biesta powerfully explains, pedagogical activity involves ‘open, recursive, semiotic’ systems which linear mechanistic models cannot reflect. Such conditions can be described as those of closed systems: systems that are in a state of being isolated from their environment. Open systems, on the other hand, are systems that are characterised by a degree of interaction with their environment. Whereas closed systems operate deterministically, open systems operate at most probabilistically. Recursive systems are systems that in some way feed back into themselves, so that the behaviour of the system is the result of a combination of external factors and internal dynamics. Semiotic systems are systems that do not operate through physical force but through the exchange of meaning. (Biesta 2010: 496)

The problem with RCTs for education


It is not scientific to treat open systems as if they were closed ones, or social situations as if they were biological or physical phenomena.

Concluding remarks Experiments are not the only form of scientific investigation. Indeed, many scientific fields use few of them: think of astronomy, meterology, evolution – perhaps biology overall. As Gary Thomas pointed out (2004: 1–6), experiments are generally used to verify rather than advance knowledge, and many discoveries and inventions (e.g. penicillin, superconductivity, even aeroplanes) have not arisen from systematic procedures. Scientific method depends heavily on reflective observation, intelligent noticing, trial and error, and even intuition. We should not neglect the different stages involved in scientific enquiry: If various stages in the employment of evidence are traversed in moving toward knowledge – a bricolage / hunch stage, an inspirational stage, a discovery stage and a corroborative / confirmatory stage – the notion of evidence-based practice focuses on evidence at the confirmatory stage, on the systematic collation of research studies for use by practitioners and policymakers. (Thomas 2004: 10) In the psychology of human learning, an insistence on experimental procedures can lead to disastrous misconceptions, simplification and narrowing (see Vygotsky’s 1925 critique of Pavlovian behaviourism). Despite the importance of RCTs in drugs trials and many other forms of discrete intervention in medicine, evidence-based medicine relies on a wider concept of evidence, including the practitioners’ experience and empathetic engagement with patients (Greenhalgh et al 2014). Carey Philpott was centrally concerned with research-informed teacher learning. His many research articles, and the book completed after his sudden death by Valerie Poultney (Philpott and Poultney 2018), explore a range of forms which this might take. His reaching out and willingness to learn from other fields such as medicine were never uncritical (see for example his discussion of ‘rounds’ as a form of medical education, Philpott 2017: 20–23). In his companion piece written with Poultney, he examines the adoption of ‘learning rounds’ in Scotland, pointing out the importance of professional agency and collaboration. It is crucial to avoid a mere ‘audit’, as when teachers are concerned with box-ticking features of teaching rather than a deeper causal enquiry leading to a ‘theory of action’. There are countless examples in the history of education and educational research which have been practically influential without anything resembling an RCT: think for example of studies by Douglas Barnes and others on classroom language interactions. There is a long international tradition of practitioner research, exemplified by Elliott, Kemmis, Groundwater-Smith and Mockler,

84 Terry Wrigley among others. Carey Philpott’s truncated research career belongs to this, because it combines critique, human values, educational aims, and a persistent desire to make young people’s learning more successful.

References Bennett, T (2013) Teacher proof: Why research in education doesn’t always mean what it claims, and what you can do about it. London: Routledge Bhaskar, R (1978) A realist theory of science. Hassocks: Harvester Press Bhaskar, R (1998) The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. London: Routledge Biesta, G (2010) Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in the Philosophy of Education 29: 491–503 Education Endowment Fund (2015) Fresh Start: Evaluation report and executive summary (Gorard, S, Siddiqui, N and See, B H). uk/public/files/Projects/Evaluation_Reports/Fresh_Start.pdf Education Endowment Fund (2016) Project-based learning (The Innovation Unit). https:// rning/ Gorard, S and See, B H (2013) Overcoming disadvantage in education. London: Routledge Greenhalgh, T, Howick, J and Maskrey, N (2014) Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? BMJ 2014: 348: g3725 Hammersley, M (2001) On ‘systematic’ reviews of research literatures: A ‘narrative’ response to Evans and Benefield. British Educational Research Journal 27(5): 544–554 Hammersley, M (2015) Against ‘gold standards’ in research: On the problem of assessment criteria. DeGEval conference, Saarbrücken Hattie, J (2009) Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge Higgins, S, Kokotsaki, D and Coe, R (n.d.) The teaching and learning toolkit. https:// (accessed 23 Jan 2020) Larsen, S (2013) Know thy impact: Blind spots in John Hattie’s evidence credo, translated from Dansk Paedagogisk Tidsskrift 3: 69–72 Lilley, G (2018) Feedback. (accessed 22 December 2018) Maclure, M (2005) Clarity bordering on stupidity: Where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Educational Policy 20(4): 393–416 Pawson, R (2006) Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: SAGE Philpot, C (2017) Medical models for teachers’ learning: Asking for a second opinion. Journal of Educatiopn for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 43(1): 20–31. Philpott, C and Poultney, V (2018) Evidence-based teaching: A critical overview for enquiring teachers. London: Critical Publishing Robinson, D (2004) An interview with Gene V Glass. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 26–30. Rømer, T (2014) Making sense of evidence in teaching. In K Petersen, D Reimer and A Qvortrup (eds) Evidence and evidence-based education in Denmark: The current debate. Cursiv no 14, Department of Education, Aarhus University cursiv (accessed 24 August 2018) Rose, S (2005) Lifelines: life beyond the gene (revised edition). London: Vintage

The problem with RCTs for education


Simpson, A (2017) The misdirection of public policy: Comparing and combining standardised effect sizes. Journal of Education Policy 32(4): 450–466 Simpson, A (2018) Princesses are bigger than elephants: Effect size as a category error in evidence-based education. British Educational Research Journal 44(5): 897–913. Thomas, G (2004) Introduction: evidence and practice. In G Thomas and R Pring (eds) Evidence-based practice in education. Maidenhead: Open University Press , pp1–20 Thomas, G and Pring, R (eds) (2004) Evidence-based practice in education. Maidenhead: Open University Press Torgerson, C (2001) The need for randomised controlled trials in educational research. British Journal of Educational Studies 49(3): 316–328 Vygotsky, L (1925) Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior (transl. N Veresov). Worth, J, Sizmur, J, Walker, M, Bradshaw, S and Styles, B (2017) Teacher observation: Evaluation report and executive summary, November 2017. Education Endowment Foundation luation_Reports/Teacher_Observation.pdf Wrigley, T (2018) The power of ‘evidence’: Reliable science or a set of blunt tools? British Educational Research Journal 44(3): 359–376.


Professional learning communities as sites for teacher learning Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne

Introduction Although professional learning communities (PLCs) may appear to be a relatively recent phenomenon in the UK, their development can be linked to research into teacher learning communities in the USA (Little, 1982). Little found that schools where ideas of ‘collegiality and experimentation’ were the norm had higher levels of student achievement than those without (ibid: 15). However, research that built on these findings questioned the idea that all teacher communities have a positive impact on both teacher and student learning (e.g. McLaughlin and Talbert, 2001; Little, 2003). This may be because of the emphasis on, and valuing of, technical competence over artistry that has been a growing characteristic of heavily regulated education systems across the world. The findings of Little and others raise questions about the capacity of PLCs to both afford opportunities for collegiality and experimentation while at the same time spanning the divide between technical training and mastery of complex processes. We are deeply indebted to Carey due to his relationship with us as co-supervisor (Alison) and being Diana’s Director of Studies at the commencement of her PhD. During our early supervision meetings we both recall his interest in the perceived lack of criticality in the professional discourse involving teacher communities, whether formally or informally established, and our conversations regularly played out this dilemma, prefaced by Little and others. We begin by setting out some definitions of PLCs and illustrate some common experiences, then move towards the literature on communities of practice, teacher agency and teacher identity. Finally, we pinpoint and discuss some of Carey’s work in the light of this literature.

Professional learning communities While definitions of PLCs inevitably vary, they have very similar overall criteria. The following definition from Bolam et al’s (2005: 30) report into PLCs in England gives a succinct description of an ‘effective’ PLC: An effective professional learning community has the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community with the collective purpose of enhancing pupil learning.

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


Stoll and Louis (2007: 3) highlight this focus on improved student learning, rather than improved ‘teacher morale or technical skills’, as a feature of earlier iterations of professional community. This focus can be seen to have moved somewhat in this more recent definition from Vangrieken et al (2015: 24): The construct of a professional (learning) community can be understood as overarching different teams or other forms of teacher groupings in schools, gathering all (or a large part) of the teachers of the school in a collaborative culture. It is to some extent characterised by shared values and vision and is learning-oriented (in the case of professional learning communities). Although collaboration is generally perceived to be positive, concerns have been raised by Little and others that PLCs may, in fact, hinder change, replacing ‘the isolated classroom teacher with the isolated teacher group’ (Little, 2003: 939). Watson develops this further by exploring the idea that strong communities can inhibit change and considers the irony that communities are inevitably exclusive (Watson, 2014). Even Talbert, one of the early proponents of PLCs, expresses concerns that those which are mandated (surely a contradiction in itself) are likely to fail ‘because school administrators and leaders of change either fail to understand the deep principles that anchor PLC work or try to create them in ways that alienate teachers’ (Talbert, 2010: 555). In order to avoid isolation and the stagnation of ideas, the importance of enriching PLCs by making links outside an organisation is stressed by many in the field (Bolam et al, 2005; Little, 2006; Stoll and Louis, 2007; Talbert, 2010). This could vary from links between schools (or other providers), schools and universities and professional or informal teacher networks or organisations. The significance of wider networks is further developed by Jackson and Temperley (2007) in their reflection on the Networked Learning Communities (NLC) programme in England between 2002 and 2006. The growth in teachers’ social media use provides easy opportunities to develop both wider networks and to build less formal teacher learning communities. The later section on teacher agency and PLCs takes up this point more fully, responding to our research interests.

Communities of practice Teacher learning involves an interweaving of theory and practice (see Menter’s Prologue; also Scott, Chapter 5, this book). Most commonly, teacher learning is characterised and codified as pedagogy within most established initial teacher education (ITE) programmes, whether in schools or in universities. As it happens in England, experienced teachers and academics who have responsibilities as teacher educators will instruct, direct and guide student teachers and beginning teachers in regard to professional practice according to expectations laid out by the government. For example, there are directions for teaching in the National Curriculum but also implicitly in sets of national professional standards as well as inspection criteria and reports from the Office for Standards in Education

88 Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne (Ofsted), a quasi-government body with oversight of ITE in schools and university Schools of Education. While inspections tend to dominate what could be called a formal ITE curriculum, it is in these workplaces where, in principle, underpinning theories can be identified, named, ‘tried out’ and reflected upon. Communities sometimes form as a result of need, such as the need to become familiar with the new Ofsted ITE inspection handbook,1 effective from April 2019, the new Ofsted inspection criteria2 and the new School Inspection Handbook,3 both effective from September 2019. The latter two will replace the Ofsted School Inspection handbook4 that came into effect in 2015 and greatly influenced the culture of teacher learning in both schools and universities. This revolved around necessary preparations for Ofsted inspections and responses to Ofsted reports that delivered judgements according to certain criteria about teaching practices and grades for schools. Under this regime, the more experienced members of the community sought to validate teaching practices, for example, through judgements of competency. These were then formalised by certification or accreditation. Nicoll and Fejes put it thus: It becomes insufficient that individuals or groups hold knowledge gained through their experience to themselves. For when the experienced speak they must be either accepted or rejected. Only those who are experienced can assess if what is said is within the true. There is this danger in know-how, for truth lies in the person or group who speaks rather than in what is said. (Nicoll and Fejes, 2011: 9) In effect therefore, following Nicholl and Fejes’ observation, the community can act as a form of social control, not surprising given the inordinate strains and stresses as a result of government policy pressures. This has been identified more recently by groups such as the Educational Support Partnership, notably in its advice to practitioners with its running blog under the heading ‘how to look after yourself during an Ofsted [inspection]’.5 It is likely this sort of online initiative inches closer to the expansive aims of PLCs where a collaborative culture, shared values and vision are envisaged by Vangrieken et al (2015). Biesta uses the term ‘rational communities’ (2004: 320) where participants progress through a system (he was talking about education systems generally and schools in particular) through the ‘acquisition of the content and logic that make up the/a rational community’ (2004: 320). How far PLCs can serve to generate, maintain and sustain more expansive communities within and across educational systems may rest on an understanding of participation. It may be helpful here to introduce the concept developed by Lave and Wenger (1991) of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’, which brings the individual members into full and active participation via relations of knowledge, or as they state: ‘Legitimate peripheral participation’ provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artefacts, and communities of knowledge and practice. A person’s intentions

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice. This social process, includes, indeed it subsumes, the learning of knowledgeable skills. (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 29) In this sense, the time and space required for newcomers to be inculcated into the norms – the ‘practice traditions’ (Kemmis 2012: 892) – is often compromised by the time-bound and curriculum constraints of teachers’ initial professional learning and development and the lack of access to continuous professional development for more experienced teachers. To illustrate this issue of compromise, albeit from a English perspective, a recent report by the Teacher Development Trust has identified that ‘Investment in staff training in England varies from less than £165 per teacher to more than £1000 per teacher’ and that ‘staff development budgets have fallen by 12 per cent in secondary schools, and 7 per cent in primary schools’ (Weston, 2019).

Teacher agency and PLCs One way to redress this situation is to look to established and emergent research about online teacher learning communities, which may be considered to be additional and increasingly integral sites for research-informed teacher learning. A systematic review of the literature into the use of social media in ITE (Iredale et al, 2019) found that PLCs served to develop aspects of teacher agency through the formation of professional identity. For example, reflective blogs (Boulton and Hramiak, 2012) and social reading sites (Vliegheet et al, 2016) promoted a shared understanding of identity, although within this Nykvist and Mukherjee (2016) argued that establishing a digital identity should be actively taught within ITE. Although the use of digital tools among student teachers for reflection or the building of professional identity is generally seen as positive (Wheeler and Wheeler, 2009; Carpenter et al, 2016), this is not necessarily continued beyond the ITE period (Hramiak and Boulton, 2013). However, the engagement of student teachers on a current distance learning qualification does suggest a growing awareness of the potential significance of social media tools to engage in professional learning beyond the constraints of the workplace. Kimmons and Veletsianos (2015: 488) noted the ‘tensions’ or conflict between personal and professional identity whereby trainees practised certain (‘selfimposed’) standards of ‘appropriate’ behaviour on their social networking accounts in view of their professional standing. They appeared to acquiesce to pressure to change the nature of their participation without a full consideration of the potential change to their identity, which may lead to an erosion of the ‘transformative and democratizing value of social media’ (2015 :495). We return to the issue of identity below. Initial analysis from ongoing research into informal online teacher learning communities (Tremayne, 2018) indicates overlaps with existing literature in relation to areas such as the significance of offering support and the sharing of

90 Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne ideas and resources (Lantz-Andersson et al, 2018), but also suggests greater reflection on practice and wider beliefs relating to the purpose of education. The freedom to choose to participate in such informal communities appears to demonstrate both existing agency and to potentially contribute to the development of agency in a way which can move beyond the constraints of a predominantly performative culture of professional learning. While practitioners are still aware of an overlap between professional and personal roles and expectations, findings suggest that participants are able to manage this in a way that is congruent with their personal beliefs. Affordances for agency This leads us to the conundrum raised by Philpott and Oates (2016: 3) of whether PLCs are ‘an affordance for agency’ but here we begin with answering the twin questions posited by Beckett in the Editor’s Introduction to this memorial book – those of what teachers learn and why, which one would expect to underpin the formal curriculum included in most established ITE programmes. This should not be taken as a given. Rather, practitioners in teaching and teacher education need to get some distance on it to fathom the rationale of politicians, power brokers and policy makers for their directions to practitioners, especially where teachers are positioned as technicians. Philpott and Poultney (2018) provide some of that sense of distance with a definition of PLCs as spaces for critical evaluation of students’ learning, using lesson study as an example of how teachers develop ‘effective teaching and learning practice’ (Philpott and Poultney, 2018: 4). They set PLCs within a wider momentum associated with evidence-based teaching, which began to manifest in education from 1996 following a series of debates surrounding the impact (or lack thereof) of educational research on practice as a result of a lecture by David Hargreaves to the Teacher Training Agency in 1996 (Hargreaves, 1996). This was a significant policy milestone. In this lecture, Hargreaves compares research within the teaching profession with that in the medical profession – both claimed as ‘people-centred professions’ (1996: 44). His main argument involved the failure, as he saw it, of educational research to serve the needs of teachers. Hargreaves’ comparison with the medical profession assumes similarities in that they both use their respective professional knowledge and skills to respond to individual needs. It also points to fundamental differences in that whereas traditional western medicine can claim to possess an agreed professional knowledge base, teaching does not (see Brennan, Chapter 1, Harris, Chapter 4 and Wrigley, Chapter 6, this book). Hargreaves’ premise was however bound up in technicist notions of efficiency and effectiveness, resonating with Kemmis’s discussion on spectator research (2012) and its effect on the ‘conversational space’ (2012: 894). MacLure (2005) cautioned against reliance on a particular direction in educational research, that is, the use of systematic reviews, characterising their findings as merely reproductive:

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


The tiny dead bodies of knowledge disinterred by systematic review hold little power to generate new understandings, and are more likely, I suggest, to incapacitate researchers than to contribute to research ‘capacity’. (MacLure, 2005: 394) Keeping in mind a concern about the potential for system adaptation of PLCs in response to dominant political and ideological discourses, it seems that the weight of evidence thereby results in a set of prescriptions and templates for teachers to follow when it is taken up by policy makers. This gives us pause for thought, especially when it is promoted by vested interests and packaged by publishers rather than a starting point for what MacLure describes as ‘the reading, writing, thinking, interpreting, arguing and justifying – out of which knowledge is precariously produced’ (MacLure, 2005: 410). This chimes with Philpott’s identification of related policy discourses, those consisting of ‘what works’ – from ‘toolkits’ to the more insidious policy-endorsed proprietary programmes that both define and corral knowledge and crowd out more reflective and reflexive complex decisions about contextualised classroom pedagogy. An interim report from the now disbanded National College for Teaching and Leadership on evidence-based teaching in 2015 concluded that several barriers prevent what they term knowledge mobilisation for teachers: firstly, that published research is not always ‘useful, accessible or appropriate for teachers’ (HammersleyFletcher et al, 2015: 13); secondly, that the decentralisation and fragmentation of the English education system inhibits coherence and opportunities for brokerage among stakeholders; and finally, of direct relevance to this chapter, that there is a lack of synergy between research and teaching practice, what they term the ‘social dimension’ (2015: 15). Highlighting best practice surrounding the social engagement of all staff, the National College argued for a culture of professional development that is collaborative and community focused. In many respects, this suggests PLCs also seek to answer a third question in addition to ‘what/why teachers learn? – that of ‘how’, particularly as this phenomenon extends beyond the formal curriculum included in most established ITE programmes. This continues the drive towards the conundrum raised by Philpott and Oates (2017: 320). Characteristics of teacher agency The see-saw between conservative policy preferences for performativity and the teaching profession’s call for trust that characterised many incarnations of PLCs in schools hinges on notions of agency. Iredale (2018) argues that teacher agency develops out of the situated knowledge, which is itself both transformational and constraining. It is constraining when the visible products of the PLC create adaptive systems in the classroom and the school rather

92 Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne than ‘sites of struggle’ (Avis, 2005: 219). Iredale notes in relation to evidence-based practice/teaching (EBP/T) that: The craft role of the teacher may also be in tension with attempts to maintain the values surrounding social justice. To be a craftsperson is to engage in mastery, passing on skills to the next generation through autonomy and agency of skills and knowledge. When superstructures claim mastery knowledge, distilling it into EBP/T the craftsperson is denied the ownership of their own skill mastery. (Iredale, 2018: 82) This issue is pertinent to the conundrum posed by Philpott and Oates (2016) where evidence-based teaching (EBT) becomes limited to what Avis (2011: 174) describes as a form of ‘deterministic top-down state-driven managerialism’. This is apparent when we consider the technical competencies required of the ITE curriculum and the school as the teachers’ workplace, especially where they are dealing with reams of policy prescriptions for standards. Iredale (2015; 2018) reflected on what might make teacher agency marked by situated knowledge transformational. As a teacher educator, she became engaged in pedagogies of resistance in her work based upon a foregrounding of values over and the amassing of ‘a professional repertoire of contingent practices’ (Iredale, 2018: 190) above the formal ITE curriculum. In her research she found that student teachers experienced and were thereby inculcated into routinised practices. Moreover, she found that some appeared to prefer the reassurance of routinised practices to risk taking that would require an understanding of the complexities of practice. However, this still does not address the conundrum because we may not have a ready resolution to the binary question of whether agency develops from engagement with PLCs or if deliberative action by teacher educators and work-based mentors promotes the agency that facilitates teachers’ deep reflexive engagement. This is tied up with how teachers are trained and the sense of self that they develop in the course of their learning experiences, as noted above in the discussion by Kimmons and Veletsianos (2015: 488) on the ‘tensions’ or conflict between personal and professional identity. Teacher identity Underpinning notions of agency for teachers is teacher identity, defined by (Izadinia, 2013: 709) in relation to trainee teachers as ‘a social entity constructed and reproduced in social settings’. A subset of characteristics associated with identity includes knowledge, agency, self-awareness, confidence and relationships with others (Izadinia, 2013). Others resist the temptation to link agency to identity, as this can be equated too closely to the person rather than to the experiences and narratives of teachers as they develop their professional knowledge and practice (Sfard and Prusak, 2005). Again, we can here see a tension between the

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


motivation to simplify and categorise (see for example discourses surrounding teaching styles), as opposed to welcoming context and complexity. Contrasting the Finnish system of teacher professional, Priestley et al (2015) draw upon Stoll et al (2006) to identify several key indicators of PLCs in the UK and they argue that these are underpinned by forms of capital, in particular social and human. Iredale (2015), writing about the experiences of student teachers in the lifelong learning sector, found that they experience funnelled practice that is mediated by norms and what Kemmis terms ‘practice traditions’ (Kemmis, 2012: 892) also noted above. As a consequence, they prefer to avoid risk and to demonstrate practice that is routinised or safe. We are coming to the conclusion that PLCs may serve to disrupt ‘the language of skills and competencies, of measurable outcomes and transparent transactions in their decisions’ (Wain, 2006: 39) but only if they have the capacity to promote critical reflection, to challenge accepted wisdom and to connect theory, concepts and principles with the facticity of practice. A supportive environment is more likely to provide the necessary conditions to promote risk taking in practice, particularly where visible processes of PLCs, such as learning rounds, are characterised by flattening of hierarchies. This process involves the assimilation, accommodation and negotiation of the beliefs and values located in the school. The routinised nature of school-based practice may serve as ‘constraining influences’ (Ottesen, 2007: 43) on the developing teacher, so the opportunity to participate in wider discussion during their ITE allows them to construct new meanings, test ideas, critically reflect on practice and share resources. These activities are not restrained or controlled in the same way as the module content, leading to the affordance of connection and heterogeneity in that discussions lead to ‘webs of practice’ (Kemmis, 2012: 888). Participants can find a space to question classroom practices, consider new pedagogical principles and try out (map) new ideas in practice supported by peers and teacher educators as facilitators. Lori Beckett, again in the Editor’s Introduction to this book, reminds us of the imperative to extend teacher learning beyond the confine of classroom pedagogy and into the realm of social justice – what Beckett refers to as an orientation towards ‘a better and fairer society’. If, as she argues, research-informed teacher learning has ‘the potential to effect the sort of nation-state we live in, along democratic lines where teachers have input into schools policy development’ then PLCs in the form envisaged by Little (2003), Philpott (2014) and Philpott and Oates (2017) may indeed serve as a powerful democratic driver.

Conclusion Philpott and Poultney (2018) observed that since 1996 there has been a lack of progress in how evidence is used in education and how we should produce it for the benefit of the teaching profession. They suggest that the Chartered College of Teaching may herald a breakthrough if it were to link socially scientific modes of evidence such as randomised control trials and systematic reviews with those

94 Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne from a sociocultural educational research domain such as narrative enquiry and small-scale action research (see Wrigley, Chapter 6, this book). Philpott and Poultney (2018) welcomed the enduring place of what they termed an evidence-based profession but also argued for a connection between funding for research, inspection regimes and routes into teaching for our next generation of teachers. Furthermore, Little (1982; 2003; 2006) has continued to argue for more research about PLCs and their affordances for teacher learning, particularly where social interactions serve to transform teaching practices. She cautions against a simplistic assumption that PLCs are in themselves transformative for teachers, rather than that where they are strong the ‘everyday talk’ of teachers involves questioning and creativity but that the likelihood is that teacher learning will continue to have little effect on improvements in classroom practices (Little, 2003). In this chapter, conversing with Professor Carey Philpott and others about research-informed teacher learning, we have reviewed the literature surrounding the relationship between teacher agency and identity, and the potential of PLCs to contribute to expansive teacher learning. As Carey often reminded us in our conversations, this is more than a binary, chicken and egg question. It poses further questions about the nature of community and the insistence by policy makers for ideologies about spurious notions of EBT, which risks PLCs becoming mechanisms for system adaptation. If we can agree with the classical writings by Dewey and Wenger that education is a social, collaborative activity, then PLC interactions become risky as they involve uncertainty and an acceptance of complexity rather than a search for a ‘what works’ solution to everyday classroom problems. Lingis puts it beautifully here: To enter into a conversation with another is to lay down one’s arms and one’s defences; to throw open the gates of one’s own positions; to expose oneself to the other, the outsider; and to lay oneself open to surprises, contestation, and inculpation. It is to risk what one found or produced in common. (Lingis, 1994: 87) We both agree with Carey that any programme of professional development needs to focus on the improvement of practice, but where practice becomes routinised (Iredale, 2012) and funnelled by EBT the result is a ‘narrow technicist perception of teaching’. By way of a conclusion, we have considered the relationship between teacher agency and professional learning communities and for us it remains unresolved whether PLCs offer a significant opportunity to span the divide between technical training and mastery of complex processes. We hope that this discussion presents readers with insight and opportunities to delve further into the conundrum of PLCs as affordances for agency in and of themselves or dependent upon agency for their critical success.

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


Notes 1 ent_data/file/780134/ITE_handbook_April_2019_200219.pdf 2 3 4 5 gclid=CjwKCAjwg-DpBRBbEiwAEV1_-IBvwuU965zssVIZ7YDrRhsSKR409OfTkCp urfLuI5BjOBOBNU5LxxoCJVkQAvD_BwE

References Avis, J. (2005) ‘Beyond performativity: Reflections on activist professionalism and the labour process in further education’. Journal of Educational Policy, 20(2), pp. 209– 222. Avis, J. 2011. Workplace learning, knowledge, practice and transformation. Journal for Critical Training Policy, 8(2): pp. 166–193. Biesta, G. (2004) ‘The community of those who have nothing in common: Education and the language of responsibility’. Interchange, 35(3), pp. 307–324. Bolam, R., & Weindling, D. (2006) Synthesis of research and evaluation projects concerned with capacity-building through teachers’ professional development. London: General Teaching Council for England. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A. & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Research Report 637. London: DfES and University of Bristol. Boulton, H., & Hramiak, A. (2012). ‘E-flection: the development of reflective communities of learning for trainee teachers through the use of shared online web logs’. Reflective Practice, 13(4), pp. 503–515. doi:10.1080/14623943.2012.670619 Carpenter, J. P., Tur, G., & Marín, V. I. (2016). ‘What do US and Spanish pre-service teachers think about educational and professional use of Twitter? A comparative study’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, pp. 131–143. Hammersley-Fletcher, L., Lewin, C., Davies, C., Duggan, J., Rowley, H. & Spink, E. (2015) Evidence-based teaching: advancing capability and capacity for enquiry in schools: interim report. Nottingham: National College for Teaching & Leadership. Hargreaves, D. (1996) Teaching as a Research-based Profession: Possibilities and Prospects, Teacher Training Agency Annual Lecture. London Teacher Training Agency Hramiak, A., & Boulton, H. (2013). Escalating the use of Web 2.0 technology in secondary schools in the United Kingdom: barriers and enablers beyond teacher training. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 11(2), pp. 91–100. Iredale, A. (2012) ‘Down the rabbit-hole: routinised practices, Dewey and teacher training in the lifelong learning sector’. Journal of Higher Education, Skills and Work Based Learning, 2(1), pp. 54–62. Iredale, A. (2015) In pursuit of professional knowledge and practice: some experiences of lifelong learning sector trainee teachers in England 2008–10. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield. Iredale, A. (2018) Teacher Education in lifelong learning: developing professionalism as a democratic endeavour. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

96 Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne Iredale, A., Stapleford, K., Tremayne, D., Farrell, L., Holbrey, C., & Sheridan-Ross, J. (2019). A review and synthesis of the use of social media in initial teacher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, pp. 1–16. Izadinia, M. (2013) ‘A review of research on trainee teachers’ professional identity’. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), pp. 694–713. Jackson, D., & Temperley, J. (2007) From professional learning community to networked learning community. In Stoll, L. & Louis, K.S. (eds) Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas, Maidenhead: OUP pp.45–62. Kemmis, S. (2012) ‘Researching educational praxis: spectator and participant perspectives’. British Educational Research Journal, 38(6), pp. 885–905. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2015). ‘Teacher professionalization in the age of social networking sites’. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), pp. 480–501. Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Selwyn, N. (2018) ‘Twenty years of online teacher communities: a systematic review of formally organized and informally-developed learning groups’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, pp. 302–315. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lingis, A. (1994) The community of those who have nothing in common. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Little, J.W. (1982) ‘Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success’. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), pp. 325–340. Little, J.W. (2003) ‘Inside teacher community: representations of classroom practice’. Teachers College Record, 105(6), pp.913–945. Little, J.W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the learningcentered school. Arlington, VA: National Education Association. Maclure, M (2005) ‘Clarity bordering on stupidity’: where’s the quality in systematic review? Journal of Education Policy, 20:4, pp. 393–416. McLaughlin, M.W., & Talbert, J.E. (2001) Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nicoll, K., & Fejes, A. (2011) ‘Lifelong learning: a pacification of “know how”’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30(4), pp. 403–417. Nykvist, S., & Mukherjee, M. (2016). ‘Who am I? Developing pre-service teacher identity in a digital world’. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, pp. 851–857. Ottesen, E. (2007) ‘Reflection in teacher education’. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 8(1), pp. 31–46. Philpott, C. (2014) Theories of professional learning: a critical guide for teacher educators. Northwich: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017) Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Development in Education, 43(3), pp. 318–333. Philpott, C., & Poultney, V. (2018) Evidence-based teaching: a critical overview for enquiring teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015) Teacher agency: an ecological approach. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Sfard, A., & Prusak, A. (2005) ‘Telling identities: in search of an analytic tool for investigating learning as a culturally shaped activity’. Educational Researcher, 34(4), pp. 14–22. Stoll, L., & Seashore Louis, K. (eds) (2007) Professional learning communities: divergence, depth and dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

PLCs as sites for teacher learning


Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006) ‘Professional learning communities: a review of the literature’. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), pp. 221–258. Talbert, J.E. (2010) ‘Professional learning communities at the crossroads: how systems hinder or engender change’. In Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (eds) Second international handbook of educational change. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 555–571. Tremayne, D. (2018) ‘Informal online learning communities as sites for professional learning and agency’. Paper presented at the IPDA 51st international conference, Border crossings: professional learning in the 21st century. Birmingham, 16–17 November 2018. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). ‘Teacher collaboration: A systematic review’. Educational Research Review, 15, pp. 17–40. Vlieghe, J., Vandermeersche, G., & Soetaert, R. (2016). ‘Social media in literacy education: exploring social reading with pre-service teachers’. New Media & Society, 18(5), pp. 800–816. Wain, K. (2006) ‘Contingency, education, and the need for reassurance’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25(1), pp. 37–45. Watson, C. (2014). Effective professional learning communities? The possibilities for teachers as agents of change in schools. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1), pp. 18–29. Weston, D. (2019). CPD spend analysis. Teacher Development Trust. [online] Available at: Wheeler, S., & Wheeler, D. (2009). ‘Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher training’. Learning Media and Technology, 34(1), pp. 1–10. 17439880902759851


Teacher learning Schön and the language of reflective practice Stephen Newman

Acknowledgements Edited extracts from Philosophy and Teacher Education: A Reinterpretation of Donald A. Schön’s Epistemology of Reflective Practice by Stephen Newman, Copyright © Stephen Newman 1999, are reproduced with permission of The Licensor through PLSclear. Extracts from Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions by Donald A. Schön, Copyright © 1987 Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, are reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.

Introduction In his book on theories of professional learning, Philpott devoted Chapter 2 to a consideration of experiential learning and the reflective practitioner, and drew our attention to the work of Kolb, Argyris, and Schön. Philpott asked us to consider how the models suggested by these authors might help us to understand professional learning, what limitations the models suggested by these authors might have, and the possible implications for initial teacher education. His concerns are central to developing research-informed teacher learning. For many, not least those involved in initial teacher education, whether they be tutors, mentors, or the students themselves, theories of professional learning are often seen these days as part and parcel of the development of the professional teacher. Presumably, if we know and understand different theories of learning, then we can be more effective as professional teachers because we will have a “more detailed or insightful view of how learning takes place” (Philpott, 2014, p. 1). There are several points to be made here. The first of these is perhaps merely practical; with so many theories of learning, which ones should be included in initial teacher training, and which ones omitted? But other issues are more profound; many theories of learning are giving different accounts of learning, and are incompatible with each other, so the arguments of each theory need to be examined closely. Whether the theories themselves are coherent also needs to be considered; in fact, many of the so-called theories of learning have been subjected to

Teacher learning


extensive criticism but much of this criticism seems to have been completely ignored by those involved in teaching such theories to training teachers. Thus, for example, despite robust criticism of Howard Gardner’s notion of multiple intelligences (White, 2004), it seems that some teachers continue to use approaches based on that account without knowing of such criticisms, let alone understanding either the theory (Sharp, Bowker, & Byrne, 2008, p. 302) or Gardner’s own views (Sharp et al., 2008, p. 305). One of the most popular notions is that of the reflective teacher, a notion so popular that it was observed over 20 years ago that “any kind of thinking about one’s practice tends to get described as reflective” (Parker, 1997, p. 30, emphasis in original), with the result that “the linguistic currency of ‘reflection’ has become devalued beyond the point of usefulness” (Parker, 1997, p. 30). Chief amongst the theoretical accounts concerning reflection is the one offered by Donald Schön in books such as The Reflective Practitioner (Schön, 1983), Educating the Reflective Practitioner (Schön, 1987b), and The Reflective Turn (Schön, 1991), as well as in a large number of other publications (Newman & van der Waarde, 2015). It is no exaggeration to say that it is from Schön’s work that the term ‘reflective practice’ is largely derived (The Open University, 2017, p. 17); it is his work that is of “preeminent importance” (Fish, 1989, pp. 27–28) and which has had the most influence on establishing the notion of reflective practice (Hilsden, 2005, p. 59). Here it is important to note that Schön’s use of the term ‘reflection’ is distinctive (Gilroy, 1993, p. 127), and also that the details of his argument are often not examined (Beck & Chiapello, 2017, pp. 216–217). Despite the fact that Schön’s work has been extensively criticised (see, for example, Gilroy, 1993; Newman, 1999b), it is still viewed by many as unproblematic, and its possible implications for teacher education often assumed rather than argued (Russell, 2013, p. 85). As a result, in examining Schön and the language of reflective practice, it will be important to draw out the distinctive details of Schön’s approach. Philpott argued that Schön’s account arose from Schön’s dissatisfaction with a particular view of knowledge; Philpott drew our attention to the fact that Schön was unhappy with the idea that we can take knowledge ‘off the shelf’, as it were, and apply it to real-life situations – situations which Schön sometimes refers to as the “swampy lowlands of practice” (Schön & Rein, 1994, p. 189). Instead, argued Schön, we need a new form of knowledge – one which can cope with the messy realities of everyday life; what Kinsella calls “the messiness of professional practice” (Kinsella, 2010, p. 566). To make this point about new knowledge explicit: Schön wanted to develop an “alternative epistemology of professional practice” (Eraut, 1995, p. 21), an aspect frequently overlooked (Kinsella, 2009, p. 5). It might be supposed that an account which, as Philpott put it, “emphasises the importance of personally generated, contextually specific solutions to ever-changing circumstances” (Philpott, 2014, p. 9) is to be wholeheartedly welcomed. But Philpott was worried that such ‘personal knowledge’ might be restrictive (Philpott, 2014, p. 10), that Schön’s account was “arguably over reliant on considering learners as decontextualised individuals” (Philpott, 2014, p. 13), and that it paid insufficient attention to the “social aspects of professional learning” (Philpott, 2014,

100 Stephen Newman p. 13). At this stage, then, it is appropriate to turn to a detailed consideration of Schön’s account in order to judge whether Philpott’s concerns were justified.

Reflecting on practice: Schön and the Quist/Petra case study In his work, Schön made use of a number of different case studies, at a variety of scales, and involving a variety of contexts. I shall take here one drawn from an architectural design studio (Schön, 1983, pp. 79–194), involving the discussion between an experienced professional (given the fictitious name Quist) and a design student (given the name Petra). My reasons for taking this case study at this point of the argument are threefold: first, this is one to which Schön returned frequently (see, for example, Schön, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987a, 1987b; Schön & Wiggins, 1992) and it has been termed “Schön’s favourite example” (Eraut, 1995, p. 14); second, it involves an interaction which would be familiar in some respects in other educational contexts, and, third, it brings to the fore some of the critical aspects of Schön’s account which require a closer examination. I here draw on my previous analyses of Schön’s work (Newman, 1996, 1999a, 1999b). In introducing this case study, Schön recorded the type of exchanges which it would not be surprising to record between other students and tutors; in the teacher training and educational context this could be the general format of a conversation between an experienced teacher, mentor or tutor, and a beginning teacher, though obviously the content would be different. Schön noted that Quist is “a master designer” (Schön, 1983, p. 79), that he has “unfailing virtuosity” and that his demonstration is “masterful” (Schön, 1983, p. 104), whilst Petra’s experience of designing, although less clearly defined, is clearly such that she can be considered as a novice relative to Quist. Further detail about Petra’s relative lack of architectural design experience is given by Simmonds (1978, p. 116). For Schön, however, the case study offered a perspective on what he considered to be a fundamental issue, namely the ‘paradox of learning’. The ‘paradox of learning’ For Schön, Quist has tacit knowledge-in-action which is exemplified by the way in which the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of his behaviour interact (Schön, 1983, p. 81). This, argued Schön, presents Petra with a problem: Quist’s movements as he draws the lines on the paper can be explained only by Quist’s words, yet the words themselves can be explained only by the lines which Quist’s movements make. Schön argued that this problem is resolved as Quist and Petra “become more confident that they have achieved congruence of meaning” (Schön, 1983, p. 81), following which “their dialogue tends to become elliptical and inscrutable to outsiders” (Schön, 1983, p. 81). The Quist/Petra case study was one to which Schön returned in his book Educating the Reflective Practitioner (Schön, 1987b, pp. 44–79), where he argued that the case study was illustrative of “a general paradox attendant on the teaching and learning of any really new competence or understanding” (Schön, 1987b, p. 83), concluding that this

Teacher learning


“logical paradox… accurately describes the experience of learning to design” (Schön, 1987b, p. 83). Schön went on to draw a parallel between the resolution of the paradox in the case study and the convergence of meaning inherent in all human communication (Schön, 1987b, p. 96) where by definition there must be convergence of meaning for communication to be communication. Schön argued that the paradox is resolved: Many succeed… in crossing over an apparently unbridgeable communication gap to a seeming convergence of meaning… [by a dialogue having] three essential features: it takes place in the context of the student’s attempts to design; it makes use of actions as well as words; and it depends on reciprocal reflection-in-action. (Schön, 1987b, pp. 100–101) The argument developed by Schön in favour of these three “essential features” points out that it is a normal part of coaching for the coach to demonstrate to a student aspects or parts of what is being taught with the intention that the student should imitate certain actions (Schön, 1987b, p. 107). Schön drew a parallel with children’s play and socialisation; we are, considered Schön, continually imitating others, “and usually without feeling that we are doing anything remarkable” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108). Schön, however, believed that the “obviousness of imitation dissolves… when we examine it more closely” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108).

An example of imitation: a mother and her baby In an attempt to support the assertion that the obviousness of imitation dissolves when we examine it more closely, Schön described the case of a mother and her baby. He had observed that when the mother started clapping, so did the baby and that as the mother changed the speed of her clapping, the baby did likewise. Similarly, as the mother developed the game, the baby did so too. Schön’s proposal was that the baby, in imitating its mother, was engaged in a process of “extraordinary complexity” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108) by means of which the baby was capable of producing and controlling, from internal cues of feeling, what it apprehends through visual observation of external cues. Somehow, it manages to coordinate inner and outer cues to produce actions that conform, in some essential respects, to the actions observed. (Schön, 1987b, p. 108) This is, argued Schön, an example which illustrates that imitation is “a process of selective construction” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108); the imitator (in this case, the baby) has, proposed Schön, “access to observation of the process… and of the product… and may regulate his selective construction by reference to either or both of these” (Schön, 1987b, p. 109). He concluded:

102 Stephen Newman The baby’s imitative construction does not depend on its ability to make a verbal description of what it sees, hears, or does… Its constructive process is nevertheless a form of reflection-in-action—an on-the-spot inquiry in which the imitator constructs and tests, in its own action, the essential features of the action it has observed. (Schön, 1987b, p. 109) Examining the example Let us examine the example more carefully. First, it is important to note that Schön’s claim that there is reflection-in-action is not supported by any empirical observation he has made. There is no evidence to deny the possibility of another baby which does not reflect-in-action and yet still manages to mimic its mother’s clapping. Nor is it possible to conduct tests on two sets of babies, one set which do ‘reflect-in-action’ and another set which do not (and find that only those babies who ‘reflect-in-action’ mimic their mothers), for there is no way of determining into which of these two groups any particular baby would belong (Malcolm, 1993, p. 52). A second difficulty relates to the nature of the processes alleged by Schön to be taking place in the baby as it mimics its mother, processes which Schön describes, as we have seen, with the single word “somehow” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108). The implication of Schön’s thesis is that the baby, in order to mimic its mother and so achieve what Schön terms ‘convergence of meaning’, must already have a language where it can take its perceptions of its mother and in a ‘constructive process’ privately translate them into its own performance. The arguments against such a view have been explored elsewhere (Gilroy, 1996; Newman, 1999b). On a Schönian interpretation, the baby is seen as being engaged in a highly sophisticated and intellectual activity (Malcolm, 1981, p. 8) which occurs privately “in its perception” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108), the result of which is then tested in its actions (Schön, 1987b, p. 109), this activity being reflection-in-action. However, the notion of a private language is nonsensical; if a supposed language is private, innate, and inner, there is no public check on its employment. Therefore, it cannot have meaning, and cannot be understood and, in consequence, cannot be considered to be a language (Wittgenstein, 1967, §§ 269–275, pp. 94e–96e).1 Consequently, not only does this example fail to show reflection-in-action, it also fails to explain how any such reflection-in-action could operate (Malcolm, 1981, pp. 9–11). Thus, as I have argued previously (Newman, 1999b, pp. 120–121), this case study, which Schön presented as one supporting his notion of reflection-inaction, is, rather, a heavily disguised assertion about the existence of reflectionin-action. Schön’s empirical observations, for the reasons given above, do not and cannot reveal it; at best they merely remind us that convergence of meaning is, in practice, normally achieved. Furthermore, Schön’s positing of the notion of the baby reflecting-in-action, far from explaining convergence of meaning, opens up new difficulties.

Teacher learning


An alternative perspective An alternative perspective about how convergence of meaning is achieved, without recourse to the difficulties of the account that Schön posited, comes from the later work of Wittgenstein, to which brief reference has been made above. Let us return again first to the example that Schön gave, that of the baby clapping and imitating its mother. Here we have seen that although the mother, and Schön, take the baby’s behaviour as a meaningful performance of some inner intention (reflection), the notion of inner intention cannot, for the reasons which have been discussed, be the basis of language (convergence of meaning). If we reject the notion that the baby is ‘somehow’ reflecting on practice, what alternative is possible? The starting point for the reinterpretation here must once again be Schön’s description of the interaction between the mother and her baby. We read, for example, of how the mother starts clapping, and the baby copies her. Although it is tempting to believe that the baby has ‘understood’ the rule and then applies it (as Schön argued), we may note that it is the baby’s clapping that is taken as a criterion of understanding at this stage of the baby’s life. As Schön himself said: “When the baby claps, the mother smiles and nods, rewarding its performance” (Schön, 1987b, p. 109). On this view, that the baby “does at it has seen its mother do” (Schön, 1987b, p. 108) is a natural form of human behaviour; “imitation… does not depend on an explicit verbal formulation of similarities perceived and enacted” (Schön, 1987b, p. 109) as the baby “can produce an action similar to the action it has perceived without being able to say ‘similar with respect to what’” (Schön, 1987b, p. 109). Thus, when an infant behaves in this or that way, the infant does not mean anything by that behaviour, but that behaviour may be taken as meaningful by others. If, following Wittgenstein, we allow ‘language’ to include the non-verbal (Gilroy, 1996, pp. 156–164), then we do not have to assume that a meaning exists ‘behind’ or ‘beneath’ an infant’s behaviour. We merely recognise that many of these behaviours are natural to human infants qua human infants. What meaning might be attributed to certain behaviours will depend on the context; in some circumstances we might want to say (for example) that the baby is clapping; in others we might want to say that the baby is excited. In another context, we might attribute another meaning, or no meaning, to the baby’s behaviour. Even if the mother takes the baby’s behaviour as a meaningful performance of some inner intention (reflection), this assumption is not evidence of any such inner process. Whether the mother, or we, do take such behaviour as meaningful or meaningless would depend on the behaviour and the contexts (Wittgenstein, 1968, p. 290; Wittgenstein, 1969, § 10, p. 3e). How the infant moves from this pre-intellectual phase to have language has been argued elsewhere – see especially, Gilroy (1996); the brief summary offered here does not do justice to the complexities and subtleties of Wittgenstein’s argument but suffices to indicate that even in the case of learning something “really new” such as a first language, the supposed logical paradox is a myth. So, let us now return again to the Quist/ Petra case study.

104 Stephen Newman Schön, in presenting his case study of Quist and Petra as an example of how the supposed logical paradox of learning is resolved, clearly invites us at the outset to put Quist and Petra into two allegedly incommensurable frames of the expert and the novice. As we have seen, Schön argued that Petra is involved in learning a “really new competence or understanding” (Schön, 1987b, p. 83) and that “she needs to look for something but does not know what that something is….Yet, at the beginning, she can neither do it nor recognize it when she sees it” (Schön, 1987b, p. 83). However, it is worth noting that there is evidence within Schön’s work itself that these so-called frames seem very far from being incommensurable (Newman, 1999b, pp. 115–116). We see, for example, that Quist and Petra are able to communicate using language, that Quist has given Petra a set of design specifications and a description of the site on which the school is to be built (Schön, 1987b, p. 44), that Quist is able to familiarise himself with the drawings Petra has prepared and is able to listen to Petra explain how she is stuck, following which he (as the so-called ‘reflective practitioner’) ‘reframes’ the problem (Schön, 1987b, p. 46) and talks to Petra (Schön, 1987b, pp. 44–58). In this particular case it would seem, then, that there is considerable evidence that, as a student designer, Petra is coming to the design studio with at least some awareness of what designing involves, and as such has acquired at least some understanding of the criteria which mark out successful designing (Schön, 1987b, p. 45). Interestingly, we learn elsewhere (Simmonds, 1978, p. 116) that Petra had a BA in mathematics, had taught mathematics at a high school for six years, and had become interested in architecture by attending evening lectures. Consequently then, the notion that she is in a completely new environment is not one that appears to be borne out by the facts, and there are grounds to question Schön’s assertions that Petra “does not and cannot understand what designing means” (Schön, 1987b, p. 82), and that she is engaged in the learning of a “really new competence or understanding” (Schön, 1987b, p. 83). This situation brings us back to the task of developing research-informed teacher learning. Schön’s Quist/Petra case study seems analogous to those experienced by those training to be teachers, where training teachers are not in a “really new” environment, and are not in a situation where they ‘do not and cannot understand’ what teaching means (see Gilroy, 2017a, p. 503). That beginning teachers are not in a paradoxical situation or incommensurable frames is, in fact, supported by Schön’s contention in relation to the Quist/Petra example that even if a coach “could produce good, clear, and compelling descriptions of designing, students… would be likely to find them confusing and mysterious” (Schön, 1987b, p. 100). If there was no convergence of meaning, such confusion and mystery would be a certainty, not merely “likely”, and communication would, by definition, be impossible, not (as Schön argued) merely “very nearly” so (Schön, 1987b, p. 100). An important point to be repeated here is that this supposed paradox is one which, as we have seen, is on Schön’s own admission, resolved in everyday life (Schön, 1987b, p. 230). Schön noted that “in actual practice, practitioners do, without paralysis, reflect-in-action” (Schön, 1983, p. 281) and that the “fear of a paralysis induced by reflection… comes not from the experience of practice” (Schön, 1983, p. 281).

Teacher learning


It may well be that in schools, as in the design studio, certain terms have meanings “very different from their ordinary ones” (Schön, 1981, p. 346), as a result of which the student, on entering the school, enters a new “languagegame” (Schön, 1981, p. 446, footnote 3). As in the design studio, certain words have “different roles” (Schön, 1983, p. 95) to those they have outside that context. The language-game of teaching “is a particular version of ordinary language” (Schön, 1981, pp. 403–404) in which competence involves not only the ability to use words appropriately but “norms and competences pertaining to the playing of the language game in a particular context” (Schön, 1981, p. 405). Consequently, we may agree with Schön when he argues that “the artifacts [sic] produced by the designer can themselves be conceived as utterances” (Schön, 1981, p. 470, footnote 5), and that “drawing and talking are complementary ways of designing; together… [making up] the language of designing” (Schön, 1981, p. 349). We can also agree that to design is “to ‘speak,’ in a way, and like speaking, designing can be fluent, halting, firm, or tentative” (Schön, 1981, p. 396), and that “becoming an architect involves learning to play those games” (Schön, 1981, p. 346). In learning to teach, the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of language will be similarly interconnected. This being so, we can agree too with the characterisation of the student learning to teach as someone who may be ‘stuttering’ and who must therefore “learn to speak fluently and clearly” (Schön, 1981, p. 396). If we take this view, we accept that the student, though perhaps ‘stuttering’, has already got the rules or criteria they need to make at least some sense of the language-game of teaching. It follows then that in learning to teach, what is required is that the student be introduced to some of the more specific criteria of that particular language-game. As the language-game consists of the words and the actions into which they are woven (Wittgenstein, 1967, § 7, p. 5e), it follows that this teaching and learning of a language-game will often be best achieved in the particular context. During such activities, many meanings will be understood by non-verbal means; Schön himself notes in his example that the “verbal and non-verbal dimensions are closely connected” (Schön, 1983, p. 81). Other rules may be given to the student explicitly; we see some evidence of this in the Quist/Petra case study, and Schön comments upon it (Schön, 1981, p. 380, p. 392). It would not be surprising if, from time to time, during this initial stage, differences emerge between what the tutor considers to be the language-game and the student’s perception (Gilroy, 1993, p. 136); if this is so, an important part of the tutor’s role will be to ensure that both the tutor and student are playing the same game with the same rules. Beginning teachers may quite naturally put emphasis (and expect emphasis to be put) on achieving competence in a limited notion of the language-game of teaching, faced with the immediate demands of the school and the classroom (Elliott, Stemler, Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Hoffman, 2011, p. 99). This approach is characterised by Philpott, referring to work by Brown and Duguid (2000), as demand-side learning, “led by learners who learn what they want to learn… [and] how and when they want to learn it” (Philpott, 2014, p. 12). In such an approach, if “abstract conceptualisation” is used, it is used “retrospectively

106 Stephen Newman to make sense of experiences learners have had and… challenges they are wrestling with… to make a success of the situation they currently find themselves in” (Philpott, 2014, p. 12). Ofsted, for example, require teacher trainees to compile “reflective journals” (Ofsted, 2018, p. 14); their “critical reflections, enabling them to analyse, evaluate and improve their practice” (Ofsted, 2018, p. 40). Philpott contrasts this demand-side learning with supply-side learning, where “what is learned, how and when, is decided by the providers of the learning” (Philpott, 2014, p. 12), and which could mean that “student teachers are being asked to make sense of ideas and models that do not yet relate to any experiences they have had” (Philpott, 2014, p. 12). More generally, teachers in England are enjoined to be reflective, and reflection forms part of the Teachers’ Standards, which state that “Appropriate self-evaluation, reflection and professional development activity is critical to improving teachers’ practice at all career stages” (Department for Education, 2013, p. 7) and that teachers should “reflect systematically on the effectiveness of lessons and approaches to teaching” (Department for Education, 2013, p. 11). There are, however, grounds to question any simplistic differentiation between demand-side and supply-side learning. Whether all that teachers should reflect on is practice, narrowly defined, is debatable (Meierdirk, 2016, p. 369). The demands on teachers now far exceed those immediately related to actual teaching in the classroom (Mohamed, Valcke, & De Wever, 2017, p. 152), and the contexts within which the teaching profession operates are far more complex than that which is suggested by Schön in his reference to the “behavioral world… [as] an artifact [sic] which professional and client jointly create” (Schön, 1983, p. 303). Descriptions of teacher reflection which are limited to enjoining teachers to improving their practice in the narrow sense given by, for example, the Department for Education and Ofsted, assume teachers can neglect the broader social and institutional contexts that influence their work (Zeichner, 2008). Consequently, any simplistic dichotomy between ‘supply-side’ and ‘demand-side learning’ (Philpott, 2014, p. 12) needs to be resisted in favour of an approach which gives teachers opportunities to develop not only competence as a teacher, but expertise as “agentic reflective practitioners who want to change (improve) their practice, explore the meaning of their work, and so seek out choices that are available to them” (Atkinson, 2012, p. 178). In terms of research-informed teacher learning, teacher education and training, and professional development, teachers, including experienced, student and beginning teachers, do learn from each other: planning lessons, observing teaching and children learning, discussing, sharing with short papers, presentations, and making observations in particular contexts (Dudley, 2013, p. 108). As Philpott noted, student teachers can “develop ways of understanding their experience through their interaction with more experienced members of the school” (Philpott, 2014, p. 11). Whether all learn as effectively as they might in all such situations is debatable. In the context of teacher education, it is often the case that observations of an experienced teacher by a student teacher may make the experienced teacher’s work look effortless, spontaneous, and intuitive (Philpott, 2014, p. 12); indeed, if asked, the teacher may not be able to explain what he or

Teacher learning


she is doing to keep things going so smoothly (Shim & Roth, 2008; Elliott et al., 2011). It may well be that communication between coach and student at the beginning will be “difficult” (Munby & Russell, 1989, p. 73) and that at the beginning of the practicum, the “likelihood of the student grasping the meaning that the coach has in mind is very small” (MacKinnon & Erickson, 1988, p. 118). It might be that, in some cases, student learning is too narrow and parochial (Philpott, 2014, p. 11). Thus there is no reason to suppose that at the end of a period of initial teacher education, a fully fledged expert teacher will emerge, with nothing left to learn (Gilroy, 2017b, p. 129). But such concerns are very far from saying that learning in such situations presents a logical (or even an empirical) paradox. Instead, Schön’s notion of ‘convergence of meaning’ has here been reinterpreted to indicate the developing competence of the novice to move into and within a particular language-game, rather than as being the resolution of any supposed paradox of learning. We may, in the first instance, imitate others around us – this can be considered as where we are beginning to play a language-game without knowledge or understanding of all the rules. We may begin to pick up the rules of a language-game by further imitation, by participation, by observation, or by ‘trial and error’. The rules of a language-game may be written down and codified to help us begin to know what they are and to understand them. On occasions, an explicit explanation or demonstration of the rules of that language-game may be helpful. Sometimes the immediate context can provide the language-game in which “teachers’ cognitions and actions should be investigated while they are teaching because during teaching, knowing and acting are inseparable” (Leijen et al., 2013, p. 315). Similarly, we can envisage teacher in-service professional development as providing opportunities for more experienced teachers to develop their understandings and expertise in other language-games such as those of universities, of other schools, of research, and of academic writing. In both pre-service and in-service situations, there is a recognition that learning new language-games can involve experiences from different contexts, interaction with others, including feedback from supervisors, and can be oral as well as written (Leijen et al., 2013, pp. 320–321). We may agree with Schön when he argued that one essential feature of convergence of meaning is that it takes place in the context of the student’s attempts to learn a new language-game, and also that it makes use of actions as well as words (including telling and listening, demonstrating and imitating). We may even feel inclined to agree to call these activities, as Schön does, “the ladder of reflection” (Schön, 1987b, p. 115) but that term now becomes reinterpreted as a description of these activities, not of some inner, mysterious, process. In such ways, beginning teachers can start to acquire the competences required to at least achieve formal recognition as a teacher, with further expertise or mastery developing in subsequent years (Mohamed et al., 2017, p. 152). But the third ‘essential feature’ of Schön’s account, namely that convergence of meaning “depends on reciprocal reflection-in-action” (Schön, 1987b, p. 101), has been shown to rest upon an incoherent account of meaning; an approach which had already been

108 Stephen Newman examined and rejected by Wittgenstein. Schön’s notion of reflection is not needed to explain the observations, and none of the observations could be explained by it.

Conclusion: Schön and the language of reflective practice Philpott was right to suggest Schön’s account is “arguably over reliant on considering learners as decontextualised individuals” (Philpott, 2014, p. 13), and that it pays insufficient attention to the “social aspects of professional learning” (Philpott, 2014, p. 13). We can now see that those criticisms are more properly directed at the aspects of Schön’s account in which Schön posited a notion of reflection which relies on an incoherent and irredeemably private account of meaning, and in which he posited a logical paradox of learning, which he then failed to resolve. Schön has ironically achieved fame for an aspect of his account, namely a particular notion of ‘reflection’, which, on inspection, is found wanting. Ironic, too, is that Schön believed that in developing his particular notion of reflection, he was building on Wittgenstein’s later work (Schön, 1963, p. 33; Schön, 1988, p. 29), the very work which has helped to reveal fundamental difficulties in Schön’s account. However, a clearer view of the situations described by Schön shows that the alleged paradoxes of learning Schön posited do not exist. Having rejected Schön’s meta-epistemological account, we can then turn our attention back once more to what remains – the detailed observations of actual examples in the case studies which Schön used – and relate them to teacher education and professional development. When we do so, we see that learners are not ‘decontextualised individuals’, and that professional learning is inherently social. The account offered here shows how, over time, new understandings, competences and skills are learnt and developed.

Note 1 As is customary, where necessary, references to Wittgenstein’s work show paragraph numbers thus: §, with page numbers using the suffix e to indicate translations into English.

References Atkinson, B. M. (2012). Rethinking reflection: Teachers’ critiques. The Teacher Educator, 47(3), 175–194. doi:10.1080/08878730.2012.685796 Beck, J., & Chiapello, L. (2017). Schön’s intellectual legacy: A citation analysis of DRS publications (2010–2016). Design Studies, 56, 205–224. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.005 Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Department for Education. (2013). Teachers’ Standards: Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. London: Department for Education. Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance

Teacher learning


their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121. doi:10.1016/j. tate.2013. 04. 006 Elliott, J. G., Stemler, S. E., Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Hoffman, N. (2011). The socially skilled teacher and the development of tacit knowledge. British Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 83–103. doi:0.1080/01411920903420016 Eraut, M. (1995). Schön shock: A case for reframing reflection-in-action? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9–22. doi:10.1080/1354060950010102 Fish, D. (1989). Learning through practice in initial teacher training: A challenge for the partners. London: Kogan Page. Gilroy, P. (1993). Reflections on Schön: An epistemological critique and a practical alternative. In P. Gilroy & M. Smith (Eds.), International analyses of teacher education (pp. 125–142). Abingdon: Carfax Publishing Company. Gilroy, P. (1996). Meaning without words: Philosophy and non-verbal communication. Aldershot: Avebury. Gilroy, P. (2017a). Metaphors, mentors and transformations in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(5), 503–505. doi:10.1080/02607476.2017.1380574 Gilroy, P. (2017b). Pre-service student teachers and their programmes: The Rite de Passage from student to master teacher. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 129–131. doi:10.1080/07360932.2017.1286754 Hilsden, J. (2005). Rethinking reflection: A study involving students of nursing. Journal of Practice Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 55–70. doi:10.1921/jpts.v6i1.322 Kinsella, E. A. (2009). Professional knowledge and the epistemology of reflective practice. Nursing Philosophy, 11, 3–14. doi:10.1111/j.1466-769X.2009.00428.x Kinsella, E. A. (2010). The art of reflective practice in health and social care: Reflections on the legacy of Donald Schön. Reflective Practice, 11(4), 565–575. doi:10.1080/ 14623943.2010.506260 Leijen, A., Allas, R., Toom, A., Husu, J., Mena Marcos, J.-J., Meijer, P., … Krull, E. (2013). Guided reflection for supporting the development of student teachers’ practical knowledge. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 314–322. doi:10.1016/j. sbspro.2014.01.1170 MacKinnon, A. M., & Erickson, G. L. (1988). Taking Schön’s ideas to a science teaching practicum. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 113–137). New York: Teachers College Press. Malcolm, N. (1981). Wittgenstein: The relation of language to instinctive behaviour. Swansea: University College of Swansea. Malcolm, N. (1993). Wittgenstein: A religious point of view? London: Routledge. Meierdirk, C. (2016). Is reflective practice an essential component of becoming a professional teacher? Reflective Practice, 17(3), 369–378. doi:10.1080/14623943.2016.1169169 Mohamed, Z., Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Are they ready to teach? Student teachers’ readiness for the job with reference to teacher competence frameworks. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 151–170. doi:10.1080/02607476.2016.1257509 Munby, H., & Russell, T. (1989). Educating the reflective teacher: An essay review of two books by Donald Schön. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21(1), 71–80. doi:10.1080/ 0022027890210106 Newman, S. (1996). Reflection and teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 22(3), 297–310. doi:10.1080/02607479620269 Newman, S. (1999a). Constructing and critiquing reflective practice. Educational Action Research, 7(1), 145–161. doi:10.1080/09650799900200081

110 Stephen Newman Newman, S. (1999b). Philosophy and teacher education: A reinterpretation of Donald A. Schön’s epistemology of reflective practice. Aldershot: Ashgate. Newman, S., & van der Waarde, K. (2015). Bibliography Donald Schön. Retrieved from Ofsted. (2018). Initial teacher education inspection handbook: For use from April 2018. Manchester: Ofsted. Parker, S. (1997). Reflective teaching in the postmodern world: A manifesto for education in postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Philpott, C. (2014). Theories of professional learning: A critical guide for teacher educators. Northwich: Critical Publishing. Russell, T. (2013). Has reflective practice done more harm than good in teacher education? Phronesis, 2(1), 80–88. doi:10.7202/1015641ar Schön, D. A. (1963). Displacement of concepts. London: Tavistock Publications. Schön, D. A. (1981). Learning a language, learning to design. In W. L. Porter & M. Kilbridge (Eds.), Architecture education study (Vol. 1, pp. 339–471). Cambridge, MA: Consortium of East Coast Schools of Architecture/Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1984). The architectural studio as an exemplar of education for reflection-in-action. Journal of Architectural Education, 38(1), 2–9. doi:10.1080/10464883.1984.10758345 Schön, D. A. (1986). Making meaning: An exploration of artistry in psychoanalysis. The Annual of Psychoanalysis, 14, 301–316. Schön, D. A. (1987a). Changing patterns of inquiry in work and living (The Thomas Cubitt Lecture). Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 135(5367), 225–237. Schön, D. A. (1987b). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1988). Coaching reflective teaching. In P. P. Grimmett & G. L. Erickson (Eds.), Reflection in teacher education (pp. 19–29). New York: Teachers College Press. Schön, D. A. (Ed.) (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York and London: Teachers College Press. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies, 13(2), 135–156. doi:10.1016/0142-694X(92)90268-F Sharp, J. G., Bowker, R., & Byrne, J. (2008). VAK or VAK‐uous? Towards the trivialisation of learning and the death of scholarship. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 293–314. doi:10.1080/02671520701755416 Shim, H. S., & Roth, G. L. (2008). Sharing tacit knowledge among expert teaching professors and mentees: Considerations for career and technical education teacher educators. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 44(4), 5–28. Simmonds, R. P. (1978). Learning to learn and design: The development of effective strategies in a graduate school of architecture. (Doctor of Philosophy), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA. Retrieved from 78718#files-area The Open University. (2017). Learning to teach: Becoming a reflective practitioner. Retrieved from coming-reflective-practitioner/content-section-0?active-tab=description-tab

Teacher learning


White, J. (2004). Howard Gardner: The myth of multiple intelligences. Paper presented at the Institute of Education, University of London, November 17. Retrieved from www. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans. 3rd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. (1968). Notes for lectures on ‘private experience’ and ‘sense data’. The Philosophical Review, 77(3), 275–320. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary studies for the ‘Philosophical investigations’ (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Zeichner, K. (2008). A critical analysis of reflection as a goal for teacher education. Educação & Sociedade, 29(103), 535–554. doi:10.1590/S0101-73302008000200012


Teachers’ professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett

Introduction In September 2016 we had the privilege of presenting in a symposium with Carey Philpott at the British Educational Research Association (BERA) annual conference in Leeds (Nuttall, Beckett, Philpott, & Wrigley, 2016). Our symposium brought together academics and teacher partners to discuss key issues related to how teachers in urban schools not only engage with existing research but can also be encouraged and enabled to create new forms of knowledge, particularly around working with students and families in areas of high poverty and deprivation. Carey’s paper presentation in this symposium brought attention to canonical narratives of disadvantage, such as those found in government policy, which can constrain teachers’ professional learning about disadvantaged students and, therefore, their professional responses to them. Carey brought us to the conclusion that teachers’ professional learning is limited and limiting without opportunity to be involved in critical discourses and narratives. In this chapter, we draw inspiration from Carey’s paper presentation and his further work published posthumously with Val Poultney in their book, Evidencebased Teaching (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). We build on Carey’s remarks at 2016 BERA that external, top-down ‘canonical’ discourses around poverty and deprivation can come to dominate teachers’ learning, which dovetails with his chapter with Poultney on knowledge mobilisation and translational research for teachers’ professional learning. He consistently argued that ways need to be found to disrupt these discourses rather than reify them. This is particularly relevant given the current context in England, where policy interventions and Ofsted inspections have, in recent years, portended negative stereotypes of ‘inadequate’ urban schools. Reports of proposed changes to Ofsted’s school inspection framework, for implementation in September 2019, suggest that heed has been taken of some of the negative consequences of the predilection for school results alone (Adams, 2019). This may afford cautious optimism for teachers and school leaders in urban schools. However, the proposed shift to focus more on ‘quality of education’ and students’ progress measures may not necessarily provide means for a rebuttal of extant discourses around poverty and insistence on potentially damaging policy

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


interventions. Teachers and academic partners in many parts of England, including the north where the research we present here is located, have long contested these policy discourses (see Beckett, 2014, 2016). What is common across these voices is a commitment to equity and social justice (see Glazzard and Stones, Chapter 10, this book). Teachers and academic partners see the value in developing a wider, more diverse and dispersed leadership that promises pedagogical rejuvenation and school improvement of a more hopeful and broad sort than that normally discerned by policy-makers and the school’s inspectorate (Beckett & Nuttall, 2019). In what follows, we make further effort to deflect any hint of defective teaching practices and to consider what, if any, changes might come from the tenuous policy shift in England to retain teachers. In doing so, it is important to critically converse with Philpott and Poultney given their advice that it is crucial to mentor and support research-active practitioners. This opens up potential for practitioners, along with professional educators including teacher educators, not only to engage in more democratic forms of research-informed teacher learning but to furnish evidence for alternative policy discourses and narratives about students in poverty. To elucidate these arguments about the importance of teachers engaging with research – not just as consumers, but also as producers – we report here on a local ‘Leading Learning’ three-year non-accredited CPD programme (2012–2014) that mentored teachers to become research-active and publish their teacher inquiry findings. This continuous and sustained CPD was designed to develop teachers’ professional knowledge and analytic skills to inform more professionally determined courses of exemplary action and participate in constructive dialogue to challenge negative stereotypes. Here in this chapter we offer an overview of how engagement with this CPD programme enabled teachers in their own school settings to embark on research-informed teacher learning and think more critically about their practice in relation to government policies. An exemplary teacher inquiry project helps us to explore the extent to which collaborative practitioner research and professional learning can create a space for re-conceptualising the effects of poverty in the classroom and developing socially situated school improvement strategies (Nuttall & Doherty, 2014). The tensions between the ‘canonical’ accountability discourses permeating schools irrespective of proposed policy shifts and a deeper, more critical knowledge framework will be illustrated.

Teachers’ professional knowledge about poverty and disadvantage Philpott (2017) and Philpott and Poultney (2018) critique the ways in which policy trends and education reforms of successive governments not only diminish expectations of, and opportunity for, professional knowledge building work from schools and teachers, but place them under increased surveillance and standardisation, which severely limits any potential to do so. Much has been written elsewhere of professional anxiety about the lack of heed of research in teacher education alongside concern with government insistence on ‘evidence-based teaching’ (see Oancea & Furlong, 2007; Furlong, 2013; BERA-RSA, 2014; Whitty, 2014). This

114 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett can potentially construct dubious directions for research-informed practice. Anxieties are also raised in consecutive Conservative UK Governments’ neoliberal policy environments, which seemingly intend to sideline ‘the university project’ in teacher education (Furlong, 2013; Whitty, 2014) as it moves training into schools. A sense of unease continues with the Department for Education’s commitment to a mandatory core curriculum for teacher education providers tied to a rigorous inspection system with punitive sanctions for institutions that do not measure up. The upshot is that teachers’ professional learning faces significant challenges in confronting barriers in this vernacular neoliberal policy regime to embed genuine, research-informed teacher education programmes that are contextually sensitive and locally responsive. It could be said that the policy limitations which constrain teachers’ professional learning and development is most keenly felt by school Heads and teachers in urban school settings. In these schools, the effects of poverty and cumulative multiple deprivation are tangible yet teachers’ worlds come to be dominated by the ‘what works’ agenda (Biesta, 2007, 2010). Policy metaphors such as ‘raising achievement’ and ‘closing the gap’, frequently based on dubious forms of evidence, force teachers’ attention on increasing students’ attainment in standardised tests above all else. In this scenario the teacher’s role is minimised to that of an ‘expert technician’. One very striking aspect for school Heads and teachers is the insistence that gaps in educational attainment can be narrowed, and indeed removed entirely, within the schooling system – despite the persistence of educational and social inequalities and years of austerity measures leading to rising levels of wage inequality and child poverty (Bibby, Lupton, & Raffo, 2017). This long-standing policy agenda has successfully built cultures of compliance and accountability within the teaching profession. This has given rise to teacher identities formed around notions of the teacher as technician and compliant professional (Groundwater-Smith & Mockler, 2009; Sachs & Mockler, 2012; also Iredale and Tremayne, Chapter 7, this book), and these identities are further reinforced through different mechanisms, or policy technologies as Ball (2016) called them. For example, teachers’ standard diet of professional development activity is largely centred on improving test scores and adopting accepted pedagogical and school improvement practices (Hardy & Melville, 2013). Philpott and Poultney problematise this culture of professional development, which has implications for research-informed teacher learning. They suggest that the current favour given to medical models, RCTs and systematic literature reviews means that the evidence base presented to teachers has become more focused on the methods of collecting data than the purpose and impact on educational outcomes. They align with those who challenge these particular ways of thinking about educational research and suggest that preoccupation with numbers and formulaic research outputs is in some way eroding the democracy of teacher professionalism (Biesta, 2017; Campbell, Pollock, Briscoe, Carr-Harris, & Tuters, 2017). They cite Biesta (2017), who challenges the demand for teachers to work in this ‘evidence-based’ way,

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


as an attempt to eradicate professional judgement with regard to the ‘how’ and the ‘what for’ of professional action from the domain of professionalism. It seeks to transform professions into abstract ‘machines’ in which reflection and judgement are seen as a weakness rather than an essential part. This shows how the call for an evidence-based approach is not a deepening of the knowledge and judgement of professionals, but rather an attempt to overrule such knowledge and judgement. In precisely this sense, the evidence-based approach is another erosion of the democratic dimension of professionalism and hence another post-democratic distortion. (Biesta, 2017, cited in Philpott & Poultney, 2018, p.54) Philpott and Poultney consider these quandaries through the lens of two interrelated aspects of teachers’ professional learning: knowledge mobilisation and translational research. Their work pre-empts current tenuous policy shifts which hint towards acknowledgement of more expansive elements of teachers’ professional work in policy and inspection frameworks. It would be naive to presume that these frameworks would follow Philpott and Poultney’s considerations of how knowledge mobilisation and translational research aid teachers’ work with research as ‘consumers’ and ‘producers’. This includes interrogation of a potential schism between universities and schools which may reinforce teachers’ reluctance to engage with research-informed learning and professional development.

Knowledge mobilisation There is a long history in England supported by a great deal of literature that documents the benefits of teachers engaging with research (see, for example, Stenhouse, 1975; Hargreaves, 1999; BERA-RSA, 2014). The transfer of knowledge from academic research to professional practice is known as knowledge mobilisation, but Philpott and Poultney (2018) expound a divide between researchers and classroom practitioners which results in mobilisation being moribund in many school settings. This divide is aggravated by perceptions that there are very specific differences between theoretical knowledge created by academic researchers and practical/pedagogical knowledge used in day-to-day professional lives by teachers. As Philpott and Poultney point out, that is not to say that one should be valued over the other, but that teachers need to be enabled to work productively with research as part of their professional learning. They ask us to consider how knowledge mobilisation in and of itself is simply not enough; there needs to be recognition that, research knowledge cannot necessarily be used ‘off the peg’ but has to be adapted or rethought to be relevant to particular contexts. It also needs to be actively ‘picked up’ by practitioners. So it is more than just a question of dissemination or access. (Philpott & Poultney, 2018, p.5)

116 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett This concern aligns with Jones, Procter, and Younie (2015), who identified the predilection of teachers to act as consumers rather than producers of research. They uncovered a common notion that teachers required ‘permission’ to engage with research – which gives us further remit to consider how alternative forms of research-informed teachers’ learning, namely knowledge building supported by critical scholarship, provides space for teachers to work with research effectively. This is important, considering Cain’s (2015b) suggestion that teachers use research conceptually: that is, teachers who engage, or have engaged with research, are more able to know not only what to think but how to think. Research acts as an agent for metacognition which, in itself, supports teachers’ learning and development, notwithstanding the democratic dimension of teacher research work which speaks to wider social and moral ideals and values.

Translational research The second aspect of teachers’ learning that Philpott and Poultney ask us to consider is translational research, which they define as, ‘the additional (practitioner) research work that needs to be done to explore how to make generalised research findings effective in diverse specific situations’ (2018, p.5). Translational research processes help to transition academic research knowledge to school practice and policy (often referred to as praxis; see Kemmis, 2010). Philpott and Poultney draw upon Campbell et al. (2017, p.212) to summarise three designs for knowledge-to-action processes:   

Linear: one-way relationship to make available research evidence accessible to practitioners. Relationship: as above but with a focus on relationship building between academic researchers and practitioners, with a view to mobilisation of knowledge and translation of theory into practice. Systems: looking at systems overall, identifying barriers to mobilising research and practice knowledge. This builds a more complex network between academics, practitioners and other stakeholders where interaction, co-creation and implementation of evidence can be secured.

The linear model here aligns with current configurations of teachers’ learning as medical, in which external research evidence, or so-called ‘best practice’, is an ideal applied directly. Philpott (2017) urges us to be cautious in thinking that teachers’ learning can be enhanced by such simplistic application rather than engaging in detail with existing evidence (see Harris, Chapter 4, this book). He would argue that teachers’ engagement with research should follow, at least, a relationship model whereby teachers and academics conjoin to share research and evaluate its impact in situated practice. However, the most impactful configuration of translating research would be through the systems model, which recognises and embraces critical scholarship and knowledge building work. Eraut (1994, p.1) defined teacher knowledge as, ‘the knowledge possessed by professionals which

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


allows them to perform professional tasks, roles and duties with quality’. He identifies two specific dimensions of knowledge: one related to context and one related to specific areas of education. Teachers draw upon these two dimensions so that they ‘know how’ but also ‘know that’ (Day, 1999). Much of this knowledge is gleaned from interactions with other professionals, a teacher’s’ own experiences and critical reflection on practice. Validation of teachers’ knowledge can be underpinned by personal judgements about what constitutes effectiveness in practice: subsequently, it is often highly contextual and locally sensitive, and is both intellectually and morally driven (Clandinin & Connelly, 1996; Philpott & Poultney, 2018). As Philpott and Poultney (2018, p.54) point out, ‘Practitioners who themselves engage in research demonstrate an intellectual, practical and emotional engagement with the research’. This aligns with Clandinin and Connelly’s (1996) description of teachers’ professional learning as an expansive landscape which includes diversity of people, relationships, values and potential barriers. If we consider that understanding teaching and learning in order to make sense of educational experiences and outcomes involves embracing some of this ‘messiness’ of practice and debate (Philpott, 2017), then we come to understand that there is a need for teachers to be given research foundations which could build educational reform. This allows teachers’ learning to contribute to developing educational theory and not just implementation, thereby challenging existing reductionist modes of teachers’ professional development. Teachers should not become occluded from wider systems of knowledge, policy intervention and education reform by being forced to focus only on measurable evidence within a single paradigm (Philpott, 2017).

‘Leading Learning’ as research-informed teacher learning At this juncture, it is useful to consider exemplification of the kind of teachers’ learning activity which moves beyond technical-rationalist concerns of efficiency and which builds teachers’ agency through continuous and sustained engagement between teachers and academic partners. The ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme, based in a de-industrialised city in the north of England, featured a sequence of interlinked university campus-based and school-based sessions which spanned the three years 2012–2013–2014, to support teachers’ intellectual and professional learning (see Beckett, 2014, 2016). Academic partners took direction from Lingard’s (2003) notion of ‘leading learning’ where they set out the conditions under which school leaders could create and sustain critical scholarship and research-informed learnings for teachers. This precipitated critical reflections done jointly with teachers to find the middle path between ‘policy-oriented’ research and ‘practice-oriented’ research as described by Ball (1997). This was important as academic partners needed to demonstrate the ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme was atypical to common forms of professional development. Instead it was concerned to mentor and support practitioner research activity, with a view to creating locally sensitive knowledge which could inform contextualised school improvement (Thrupp, 1999; Lupton, 2004, 2005).

118 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett This demands much of teacher partners considering Philpott and Poultney’s view that in the current culture, There is no real school infrastructure that helps teachers make good researchinformed decisions. Many of these decisions are heavily based on politics, traditional teaching approaches, external marketing and anecdotal information. (Philpott & Poultney, 2018, p.68) However, an experiential knowledge base is a critical component of building professional understandings for teaching at a local and national level. Co-creating knowledge between groups of practitioners, academic researchers and decision makers – from school leaders at a local level to policy-makers at a national level – assumes mobilisation of new knowledge, with further opportunity for translational approaches. This sees that teachers’ research work underpins new pedagogical and school improvement approaches that work towards the ‘common good’ (Beckett & Nuttall, 2019). This is consistent with arguments from the BERA-RSA (2014) report, Research and the teaching profession: Building the capacity for a selfimproving education system. This report envisaged a future repositioning of teacher professionalism through research literacy which serves wider democratic and moral purposes as well as a capability one. As Philpott and Poultney point out, teachers who engage in research are better placed to conceptualise and discuss practice and policy more critically. This enables teachers to individually and collectively address those in power and to challenge top-down approaches and canonical discourses. As the ‘Leading Learning’ non-accredited CPD programme progressed in our local network of urban schools, teacher inquiry projects came to focus, for example, on white British boys’ disaffection; transition from primary to high school; student absences in regard to barriers to quality teaching; and school readiness. A sample of nascent practitioner research findings were published in a special edition of The Urban Review (see Beckett, 2014; Gallagher & Beckett, 2014; Nuttall & Doherty, 2014). These teachers’ resolve to publish was driven by their professional disquiet about extant school policy and related canonical discourses around poverty and disadvantage which felt punitive in these teachers’ school contexts. One of these practitioners, Nuttall, the first author of this chapter though in a school at the time, came to report on her teacher inquiry project that began with an interrogation of ‘official’ school data on achievement. She went on to develop judicious readings of a sample group of disadvantaged white British boys’ disaffection and consequent under-achievement (see Nuttall & Doherty, 2014; Beckett, 2016). This investigation was guided by a critical reading of the school’s work that brought into question policy rhetoric and discourse about ‘raising attainment’ and ‘closing the gap’ (see Ladson-Billings, 2006; Milner, 2013) as proxies for addressing wider educational and social issues related to poverty and disadvantage. Throughout this process, and in close proximity to other teacher inquiries, there came to be identification with Ball’s (1997) assertion that the problem is seen to be in the school and in the teacher, but never in the policy.

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


This is a systemic issue identified by research not only in England but internationally, with particular resonance across Australia and the USA. These settings are renowned for vernacular neoliberal agendas and associated simplistic yet dominant notions of teaching as craft driven by a peculiar form of the global education reform movement (GERM) (Sahlberg, 2011; see Beckett, 2016, 2018; Beckett & Nuttall, 2017). Such an orientation not only plays out in marketised policy logics which make schools hard to reform in locally sensitive ways, but proposes to schools and teachers in disadvantaged contexts that to improve they are required to adopt externally scripted frameworks (Gannon, Hattam, & Sawyer, 2018). There is something to be said here about the ways in which our ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme gave rise to teachers’ critical dialogue about such policy logics. In doing so, teachers and academic partners inherently aligned with Philpott and Poultney’s critiques of ‘evidence-based’ practice built on medical models and the use of RCTs which see these approaches as too narrow and providing a limited evidence base upon which the teaching profession should be judged. Proposed amendments to the Ofsted framework intimate that judgements of teachers and schools may broaden in the next inspection cycle, 2019–2025 (Adams, 2019). Without sounding over-optimistic, this may yet herald the beginning of some official recognition that teaching should be considered a complex system of ideas, habituated practice and individual teacher values, shaped by external and socially accepted policies and practices. Within this potentially transformative policy framework, individual teachers should also be encouraged to have their own philosophy and values which form a sort of moral compass and which may drive research goals or interests. As Day (2017) puts it, ‘If teachers are to be transformative in relation to making substantive changes to their practice or ways of thinking about their practice, then they need to be collectively working towards school improvement, functioning as teacher-researcher involved in teacher inquiry to gain new knowledge’. The progress of teacher partners’ inquiry projects facilitated by the ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme certainly provoked confrontation of extant school policy and pointed towards exploration of alternative discourses. This brought these practitioners to the sorts of data or evidence that identify and name contextual factors that must be taken into account by the school as well as by policymakers and politicians if they are serious about addressing issues of educational inequalities. There was no doubt that the ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme was geared to effecting change in our network of disadvantaged schools as we instituted research-informed teacher learning, obviously contrary to dominant and canonical discourse about poverty and practice.

An exemplary teacher inquiry project The powers at play in dominant policy discourses speaks to the nascent critical policy analyses in Nuttall’s teacher inquiry, where she began to engage in critical and meaningful dialogue with extant school policies, mentored and supported by

120 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett her academic partner. An example was interrogation of the Cameron–Clegg Coalition Government’s (2010–2015) then Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove’s (2010) assertion that ‘schools should be engines of social mobility’ and a subsequent call for schools and practitioners to take ‘urgent, focused, radical action’. Not surprisingly, Nuttall balked at this phrasing, which in the urban school context at the time seemed nothing other than further insistence that practitioners conform to policy directions, which divert attention towards the ‘attainment gap’ and ‘raising aspirations’. It became clear that dominant forms of ‘best practice’, often built on medical models of academic research, bring about peculiarities of language, behaviour and accountability to enact particular forms of change in schools, colleges and universities. Context and history are eschewed and there is disconnection from pedagogy and the organic roots of teachers’ learning. Matters of equity, realities of professional practice, impact of policy in relation to students and their families and any sense of relationships with more democratic forms of teachers’ learning are not addressed (Ball, 2003; Beckett, 2014; Beckett & Nuttall, 2019; Lingard, 2003). Concurrent with these early contentions with policy directions, seemingly constructed from a dubious register of selected discourses, Nuttall’s teacher inquiry project began to articulate professional concerns about a small but significant group of white British boys. These boys were all from disadvantaged backgrounds, appeared to be significantly disaffected in terms of their engagement with schooling, and were vulnerable in their educational outcomes. A focus group of ten white British boys aged 9–11 years-old and all deemed to be ‘underachieving’ and ‘disengaged’ were selected in conjunction with the school Head. It was anticipated that the locus of this inquiry would uncover and problematise the schooling experience for these boys, opening up professional, critical dialogue around how these boys’ needs were, or were not, being met. This was a significant step change to previous approaches with these boys and similar students in the school, which had been to apply standardised and short-term interventions focused on raising attainment alone (Nuttall & Doherty, 2014; Nuttall, 2016). There is resonance in this inquiry process with Philpott and Poultney’s call for teachers to engage in professional learning which builds new knowledge, to then be mobilised and translated beyond the local context. This is a different kind of ‘evidence-informed practice’ to medical models and systematic literature reviews; as they say, ‘teachers are not seeking to discover universal laws of truth’ (2018, p.66) but rather are concerned with specific and contextualised manifestations of particular issues. If teachers are encouraged to become ‘research-active’ rather than ‘research-interested’ then motivation may be steeped on epistemological and ontological perspectives. This is important, because it points us to consider the professional changes that teachers as researchers may experience, and which may be contrary to accepted forms of professionalism and professional development in their school and policy environments (Lupton & Thrupp, 2013; Winch, Orchard, & Oancea, 2014; Cain, 2015a; Mockler & Groundwater-Smith, 2015). This ‘step change’ in professional development played out in Nuttall’s teacher inquiry project. The school’s policies and practices, which leaned towards teaching

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


and learning a prescribed curriculum focused on test-based outcomes and accompanied by ‘performance pedagogies’ (Arnot & Reay, 2006), came under intense scrutiny. Provoked by literature which problematised the ‘attainment gap’ as a proxy for addressing issues of poverty and disadvantage (see, for example, LadsonBillings, 2006; Perry & Francis, 2010; Milner, 2013), Nuttall’s teacher inquiry went on to ask different kinds of questions. These included, for example:   

What are the patterns of learning and achievement amongst this group of white British boys? How successful are the pedagogies utilised by the school in engaging these boys? How do this group of boys respond to the social and educational challenges of school?

Oriented more towards social justice, these questions led to an interrogation of ‘other data’ (Johnson, 2002; Johnson & La Salle, 2010), well beyond the bounds of numerical data which had previously dominated discourse about students in the school. While it was essential that these boys and their families were not viewed with a deficit reading, it became clear that in considering how best to understand their needs a wide range of contextual factors must be taken into account. Indeed, as presented by Thrupp (1999, 2007) in New Zealand and Lupton (2004, 2005) in England, there are a range of contextual factors associated with schools serving disadvantaged, urban communities which cumulatively may make a considerable difference to school processes and therefore student achievement. Hence, Nuttall’s teacher inquiry came to be directed by research-informed teacher learning bringing together not only what was already known, but also by engaging the boys themselves in discussions and working alongside them in the classroom. This information was tabulated and analysed in a way that new understandings were created about the individual circumstances of each boy, which proved instructive as well as contradictory to canonical narratives of disadvantage which had previously influenced and informed school policies and practices. Preliminary analysis of the socio-economic and family backgrounds of this group of boys yielded some apparent patterns of disruption in their lives. Milner (2013) provoked the question ‘what gaps are present here?’ and it transpired that many of these boys had gaps in financial security, family security and emotional security. This led to interrogation of the relationship between wider contextual factors and the boys’ behaviour and attainment at school. For example, Lupton (2005) provided direction to consider the interplay between poverty, neighbourhoods and families, and how this affects schools, teachers and students. One of the persistent dominant policy discourses in education and teachers’ professional development centres on how educational attainment and engagement can be improved for all children. Over the past three decades, the focus for this has been on raising standards and teachers’ application of externally set interventions and ‘best practice’. In Nuttall’s inquiry project, a completely different narrative was created. This brought attention to the complex interplay between the

122 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett realities of students’ lived experiences, including insecurities in housing, poor health and well-being linked to poverty, drug and alcohol addictions, criminal activity, domestic violence, and their engagement and attainment at school. Recognition was given to students, their families and teachers as knowledge actors (Gunter, 2016), which lent itself to a direct confrontation of the more typical ‘privileging of policy-makers’ realities’ (Ball, 2006, p.47). Subsequently, Nuttall, working in partnership with her school Head, focused teachers’ and school leaders’ attention beyond the bounds of daily classroom practice and led to action within the local community. For example, this school, along with others in its local partnership, engaged with a national campaign against domestic violence to encourage students and their families to become involved in this wider social movement; built active relationships with local children’s centres to offer wider support for families; developed relationships with community policing and fire service to tackle criminal behaviour and arson; and increased referrals to social and health services. This illustrates how research-informed teacher learning can prompt teachers to take responsibility for producing and mobilising knowledge which informs practice (Lingard, 2003; Gunter, 2016) in the local context. They build an understanding of how theory [underpinned by meaningful forms of local inquiry] translates into action, which furnishes teachers and other professionals with alternative narratives and discourses.

Becoming critical: the contribution of teachers’ research knowledge These tentative directions for linking research-informed teacher learning by way of teachers’ research activity and professional knowledge construction could be considered more democratic, whereby schools and practitioners build local understandings to translate into transformative action for the benefit of their students, their families and their local communities. Teachers who ‘lead learning’ and participate in inquiry approaches are well placed to challenge policy directions which dismiss wider social contexts of school communities as merely background noise (Lingard, 2003; Nuttall and Doherty, 2014; Beckett, 2014, 2016). However, the difficulty remains in current paradigms of teachers’ professional development, along with the Teachers’ Standards, the inspection framework and the fragmented school landscape, which appear to militate against a common framework that would permit a healthier way to promote teachers’ critical thinking and research activity. There is a long history in England and an international tradition of practitioner research, exemplified by Elliott (1993), Kemmis (2006), Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009), Mockler and Groundwater-Smith (2015) amongst others, and illustrated in our chapter here with discussion of our ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme. Much of Carey’s work aligns with these ways of thinking: he was a key advocate of teachers’ professional agency and sought to bring to the fore ways in which teachers could, and should, be leaders of their own and others’ learning. At the time of his unexpected and sudden death, we were only just forging productive

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


partnerships on display at the 2016 BERA conference in Leeds. It is fitting that we have come to construct a response to Philpott and Poultney’s balanced discussion of teachers’ knowledge mobilisation and engagement in translational research posthumously published. Indeed, we have reached some key conclusions which speak to Carey’s concerns of democratising teachers’ learning in regard to mobilising research and expanding teachers’ own capacities to work with practice and research, based on both intellectual and moral endeavours. Firstly, we see that teachers’ knowledge mobilisation and translation are indicators of the foundation for more democratic forms of research-informed teacher learning, but that systems and structures have to be in place for this to happen. It is systematic inquiry, supported by academic partners in the local school setting but with opportunities for university accreditation (see Beckett & Nuttall, 2019; Beckett, 2018), that is integral to this democratic process. This includes teachers working simultaneously as teachers and researchers, so that intellectual conversations about wider issues of education, challenge to dominant policy discourses and narratives, and critical theorising of the political context of teachers’ work can take place. This means that teachers may seek to influence agendas beyond improvement of student attainment in their individual schools and may go on to challenge the status quo on professional and wider social and/or moral issues. This is challenging for teachers, given the constraints of the macro-environment, in England in particular, given it is marked by performativity, centralised surveillance, short-termism and transmission of technicist policy and school reform agendas. Consequently, it is academic partners who have a key role in providing support for critical scholarship work needed to underpin teachers’ systematic inquiry. They extend teachers’ imaginary by opening up alternative policy discourses and narratives which may have been previously hidden, and they encourage teachers’ penchant for learning. Academic partners and their professional networks can also support the dissemination of teachers’ inquiries, which in turn brings us back to opportunities for research-informed teacher learning inclusive of knowledge mobilisation and translation, but now led by teachers. This more expansive form of professional learning underpins a critical insistence for policy reform in teacher education. New policy directions are needed to institute teacher education and professional learning that is scholarly, contextually sensitive and locally responsive, now and in the future.

References Adams, R. (2019, January 16). Ofsted plans overhaul of inspections to look beyond exam results. The Guardian. Arnot, M., & Reay, D. (2006). The framing of performance pedagogies: pupil perspectives on the control of school knowledge and its acquisition. In H. Lauder, P. Brown, J.-A. Dillabough, & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Education, globalisation and social change (pp. 766–778). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

124 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy Sociology and Critical Social Research: a personal review of recent education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Ball, S. J. (2006). What is policy? Reproduction of article originally published in Discourse, 1993, 13(2), 10–17. In Education policy & social class. New York: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059. Beckett, L. (2014). Raising teachers’ voice on achievement in urban schools in England: an introduction. Urban Review, 46(5), 783–799. Beckett, L. (2016). Teachers and academic partners in urban schools: threats to professional practice. London: Routledge. Beckett, L. (2018). Beyond ‘naive possibilitarianism’ in urban schools in England. In S. Gannon, R. Hattam, & W. Sawyer (Eds.), Resisting educational inequality: Reframing policy and practice in schools serving vulnerable communities. London and New York: Routledge. (Chapter 3). Beckett, L., & Nuttall, A. (2017). A ‘usable past’ of teacher education in England: history in JET’s anniversary issue. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(5), 616–627. Beckett, L., & Nuttall, A. (2019). Professional knowledge building: activating teachers’ and academics’ voices. Oxford encyclopedia of global perspectives on teacher education. https:// BERA-RSA (2014). Research and the Teaching Profession: Building the Capacity for a Selfimproving Education System: Final Report on the Inquiry into the Role of Research in Teacher Education. London: BERA. Bibby, T., Lupton, R., & Raffo, C. (2017). Responding to poverty and disadvantage in schools: a reader for teachers. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: evidence-based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. Biesta, G. (2017). Education, measurement and the professions: reclaiming a space for democratic professionality in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49(4), 315–330. Biesta, G. J. J. (2010). Why “what works” still won’t work: from evidence-based education to value-based education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(5), 491–503. Cain, T. (2015a). Teachers’ engagement with published research: addressing the knowledge problem. Curriculum Journal, 26(3), 488–509. Cain, T. (2015b). Teachers’ engagement with research texts: beyond instrumental, conceptual or strategic use. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(5), 478–492. Campbell, C., Pollock, K., Briscoe, P., Carr-Harris, S., & Tuters, S. (2017). Developing a knowledge network for applied education research to mobilise evidence in and for educational practice. Educational Research, 59(2), 209–227. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30. Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. (2009). Inquiry as stance: practitioner research in the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Day, C. W. (1999). Developing teachers: the challenges of lifelong learning. London: Falmer. Day, C. W. (2017). Teachers’ worlds and work: understanding complexity, building quality. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Elliott, J. (1993). What have we learned from action research in school-based evaluation? Educational Action Research, 1(1), 175–186. Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Falmer.

Teachers’ work on poverty and disadvantage


Furlong, J. (2013). Education: an anatomy of the discipline. Abingdon: Routledge. Gallagher, K., & Beckett, L. (2014). Addressing barriers to minority ethnic students’ learning . in a performative culture: possible or Aan u SuuraGelin? Niemozliwe? Nemoguc´e? ‫?ﻧﺎﻣﻤﮑﻦ‬ The Urban Review, 46(5), 846–859. Gannon, S., Hattam, R., & Sawyer, W. (2018). Resisting educational inequality: reframing policy and practice in schools serving vulnerable communities (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2009). Teacher professional learning in an age of compliance: mind the gap. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands. Gunter, H. (2016). An intellectual history of school leadership practice and research. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Hardy, I., & Melville, W. (2013). Contesting continuing professional development: reflections from England. Teachers and Teaching, 19(3), 311–325. Hargreaves, A. (1999). Schooling in the New Millennium: educational research for the postmodern age. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 20(3), 333–355. Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: how to measure equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London: Corwin Press. Johnson, R. S., & La Salle, R. A. (2010). Data strategies to uncover and eliminate hidden inequities: the wallpaper effect. Thousand Oaks, Calif.; London: Corwin Press. Jones, S.-L., Procter, R., & Younie, S. (2015). Participatory knowledge mobilisation: an emerging model for international translational research in education. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 41(5), 555–573. Kemmis, S. (2006). Participatory action research and the public sphere. Educational Action Research, 14(4), 459–476. Kemmis, S. (2010). Research for praxis: knowing doing. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 18(1), 9–27. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. Lingard, B. (2003). Leading learning: making hope practical in schools. Buckingham: Open University Press. Lupton, R. (2004). Schools in disadvantaged areas: recognising context and raising quality. London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science. Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and school improvement: improving the quality of schooling in the poorest neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 589–604. Lupton, R., & Thrupp, M. (2013). Headteachers’ readings of and responses to disadvantaged contexts: evidence from English primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 769–788. Milner, H. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban Education, 48(1), 3–8. Mockler, N., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (2015). Seeking for the unwelcome truths: beyond celebration in inquiry-based teacher professional learning. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 21(5), 603–614. Nuttall, A., & Doherty, J. (2014). Disaffected boys and the achievement gap: ‘the wallpaper effect’ and what is hidden by a focus on school results. Urban Review, 46(5), 800–815. Nuttall, A. (2016). The ‘curriculum challenge’: moving towards the ‘Storyline’ approach in a case study urban primary school. Improving Schools, 19(2), 154–166.

126 Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett Nuttall, A., Beckett, L., Philpott, C., & Wrigley, T. (2016). Collaborative practitioner inquiry: making a difference to urban schools in the north of England. BERA Annual Conference. Leeds, England. Oancea, A., & Furlong, J. (2007). Expressions of excellence and the assessment of applied and practice-based research. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 119–137. Perry, E., & Francis, B. (2010). The social class gap for educational achievement: a review of the literature. RSA Projects. Available at: blogs/rsa-social-justice-paper.pdf. Philpott, C. (2017). Medical models for teachers’ learning: asking for a second opinion. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1), 20–31. Philpott, C., & Poultney, V. (2018). Evidence-based teaching: a critical overview for enquiring teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Sachs, J., & Mockler, N. (2012). Performance cultures of teaching: threat or opportunity? In C. Day (Ed.), International handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 33–43). London: Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: what can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann Educational. Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: let’s be realistic! School mix, school effectiveness and the social limits of reform. Buckingham: Open University Press. Thrupp, M. (2007). School admissions and the segregation of school intakes in New Zealand cities. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1393–1404. Whitty, G. (2014). Recent developments in teacher training and their consequences for the “university project” in education. Oxford Review of Education, 40(4), 466–481. Winch, C., Orchard, J., & Oancea, A. (2014). The contribution of research to teachers’ professional knowledge: philosophical understandings, Oxford Review of Education. 41 (2), 202–216.

10 Supporting student teachers with minority identities The importance of pastoral care and social justice in initial teacher education Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones Introduction Social justice in teacher education promotes the values of care and respect, equality and democracy so that student teachers not only understand the diverse needs of the students that they teach but are able to respond to these positively, thus empowering them to achieve their full potential. Consideration of issues of social justice in teacher education requires critical engagement with Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) discussions about evidence-based teaching and Philpott’s work on pastoral care of student teachers (Philpott, 2015). The implications for course design are stark, and this is where Philpott’s (2015) call for initial teacher education to address the non-cognitive aspects associated with learning to be a teacher proved particularly helpful and insightful. Teacher educators play a critical role in facilitating the development of positive attitudes and inclusive social values in their student teachers so that they enact these in their own classrooms. In addition, teacher educators who model these attitudes and values also treat student teachers with respect by demonstrating empathy and care towards them. This is particularly important for student teachers with minority identities because it helps to mitigate their vulnerability to prejudice, harassment and discrimination whilst studying on their teacher education programme and on school placement. However, finding time for discussions about social justice can be challenging on busy initial teacher education programmes which are designed to address performance standards which can be easily measured. In addition, standards-driven initial teacher education programmes can also result in insufficient attention to student teachers’ pastoral needs, including those with minority status. This chapter will explore what we understand by social justice in evidenceinformed teaching by engaging with the work of Philpott and Poultney (2018). It will examine the discourse of performativity and how this influences teacher identity. It will then explore the need for pastoral care in teacher education by engaging with Philpott’s (2015) arguments. Finally, it will discuss the theory of minority stress, drawing on the work of Meyer (2003) before examining the specific needs of student teachers who identify as disabled or those with non-normative gender identities and sexual orientations.

128 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones

Identifying social justice in evidence-informed teaching Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) book Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers makes several critical arguments, notably that there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the value of practitioner investigation. This is crucial for research-informed teacher learning because it enables teachers to critically engage with evidence from their own practice to negotiate not only policy ideas about ‘what works’ in specific school contexts but also what they could be doing, including fashioning themselves as a teacher. Teacher education policy in England over many years has emphasised the role of student teachers in raising academic standards in schools following a decree by former Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove (DfE, 2011). This places quite some responsibility on novice teachers and situates teacher education squarely within a school improvement agenda. However, although student teachers do play an important role in facilitating the academic progress of their students, they also have an important role to play in considering the purposes of schooling and education, which might include advancing social justice through shaping the development of positive attitudes and values about diversity in the students they teach. They also play a crucial role in empowering their students to believe in themselves. Although current discourse on evidence-based teaching focuses uncritically on ‘what works’ in classrooms, this may reduce teaching to aspects which become measurable. What ‘works’ in one educational context may not ‘work’ in another. This reductionist approach prioritises academic interventions which advance academic attainment because the impact of these can be quantified. We argue that education serves a broader role in advancing social justice through fostering the development of inclusive values. Student teachers can play a critical role in this through implementing inclusion projects in schools and analysing their effectiveness through conversing with students and gathering data. However, if their own pastoral needs are not met, they are not well positioned to implement this important work. This is where Philpott and Poultney (2018) prove useful because they argue that practitioner research has a central role to play in the health of a school and that career structures should be developed that value higher-level study and reward teachers. Through practitioner research, teachers can explore ‘what works’ within their own educational contexts rather than uncritically adopting top-down evidence-based interventions. Philpott and Poultney (2018) highlight the importance of university–school partnerships in developing teachers as researchers and they argue that a single research method is unlikely to be the best way of investigating practice-based issues.

Negotiating policy ideas Gove’s preferred policy on teacher education in England positioned student teachers within a discourse of performativity in which they are held accountable

Student teachers with minority identities


for the progress of the students they teach (DfE, 2011). In his seminal work, Stephen Ball (2003) defines performativity as ‘a technology, a culture and a mode of regulation that employs judgements, comparisons and displays as means of incentive, control, attrition and change…’ (p. 216). Notions of what constitutes ‘effective teaching’ and the ‘good teacher’ are shaped by the discourse of performativity, which values and rewards educational outputs above a commitment to social justice. It results in ‘inauthentic practice’ (Ball, 2003, p. 222) which marginalises some of the most vulnerable students. These are often students who struggle to achieve narrow, academic performance indicators but possess talents which go unrecognised and unrewarded, one reason to negotiate the policy emphasis to do with driving up educational standards over and above deep, rich and meaningful learning. Here it is important to acknowledge that teacher education plays a critical role in advancing social justice for student teachers and the students that they teach. It should seek to shape the development of socially just attitudes for all and promote the values of care and respect. This helps to contribute to the development of a more socially just society. Although closer attention to the pastoral care needs of student teachers with minority identities facilitates inclusion, the pervasive discourse of performativity which regulates both teacher education and schools can result in the ethics of care being marginalised in favour of driving up academic standards. In England, the current emphasis on grading student teachers against a set of prescribed teacher standards which hold them accountable for student progress can result in issues of social justice being marginalised in their own teaching. In his article Creating an in-school pastoral system for student teachers in schoolbased initial teacher education (Philpott, 2015), Philpott argues that ‘some student teachers are not comfortable with the teacher identity they begin to feel it is necessary to adopt’ (p. 9). The discourse of performativity can result in student teachers adopting specific pedagogical approaches that do not align with their values. Negotiating their personal values with the socially assigned identity of what is considered to be a ‘good’ teacher within the discourse of performativity can be challenging. Ultimately, student teachers must comply with the policies of their placement schools and do everything they can to ensure that they complete their school placement successfully. They may feel that their creativity and agency are restricted through being advised by their mentors not only what to teach but also how to teach and which students to focus on. Although this may initially result in frustration, student teachers must learn to also negotiate their own values and beliefs whilst complying with the values of the school. Despite the discourse of performativity, it has been argued that teachers have an ethical obligation to reflect on and claim their identity (Clarke, 2008). Indeed, Tickle (2000) argues that ‘we should not think of induction simply as if novices are to be socialised into some well formulated and accepted practices which exist on the other side’ (p. 1). Development as a teacher involves a considerable degree of identity work. Robin Smith (2007) argues that there has been a move

130 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones away from coherent and stable identities towards those which are multiple, fragmented and prone to change. They are continually reconstructed to reflect changing and sometimes conflicting discourses and practices (Day et al., 2006a; Day, et al., 2006b; Sikes et al., 1985). Thus, identity is ‘always deferred and in the process of becoming – never really, never yet, never absolutely there’ (MacLure, 2003, p. 131). Given that teacher identity is always in a state of flux, teacher education providers should provide frequent opportunities for student teachers to reflect on their beliefs and values at different stages in the teacher education programme. They need to be given multiple opportunities to reflect on their values at the start of the programme, before and after placements and at the end of the programme. Student teachers need opportunities to discuss the extent of the synergy between their own values and the values of their school after each placement and opportunities to reflect on how they negotiated any tensions which arose from this. Engaging student teachers in identity work is critical if they are to develop a sense of what kind of teacher they want to be. Assessment tasks should also support this process of on-going critical reflection.

The need for pastoral care in teacher education In his article on pastoral care, Philpott (2015) makes a critical contribution to the field of teacher education. He argues that schools need to give greater consideration to the pastoral needs of student teachers during school placements and that these needs require a proactive rather than a reactive response. Philpott highlights the need for providers of teacher education to give greater emphasis to the non-cognitive aspects of teaching so that student teachers are supported to develop coping strategies to help them manage stress, anxiety and to develop their resilience. Philpott (2015) argues that the management of student behaviour can be a source of stress for student teachers. He highlights that the mentor may not be the best person to provide pastoral support for student teachers given that they undertake responsibility for assessing their performance in relation to the teaching standards. Providing student teachers with access to an informal network of pastoral support via colleagues who are not responsible for assessing their performance is one solution which schools should seriously consider. Student teachers may feel that interpersonal difficulties which may arise in their relationship with their mentor may have a detrimental impact on their overall performance (Philpott, 2015) and thus they may invest time into establishing an effective relationship with their mentor. However, when relationships break down this can result in significant risks for student teachers, including potentially failing a placement, stress and anxiety. Philpott (2015) makes a convincing argument for planning to address the pastoral needs of student teachers proactively so that support is not just provided when things go wrong. Learning to be a teacher is not just an intellectual activity; it is an emotional task which requires non-cognitive as well as cognitive skills.

Student teachers with minority identities


Student teachers need to learn how to manage relationships and emotions. They need to learn how to manage stress and anxiety and be resilient to the challenges which they will inevitably experience on a daily basis in schools. Philpott argues that teachers are often seen as providers of pastoral care rather than recipients of it. However, without adequate pastoral care, teachers are not able to thrive. He argues that teachers who are new to a school, including student teachers, may need emotional support as well as professional development and that the school’s culture and practices can influence how well they acclimatise to the workplace.

Minority stress Meyer’s (1995) and Meyer and Dean’s (1998) seminal research highlights three processes which lead to stress for minorities: external events experienced by the individual; an expectation of negative events, regardless of their occurrence; and general stressors. Meyer’s model of minority stress emphasises that people from minority groups experience discrimination and prejudice which result in stress. Additionally, the expectation that they may experience prejudice and discrimination can result in individuals from minority groups experiencing psychological distress and negotiating their behaviour to enable them to ‘fit in’ to a normalising society. Meyer (2003) referred to these as proximal stressors. For student teachers with disabilities, and those who have non-conforming sexual and gender identities, proximal stressors comprise an additional layer of stress above and beyond the usual stressors that are experienced on an initial teacher education programme. Teacher educators and mentors should be aware of the existence of minority stress and develop proactive approaches for alleviating it. Philpott’s (2015) argument about the need for pastoral care is particularly pertinent for student teachers representing minority groups.

Disability Although current teacher education policy can be situated in the broader Conservative education policy landscape, it is important to also pay attention to the pastoral needs of student teachers with minority identities, including those who are disabled and those with non-normative gender identities and sexual orientations. This section addresses the challenges experienced by student teachers with disabilities on school placements. It focuses specifically on those with dyslexia, but also considers the needs of student teachers with autism. Student teachers with minority identities can thrive in schools provided that they are accepted and experience a sense of belonging. Experiences of marginalisation during school placements can result in psychological distress and reduce their capacity to teach with due consideration to the purposes of schooling and education. Our own professional experiences of working with student teachers with dyslexia suggests to us that they are empathic towards students with disabilities and are skilled in breaking down subject-specific concepts, skills and knowledge. They do this automatically and are proficient in adapting tasks to meet students’ diverse needs. These experiences are reflected in the literature (Griffiths, 2012).

132 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones In his article on pastoral care, Philpott (2015) draws attention to the fact that, unsurprisingly, school mentors can be a significant source of stress for student teachers because although they are responsible for providing pastoral care, they are also responsible for assessing the student teacher. Student teachers with disabilities, such as dyslexia, experience the usual forms of stress that all student teachers experience. However, they can experience additional stress and anxiety as a result of the difficulties associated with their disability. Griffiths (2012) found that student teachers with dyslexia were empathic towards children’s learning difficulties; their own experiences of dyslexia placed them in a unique position to support children with literacy difficulties. For these student teachers, the process of differentiating their teaching was automatic; they were able to draw on the strategies they had been taught to support their learners to develop self-efficacy, thus helping their students to overcome learned helplessness (Peterson et al., 1995). Previous research has also identified the strengths that student teachers with dyslexia can bring to the profession (Duquette, 2000; Riddick, 2003). However, despite these strengths, research also demonstrates that student teachers with dyslexia may experience discrimination on school placements (Glazzard, 2018; Griffiths, 2012). The fear of being misunderstood, labelled, stigmatised and misjudged is a consistent theme in the general literature on dyslexia (Beverton et al., 2008; Illingworth, 2005; Morgan and Burn, 2000; Morris and Turnbull, 2006; Pollak, 2009; Riddick, 2003; Sanderson-Mann and McCandless, 2006; Stanley et al., 2007). Griffiths argues that: Within the teaching profession, a paradoxical situation exists where trainees and teachers with dyslexia can feel being dyslexic confers advantages and offers unique insights into difficulties experienced by the children they are teaching, yet are undervalued, unsupported and regarded by peers as being detrimental to the profession. (Griffiths, 2012, p. 60) It would appear that we live in an ‘ableist society’ (Griffiths, 2012, p. 60) which values performance. The Teachers’ Standards (DfE, 2011) can therefore act as a deterrent to the disclosure of disabilities rather than identifying reasonable adjustments as required by equality legislation (Fuller et al., 2009). School mentors are therefore placed in a difficult position in that they are required to balance their responsibility to provide pastoral support for student teachers against their responsibility to act as gatekeepers to their profession. They have a duty of care both to the student teacher and their students, and within an educational climate which privileges performativity, they must ensure that high standards in teaching are being upheld. Tension within mentor–mentee relationships can affect student teachers (Pillen et al., 2013) as mentors have a direct impact on the development of the professional identity of student teachers (Maguire, 2001; Shields and Murray, 2017). Research has specifically explored the power imbalance between mentors and mentees (Maguire, 2001; Sewell et al., 2009). We also live in a society where

Student teachers with minority identities


literacy ability is associated with intelligence. This outdated view of intelligence can be extremely damaging to individuals with dyslexia who may struggle with reading and writing but, nevertheless, have unique talents which may go unrecognised. Despite their strengths, student teachers with dyslexia may hold deficit views about themselves (Griffiths, 2012), particularly in relation to their literacy skills which are exposed within classrooms. Philpott (2015) argues that systems of pastoral support for student teachers need to be proactive rather than reactive in order to prevent ‘casualties’ (p. 15) from occurring. He argues that there is a need for school mentors to predict when student teachers may require pastoral support so that systems of support do not reflect a model of ‘first aid’ (p. 15). The pastoral needs of student teachers have often been overlooked in terms of the planned organisation and structure of school placements (Philpott, 2015) and this has implications for student teachers with dyslexia and other forms of disabilities. It is critical that tutors, school mentors and student teachers meet jointly prior to placements to plan for reasonable adjustments that need to be made to school placements to enable students’ teachers with disabilities to experience equality of opportunity. Although student teachers with disabilities on university programmes are often well supported by central disability services in relation to the academic elements of a teacher education programme to meet the requirements of equality legislation, reasonable adjustments to school placements tend to be lacking (Glazzard, 2018). Planning the adjustments in advance of placements will provide student teachers with the best chance of completing their placements successfully. Universities play a critical role in supporting school mentors to understand their legal responsibilities towards supporting student teachers with disabilities. Tutors can discuss with mentors the types of adjustments that would be considered to be ‘reasonable’ and the forms of scaffolding that may need to be available to provide the student teacher with the best opportunity to complete the placement successfully. For student teachers with autistic spectrum conditions, their needs need to be discussed very carefully with schools prior to placements starting. The difficulties associated with autism include impairments in social interaction, social communication and rigidity of thought (Wing, 1980). In addition, student teachers with autism may experience difficulties with sensory sensitivity and executive functioning. Often, they have perfectionist traits which may make it difficult for them to accept and learn from mentor feedback on their teaching, which they may interpret to be critical rather than developmental. We have experienced this. This can cause relationships to break down between the student teacher and the mentor. In such cases, mentors may interpret their behaviour to contravene the professional standards, resulting in unsuccessful placements, rather than specific character traits that are consistent with autism. However, if adjustments are not provided to support the student teacher, this could be considered to be a form of direct discrimination, and thus a breach of equality legislation. Student teachers with autism may struggle with changes to routines and timetables in schools. They may find it difficult to organise their own professional development time and may need support with this. They may struggle

134 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones to demonstrate empathy and may require a social and emotional intervention programme prior to school placements. At the same time, it is critical not to overlook the strengths which they can bring to the teaching profession. They may respond well to rules, be extremely conscientious and may be extremely skilled in identifying minor details which others would overlook. A strengths-based approach, combined with high-quality pastoral care (Philpott, 2015), will provide optimum conditions to support these student teachers to thrive. Philpott’s (2015) argument that pastoral care should be proactive rather than reactive is particularly important for both of these groups of student teachers.

Student teachers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer The pastoral care needs of student teachers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) need to be carefully considered when it comes to pastoral care. Research demonstrates that they may conceal their sexual and gender identities due to internalised stigma (Meyer, 2003) and this can result in psychological distress. Some teachers who identify as LGBT may choose to adopt the strategies of ‘passing’ (Goffman, 1963, p. 73) off as heterosexual and ‘covering’ (Goffman, 1963, p. 102) up their sexual and gender identities due to fear of rejection or discrimination. Initial teacher education programmes in England have, in recent years, embedded content to support student teachers in addressing homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying among children and young people. This is partly because initial teacher education inspections have focused on this since 2012. However, greater consideration needs to be given to the needs of student teachers themselves who identify as LGBT, given that they may experience several barriers. They may be unsure about whether they can be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity with their mentors or other colleagues in school. They may try to predict the reaction of their mentors should they choose to be ‘out’ and they may decide not to take the risk, given the power imbalance between the student teacher and the mentor. They may be concerned about the reactions of the students they are responsible for teaching and they may need additional guidance to prepare them for how to respond should pupils ask them about their sexuality or gender identity. If they are placed in a faith school, they may be concerned about how well they will ‘fit in’ to the school, given the religious values that the school is seeking to promote. Student teachers may be worried about how parents of the students they teach will respond to them if they discover that they have non-normative gender identities and sexual orientations and they may anticipate parental resistance and prejudice. Philpott’s (2015) argument for pastoral care is particularly important for student teachers who identify as LGBT because of the correlation between non-normative gender and sexual identities and poor mental health outcomes (Meyer, 2003). Both heterosexual and gay male student teachers who teach younger children are particularly vulnerable to parental prejudice. They may feel that they are scrutinised more than other teachers. It is deeply concerning that male teachers who

Student teachers with minority identities


work in the Early Years Foundation Stage still continue to be subjected to parental prejudice; their motives for wanting to teach young children may be questioned and they may have to protect themselves to a greater extent than others to safeguard them from false allegations. We have experienced all of these issues in our roles as teacher educators. Student teachers who identify as LGBT may have to negotiate their sexuality due to the heteronormative culture that still exists in some schools. They may be forced to conceal their identity so that they do not become a victim of discrimination. Whilst they are protected under the law by the equality legislation, subtle forms of discrimination which exist in some schools can result in them masking their private truth and adopting a false identity. For example, student teachers who identify as transgender may not be referred to using their correct pronouns and gay and lesbian student teachers may be particularly vulnerable to false allegations (Piper and Sikes, 2010). Again, we have experienced all of these issues in our professional practice. Teacher educators who espouse inclusive social values are likely to proactively support student teachers who identify as LGBT to be proud of their sexual and gender identities and encourage them to be openly ‘out’ with their mentors. It would be useful if LGBT inclusion was embedded into programmes of professional development both for mentors and link tutors who support student teachers within school contexts. Content of training programmes should address the pastoral needs of LGBT student teachers and the relevant equality legislation which providers and schools must comply with. Philpott (2015) argues that the non-cognitive aspects of teaching are important and must not be overlooked on a teacher education programme. In addition, teacher education providers should not only support mentors to understand their legal duties in relation to the equality legislation but also highlight the importance of a strengths-based approach rather than a deficit approach when working with student teachers with disabilities and non-normative identities and sexual orientations.

Rethinking initial teacher education programmes Philpott (2015) recommends the introduction of non-assessed placements which are less high-stakes than formal assessed placements so that student teachers have the opportunity to develop non-cognitive skills in a school context. Whilst this approach has value, it is important that student teachers are able to critically reflect on the approaches they observe in school and also that they are able to recognise that some approaches may work in some schools and not others. Opportunities to develop the skills of resilience, self-regulation, organisation, working effectively with parents and colleagues and managing workload can be nurtured during a short non-assessed placement at the start of a course. Student teachers cannot learn all of these skills through lectures and thus effective university–school partnerships are critical in supporting robust programme design.

136 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones However, it is critical that initial teacher education programmes do not emphasise ‘tips for teaching’ above theoretical content. University teacher education makes an essential contribution to providing student teachers with important theoretical underpinning through academic research. Without this contribution, student teachers do not have a strong understanding of the research base which underpins teaching. Recently, policy discourse in England has positioned teaching as a craft to master. This is evident through the growth of school-led routes into teaching, introduced by Michael Gove. We argue that this is reductionist and teaching must be conceived as a practice which is theoretically underpinned by educational theory and research. Without theoretical underpinning, there is no clear rationale for why specific approaches are adopted in the classroom. A doctor would never be allowed to practice without extensive academic study and in our view teaching is no less important or less complex than the practice of medicine. The role of the teacher education provider is currently reduced to a quality assurance role. It is now common practice for university teacher educators to visit student teachers in school simply to quality assure the assessments of the mentor rather than to develop the student teacher. This devalues the experience, knowledge and academic credentials of the university teacher educator. It is also common for school mentors to focus more on assessing the student teacher rather than developing their knowledge and skills within the context of the classroom. Both the university teacher educator and the school mentor should play a critical role in developing the professional identity, knowledge and skills of the student teacher and this can be highly effective when it is done using a coaching approach. More informal opportunities for mentors and university teacher educators to coach student teachers, including opportunities for team teaching, would support them to develop their skills in the cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of teaching. All of this should take place within a context in which the pastoral care needs of the student teacher are addressed proactively rather than reactively (Philpott, 2015).

Conclusion Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) work on evidence-based teaching and Philpott’s (2015) work on pastoral care in teacher education makes an important contribution to the professions of teaching and teacher education. Philpott’s (2015) argument is certainly convincing. There is so much more involved in learning to be a teacher than focusing on the development of subject knowledge, assessments, and the regimentation of Standardised Assessment Tests, examinations and accountability. Caring for student teachers’ personal, professional and academic needs provides them with the conditions which will support them to thrive. Introducing the non-cognitive aspects of teaching into initial teacher education programmes provides them with the skills that they need to succeed as teachers. However, increasing the content on a programme which is already full to capacity is not the solution. If teacher education providers are to give greater emphasis to the non-cognitive aspects of teaching, a rethinking of the content of initial teacher education programmes is almost certainly required.

Student teachers with minority identities


This chapter has outlined the contribution that initial teacher education can make to developing teachers as researchers. It has emphasised the importance of critically reflecting on evidence that emerges out of daily practice in schools and classrooms to shape the development of students’ emerging identities as teachers. In addition, it has highlighted the need for teacher educators to give serious consideration to the pastoral needs of student teachers with disabilities and those who identify as LGBT.

References Ball, S. J. (2003), ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’, Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228. Beverton, S., Riddick, B., Dingley, E., English, E. and Gallannaugh, F. (2008), Strategies for Recruiting People with Disabilities into Initial Teacher Training. Research Report to the Training Development Agency for Schools, Durham: Durham University. Clarke, M. (2008), ‘The ethico-politics of teacher identity’, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41 (2), 185–200. Day, C., Stobart, G., Sammons, P., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Smees, R., & Mujtba, T. (2006a), Variations in Teachers’ Work Lives and Effectiveness, London: Department for Education and Skills, Research Report RR743. Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G. and Sammons, P. (2006b), ‘The personal and professional selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities’ (VITAE). British Educational Research Journal, 32 (4), 601–616. Department for Education (DfE), (2011), Teachers’ Standards: Guidance for School Leaders, School Staff and Governing Bodies, London: DfE. Duquette, C. (2000), ‘Examining autobiographical influences on student teachers with disabilities’, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 6 (2), 215–228. Fuller, M., Georgeson, J., Healey, M., Hurst, A., Kelly, K., Riddell, S., Roberts, H. and Weedon, E. (2009), Improving Disabled Students’ Learning. Experiences and Outcomes, London: Routledge. Glazzard, J. (2018), ‘Trainee teachers with dyslexia: Results of a qualitative study of teachers and their mentors’, International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 16 (12), 87–107. Goffman, E. (1963), Stigma, London: Penguin. Griffiths, S. (2012), ‘“Being dyslexic doesn’t make me less of a teacher”. School placement experiences of student teachers with dyslexia: strengths, challenges and a model for support’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 (2), 54–65. Illingworth, K. (2005), ‘The effects of dyslexia on the work of nurses and healthcare assistants’, Nursing Standard, 19 (38), 41–48. MacLure, M. (2003), Discourse in Educational and Social Research, Buckingham: Open University Press. Maguire, M. (2001) ‘Bullying and the post-graduate secondary school trainee: An English case study’, Journal of Education for Teaching, 27 (1), 95–109. Meyer, I. H. (1995), ‘Minority stress and mental health in gay men’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56. Meyer, I.H., (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, N (5), pp. 674–697.

138 Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones Meyer, I. H. and Dean, L. (1998) ‘Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men’. In: Herek, G. M. (ed.) Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 160–186. Morgan, E. and Burn, E. (2000), ‘Three perspectives on supporting a dyslexic trainee teacher’, Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (2), 172–177. Morris, D. K. and Turnbull, P. A. (2006) ‘Clinical experiences of students with dyslexia’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54 (2), 238–247. Peterson, C., Maier, S. F. and Seligman, M. E. P. (1995), Learned Helplessness: A Theory for the Age of Personal Control, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philpott, C. (2015), ‘Creating an in-school pastoral system for student teachers in schoolbased initial teacher education’, Pastoral Care in Education, 33 (1), 8–19. Philpott, C. and Poultney, V. (2018), Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers, St Albans: Critical Publishing. Pillen, M., Beijaarda, D., & Broka , P. (2013), Professional identity tensions of beginning teachers. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, (6), 660–678. Piper, H. and Sikes, P. (2010) ‘All teachers are vulnerable, but especially gay teachers: Using composite fictions to protect research participants in pupil-teacher sex related research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (7), 566–574 Pollak, D. (ed.) (2009) Neurodiversity in Higher Education: Positive Responses to Specific Learning Differences, Chichester: Wiley. Riddick, B. (2003), ‘Experiences of teachers and trainee teachers who are dyslexic’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7 (4), 389–402. Sanderson-Mann, J. and McCandless, F. (2006), ‘Understanding dyslexia and nurse education in the clinical setting’, Nurse Education in Practice, 6 (3), 127–133. Shields, S., & Murray, M. (2017), Beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentors and access to communities of practice, International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 6 (4), pp. 317–331. Sikes, P., Measor, L. and Woods, P. (1985), Teacher Careers: Crises and Continuities, Lewes: Falmer Press. Smith, R. G. (2007) ‘Developing professional identities and knowledge: Becoming primary teachers’, Teachers and Teaching, 13 (4), 377–397. Stanley, N., Ridley, J., Manthorpe, J., Harris, J. and Hurst, A. (2007), Disclosing Disability: Disabled Students and Practitioners in Social Work, Nursing and Teaching. A Research Study to Inform the Disability Rights Commission’s Formal Investigation into Fitness Standards. London: Disability Rights Commission. Tickle, L. (2000), Teacher Induction: The Way Ahead, Buckingham: Open University Press. Wing, L. (1980). ‘Childhood autism and social class: a question of selection?’ British Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 410–417.

11 What do we mean when we speak of research evidence in education? Maria Teresa Tatto

Introduction The last book written by Carey Philpott and published posthumously (Philpott and Poultney, 2018) challenges us to think about ways to develop and use evidence in the practice of teaching. The book presents an accessible overview of ways in which research evidence in education may be produced and for what purposes. We read clear and comprehensive strategies outlining ways in which practitioners may access knowledge such as literature reviews and how such knowledge may be mobilized as evidence for practice such as professional learning communities and similar. There are also the important questions of who should produce evidence to inform teaching: should it be educationists? Should it be teachers? Should it be teacher educators working with teachers? An additional question refers to how evidence may be used, for instance can evidence be used to regulate teaching? If so, who should produce it and how do we know such evidence is valid and will support rather than diminish the teaching profession? The important question is raised as to whether it is possible to have teacher practitioners be researchers, an idea that the authors support with enthusiasm. Paradoxically, while much advocacy is presented in favor of the use of research by teachers, the mechanisms through which this may happen go unexplored, and puzzlingly teachers and teacher educators are presented as lacking agency in the restrictive policy environment in England. It is in this context that Philpott and Poultney discuss a number of models from other professions such as medicine with an emphasis on clinical practice models for initial teacher education which, against much current scholarship to the contrary, is seen as unhelpful by the authors. The book also offers an appraisal of Randomized Control Trial (RCT) studies, and more generally, research that uses quantitative methods. My contribution to this volume is to attempt to engage with Carey Philpott in a frank conversation about the worth of his work to practitioners in the USA (see also Philpott, 2014), especially given the endeavor of his colleagues in this edited memorial book to carry it forward and bring it to a wider audience. This begins with a discussion on definitions in the education field, including what is meant by educational research and by the knowledge that is needed to do educational

140 Maria Teresa Tatto research as part of the larger scholarly and practitioners’ community. This is followed by an examination of the role of learning communities and the role of research on teaching and teacher education. A discussion on the evidence that is needed to support teaching and indeed teacher education practice follows, including a brief summary of what we know about research that informs teacher education. I end by briefly proposing a vision for the future.

Engaging Philpott: a view from abroad in comparative perspective A dialogue with Carey Philpott’s scholarship needs to be placed in context. The situation of teachers and teacher education in England, where he first worked as a teacher and later as a Professor of Teacher Education, stands in stark contrast with that of other nations. At least since the 1980s, a centralized government committed to a Thatcherite model created policies that have served to dismantle a large number of teacher education programs, opening to the market the education of teachers. This effectively devolved what had been the state responsibility to numerous bidders including local authorities acting more in the interests of corporate sponsors than schools, and diversified the routes to becoming a teacher with little to no reflection on the consequences these moves may have for the teaching profession. At the same time, a system of accountability and regulation has been imposed on university Schools of Education, and on schools and teachers, creating a culture of managerialism and performativity that now dominates the education field. These pressures have resulted in universities ceasing undertaking initial (preservice) teacher education such as the University of Bath and the Open University. Under these circumstances, for almost 40 years empirical research on education by education professionals including teachers in England has been severely curtailed. Accountability pressures and no governmental funding allocated to independent research has left educational researchers with fewer alternatives, yet it has not diminished production. In spite of lack of funding, educational researchers have continued to conduct inquiry but of a different kind, namely within their institutions and classrooms, and in collaboration with teachers. While this scholarship has produced very valuable depth of knowledge and understanding, it has been seen by those outside the profession as lacking authority to influence policy. Teachers (and their students) have been the most affected by accountability regimes (e.g., frequent inspections) and the ongoing demands on their time and wellbeing brought about by ever-changing curricular policy and continuous testing. Teachers are frequently confronted by prescriptions for practice, often with no evidence to back them up (in Philpott’s words ‘fads’) that may or may not respond to the actual needs of their students. Teacher-initiated research or even teacher inquiry has also suffered under performativity pressures. From the time of Thatcher’s election in 1979, we have witnessed an increased alienation within the education profession and more specifically among teachers. The result of the English experiment on education, while predictable, seemed to have taken the politicians by surprise. The attractiveness of teaching as a

Research evidence in education


career in England has sharply declined. Inspired by the Teach for All initiative in North America and similar initiatives elsewhere, teaching is now seen by many as part of the gig economy with many considering teaching as a stepping stone to something else. A number of measures have been implemented in attempts at recruiting and retaining teachers. For instance, the May Conservative Government (2016–2019) provided guides to help programs in the recruitment of individuals into teaching. This government developed an initiative to provide cash incentives to early career teachers in the hope of retaining them in the profession with an emphasis on areas that otherwise would make them competitive for other careers such as mathematics and the sciences.1 Similarly, the lack of individuals applying to come into teaching had been so reduced that the former Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove (2010–2015) commissioned a review of initial teacher training that resulted in yet another route into teaching called ‘School Direct’. This is where individuals wanting to become teachers can begin teaching in schools with no background or experience in education and they may eventually obtain certification after several years on the job. While in the past excellent research emerged from university Schools of Education in England, after the 1980s most of the funding for research was assigned centrally to engage in studies considered relevant by the Department for Education (DfE). Researchers in universities are now obligated to look for grants and external funding from charities and trusts. Consistent with the market model approach to education research, non-educators or non-practitioners have found a comfortable place at the table of policy making discussions. In contrast with past education studies where the focus was on learning and human development, research that now informs education is more about efficient ways of acquiring the skills that will be needed for the workforce of the future to advance economic development. Studies using econometric models, while still useful from an interdisciplinary perspective, do little to contribute to educational knowledge and practice and are for the most part inaccessible to teachers and even educators, yet they continue to strongly influence education policy. The most notable and worrisome example is the indicator collection exercises in education carried out by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) such as PISA and TALIS. Using the results of PISA and TALIS, OECD ‘swat teams’ based in Paris feel confident enough to travel to different countries and suggest policy directives to ministries of education around the world. These indicator collection exercises (under the guise of ‘studies’) are occurring with such frequency that they end up consuming a significant portion of the already limited education budget from participating countries. Given this situation, it is not too far-fetched to predict a decrease in funding allocated to local research by educators and the consequent deskilling of educational researchers worldwide. Indeed, in a recent book, educators from 12 countries investigated the kinds of knowledge and other influences that are used to inform or shape the curriculum of teacher education. The study found a general lack of systematic research undertaken by educators on their own practice (see Tatto & Menter, 2019).

142 Maria Teresa Tatto It is against this background that Philpott’s call for clarifying and understanding the role of research in policy and practice is so important. On the one hand, as Philpott recommends, it is essential for the education profession to ask policy makers to be accountable for the evidence they use to inform policy, and for that evidence to be subject to scrutiny. On the other hand, I argue, it is even more important for the education profession to rescue the education research project (Furlong, 2013) and for the education profession to own the production and use of evidence in order to command the policy making of their own destiny. To engage in either one of these two quests, however, it is necessary to first tackle a major problem that plagues the profession. To put it simply, we need to be clear about what we mean by evidence and what we mean by educational research.

Defining the field There is not enough space in this penultimate chapter or indeed in this edited memorial book to engage in such an important and demanding endeavor as defining the field of education in England or elsewhere (though for an extended and excellent analysis consult Furlong, 2013). Instead, this chapter is written to justify a call to education scholars across the world to engage individually and collectively in this endeavor. Indeed, Philpott (2014, p.8) was already concerned with this very issue as he put forward the question ‘where do we expect to find expert knowledge on how teaching should be done?’ The job of defining the field is no simple task; it entails high degrees of complexity, collaboration and discipline. It means, for instance, arriving at a universal (yet flexible and contextual) agreement as to what it means to teach effectively, an agreement as to the evidence that would allow us to identify an effective teacher, say of history, and on ways of using such evidence to improve teacher education and to continue to build the history teachers’ profession. To answer these questions, we need to explore first what is understood by effective teaching and the evidence that we have to make such an assertion. What do we mean by effective teaching and what evidence do we have? The answer to this question, which stands at the heart of education as a discipline, is highly contested. In spite of much progress in this area in the 1970s and 1980s, mostly emerging from the field of educational psychology (Berliner, 1989; Brophy & Good, 1986; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Shulman, 1987), the definition of what effective teaching is continues to elude the field (Tatto & Menter, 2019). This has resulted in wide variability in the approaches to prepare teachers worldwide (Tatto, 2018a; Tatto, 2018b) although some fields seem to have more clarity than others (e.g., mathematics education). To plainly answer the question, the education field does not have a coherent definition of what effective teaching is, nor one with which educators across contexts can agree. This situation stands in sharp contrast with all other professions and takes up Philpott and Poultney’s (2018) concern with the medical profession.

Research evidence in education


While distinct from teaching in several aspects, there are beneficial comparisons with medicine. Doctors must practice across different contexts, attend to a variety of patients with different ailments, and depend on patients’ will to be effective in their day-to-day practice (e.g., to take their medications, to attend follow-up appointments, etc.). What distinguishes the medical field is its members’ ability to agree on the knowledge base that all doctors must master to be declared safe to practice, and in the long periods of learning in residency under expert practicing doctors. The education field has seen similar attempts at defining the knowledge base, for example Shulman (1987); Tatto (2015). In particular, the Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) conceptualized, developed and implemented by teacher educators in 17 countries, used such definitions to guide the study of the outcomes of teacher education. The FIRSTMATH study developed and implemented by teacher educators and early career teachers furthered these efforts in 12 countries. Important advances also exist on the evidence collected concerning the benefits of mentored clinical practice for teachers (Burn & Mutton, 2015) (for an extended discussion, see Brennan, Chapter 4 and Harris, Chapter 4, this book). But even in the face of these efforts, we see continuous attempts inside and outside the profession at taking the field in divergent directions. Indeed, the disagreement in the field has created opportunities for others outside education to provide their own definitions such as what it means to be a qualified teacher (such a definition in the USA, for instance, eliminated any reference to expertise in pedagogy or experiences in schools; see Tatto & Clark, 2019). While the field of medicine has endeavored to create legitimacy to the point that they are as a professional field able to hold themselves accountable (i.e., to self-regulate), the education profession at least in England and the USA has not really been able to create such legitimacy and for the most part continues to be regulated from without (though for a critical discussion of teachers’ self-regulation in Ireland and its contestation, consult Carr & Beckett, 2018). External regulation means that others dictate how to evaluate teaching and learning and, in general, what types of evidence are seen as legitimate to inform decisions. For an extended discussion on the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and equivalent in England which redefined Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), as well as the creation of curriculum standards and accountability regimes operated from outside to evaluate the profession, see Tatto et al. (2018); for a global view see Tatto and Pippin (2017). In response to the appropriation of educational research production by noneducators, Philpott and Poultney (2018) issue a call to educators to engage in producing research to provide at least three types of evidence (in my own words): evidence that serves to support education policies at the macro, meso and micro level; evidence that should be produced by the education profession to self-study and improve; and the evidence that teachers must be able to collect to evaluate their own practice and to evaluate whether or not their pupils have learned as intended. A more careful examination of this call, however, reveals enormous complexity, not least what is meant by research.

144 Maria Teresa Tatto What do we mean by educational research? In Philpott and Poultney’s book there seems to be an implicit and important assumption: that the evidence that counts is that which is produced via education research in the broad sense of the word. In this section I will challenge the broad use of ‘research’ because it seems unhelpful. At the macro level, policy makers typically do not engage in research to mandate policy in education. They should however be able to review a variety of empirical findings emerging from systematic educational research when arriving at decisions as important as, for instance, re-defining what is meant by a highly qualified teacher or as mandating wholesale teacher evaluations using value-added methods borrowed from economics. Nevertheless, as Weiss (1977) has pointed out, research usually serves an ‘enlightening’ rather than an authoritative function in policy making. This separation between those who make decisions and those who receive the consequences of such decisions prompted the so-called action research movement defined as ‘comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action [as a] series of spiral steps, each composed of a cycle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action’ (Lewin, 1946, p. 35 & 38). In other words, a type of research that is produced to be of use to those who practice a profession. But while in some professions, practitioners are indeed able to engage in systematic research that carries authority, the education profession has rarely been able to do so or at least not to the degree to which other professions such as medicine and others have. Thus, at the macro level as far as education is concerned, policies are made from without the profession by an ever-increasing variety of actors from governmental to an evergrowing number of organizations including those operating globally. This situation begs the question as to how educators may retake the field to reorient the purposes of education and of education research to produce knowledge that can serve to better understand and improve teaching and learning processes. At the meso level, it is likely that school personnel do not need to engage in research to realize whether some pupils are bullied or to enact policies of no-tolerance and a climate of trust. Systematic educational research will be needed, however, when evaluating how such policy is likely to affect pupils’ learning. Likewise, at the meso level of teacher education institutions, a program of systematic data collection would be needed to enable teacher educators to evaluate, improve and defend their own programs, something that is rarely if ever done. At the micro level, teachers may engage with inquiry approaches to develop or use tools to help them evaluate their own practice, their students’ learning and to engage in inquiry-based teaching. Teachers may also engage in systematic applied research projects more commonly known as ‘action research’. In sum, across all these levels of description it is essential to avoid the generic use of ‘research’, so common in education. We as educators need to be more nuanced when using the term. Because as educational researchers we operate within the scholarly community, when we say we are doing education research it must mean that we are engaged in the systematic and careful study of a subject,

Research evidence in education


event, relevant or enduring question to discover new facts or information about learning (adapted from OED). This is not an ephemerous engagement. It is not simply reading a synthesis of research and applying what emerged as the most effective teaching method in our classroom to express satisfaction after a week or a month (as often done in Professional Development sessions), as valuable as that experience may be. To count as research, there should be a continuous and systematic engagement with uncovering the theory of action for the phenomena under study. There should be a plan as to how an intervention will be studied and who will participate, what measures would be used, how the analysis of the obtained data will be done and how to evaluate whether the results obtained are indeed valid and reliable. Educational research should use the methods and strategies that have been developed over the years in the social sciences, and it should be done collaboratively by educators in interdisciplinary teams of researchers who can make sense of multiple views of reality while united by a common goal. So, what then about the one teacher or the two teachers who want to implement and assess an innovative method in their classrooms to see whether such an approach facilitates, for instance, the learning of fractions? Isn’t that research? My answer would be no, it is not research; it is good practice carried out by professional teachers who are knowledgeable and committed to implementing inquiry-based teaching in their classrooms. This practice could be the basis for an extended research project in the future of course, but to be so would require careful planning and continuous systematic study. The key question (to connect with the title of Philpott and Poultney’s book) is to ask ‘how do you know?’ (i.e., what is the evidence)? How do you know that what you are doing improves learning? For whom? Why? For how long is it sustained? It is possible that implementing ‘active learning’ methods will result in teachers feeling more effective, but the challenge for the educational researcher is to provide solid evidence documenting what was done? To whom? Why? With what results in the short and the long term? The conundrum for educational researchers who are critical of research methods in the social sciences is that to answer those questions some type of measurement is needed; thus, formative and summative evaluation of some kind is necessary and reports that qualify and quantify the results are without doubt necessary. An additional, and related, problem is that when educationists begin thinking about doing research, they seem to immediately gravitate to thinking about the methods regardless of the research question, whether the research is qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods. This misguided impulse misses the most important element in any type of research endeavor: that the definition of the problem and of the research question(s) must guide the methods that need to be used to answer the question, not the other way around. We often hear doctoral education students announcing their decision to do qualitative research before they have formulated their research question, which in many cases also requires, to be addressed properly, quantitative data collection. I mention this as a particular problem because there is an entire section in Philpott and Poultney’s book that is dedicated at criticizing quantitative work (assessments, RCT, surveys), reflecting a usual practice among educationists.

146 Maria Teresa Tatto I would challenge Philpott and Poultney on this and would argue that such a practice is an unfortunate one as it has damaged not only the reputation of educational research but has rendered the profession unable to use valuable tools to research important questions in the field. By maligning quantitative methods and survey studies (which include the use of assessments, questionnaires, interviews and observations among others), for instance, we take away from educationists useful tools that can help to obtain needed data in an efficient manner (provided the instruments such as questionnaires are properly constructed and are valid and reliable). In reading the arguments against survey studies, the lack of knowledge among educationists as to how good-quality surveys studies are constructed is evident—when developing a questionnaire, for instance, measurement practitioners begin by doing qualitative work such as interviews, observations and focus groups among others. I refer readers to a book written by Pring (2015) that is directed at helping educationists think with clarity about the different approaches in the field of educational research and to move away from unhelpful dichotomies. To conclude this section, it is essential to underline the important distinction between the tools and methods that produce research evidence (which all educators must be fluent in), and how this evidence is used (which all educators must carefully examine and challenge when needed). As educators, we do not help the profession by not engaging in quantitative or survey work (including qualitative work as well); rather, we are left without the tools to engage those who are using indicator collection exercises and similar evidence to attack the profession.

Consequences of lack of agreement in the field The lack of agreement concerning the inquiry or research approach that should be taught in education can be appreciated in the results of a study of the syllabus used in representative samples of teacher education institutions across several countries (England did not participate as the study was not considered relevant for the DfE). For instance, a study of the syllabi of teacher education institutions preparing lower secondary and upper secondary mathematics teachers in Germany, Poland, Singapore, and the USA, found an important—though not uniform— emphasis on preparing teachers to analyze, observe and reflect on mathematics teaching (for lower secondary / upper secondary respectively in Germany 88%/ 100%; Poland 65%/89%; Singapore 100%/100%; and the USA 53%/54%). In the same study, relatively few institutions offered methods of educational research to their future teachers (for lower secondary / upper secondary respectively in Germany 18%/0%; Poland 35%/15%; Singapore 0%/0%; and the USA 32%/42%) with more emphasis placed on the study of assessments and measurement (for lower secondary / upper secondary respectively in Germany 65%/64%; Poland 55%/63%; Singapore 100%/100%; and the USA 63%/58%). This variability in the attention given to research and assessments is also seen in the syllabus for the field experiences where future teachers are asked to assess students (for lower secondary / upper secondary respectively in Germany n.a./n.a.; Poland 45%/32%; Singapore 100%/100%; and the USA 32%/36%), and whether they are allowed to design

Research evidence in education


and carry out an action research project during their practicum (for lower secondary / upper secondary respectively in Germany n.a./n.a.; Poland 10%/6%; Singapore 0%/0%; and the USA 5%/19%) (Tatto & Hordern, 2017). While this attention to inquiry and research is highly variable within and across countries, other countries go to great lengths to prepare their future teachers to engage in research, such as in Finland (Säntti & Kauko, 2019). Given the condition in the field and the frequent calls to involve teachers in research, it is relevant to briefly discuss what knowledge is needed to engage in educational research.

What is the knowledge needed to engage with and produce research, and how does it help to develop learning communities? First it is important to recognize that learning to do research in education is not an easy task, and cannot be learned quickly. As any educationist that has taught quantitative and qualitative research methods in Schools of Education can attest, learning research methods requires from the learner a significant change in perspective; an inquiry attitude needs to become a habit of mind. What to the experienced researcher may seem basic, represents enormous challenges for the novice. One of the most challenging aspects is to help the learner identify a problem that merits investigation. Another important challenge is the development of research questions and the development of a hypothesis and assumptions. The identification of a problem, the research questions and the hypothesis or assumptions typically emerge from previous work or experiences and from reading previous research of all types on the topic. In this case, it is important to know what perspectives or theoretical frameworks have been used to guide similar inquiries. Equally important is to understand what methodological approaches have been used to investigate similar problems. A thorough search of the literature using an interdisciplinary framework exploring multiple databases may reveal that the problem in question has been rigorously investigated in the past by researchers in disciplines such as psychology, as we find in the extensive literature on research on teaching and learning (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1986; Good & Grouws, 1977; Houston, 1990; Leinhart & Greeno, 1986). Articles submitted to educational journals by educators frequently reveal that the authors’ search has been limited to specific perspectives (e.g. ethnography) and specific methods (e.g., qualitative studies) and mistakenly conclude that their study is the first to explore a particular topic. Selecting a method that will permit an adequate exploration of the problem may well require the use of qualitative and quantitative methods and researchers should be able to engage in the careful analysis of such data. Educational researchers and philosophers have seen with dismay (Labaree, 1998; Lagemann, 1997; Pallas, 2001; Pring, 2015; Tatto, 2018c) the lack of attention given to the teaching of the wide variety of social science methods in education programs. Following Bernstein’s (Atkinson, 1985) recontextualization/reproduction dynamic, it is not difficult to see why teacher educators are more inclined to use and teach qualitative methods almost exclusively to approach research problems.

148 Maria Teresa Tatto Thus, before asking teachers to engage with research, we must examine whether the teacher preparation program curriculum has provided future teachers with the learning opportunities to engage in research activities. The evidence from the syllabus study presented above reveals the mixed state of the field. Finland’s teacher education approach, however, can be examined as an example of teacher education programs which require that teachers learn to do research (see Säntti & Kauko, 2019), albeit evidence is still needed on the impact of this approach for teachers and their students. A number of factors are notable: (a) Finland has a centralized public system of governance and a central curriculum, both bringing an important degree of coherence into the system, (b) Finnish future teachers are required to study for a Master’s degree where the focus is to learn to do research; (c) the curriculum includes courses in research designs, and qualitative and quantitative methods; (c) application of research to clinical practice; (d) a research project; (d) engagement with the professional research community. As Säntti and Kauko (2019, p. 90) note when describing the 10-credit ‘Teacher as Researcher’ course: After the course, students should be able to ‘justify the use of an investigative approach in their work as teachers and to work as critical education professionals who investigate and develop their work’. In this course, students will write their own minor research of some pedagogical theme they have chosen. Philpott does allude to this sophisticated level of research knowledge when he recommends that teachers wanting to do research seek out teachers who have advanced studies such as Master’s degrees. An important aspect of research involvement that merits further discussion is that of teachers’ engagement as equal participants in the research community, which requires exchange of ideas and research results, an activity typically done in research conferences. This is an important aspect to examine given the notion that the idea to have teachers as researchers is not only the production of knowledge but also its translation and dissemination. Examining the guidelines provided by a number of education research associations such as the British Education Research Association (BERA), the American Education Research Association (AERA), and the European Educational Research Association (EERA) provides an indication of what is expected. Notably there are spaces in these conferences for school-practitioner inquiries. Let’s look at AERA’s Division K: ‘Teacher and Teacher Education.’ This conference, for instance, recognizes a variety of types of inquiry such as ‘philosophical, historical, ecological, ethnographic, descriptive, correlational, and experimental studies, as well as school-based practitioner inquiries within these approaches’ (AERA, Call for submissions 2020, p.25, my emphasis). The types of research reports expected by the association include empirical work, documentary accounts, and theoretical/conceptual analyses. To be accepted for presentation, the reports have to align with criteria commonly used to report high-quality research. These criteria are reproduced below; as we read it is important to reflect on whether teachers and

Research evidence in education


teacher educators learn to do research/inquiry to enable them to participate in this or a similar conference: Empirical work must include (a) a clear and significant description of the problems or objectives addressed; (b) a theoretical framework or perspective; (c) connection to the literature; (d) articulated mode of inquiry; (e) selection and use of evidence to support conclusions; (f) a description of the conclusions or interpretations and how they extend understandings; and (g) contribution to the field or significance of results or findings. Documentary accounts must include (a) a clear description of the event(s) and practices being addressed, including a description of the context and background of the programs; (b) the theoretical framework or perspective; (c) connection to the literature; (d) articulated mode of inquiry; (e) an explanation of how these events and analyses extend our understandings of teaching and learning; and (f) a discussion of the contribution to the field. Theoretical/conceptual analyses must include (a) a clear statement of the issue that the analysis will address; (b) the theoretical/conceptual framework or perspective; (c) connection to the literature, with reference to other relevant work; (d) a theoretical analysis of the concepts being discussed; and (e) the contribution to the field, or significance of the work. (AERA, Call for submissions 2020, p.25) Since the creation of AERA’s Division K in the mid-1970s, teachers and teacher educators have been participating in conferences, and are able to do so because they have had the opportunities to learn and implement inquiry-based teaching, research their own practices, and develop reports that fulfill the requirements to present in the conference. But these participants are only a small percentage of practicing teachers and school-based educators. Unless the profession makes a strong commitment to prepare teachers to engage in educational research, it is not likely that the current situation will change. Receiving the appropriate preparation might begin by uniformly developing the capacities of teacher educators, and by allocating funds to these endeavors. This task should be seriously considered by the education community. Not only must education as a discipline produce its own authoritative research, but we know from multi-country research reviews that there is a correlation between good teaching and research knowledge (Tatto, 2015). Thus, my conclusion in this sense agrees with Philpott about the need for research in teaching, but we must recognize that this task is more complex and requires more effort than commonly assumed.

What do we know about the evidence that informs teacher education? In the past, many studies have explored what makes an effective teacher: some have used production function models (Berliner, 1989; Good & Grouws, 1977); others approaches from psychology (Clark & Peterson, 1986); others

150 Maria Teresa Tatto observational studies (Jackson, 1990), and others sociological such as ‘Schoolteacher’ (Lortie, 1975), and in the present a number of studies (many in the USA) under the banner of ‘what works’ have begun to develop lists of essential skills that effective teachers must possess with mixed evidentiary support (see Teaching Works, n.d.; for a critique see Kennedy, 2016). These and other studies and initiatives are assumed to have had an influence on the way we shape teacher education. But can we find evidence to support such an assumption? In a recent study (Tatto & Menter, 2019) a group of teacher educators explored the research literature on teacher education in 12 countries in an attempt to answer the key twin question: what is the knowledge (or evidence) that teacher education programs use to prepare their teachers? How do teacher educators (in individual programs or in the aggregate) know whether these approaches prepare teachers as expected (in other words do programs have evidence of what helps prepare more knowledgeable teachers, how, and why?) We found a great deal of diversity within and across countries on the learning opportunities that are provided to teachers. According to authors many approaches are based on tradition, some on ideology or political hunches, others are based on central mandates without evidentiary support, others on small-scale inquiry investigations, and others on more rigorous study; few are large-scale multi-country studies and some are longitudinal. The question raised in an early work prevails: what is the image of the ideal teacher for the ideal citizen? (Tatto, 2007). This provokes another question. How do we document these experiences to grow the field? My proposal here is that we will not know as a profession what makes an effective teacher and an effective teacher education until we as teacher educators are able to find evidence to support our claims for the models we use to prepare future teachers. As Philpott and many others have discussed, the ultimate measure of what makes teachers effective is not the simplistic knowledge encompassed on what we know as ‘pupil achievement’ but the more complex interaction between teacher and learner around knowing and learning. And while learning is at the core of teaching so is the inspiration to have wonderful ideas, the development of values that helps us have a fulfilling and happy life, the enthusiasm for knowledge and for knowing what has come before we were born, for knowing about the wonders of our planet and the vast universe, for the works of literature and our bodies and minds, the beauty of mathematics and music, the magic of language and drama. Why is it important to find evidence for what teacher education does and for the notions we have as to what makes an effective teacher? Because the teaching profession and the discipline of education as a whole is under attack. As the introduction of this edited memorial book mentions, there are organizations that have taken on the role to inform bureaucracies about their systems under the guise of research studies. These organizations have gradually increased their influence with governments and in some cases are accorded more authority than professional researchers in education, including teacher education.

Research evidence in education


Other disciplines entering the field with a weak response by educators. It is possible that others reading Philpott’s work and this penultimate chapter would argue that there is plenty of research that explores the effectiveness of teaching and teacher education and they would be correct. Since the 1960s, economists in the World Bank contributed their knowledge and skills to investigate important social problems, among them in education. This work followed a framework or model called the ‘production function’ that highlighted from an economics perspective important issues that deserved further study. One such area was teacher effectiveness. Among a number of factors considered to contribute to teacher effectiveness was the education that teachers had received ‘operationalized’ as the level of education achieved, years of education and the possession of a teaching credential. These and other factors were typically ‘regressed’ on pupil achievement as measured in tests. Not surprisingly, the most important factor affecting pupil achievement was their socioeconomic status, with teachers (and teacher education) as operationalized by economists contributing close to zero effects. A review of the international literature did in fact reveal that these indicators were used worldwide ignoring, for instance, the most important factor influencing teaching effectiveness: the knowledge teachers acquire as a result of their preparation (Tatto, 2008), which is highly variable, a fact that the TEDS-M study demonstrated (Tatto 2018a; Tatto 2018b). This approach as used by economists is typically limited to data that are already available and collected for other purposes (e.g., administrative or census data), therefore lacking a theory of teaching and learning, and has been criticized by educationists, mostly educational psychologists, but also some economists and comparativists who argued that cognitive and other important processes have been absent from such equations (Klees et al., 2012; Tatto, 2008). It was not until 2008 (Tatto et al., 2008) that important advances in understanding the process of learning teaching, research design, measurement, and analysis made possible studies such as TEDS-M, an authoritative cross-national study that provided evidence of the outcomes of teacher education according to what educators defined as the knowledge needed for teaching (see Tatto, 2018a; Tatto, 2018b; also Newman, Chapter 8, this book). For the first time, international assessments of teachers’ knowledge were developed to argue with solid evidence the influence of a variety of learning opportunities before and during teacher education. The study gave way to another study (Tatto et al., 2020) empirically proving that teachers’ knowledge has an important correlation with quality teaching. These are findings that educators continue to use to argue for the importance of more and deeper education for future and current teachers. Nevertheless, the influence of the economic models in education has increased once more as a result of the OECD indicator exercises on education, and continued work at the World Bank, a trend to which educators must react. See for instance Edwards (2019) for a recent reaction to a new World Bank initiative to evaluate teaching performance with a lack of involvement of teachers and of educators published in Worlds of Education, the blog of Education International. Some educators, however, have begun to use economic models and approaches to attempt to evaluate teacher preparation and

152 Maria Teresa Tatto teaching using administrative data typically collected for other purposes (i.e., to comply with accountability mandates), leaving central questions as to what learning occurred among teachers in their different programs and how and why such learning is related to their practice and their students’ learning unanswered (see for instance Boyd et al., 2009).

A view toward the future We as educators must honor Philpott’s work and that of others who have called for the field to develop into a full discipline. Educators need to produce evidence through research to continue to create the knowledge base to self-regulate the profession much in the way other professions such as medicine do. I propose in agreement with the contributing authors assembled here that it is possible for the field of education to develop the capacity to research their own practice and to take back the agency and voice that has been absent from the policy table for too long. As scholars we must be vigilant of large-scale indicator collection exercises that marginalize teachers and that are currently used as tools to manipulate policy under a globalization framework, threatening to deskill not only teachers but educational researchers. To end I want to express my gratitude to Carey Philpott for relentlessly raising these issues. Others will need to take on the job. But for now, we have the advantage in having access to Carey’s work and to the work presented in this book, which all promise to contribute to the important goals of developing an honorable teaching profession and education as a discipline.

Note 1 See;

References Atkinson, P. (1985) Language, Structure and Reproduction: An Introduction to the Sociology of Basil Bernstein. London: Methuen. Berliner, D. (1989). The place of process-product research in developing the agenda for research on teacher thinking. Educational Psychologist, 24(4), 325–344. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416–440. Brophy, J. J. and Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan. Burn, K. and Mutton, T. (2015). A review of ‘research-informed clinical practice’ in Initial Teacher Education. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 217–233. Carr, J. and Beckett, L. (2018). Teachers and Teacher Unions in a Globalised World: History, Theory and Policy in Ireland. London: Routledge.

Research evidence in education


Clark, C. M. and Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan. Edwards, D. (2019). Is the World Bank taking the right approach to ensure #successfulteachers? [Retrieved from detail/16134/%E2%80%9Cis-the-world-bank-taking-the-right-approach-to-ensur e-successfulteachers%E2%80%9D-by-david-edwards]. Also see il_page/4409/counter-de-professionalisation-trends. Furlong, J. (2013). Education: An Anatomy of the Discipline. London: Routledge. Good, T. and Grouws, D. (1977). Teaching effects: A process-product study in fourthgrade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 49–54. Houston, W. R. (Ed.) (1990) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Macmillan. Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Kennedy, M. (2016). Parsing the practice of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 67 (1), 6–17. Klees, S. J., Samoff, J. and Stromquist, N. P. (Eds.) (2012). The World Bank and Education: Critiques and Alternatives. Rotterdam: Sense. Labaree, D. F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 4–12. Lagemann, E. C. (1997). Contested terrain: A history of education research in the United States, 1890–1990. Educational Researcher, 26, 5–17. Leinhart, G. and Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), p. 34–46. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OED (2020). Definition of research. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press [retrieved from research_1]. Pallas, A. (2001). Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 6–11. Philpott, C. (2014). Theories of professional learning: A critical guide for teacher educators. Northwich: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C. and Poultney, V. (2018). Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing. Pring, R. (2015). Philosophy of Educational Research. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Säntti, J. and Kauko, J. (2019). Learning to teach in Finland: Historical contingency and professional autonomy. In M. T. Tatto and I. Menter (Eds.), Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning to Teach: A Cross-National Study (pp. 81–97). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), pp. 1–22. Tatto, M. T. (2007). Reforming Teaching Globally. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. (Reprinted in 2009 by Information Age Publishers) Tatto, M. T. (2008). Teacher policy: A framework for comparative analysis. Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 38, 487–508. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S., Ingvarson, L., Peck, R., and Rowley, G. (2008). Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M): Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics. Conceptual framework. East

154 Maria Teresa Tatto Lansing, MI: Teacher Education and Development International Study Center, College of Education, Michigan State University. Tatto, M. T. (2015). The role of research in the policy and practice of quality teacher education: An international review. Oxford Review of Education, 41(2), 171–201. Tatto, M.T. & Hordern, J. (2017). The configuration of teacher education as a professional field of practice: a comparative study of mathematics education (255–274). In J. Furlong & G. Whitty (eds.), Knowledge and the Study of Education: an international exploration. Oxford, England: Oxford Comparative Education Series, Symposium Books. Tatto, M. T. and Pippin, J. (2017). The quest for quality and the rise of accountability systems in teacher education. In J. D. Clandinin and J. Husu (Eds.), International Handbook of Research in Teacher Education. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Tatto, M. T. (2018a). The mathematical education of primary teachers (pp. 205–256). In M. T. Tatto, M. Rodriguez, W. Smith, M. Reckase and K. Bankov (Eds.), Exploring the Mathematics Education of Teachers using TEDS-M Data. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Tatto, M. T. (2018b). The mathematical education of secondary teachers. In M. T. Tatto, M. Rodriguez, W. Smith, M. Reckase and K. Bankov (Eds.), Exploring the Mathematics Education of Teachers using TEDS-M Data (pp. 409–450). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Tatto, M. T. (2018c). Constructing research impact in teacher education through international collaboration and capacity building. Research Intelligence, 135, 27–33. Tatto, M. T., Burn, K., Menter, I., Mutton, T. and Thompson, I. (2018). Learning to Teach in England and the United States: The Evolution of Policy and Practice. Abingdon, England: Routledge. Tatto, M. T. and Clark, C. M. (2019). Institutional transformations, knowledge and research traditions in the USA. In M. T. Tatto and I. Menter (Eds.), Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning to Teach: A Cross-National Study (pp. 233–256). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tatto, M.T., and Menter I. (Eds.). (2019). Knowledge, Policy and Practice in Learning to Teach: A Cross-National Study. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Tatto, M. T., Rodriguez, M., Reckase, M., Smith, W., Bankov, K. and Pippin, J. (2020). The First Five Years of Teaching Mathematics (FIRSTMATH): Concepts, Methods and Strategies for Comparative International Research. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Teaching Works. (n.d.). High leverage practices. Retrieved from Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545.

Epilogue Developing research-informed teacher learning Pete Boyd

The intention of this Epilogue is to reflect on the major themes developed by Professor Carey Philpott, particularly concerning teacher education, and to critically consider how we have managed throughout this edited memorial book to recognise, challenge and build upon his legacy of scholarship and research in the field. Carey embraced the challenge of developing approaches to teacher education that prepare teachers as critically informed professionals able to support the development of research-informed practice in schools. He worked in an era of erratic education policy that arguably has seen many teacher education programmes in the UK reduced towards a technical teacher ‘training’. Many university-based teacher educators in the UK, some of whom are professional educational researchers, have prior experience of teaching and leadership in schools. I share this professional history with Carey Philpott, who taught English and Drama in secondary schools in his first career. Having studied part-time as a school teacher for a Master’s degree and then part-time as a university lecturer for a Doctorate, such teacher educators have developed some level of research capacity. It does not seem surprising that many of this generation of teacher educators have been inspired by Lawrence Stenhouse’s vision of the ‘teacher researcher’ (1975) and subsequently pursue an ‘inquirybased’ pedagogy for teacher education, including perhaps an idealised vision of the ‘inquiry-based teacher’. Carey Philpott’s work gradually centred on this aspect of professional learning – the relationship between theory and research on the one hand and practice on the other. Underpinned by advanced scholarship, he contributed to the long-standing debate about the influence, or lack of influence, of theory and research on school and classroom practice. By citing three of his most recent publications I will foreground three key points in Carey’s argument, on theory, on research and on practice, before setting out a challenge for all those of us who have a commitment to an inquiry-based teacher approach. First, on theory. Introducing his book, Theories of Professional Learning: A Critical Guide for Teacher Educators, Carey Philpott proposes that ‘theories of professional learning are like lenses that we hope will help us to be more effective in supporting the professional learning of our students’ giving us ‘a more detailed or insightful view of how learning takes place’ (Philpott, 2014: 1). In evaluating key professional learning theories, Carey provided an accessible guide for teacher

156 Pete Boyd educators and identified some common ground, including the importance of different forms of knowledge, the essential need for structured enactment and the significance of social interaction within workplace cultures. Most importantly through this text, he establishes the usefulness of professional learning theories to the understanding of teacher learning. In the layered nature of teacher education, Carey is also reinforcing the significance of theory to an educator through this text. I agree with him that educators need theory; as Kurt Lewin proposed, ‘there is nothing as practical as a good theory’ (Billig, 2015: 3). Teacher educators need to model for student teachers a theorised and research-informed approach to their practice. As highlighted in the Prologue to this edited memorial book by Ian Menter, Carey had asked the key question for teacher educators: what do we want a theory of professional learning to do for us? Second, on research. In summarising the introduction to their co-authored book, Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers, Carey Philpott and Val Poultney point out that: Debates about evidence-based teaching have been raging in the education community for at least 20 years with no obvious signs of change… unless we accept that the education community is especially inadequate or perverse, we must consider that the challenges are greater than some proponents would have us believe. (Philpott & Poultney, 2014: 23) This text shines a critical light exposing the contributions and limitations for teacher learning of: systematic research reviews; randomised control trial research; and translational research and knowledge mobilisation. In tackling these issues head on, and in an accessible style, the text makes a significant contribution to scholarship in teacher education. Third, on practice. In the conclusion of his paper, ‘Medical models for teachers’ learning: asking for a second opinion’, Carey Philpott argues that ‘Those who advocate medically derived models often stress the centrality of evidence-based practice, yet their prescriptions for the improvement of teachers’ learning are often not based on evidence but on eminence or eloquence’ (Philpott, 2017a: 27). In the paper he argues convincingly that policy makers and teacher educators who argue for a medicine-based model for teacher learning need to base their recommendations for practice on critical engagement with the limited research evidence rather than on idealised versions of professional learning in medical fields. Importantly, he also argues that rather than biomedicine, education as a field is more comparable to mental health or public health and so we should look for evidence on evidencebased practice from those particular contexts. Carey’s contribution is significant in seeking answers to the questions posed by Lori Beckett in the Editor’s introduction to this book: What do teachers learn on pre-service and in-service courses and why? Who decides what teachers learn, what for and to what end? In summary then, Carey Philpott’s contribution clarifies some considerable challenges for the education community or, more appropriately perhaps, for the



education communities. These communities would include: practitioners based in schools, teacher educators in their boundary-crossing role, university-based professional education researchers and policy makers. These challenges include: clarifying the value of different types of knowledge; overcoming constraints of schools as workplace learning environments for teachers; and establishing research-informed policy-making. Carey Philpott’s work has contributed significantly to proposing a shared language for discussion of these challenges, but there is further work to establishing this across the boundaries between policy makers, universities and schools. Language is significant and to demonstrate this it is possible to capture the continuing debate by the contrast between ‘evidencebased teaching’ and ‘research-informed teaching’. ‘Evidence-based teaching’ tends to foreground the value of research whereas ‘research-informed teaching’ leaves more room to value teachers’ practical wisdom and the possibility of cocreation of knowledge by teachers collaborating with researchers. A considerable issue remains for those of us who have supported Lawrence Stenhouse’s ideal of the ‘teacher researcher’ or even the less ambitious ‘inquirybased teacher’ developing research-informed practice. The issue is that despite more than 40 years of effort since publication of Stenhouse’s classic text (1975), we hardly seem much closer to making that a reality. The question seems to be: is it possible to scale up individual or local professional inquiry and practitioner research as an effective force for developing research-informed practice? If not, then is it right to be so opposed to top-down approaches to developing evidence-based practice? And finally, how might bottom-up and top-down approaches be aligned to become complementary drivers towards a research-informed policy and practice? Policy regarding evidence-based teaching, in particular in relation to developing teacher capacity to engage with and pursue research, has been half-hearted at best and haphazard since 2010. In the UK, almost alone now within Europe, achieving a full Master’s level qualification, which arguably builds research capacity, is not an entry-level requirement for the teaching profession. The UK also has a large proportion of newly qualified teachers having completed an initial postgraduate professional education programme of just 36 weeks in duration. Gaining a Master’s before gaining substantial classroom experience is not necessarily the best way to build teacher research capacity and the pathway for experienced teachers to gain a Master’s part-time has been a reasonable model for the UK, even if only a minority of teachers took up that opportunity. However, central government funding for part-time study by teachers towards a Master’s award was ended during a period of haphazard education policy-making by the UK Coalition government elected in 2010. This cut in funding for Master’s-level advanced professional education caused a considerable drop in part-time study by teachers at the same time as government rhetoric supporting an evidence-based education system increased. The clear contradictions in UK policy-making and in the arguments made by proponents of medicine-based models for evidence-based teaching motivated Carey Philpott to focus his work on these issues of developing research-informed teacher learning. It is difficult to isolate the influence on my own work of a practitioner, thinker, author and researcher such as Carey Philpott. This is especially true in the case of a

158 Pete Boyd close colleague. Sometimes I think that the Confucian tradition, that we should accept that we are all building on the shoulders of giants, is more useful and certainly more flexible than the attribution and citation approach. I have recently joined the current debate on the school curriculum by proposing a ‘knowledge and ways of knowing’ framework as part of a critique of the slippery concept of ‘powerful knowledge’ (Boyd, 2019). In that article, aimed at teachers, I support the social realist perspective that children should learn useful cultural knowledge within the subject disciplines as well as developing an understanding of how that knowledge is dynamic, contested and developed by people (often by academics). The knowledge and ways of knowing framework also proposes that the school curriculum should include transdisciplinary issues and learning to learn. My engagement with the curriculum debate arose from consideration of the curriculum for initial teacher education and this was stimulated by Carey’s comparison of the field of education with mental healthcare rather than medicine (2017a). I argue that the curriculum for initial teacher education should include useful knowledge but also ways of knowing, that it should have epistemic quality. Carey was sceptical about a clinical practice model for teacher education (2014) but that provoked me to propose a ‘realistic clinical practice’ pedagogy (Boyd, 2016). Carey insisted that learning through experience alone was an insufficient basis for student teachers to learn. This in turn provoked me to develop and apply my metaphor of ‘interplay’ to capture teachers’ professional learning through engagement with the horizontal domain of situated practical wisdom in their workplace setting and with the vertical domain of public knowledge, including theory and research evidence (Boyd & Bloxham, 2014; Boyd, Hymer & Lockney, 2015). Carey Philpott argued for a realistic approach to developing evidence-based practice and this is welcomed by the contributing authors in this volume, beginning with Melitta Hogarth working in Australia. However, she takes this beyond merely considering the techniques of schooling by insisting on the development of culturally responsive teachers and teaching in order to address issues of social injustice in schools and beyond. Carey pursued his scholarly and research work and publications, as well as his teaching, guided by his commitment to support the development of research-informed practice in teacher education and school education. Marie Brennan, also working in Australia, follows and connects this effort to ‘slow activism’. In a valuable and popular scholarly text, Carey Philpott provides teacher educators with a critical perspective on the professional learning theories that underpin our work in initial teacher education and continuing advanced professional education for teachers, including developing schools as workplace learning environments (Philpott, 2014). In a later conference paper, Carey argued that canonical narratives of disadvantage found in UK government policy, for example in relation to ‘narrowing the gap’, tend to constrain teachers’ professional learning about disadvantaged students and, therefore, their professional responses to them (Philpott, 2017). Carey insisted that teachers need opportunities to be involved in critical discourses and narratives. He developed his thinking in a chapter on translational research and knowledge mobilisation (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). Amanda Nuttall and Lori Beckett, who co-presented on their work in England at



a BERA conference symposium with Carey, build on his thinking and argue for new policies on teacher education and teacher workplace learning to support professional learning that is ‘scholarly, contextually sensitive and locally responsive’. Carey Philpott was committed to improving education and teacher education and their chapter contribution has positioned his work more clearly in relation to social justice in education. Carey Philpott challenged the rhetoric of some commentators about the ‘gold standard’ of randomised control trial research and the use of research metareviews in education. He provided a measured critique of the challenges of applying such experimental methods in real-world school settings and the limitations of the evidence they offer, especially when conflated by meta-review (Philpott & Poultney, 2018). Maria Teresa Tatto, who works in the USA, challenges Carey’s position with regard to the value of this body of research evidence. She argues for a more balanced approach that considers the wide range of educational research and she values Carey’s work as part of the much-needed challenge for educational researchers and professionals to more assertively define the field, by first asking: What do we mean by effective teaching and what evidence do we have? Terry Wrigley, who brings long experience working in Scotland and England, also engages with Carey’s arguments to acknowledge the contribution of such quantitative quasi-experimental research, but to position that within a more balanced approach for teachers to engage with and apply to practice a wider body of research evidence. In relation to a critique of clinical practice models and learning rounds, Carey Philpott considered how student teachers learn through reflection and how tutor and mentor feedback might support such professional learning within a professional learning community (Philpott, 2016; Philpott & Oates, 2017; Philpott, 2017b; Philpott & Poultney, 2018). Linda Harris, also in Scotland, critically reviews this work and supports Carey’s arguments that the field of education more closely resembles that of mental health rather than medicine and therefore we should be interested but cautious and questioning about what teacher education might learn from medical education. Carey argued that student teachers learning from experience alone is limiting (Philpott, 2014: 31) and Helen Scott in England develops this issue in relation to policy development in initial teacher education, which has shifted in England towards a school-led system. Scott particularly highlights the challenge for school-based teacher educators, that they have increasing responsibility to support student teachers to develop research literacy and to engage critically with theory and research. Carey made a major contribution to understanding of research-informed teaching, particularly in making the complexity of the evidence-base more accessible for teachers, and Scott’s chapter has usefully built on his ideas and examined their significance. Carey was questioning the potential of professional learning communities for teachers and related this to agency, identity formation and the development of researchinformed teaching (Philpott & Oates, 2016; Philpott & Oates, 2017; Philpott, 2017b; Philpott & Poultney, 2018). Building on his thinking, Alison Iredale and Diana Tremayne, both in England, argue that a professional learning community is a site of

160 Pete Boyd struggle, especially over the value placed by teachers on different kinds of knowledge. They argue that professional learning communities offer valuable opportunities for risk so that the uncertainty and complexity of teaching might become embedded in the school as an expansive workplace learning environment. In his key text on professional learning theories, Carey argued that Donald Schön focused too much on learners as ‘decontextualised individuals’ and was insufficiently concerned with the workplace as a social context for professional learning (Philpott, 2014). Stephen Newman, also in England, acknowledges Carey’s point but takes it forward to more fully develop the critique and identify the limitations of Schön’s thinking. Joan Mowat, based in Scotland, applies Carey’s analysis of professional learning theories to the preparation of head teachers in terms of both the design and the content of the programme. Carey argued for an approach to teacher education that acknowledges the emotional labour and identity formation involved in becoming a teacher (Philpott, 2015). Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones, both in England, extend this work to more fully embrace the challenges that a diversity of teachers face during initial teacher education. They endorse Carey’s view that increased opportunities for low-stakes formative assessment and feedback would be beneficial for student teachers in the UK. Carey made a major contribution to highlighting workplace learning theories in relation to teacher education and from his foundation the chapter has developed several strands of thinking and identified implications for practice. Without warning, Professor Carey Philpott died suddenly in January 2017 but left us with fond memories and a body of scholarly work. As a tribute, through this edited memorial book, we hope to have acknowledged his contribution and influence and built upon it usefully.

References Billig, M. (2015) Kurt Lewin’s leadership studies and his legacy to social psychology: is there nothing as practical as a good theory? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(4), 440–460. Available at: 2134/16182/4/Lewin%20revised.pdf Boyd, P. (2016) Realistic clinical practice: proposing an inquiry-based pedagogy for teacher education, in P. Boyd & A. Szplit (Eds.) Student Teachers Learning Through Inquiry: International Perspectives. Kraków: Attyka. Available at Boyd, P. (2019) Knowledge and ways of knowing. Impact: Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, 6. Boyd, P. & Bloxham, S. (2014) A situative metaphor for teacher learning: the case of university tutors learning to grade student coursework. British Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 337–352. Boyd, P., Hymer, B. & Lockney, K. (2015) Learning Teaching: Becoming an Inspirational Teacher. St Albans, UK: Critical Publishing. Grossman, P., Hammerness, K. & McDonald, M. (2009) Re-defining teaching, re-imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 273–289. Nuttall, A., Beckett, L., Philpott, C. & Wrigley, T. (2016) Collaborative practitioner inquiry: making a difference to urban schools in the north of England. BERA Annual Conference. Leeds, England.



Philpott, C. (2014) Theories of Professional Learning: A Critical Guide for Teacher Educators. Norwich: Critical Publishing. Philpott, C. (2015) Creating an in-school pastoral system for student teachers in schoolbased initial teacher education. Pastoral Care in Education, 33(1), 8–19. Philpott, C. (2016) Narratives as a vehicle for mentor and tutor knowledge during feedback in initial teacher education. Teacher Development, 20(1), 57–75. Philpott, C. (2017a) Medical models for teachers’ learning: Asking for a second opinion. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(1): 20–31. Philpott, C. (2017b). Professional learning communities: possibilities and challenges, pp. 81–97 in Boyd, P. & Szplit, A. (Eds.) Teacher Educators Learning Through Inquiry: International Perspectives. Kielce–Kraków: Wydawnictwo Attyka. Philpott, C. & Oates, C. (2017) Teacher agency and professional learning communities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Development in Education, 43(3), 318–333. Philpott, C. & Poultney, V. (2018) Evidence-based Teaching: A Critical Overview for Enquiring Teachers. St Albans: Critical Publishing.


Aboriginal Australian practitioner research 1–2, 9, 158; culturally responsive pedagogies 5–8; establishing position in research 2–4; key dates on evidence-based teaching 4; metaphors 2; national education policy context 5–6; representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in ITE 4–5 action research 144, 146–7 activism see community-oriented pre-service teachers (PSTs), Australia AERA (American Education Research Association) 148–9 agency see teacher agency ‘attainment gap’ 120, 121 Australia see Aboriginal Australian practitioner research; community-oriented pre-service teachers (PSTs) autism 133–4 Ball, S. J. 114, 117, 120, 122, 129 Beckett, L. 93 Bennett, T. 77–8 BERA (British Education Research Association) 69–70, 112, 148; BERA-RSA report xxix, 118 Bhaskar, R. 77, 81 Biesta, G. 82, 88, 114–15 Bolam, R. et al. 86, 87 Brexit xxv British Educational Research Association 4 Brookfield, S. D. 40, 41 Brown, T. et al. 63, 65–6, 67, 68 Carter Review xxv–xxvi, 52, 63 causal, prescriptive and paradigmatic assumptions 41

causality, RCTs 76–8 clinical practice see medical profession/ clinical practice collaborative mentoring 52–3 collaborative research 17–21 communities of practice (CoPs) 40, 87–9 community-oriented pre-service teachers (PSTs), Australia: collaborative research in rural areas 17–21; new globalised colonising of education 12–13; slow activism, limits of 21–2; slow activism and horizontal alliances 13–14; ‘working within’ the system 14–17 complexity and fragmentation in ITE routes 66–7 compliance and resistance 15–17 Conservative Governments, UK xxiv, xxix, xxv, 52, 63, 67, 69, 114, 141 Conservative–Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, UK xxiv, xxix, 52, 62–3 control groups 75–6 ‘convergence of meaning’ 107 CPD programme: ‘Leading Learning’ 117–19 critical perspectives xx–xxi culturally responsive pedagogies 5–8 demand-side and supply-side learning 106 democracy xxiv, xxvi, 82, 114, 127 Department for Education (DfE), England xxix, 62–3, 69, 106, 114, 128–9, 141 disability 131–4 disadvantage see professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage Donaldson, G. 25, 47, 50, 56 drug trials see randomised controlled trials (RCTs) dyslexia 132–3

Index 163 economic models 151–2 Education Endowment Fund 75, 77, 78 education policy: Australia 5–6; Scotland 26; UK xxiv–xxvi, xxix, 114; see also Department for Education (DfE), England; ITE policy changes and future effects, England Edwards, A. 21 effect size, RCTs 79–80 effective teacher research 142–3, 149–50 empiricism, criticism of 77 Equal Education NGO, South Africa 14 experiments, limitations of 81–3 feedback: RCTs 79–80; teacher mentoring 50–1 Finland 148 FIRSTMATH study 143 fragmentation and complexity in ITE routes 66–7 Fresh Start programme 75 Gilroy, P. 99, 103, 104, 105, 107 Glass, G. 80–1 global education reform movement xxv globalised colonising of education 12–13 Goldacre, B. 54 Gove, M. xxiv, 47, 63, 120, 128–9, 136, 141 Griffiths, S. 131, 132, 133 Grimmett, P. P. et al. 15 Hammersley, M. 64, 77, 78–9, 91 Hargreaves, D. 4, 90 Hattie, J. 78, 80 Hawthorne effect 75 headship education (Specialist Qualification for Headship), Scotland 25–6; discussion 39–43; findings 34–9; genesis of 26–8; influence of international drivers on education policy 26; methodology 32; nature of population 32–3; Strategic Change Initiative 34, 42; towards coherent leadership pathways 28 Hilferty, F. 54 Hudson, P. 48, 50; Sempowicz, T. and 49 Hughes, P. and Wilmot, E. 4–5 Hume, D. 77 imitation: mother and baby example 101–4 inquiry-based teaching 144, 145, 149, 155, 157; poverty and disadvantage project 119–22

international perspective xxiii-xxvi, 139–40; comparative 140–2; consequences of lack of agreement 146–7; defining the field 142; economic models 151–2; effective teacher research 142–3, 149–50; knowledge needed 147–9; meaning of educational research 144–6; view toward future 152 Into Headship see headship education (Specialist Qualification for Headship), Scotland Iredale, A. 91, 92, 93, 94 ITE policy changes and future effects, England 61–2, 70–1; fragmentation and complexity 66–7; literature search approaches and themes 64–70; policy context 62–4; research 68–9; stakeholders 67–8; universities’ role 64–5 knowledge: -to-action processes 116–17; mobilisation 115–16, 158–9; and professional context 2; for work with learning communities 147–9 landscape as human experience metaphor 2 language and language-game 103, 104, 105, 107 Larsen, S. N. 78 Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 88–9 ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme 117–19 learning rounds 54–5, 159 legitimate peripheral participation 40, 88–9 LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer) student teachers 134–5 Lingis, A. 94 literature search: ITE policy changes 64–70; see also meta-analysis; systematic reviews Lofthouse, R. 68 Maclure, M. 90–1, 130 mapping metaphor 2, 3 Master’s level qualification, UK 157 mathematics teaching 143, 146–7, 151 May, T. 52, 63, 141 medical profession/clinical practice 16–17, 54–5, 90, 142–3, 156; learning rounds 54–5, 159; public health literature 52; see also randomised controlled trials (RCTs) mentoring see teacher mentoring meta-analysis: RCTs 78–81; see also systematic reviews

164 Index methodological approaches 147; Into Headship programme 32 Meyer, I. H. 131, 134 minority identities and pastoral care 127; disability 131–4; identifying social justice 128; LGBT 134–5; minority stress 131; needs 130–1; negotiating policy ideas 128–9; rethinking ITE programmes 135–6 National College for Teaching and Leadership 48, 91 neoliberalism xxv, 12, 22, 114, 119 Nicoll, K. and Fejes, A. 88 Nutall, A. 118, 119–22 OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) xxiii, 13, 26, 141, 151 Ofsted: inspections and reports 69, 87–8; reflective journals 106 Opfer, D. V. and Pedder, D. 53 ‘paradox of learning’ 100–1 pastoral care see minority identities and pastoral care Pawson, R. 75, 76, 77 pedagogisation 41 Peiser, G. 69 performativity discourse 128–9 Perso, T. 6, 7, 8 Philpott, C. xx–xxi, xxvi-xxx, 1, 14–15, 16, 39, 40, 47, 51, 52, 54–5, 56, 67–8, 83, 91, 94, 98–100, 105–6, 108, 112, 117, 122–3, 127, 130–1, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 140–2, 155–60; et al. 65; and Mercier, C. 61; and Oates, C. 41, 51, 90, 92; and Poultney, V. xxix, 1–4, 6, 7, 15, 41, 47, 48, 52, 55, 56, 62, 64, 70, 74, 75, 76–7, 78–9, 83, 90, 93–4, 112, 113, 114–15, 116, 118, 120, 127, 128, 136, 142–3, 144, 145–6, 156 PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) xxiii, 141 poverty and disadvantage see professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage practitioner dialogues with policy-practice xxx practitioner research see Aboriginal Australian practitioner research ‘production function’ model 151 professional knowledge work on poverty and disadvantage 113–15; critical

approach 122–3; knowledge mobilisation 115–16, 158–9; ‘Leading Learning’ CPD programme 117–19; teacher inquiry project 119–22; translational research 116–17, 158–9 professional learning communities (PLCs) 86–7, 93–4, 159–60; affordances for agency 90–1; characteristics of teacher agency 91–2; communities of practice (CoPs) 87–9; and teacher agency 89–93; teacher identity 92–3; see also teacher learning communities professional self-determination xxvi–xxx, 3–4 professional theories of learning, critique of 39–40 public health literature 52 Quist/Petra case study 100–1, 104–8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) 4, 74, 83–4, 159; control groups 75–6; and human agency 74–5; limitations of experiments 81–3; meta-analysis and effect size 78–81; meta-meta-analysis 81; proofs of causality 76–8 reductionism 81 reflection-in-action 102; reciprocal 107–8 reflective practice 98–100, 108; imitation: mother and baby example 101–4; ‘paradox of learning’ 100–1; Quist/Petra case study 100–1, 104–8; teacher mentoring 49 Robins, S. 14, 22 Rose, S. 81–2 Säntti, J. and Kauko, J. 148 Schleicher, A. xxiii Schön, D. 99, 100–2, 103–8, 160 School Direct 65, 66–7, 68, 70, 141 school mentors 132, 136; see also teacher mentoring Scotland see headship education (Specialist Qualification for Headship) self-determination xxvi-xxx, 3–4 Sempowicz, T. and Hudson, P. B. 49 Simpson, A. 79, 80 Sims, M. 6 Sizer, T. 18–19 slow activism see community-oriented pre-service teachers (PSTs), Australia social forms of evidence 16 social justice, identifying 128

Index 165 social participation in communities of practice 40 South Africa: Equal Education NGO 14 Specialist Qualification for Headship see headship education (Specialist Qualification for Headship), Scotland stakeholders in ITE 67–8 systematic reviews 4, 90–1; see also meta-analysis teacher agency 51–2, 89–93; and RCTs 74–5 Teacher Development Trust 89 teacher identity 92–3; see also minority identities and pastoral care teacher learning communities: collaborative mentoring and 52–3; knowledge needed for work with 147–9; see also professional learning communities (PLCs) teacher mentoring 47–51; collaboration and teacher learning communities 52–3; current picture 48; feedback 50–1; and medical model 54–5; mentor–mentee relationship 49–50, 132–3; models 48–9; reflective practice 49; and

research-informed teacher learning 51–2; and university teacher educators 136; way forward and conclusion 55–7 ‘teacher observation’ trial 76 Teacher Rounds 54–5, 159 teacher–researcher perspective xix TEDs-M (Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics) 143, 151 theory–practice relationship xx–xxi Thomas, G. 83 translational research 116–17, 158–9 UNICEF 26 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 4 universities, role of 64–5, 135–6 Vangrieken, K. et al. 87, 88 Wenger, E. 40; Lave, J. and 88–9 Wiliam, D. 53 Wittgenstein, L. 103, 105, 107–8 ‘working within’ the system 14–17 Worth, J. et al. 76