Teacher Reforms Around the World : Implementations and Outcomes 9781781906545, 9781781906538

Citation preview

TEACHER REFORMS AROUND THE WORLD: IMPLEMENTATIONS AND OUTCOMES

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY Series Editor: Alexander W. Wiseman Recent Volumes: Series Editor from Volume 5: David P. Baker Volume 5:

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: an International Comparison

Volume 6:

Global Trends in Educational Policy

Volume 7:

The impact of Comparative Education Research on Istitutional Theory

Volume 8:

Education For All

Volume 9:

The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education

Volume 10:

Gender, Equality and Education from International and Comparative Perspectives

Series Editor from Volume 11: Alexander W. Wiseman Volume 11:

Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International Comparisons

Volume 12:

International Educational Governance

Volume 13:

The Impact of International Achievement Studies on National Education Policymaking

Volume 14:

Post-Socialism Is Not Dead: (Re)Reading The Global In Comparative Education

Volume 15:

The Impact and Transformation of Education Policy in China

Volume 16:

Education Strategy in the Developing World: Revising the World Bank’s Education Policy

Volume 17:

Community Colleges Worldwide: Investigating The Global Phenomenon

Volume 18:

The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Education Worldwide

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY VOLUME 19

TEACHER REFORMS AROUND THE WORLD: IMPLEMENTATIONS AND OUTCOMES EDITED BY

MOTOKO AKIBA Florida State University

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-653-8 ISSN: 1479-3679 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

DEDICATION

ix

FOREWORD

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xvii

INTRODUCTION: TEACHER REFORMS FROM COMPARATIVE POLICY PERSPECTIVE Motoko Akiba

xix

PART I: TEACHER EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION BOLOGNA PROCESS AND INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION REFORM IN FRANCE Marina Sacilotto-Vasylenko TEACHER CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS IN GEORGIA: OUTCOMES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Magda Nutsa Kobakhidze

3

25

PART II: TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND HIRING TEACHER LABOR FORCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF A RECENT POLICY CHANGE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS Amita Chudgar

v

55

vi

CONTENTS

TEACHER TRAINING AND DEPLOYMENT IN MALAWI Joseph DeStefano

77

ACHIEVING EFA BY 2015: LESSONS FROM BRAC’S PARA-PROFESSIONAL TEACHER MODEL IN AFGHANISTAN Arif Anwar and Mir Nazmul Islam

99

PART III: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER EVALUATION TEACHER LICENSE RENEWAL POLICY IN JAPAN Motoko Akiba

123

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA Nam-Hwa Kang

147

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTIVIST INSTRUCTION Guodong Liang

179

PART IV: TEACHER CAREER ADVANCEMENT THE IMPACT OF MEXICO’S CARRERA MAGISTERIAL TEACHER INCENTIVE PROGRAM ON EDUCATIONAL QUALITY AND EQUITY Thomas F. Luschei

209

REFORMING CAREER PATHS FOR AUSTRALIAN TEACHERS Lawrence Ingvarson

237

CONCLUSION: LEARNING FROM TEACHER REFORMS IN GLOBAL CONTEXT Motoko Akiba

275

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

293

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Motoko Akiba

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Arif Anwar

University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Amita Chudgar

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Joseph DeStefano

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International, Durham, NC, USA

Lawrence Ingvarson

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), Camberwell, Victoria, Australia

Mir Nazmul Islam

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Nam-Hwa Kang

Korea National University of Education, Chungwon, Korea

Magda Nutsa Kobakhidze

Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Gerald K LeTendre

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Guodong Liang

Community Training and Assistance Center (CTAC), Boston, MA, USA

Thomas F. Luschei

Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

Marina Sacilotto-Vasylenko

Research Centre for Education and Training (CREF), University of Paris Ouest Nanterre La Defence, France

vii

This book is dedicated to My mother – Okasan Yoshi Akiba The greatest educator of my life

FOREWORD At the start of the millennium, a great sea change in educational policy moved teachers to the center of global policy discussions about how to reform and improve education (OECD, 2005). Ignored, dismissed as relevant, or even characterized as impediments to reform in previous decades, teachers are now routinely portrayed as the key to providing quality instruction. The quality of the national teaching force is recognized as a major factor in any nation’s attempts to improve its overall educational performance. Teachers, one might argue, are finally getting the attention they deserve. But, as Akiba deftly points out, the situation is far more complex, and the impact on teachers far more negative than many would have predicted. The academic literature of the last ten years has become saturated with studies about teacher effectiveness, much of it erroneous in its causal attributions about quality or efficacy (Kennedy, 2010). Nations, regional governments, and even large urban districts in the United States have rushed to embrace ways to measure teacher impact. And again, they have adopted sub-optimal, or even error-riddled value-added models in lieu of pursuing high-quality observational data. (In addition to Liang’s chapter in this volume, see also Kupermintz (2003) and Amrein-Beardsley (2008).) Educators and researchers have repeatedly shown that the ‘‘quality’’ or ‘‘efficacy’’ of instructional practice is affected by many factors. The concept of growing and sustaining a national teaching force, with its multiple policy dimensions, has now been well articulated (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009). In order to achieve significant improvement of educational quality, policy reforms need to address to how to recruit, educate, certify, and sustain teachers. As this book amply demonstrates, uncoordinated efforts to improve teacher ‘‘efficacy,’’ ‘‘efficiency,’’ or ‘‘quality’’ have serious limitations. Ultimately, many of these reforms are likely to be added to the historical dustbin of failed educational efforts. That is why this book is so timely, and provides such important insights that policymakers, researchers, and educators themselves need to be aware of. Policy matters, hugely, in nations like Malawi that engaged in a disastrous expansion of mass education without proper planning for the long-term xi

xii

FOREWORD

improvement of a dramatically expanded teacher force. As DeStafano shows, nations with severe constraints on teacher resources need incremental policies to simultaneously manage the expansion and improvement of the teacher workforce. In Malawi or India (see Chudagar’s chapter), deployment patterns must be monitored and addressed in order to avoid significant shortfalls of teachers in hard-to-staff areas. While careful policy planning is of utmost importance for nations with limited resources, the case studies present here should also serve as a cautionary tale to planners, policymakers, and change advocates in wealthy nations. The politicization of educational reforms, as seen in Japan, is likely to be one reason that a once respected and positively engaged teaching force is now facing widespread demoralization and anxiety (Gordon, 2005). Policymakers at regional levels can also benefit from the excellent reviews and case studies of widely promoted interventions like teacher incentives and value-added modeling that this volume offers. Both Liang and Luschei review the extant literature, and provide the reader with a detailed assessment of the limits of these widely implemented schemes. In Luschei’s chapter, we see that many policymakers appear keen to promote professionalization, but do so in rather mechanistic ways, for example, salary promotion schemes. However, as Luschei points out, these schemes may affect other salient dimensions of the teacher workforce, such as unequal access to certified teachers. Given the magnitude of this problem in many nations, it is important to look at interventions from many standpoints. Policymakers are enfatuated with ‘‘silver bullet’’ solutions; these often generate a new set of problems that generate a demand for more new policies (LeTendre et al., 2000). A singular focus on student scores on standardized tests precludes reformers from considering the diffuse and pervasive impact of a well-trained and equitably distributed teacher workforce. This book is also important because it gives us a rare opportunity to compare and assess the global mobilization of national resources across a broad range of nations. Critiques of OECD studies often claim they are not ‘‘global’’ because they rarely include the poorest of nations. In this volume, Akiba has carefully recruited scholars who show us how pervasive global policy dialogues are – affecting nations like Georgia that rarely receive much attention in international educational research. As Kobakhidze writes, the efforts made by Georgia to implement teacher certification methods are indeed likely to influence other regional governments, for example, Armenia and Azerbaijan. This means that policy transmission is not simply moving from large multi-lateral agencies (e.g., OECD) to small nations, but that multiple linkages of policy experimentation and borrowing are occurring

Foreword

xiii

simultaneously. Such ‘‘south-south’’ policy transfer is examined in detail by Anwar and Islam who investigate the impact of a Bangladesh-based NGO on teacher development in Afghanistan. These studies not only draw attention to innovative solutions to teacher staffing problems, but also attempt to show the limitations, pitfalls, and unintended outcomes of innovation. All of this work is extremely valuable in expanding the ways in which national policymakers or NGO staffers think about how to support teachers and improve schooling conditions. Another aspect of this work that I find critically important is that it documents the same struggles across a sweeping range of nations. Despite media portrayals of Japan’s ‘‘malaise,’’ the third-largest economy in the world has little in common with Malawi or Afghanistan when it comes to staffing its nation’s schools with teachers. Yet, here again, we see remarkable national efforts underway to ‘‘improve’’ education by controlling and regulating licensure (see Akiba, this volume). Why did this occur? Japan was not, like France, facing the imperatives of a new ‘‘super state’’ in the form of the EU as Sacilotto-Vasylenko describes. Yet, in both cases, national policymakers implemented sweeping reforms without consulting teachers, and risking potentially disastrous results. These cases provide strong evidence that we are seeing a truly world culture (Finnemore, 1996) emerging around educational reform issues, and one that appears critically ‘‘decoupled’’ from the actual process of schooling. In both South Korea and Australia, we again see evidence of this world culture. In both nations dominant rational myths (e.g., ‘‘competition’’ improves efficiency) influence policy development and implementation. Attempts by teacher organizations as political actors influencing the policy discourse do not appear to have been strong enough to overcome this myth as Kang notes, and eroding the overall efficacy of the policies enacted. Often, the implementation of destabilizing educational policies is attributed in a simplistic manner to the spread of ‘‘neo-liberalism.’’ These chapters clearly show a global culture of educational reform that is populated by nationstates, multi-lateral agencies, NGOs, and countless professional or advocacy organizations all with their own agendas, and their own sphere of influence. Some, like the OECD, clearly have significant power to influence others and promote agendas they deem worthy. However, as Ingvarson notes, power is constrained and diverted on many levels and by many factors. The OECD itself has recognized and begun to promote ‘‘professionalism’’ among teachers, but the vagueness of concept undermines efforts to professionalize teaching. What is still missing, he notes, is any widely accepted way to evaluate effective classroom teaching.

xiv

FOREWORD

Collectively, the book also highlights the intricate interactions between global agendas (like EFA) and national politics and culture. We do indeed see ‘‘national differences,’’ and these have significant effects for how national policymakers create and implement policy. (Baker & LeTendre, 2005). The discussions around teacher certification and professionalization took very different paths in South Korea and in Mexico. But ‘‘culture’’ always means a dynamic – meaning and significance attributed to education, teachers or student tests scores are discussed, debated and contested daily. We live at a time of exponential growth in communication and knowledge dissemination – where every aspect of education is linked to reams of data and media representation. Yet, within this ongoing, elaboration of ideas, certain ‘‘rational myths’’ appear obdurate (Meyer, 1994). Teacher quality itself, as Akiba notes, is among these. Collectively, these studies show that neither multi-lateral agencies, nor large wealthy nations, have effectively identified transnational standards for effective instructional practice. We need to move beyond studies that attempt to identify and promote the borrowing of ‘‘best practices’’ (Barber & Mourshed, 2007; Darling-Hammond, 2010) to studies that investigate how specific policies can be integrated, given existing national conditions and policies. The trick then, for all nations, rich or poor, is to come up with sustainable systems that not only recruit and reward talented individuals, but also provide these individuals with regular, useful feedback on their performance and the means to improve performance. As Liang’s study shows, in order to effectively monitor and improved national educational quality, nations need a working system of classroom evaluation that focuses on instructional practice and is linked to both teacher professional development and rewards or incentives. Liang found: ‘‘The findings from this study suggest that when data on instructional practice are effectively used in teacher evaluation, it is likely for the evaluation program to improve teachers’ classroom instruction, and in turn enhance students’ cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills.’’ In other words nations must institute processes, not single action standards such as licensure, certification, or teacher exams. Such reforms may be part of an overall approach to improving the quality of the national teaching force, but alone they will be marginally effective at best, because they do not provide teachers with the organizational conditions necessary to continuously improve their own classroom instructional processes. Akiba offers a succinct set of concepts (the three c’s) that have a strong foundation in policy making studies. These concepts can work to make the policy implementation process more effective, and less politically divisive.

Foreword

xv

Approaching the process in a consultative, deliberate is ideal, but may simply not be viable in some nations. In her conclusion, Akiba notes the differences in policy implementation processes in several nations, and points out that sometimes policy is implemented in sudden, crisis-like situations. This was, of course, the point made by Berliner and Biddle (1995) years ago with regard to the use of international data in Nation at Risk. The ‘‘crisis’’ faced in the United States during the middle 1980s was manufactured as a tool for pushing for privatization (neoliberal) reforms, and it appears that the 2005 teacher education reforms in France occurred in a similar manner. These kinds of political agenda-setting battles may be rare in nation-states like Japan during the period 1960–1980 (Schoppa, 1991), but are rather more the norm in Japan and other countries today. Rather than castigate politics and the politicians who employ such techniques to move policy agendas forward, scholars of education would do better to learn more about how policy is formed, and come to understand the consequences of these techniques. This is where Akiba points us to an important vein of future research. She argues we need to study ‘‘the role and importance of coherence in reform implementation is necessary.’’ I think this may be one of the most important questions facing scholars of education today. The last 40 years has seen the emergence of many remarkable educational reforms, interventions, and programs. And, although many of them had well-documented empirical success in improving student learning (not just raising test scores), few have been widely adopted and many abandoned and all but forgotten. The corrosive effects of endless educational reform and counter-reform undermine national attempts to improve the quality of education for. Endless reform may even serve to draw attention away from long-standing educational problems of critical importance (witness the inability of the United States to lessen inequality in educational resources decades after the publication of Kozol’s Savage Inequalities). The vision that this book leaves us with is one of a long-term process that brings policymakers, teacher leaders, and researchers together to engage in systematic assessment and revision of educational practice. Like the concept of Lesson Study (Lewis, 1995) in Japan, this process requires specific organizational/political conditions. We must address important questions about the politics of education. Why are some nations, like the United States, unable to achieve long-term stable educational policies? Are there corporatist political cultures that encourage a less combative policy-agenda formation process (Rust, 1990)? Why do some countries, like Japan, shift from relative stability to political contestation in the educational arena?

xvi

FOREWORD

And, critically, are there ways to stabilize the process and to promote the kind of intense, consultative policy making processes identified in this book? Gerald K. LeTendre Pennsylvania State University

REFERENCES Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system. Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65–75. Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. McKinsey Foundation. Berliner, D., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture m and world politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, 50(2), 325–347. Gordon, J. (2005). The crumbling pedestal: Changing images of Japanese teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(5), 459–470. Kennedy, M. (2010). Attribution error and the quest for teacher quality. Educational Researcher, 39(8), 591–598. Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness: A validity investigation of the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 287–298. LeTendre, G., & Baker, D. P. et al. (2000). The policy trap: National Educational Policy and the Third International Math and Science Study. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 2(1), 45–64. Lewis, C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, J. (1994). Rationalized environments. In W. R. Scott & J. Meyer (Eds.), Institutional environments and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Rust, V. D. (1990). The policy formation process and educational reform in Norway. Comparative Education, 26(1), 13–25. Schoppa, L. (1991). Education reform in Japan: A case of immobilist policies. New York, NY: Routledge.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The idea for this book emerged during my sabbatical year from 2010 to 2011 in Taiwan, China, and Japan. As I conduct interviews with teachers to learn about their professional learning activities, which was my original focus, it became clear that no teacher was free from the pressure of a national teacher reform. It inspired me to learn about teacher reforms in the rest of the world. I am extremely grateful to the chapter authors for patiently responding to my numerous questions out of curiosity and carefully communicating the reality of teacher reforms to the readers. I must acknowledge the contribution of numerous reviewers who provided useful comments and suggestions for improvement of these chapters. Special thanks goes to the series editor of International Perspectives on Education and Society, Alexander Wiseman, and the senior commissioning editor at Emerald, Chris Hart, for encouraging and supporting me in the development process of this book. A number of people contributed to my thinking about teacher reforms. Among them are my colleagues and friends in Taiwan, China, and Japan; Toshiya Chichibu, Yu-Lun Chiu, Ping Zhao, Xudong Zhu, Zhikui Niu, and Hsiao-Lan Sharon Chen. They provided important insights about teacher reforms and helped me connect with teachers in these countries. My sister in Japan, Fumie Kobayashi, who always inspires me with her dedication to education as a teacher, provided invaluable support of my research. I cannot thank them enough for their generous supports for my fieldwork over the years. I would like to also thank my mentors who have significantly influenced my career and scholarship over the years. They are Gerald LeTendre, Jay P. Scribner, Catherine Lewis, Carolyn Herrington, and Kazuhiko Shimizu. Without their continuous support and encouragement, I could never reach where I am now in my research career. I am especially grateful to Gerald LeTendre, who helped shape my early development as a scholar and contributed a forward to this book. I must acknowledge the hard work of my research assistant, Andrew Johnson, who efficiently coordinated the peer-review process and carefully edited the book manuscript.

xvii

xviii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Jung Bae. He moved from Virginia to Missouri, and to Florida for me during the past year and supported me emotionally. He patiently listened to my evolving ideas in this process of book editing, although none of them were interesting to him as an IT professional. He never complained about not spending weekend or evening with him while I sit in front of my computer hours after hours. Many Korean meals he prepared for me warmed my heart and gave me the strength to go on. This book was not possible without his endless support.

INTRODUCTION: TEACHER REFORMS FROM COMPARATIVE POLICY PERSPECTIVE INTRODUCTION A teacher dismissed for corporal punishment during club activities (12/1/ 2004) Three teachers dismissed for sexual harassment (12/15/2005) Five teachers suspended for insulting students on blogs (4/29/2005) These are headlines of news articles in a national newspaper in a country outside of the United States. The media coverage of teacher scandals increased since 2001, reaching the highest 89 cases in 2004. The teachers in this country, the readers would conclude, have serious problems. They would wonder what is wrong with these teachers and speculate that teaching is not a well-respected or well-paid occupation in this country. These news articles came from a country where teacher education programs use rigorous entry standards to select only academically talented candidates to enter their programs and teacher candidates compete for teaching positions after completing teacher education with a success rate of only 30 percent. This is Japan, a country that was featured in an influential book, Teaching Gap (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999) for their teachers’ excellent teaching and their engagement in Lesson Study – a professional development model imported to the United States and practiced by an increasing number of U.S. teachers across the country. The teaching profession in Japan has undergone a major change since the turn of the century. Along with the country’s slipping ranking in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and highly publicized problems such as school bullying, student absenteeism, and uncontrollable classrooms, the public quickly turned to blaming teachers and put them under severe media and public scrutiny as shown above. Japanese teachers no longer enjoy the respect and prestige they received in xix

xx

INTRODUCTION

the past (Gordon, 2005), and the public criticisms of teachers led to the development of a teacher accountability policy, Teacher License Renewal Policy (Chapter 6). During the past decade, not only Japan, but other highachieving countries1 such as South Korea (Chapter 7) and Taiwan have implemented a teacher reform in response to severe public criticisms of teachers who were blamed for problems such as school bullying, uncontrollable classrooms, and declining student achievement. These cases seem to illustrate that few countries, if any, are insulated from the global trend for reforming teachers. We have witnessed a growing interest and focus on teachers in educational reforms around the world during the past decade. Policymakers around the world recognize the important role of teachers for improving student learning and have implemented reforms on major aspects of teacher workforce development including teacher education, certification, professional development, teacher evaluation, compensation, and career advancement (OECD, 2004, 2005, 2011a; UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2006). Regardless of the focus of the teacher reform, it is clear that teachers around the world are experiencing a visible impact of a teacher reform on their professional lives (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Paine & Zeichner, 2012). A large number of comparative studies on the teaching profession have been conducted during the last decade. Several studies compared teacher qualifications (Akiba, LeTendre, & Scribner, 2007), teaching practice (Givvin, Hiebert, Jacobs, Hollingsworth, & Gallimore, 2005; Hiebert et al. 2005), and content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge of preservice teachers (Tatto et al., 2012) across countries. Other studies examined teacher induction (Britton, Paine, Pimm, & Raizen, 2003), professional development (Alexandrou, Field, & Mitchell, 2005; Day & Sachs, 2004; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009), teacher hiring and distribution (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Pazquin, 2009), working conditions and work lives (LeTendre, Baker, Akiba, Goesling, & Wiseman, 2001; Poppleton & Williamson, 2004), teacher evaluation (OECD, 2009), and teacher compensation (Akiba, Chiu, Shimizu, & Liang, 2012; Carnoy, Beteille, Brodziak, Loyalka, & Luschei, 2009; Dolton & MarcenaroGutierrez, 2011). Pre-service teacher education especially gained attention among scholars, reflecting a growing number of countries implementing such reforms around the world (Blomeke, 2012; Darling-Hammond & Lieberman, 2012; Furlong, Cochran-Smith, & Brennan, 2009; Griffin, 2012; Karras & Wolhuter, 2010; Schmidt, Blomeke, & Tatto, 2011). Several comparative studies have examined teacher policies or reforms (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Tatto, 2007; Tatto et al., 2012; Wang, Coleman,

Introduction

xxi

Coley, & Phelps, 2003). A series of reports on teacher policies, including those from the OECD (2005, 2009, 2011a), McKinsey & Company (Auguste, Kihn, & Miller, 2010; McKinsey & Company, 2007; Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010), and reports on the International Summit on the Teaching Profession2 (Asia Society, 2011, 2012) introduced the characteristics of teacher policies in high-performing countries. Yet, these studies rarely paid attention to the fact that the policy and organizational environments surrounding teachers are constantly changing due to ongoing teacher reforms. A trap many comparative studies fall into is a portrayal of highperforming countries as a static cultural system following a ‘‘cultural script,’’ rather than as a dynamic global system constantly changing as a result of interactions between global and local forces (Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Baker & LeTendre, 2005; LeTendre, Baker, Akiba, & Wiseman, 2001). What policymakers learn from widely circulated reports from the OECD and McKinsey & Company, among others, is the static picture of what highperforming countries do to develop and support teachers and the lessons they can take for development of own teacher policies. The causal relationship is assumed that their teacher policies led them to produce high student achievement in these countries. This book attempts to fill this gap by focusing on major teacher reforms implemented during the past decade and describing the changes many countries are going through in their efforts to reform the teaching profession. Close examinations of the implementations and outcomes of major teacher reforms in 10 countries reveal the complex and dynamic contexts surrounding the teaching profession. By bringing the latest empirical findings on the major teacher reforms in 10 countries together, we will be able to see the global trends as well as the national and local variations in the design and goal of teacher reforms, their implementations, and influences on teachers. As described in detail below, these chapters examined reforms on (1) teacher education, (2) certification, (3) recruitment and hiring, (4) professional development, (5) teacher evaluation, and (6) compensation and career advancement. Through the analysis of themes emerging from teacher reforms in 10 countries, this book aims to answer the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of large-scale teacher reforms that led to success or challenge in implementation? 2. How did these teacher reforms influence teachers (e.g., teacher supply and distribution, teacher beliefs, teacher quality and effectiveness)?

xxii

INTRODUCTION

3. What global similarities and differences can we observe in the development, implementation, and outcomes of teacher reforms?

PREVIOUS STUDIES ON TEACHER POLICIES AND REFORMS Comparative Literature Teacher reforms around the globe are influenced by market-driven, neoliberal thoughts promoting accountability, standardization, and privatization (MacBeath, 2012; Robertson, 2012). Literature reported that, among many factors, two factors seem to be influencing this global trend. They are (1) international reports produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and (2) international assessments that rank countries based on national average student achievement. A series of reports produced by the OECD since 2000 influenced the directions of teacher reforms in many countries. Robertson described the OECD as ‘‘a significant actor in the field of symbolic control over teacher policy and practice because of its role in generating an alignment between education and the economy’’ (Robertson, 2012, p. 593). Based on a study of 25 countries conducted from 2002 to 2004, the OECD reported that policymakers in the majority of countries were struggling with a lack of quality teachers, especially in science and math subject areas, the low social status and salary of teachers and their poor working conditions, a lack of systematic induction programs, and inequitable distribution of qualified teachers between poor and rich schools and regions (OECD, 2005). In 2008, the OECD conducted the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) which collected survey data from nationally representative samples of teachers and principals from 24 countries. They produced two major reports in 2009 and 2011; one on teacher evaluation and another on examples of teacher reforms in high-performing countries which served as a background report for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession (OECD, 2009, 2011a). The teacher reforms are also promoted by policymakers who often use the results of international assessments to legitimize the country’s reform direction. The Trends for International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),

Introduction

xxiii

being conducted every 3–4 years, have been often used by policymakers who seek to engage in evidence-based educational policymaking (LeTendre et al., 2001; Wiseman, 2010). An increasing number of countries are participating in these assessments,3 aiming to increase their rankings based on the national average student achievement. Not only that these are competitions among countries, U.S. states are entering these competitions in order to see where they stand in comparison to 60 some other countries.4 U.S. participation in the TALIS in 2013 and the first-ever International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IES) study on teacher education – Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M) in 2008 further revealed the differences in teacher education and work contexts of teachers between the United States and other countries. Despite the increasing number of countries engaging in teacher reforms, only a few empirical studies have been conducted to examine and compare teacher policies or reforms in various parts of the world. Wang et al. (2003) compared the United States with high-achieving countries – Australia, England, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Singapore – in teacher education and development policies. The study found that all the countries except the United States and Australia have centralized systems of teacher education and certification with a tight regulatory control by the central government. In addition, all of the countries compared have screening at multiple time points – entry to teacher education program, evaluation of field experience, exit from teacher education program, or certification – whereas in the United States, teacher licensure testing is the only major high-stakes criterion for determining who becomes a teacher. Furthermore, induction programs for new teachers are required in England, Singapore, Japan, and most states in Australia, but in the United States, induction programs are fragmented because of the variations in policies and resources available across the states and districts. Tatto et al. (2012) examined the strength of quality assurance systems in pre-service teacher education in 17 countries based on the policies and mechanisms regarding (1) entry into teacher education, (2) accreditation of teacher education programs, and (3) entry into the teaching profession. They found that Singapore and Taiwan have the strongest and most coordinated quality assurance systems because these countries promote teaching as an attractive career, set quotas on the number of pre-service teachers, and have a rigorous external evaluation of teacher education programs. They rated the strength of the quality assurance system in the United States as ‘‘moderate’’ because the entry into teacher education is not regulated and the procedures for assessing beginning teacher performance and certification

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

standards are applied inconsistently across institutions and states. They also found that pre-service teachers in the countries with a strong quality assurance system tend to score higher on the measures of mathematics content knowledge (MCK) and mathematics pedagogy content knowledge (MPCK) assessed in the TEDS-M study. These studies examined the characteristics of teacher-related policies and found that such policies in the United States, in comparison to other high-achieving countries, have much room for improvement. Two reports produced by the OECD on teacher evaluation (OECD, 2009) and teacher reforms (OECD, 2011a) introduced examples of teacher reforms in highachieving countries and drew general conclusions on the characteristics of successful models of teacher reforms that hold promise. These reports along with those produced by McKinsey & Company (Auguste et al., 2010; McKinsey & Company, 2007; Mourshed et al., 2010) influenced policymakers to develop a teacher reform, although these reports are not research based due to their nontechnical nature targeted for the general audience. These reports, however, created general pictures of the global models of teacher reforms backed by the rationale that these came from high-achieving countries and thus evidence-based. Despite these global models of teacher reforms created by influential international reports and the global neoliberal trend on teacher accountability, each country interpreted these models differently. Because of the major differences in historical, social, and political contexts surrounding and characterizing the teaching profession across the countries, policymakers go through a sense-making process in choosing a teacher reform topic, developing the reform design, and prescribing the implementation procedures. These models are also promoted through financial assistance by international agencies such as OECD, World Bank, UNESCO, and USAID. Policy borrowing and lending literature (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004, 2010; Steiner-Khamsi & Waldow, 2012) documents political and economic rationales for adopting ‘‘best practices’’ or ‘‘international standards’’ in education. It is economic because it is tied to funding; policy borrowing in developing countries can be coercive and unidirectional with reforms being transferred from the global North/West to the global South/East. It is also political because policymakers’ reliance on ‘‘best practices’’ or ‘‘international standards’’ is part of political agenda setting for achieving consensus among different political parties by presenting ‘‘global models’’ as something neutral. Regardless of the rationales behind policy development, the countries have chosen different teacher reforms that influence teachers in a diverse

Introduction

xxv

way. The details associated with the teacher reform design, implementation, and impacts on teachers presented in this book show the complexity that is beyond the debate of whether the education systems are moving toward convergence (Meyer & Remirez, 2000) or divergence (Schriewer, 2004; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). Only a few studies have carefully examined the design of a teacher reform in a specific context, how it was implemented, and how it influenced teachers in other countries (see Shinn, 2012 as one of the few examples). Such careful examinations are necessary in order to inform policymakers for engaging in policymaking process based on rigorous research findings and recommendations. This will facilitate development of a teacher reform that will lead to lasting changes instead of a teacher reform that come and go influenced by the political change and funding availability.

Teacher Reforms in the United States and Global Influence In the United States, the focus on teachers as the target of educational reforms emerged in the Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, which required that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified by the 2005–2006 school year. The NCLB defined ‘‘highly qualified’’ teachers as those who are fully certificated, possess a bachelor’s degree, and demonstrate competence in subject knowledge and teaching. States across the country enforced this federal requirement, influencing hiring policies and practices of district and school administrators (Rutledge, Harris, & Ingle, 2010). Yet, the lack of attention to the underlying problems – teacher shortage and undesirable working conditions of inner-city high-poverty schools – resulted in many states circumventing the requirements by changing the definition of ‘‘full certification’’ and lowering the passing points for content knowledge assessments (e.g., Praxis II) for demonstrating the subject matter knowledge (Birman et al., 2007). Birman et al. (2009) reported that the percentage of highly qualified teachers based on teachers’ self-reports increased from 74% in the 2004–2005 academic year to 84% in the 2006–2007 academic year (p. xxiv). In addition, the percentage of teachers who do not know their status decreased from 23% in 2004–2005 to 14% in 2006–2007.5 However, they also reported that the teachers who are not highly qualified are more likely to be teaching in highpoverty schools than in low-poverty schools (5% vs. 1%), in ethnically diverse schools than in white-dominant schools (4% vs.1%), and in schools with improvement status (as a result of failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets) than in schools without such status (6% vs. 2%) (p. 51).

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

This focus on the basic qualifications of teachers has shifted to the effectiveness of teaching in the NCLB flexibility provisions and the Race to the Top program. With a dismal prospect for meeting the goal that all students will meet the ‘‘proficient’’ level in their achievement in statestandardized assessments by 2014, many states sought flexibility, and 34 states have been approved for the waiver of the NCLB requirements as of November 2012. In exchange, they are required to develop comprehensive plans to raise standards; to create fair, flexible and focused accountability systems; and to improve systems for teacher and principal evaluation and support. The Race to the Top program further increased the emphasis on teacher evaluation (McGuinn, 2012). As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the 4.35 billion Race to the Top (RTTT) program encourages and rewards states that develop innovative plans in the following four core educational reform areas (U.S. Department of Education, 2009, p. 2): 1. Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy. 2. Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction. 3. Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most. 4. Turning around our lowest-achieving schools. From 2010 to 2011, 19 states have won the RTTT fund and proposed comprehensive reforms in these four areas. During the past two years, a growing number of states developed a teacher evaluation policy that holds teachers accountable for student achievement growth based on value-added model as part of evaluation data. According to the 2012 Quality Counts report (Editorial Projects in Education, 2012), 26 states developed a data system that links teachers to student-growth data, 17 states use student achievement data as part of teacher evaluation, and 11 states have a pay-forperformance program or a pilot program rewarding teachers for raising student achievement. Adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) promoted by the RTTT program and development of two national assessments (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) aligned with the CCSS further promote the teacher reforms based on data and accountability. This teacher reform trend in the United States is consistent with the global trend on educational reforms toward standardization and accountability

Introduction

xxvii

(Akiba & LeTendre, 2009). The link between human capital development and economic competitiveness as the rationale for improving the teacher workforce in this time of global economic crisis is communicated in both U.S. and international reports influencing the directions of teacher reforms. More countries and U.S. states are participating in international assessments, and a growing number of reports and studies are trying to learn from the success stories of high-achieving countries such as Finland, Singapore, or Shanghai (OECD, 2011b; Sahlberg, 2011; Tucker, 2011a, 2011b). The influence of these reports and international assessment results in shaping teacher reforms in the United States and around the world requires a careful examination. Policymakers are being conveyed that there is an international model or framework for teacher reforms developed from lessons from high-achieving countries that they should follow. Such models or ‘‘international standards’’ overlook the complex and dynamic state of the teaching profession embedded in social, historical, and political contexts in each country. Just as we cannot describe the teaching profession in the United States in a few sentences, we cannot describe the teaching profession in Finland, Singapore, or Shanghai as a simple model to follow. This book is different from any other existing books on teachers because of its focus on a major teacher reform in each country that drives the changes in the contexts surrounding the teaching profession. Specifically focusing on the implementation of a major teacher reform and its influence on teachers, it reveals the unique national and local contexts that shape the teacher reform within a broader global trend on standardization and accountability.

TEACHER REFORMS IN GLOBAL CONTEXT AND CHAPTER INTRODUCTION Teacher reforms around the world can be categorized into three broader processes: (1) recruitment and education, (2) hiring and distribution, and (3) supporting and rewarding the teaching profession. Fig. 1 presents these three processes along with specific reform focus and the list of countries in the chapters that address these processes. The vision of excellent teachers which is influenced by both local contexts (social, historical, and political) and global contexts (transnational forces) shape the policymakers’ decision on the focus of the teacher reform, its

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

VISION EXCELLENT TEACHERS

Reform Focus:

RECRUIT & EDUCATE

• Recruitment into teacher education • Teacher education • Certification

Countries :

Fig. 1.

France Republic of Georgia

HIRE & DISTRIBUTE

SUPPORT & REWARD

• Hiring • New teacher induction • Distribution for • Professional development equalizing student • Certification renewal access (e.g. incentive, /advancement rotation) • Teacher evaluation • Working conditions • Compensation • Career advancement India Malawi Afghanistan

Japan United States South Korea Mexico Australia

Teacher Reform Model with Three Processes in Global Context.

design, and implementation process. Because of the unique interaction between local and global contexts in each country, the vision of excellent teachers likely varies and is changing over time, resulting in different reform focus, design, and implementation. The first process of teacher recruitment and education is the initial development stage of the teaching profession. This involves recruitment of academically talented and committed candidates into teacher education programs, educating them through rich curriculum and instruction in the programs, and providing certification or license that allows them to enter the teaching profession. Initial recruitment of academically talented and committed candidates into teacher education programs may involve a meritbased scholarship or tuition waiver or a guaranteed teaching position. These incentives often require the recipients to stay in teaching for a certain number of years in a hard-to-staff school. Reforms on teacher education may target curriculum restructuring or partnership development with school districts or schools to connect teacher education knowledge and theory with practice. It could also target an accreditation process of teacher education programs or an accountability system to hold these programs accountable for their graduates’ teaching performance and learning achievement of these graduates’ students. Certification reforms may change the requirements for obtaining a certification or license (e.g., passing an exam, completion of a prolonged teaching

Introduction

xxix

internship, writing a thesis) or the structure of the certification system such as creating a new certification type in addition to initial certification and advanced certification. Accordingly, these certification reforms influence not only pre-service teachers, but also practicing teachers who may be required to meet a new certification requirement or who are offered new career opportunities or higher pay through obtaining higher level certification. Chapter 1 by Marina Sacilotto-Vasylenko described the 2005 teacher education reform in France that moved the government-directed teacher training programs outside the higher education system to master’s degree programs at universities (masterisation). Sacilotto-Vasylenko argues that the government rushed into this reform in the time of economic crisis without engaging key stakeholders, resulting in a falling number of teacher candidates who can pass the national examination to become teachers and increasing attrition rates among new teachers. Chapter 2 by Magda Nutsa Kobakhidze analyzed the Teacher Certification Examination newly developed by the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia in 2010, which requires all teachers to pass the examination by 2014. Based on teacher and principal interviews, Kobakhidze found that insufficient financial incentives for teachers to pass the examination lowered their motivation, and a hierarchy created between certified and uncertified teachers affected collaborative relationships among them. The second process involves teacher hiring and distribution. Countries around the world employ various hiring policies and practices, ranging from a centralized government system to hire and allocate teacher candidates to teaching posts to a decentralized hiring process at school level where teacher candidates apply to schools for open positions and schools compete for hiring excellent candidates. Some countries such as France, South Korea, and Japan set a threshold for entry into the teaching profession by administering hiring examinations, while others such as the United States deregulate the entry into teaching by allowing alternative certification routes where teacher candidates can complete teacher education in a shorter amount of time. The teacher labor market with the degree of teacher oversupply or shortage in a country determines what entry mechanism is possible and desirable. In addition, in order to ensure students’ equal access to qualified teachers, some types of distribution processes are necessary. Especially in a country with a decentralized hiring system and a major inequality in school funding, qualified teachers tend to concentrate in schools in wealthy communities with more desirable working conditions. Distribution policies may use financial incentives (e.g., higher salary, bonus), benefits (e.g., longer paid sabbatical or family leave, attractive

xxx

INTRODUCTION

pension plan), or material incentives (e.g., professional development resources, instructional materials) to attract teachers to work in hard-tostaff schools. Teachers may be offered unique conditions such as priority transfer to a school of their choice after working in a high-need school for a certain number of years. These distribution policies are common in Australia (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009). In other countries like Japan and Korea, teachers are regularly rotated among schools within a province or prefecture (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Kang & Hong, 2008). Teacher hiring and distribution processes are especially important in developing countries that are working toward achieving the goal of universal elementary education by 2015 under the Education for All (EFA). Chapter 3 by Amita Chudgar examined the 2010 Right to Education law in India which aims to increase both the quantity of teachers by reducing class sizes and limiting teaching vacancies, and the quality of teachers by requiring uniform standards, testing, and higher qualifications. Chudgar argues that the variation in the quality of teacher training institutions across the country and poor accreditation process by the government pose a major challenge in implementation, which could result in exacerbated inequities in student access to quality teachers across Indian states. Chapter 4 by Joseph DeStefano focused on teacher training and distribution by examining the way in which the government in Malawi trains and deploys teachers. Using national data, DeStefano showed the lack of capacity of the government’s teacher training system to accommodate teacher candidates resulted in a major teacher shortage, despite a sufficient number of willing candidates to fill these positions. In addition, teachers are assigned to schools disproportionally across districts, within districts, and even within schools to different grade levels, resulting in major imbalances in class size and teacher shortage and surplus. In Chapter 5, Arif Anwar and Mir Nazmul Islam illustrate the benefits of local hiring of community-based teachers practiced by BRAC – a large international non-government organization (NGO). Based on the BRAC’s experience with scaling up the paraprofessional teacher model in Afghanistan, they show the promise of a carefully managed and well-planned para-professional teacher model for increasing both quantity and quality of teachers in developing countries. The third and last process is support and reward mechanisms for continuous teacher development. This process is most extensive as it involves all practicing teachers. This process starts from new teacher induction and mentoring to support their smooth transition from teacher education programs to schools. Professional development policies support teachers’ continuous professional learning through collaboration and

Introduction

xxxi

research activities, and this could range from a requirement of certain amount of professional development hours tied to certification renewal, tenure, or advanced certification to support of professional development activities through allocating more time and funding for professional learning. Teacher evaluation identifies teacher effectiveness and its results can be used for personnel purposes (e.g., tenure, dismissal), professional development purposes (e.g., identification of areas for improvement and allocation of resources), or career advancement purposes (e.g., promotion, salary raise). Chapter 6 by Motoko Akiba examined the implementation of the 2009 Teacher License Renewal Policy that changed the permanent teacher license to a temporary license that needs to be renewed every 10 years by completing required professional development. Based on teacher survey and interview data, Akiba found that while teachers were against the accountability element of the policy, they valued the professional learning experience through the courses offered by university professors. Chapter 7 by Nam-Hwa Kang and Chapter 8 by Guodong Liang both examined teacher evaluation but in different national contexts – South Korea and the United States. Based on an analysis of policy documents and literature, Kang examined the development process and design of the nationwide Teacher Evaluation Policy and revealed unique characteristics of the policy different from teacher accountability perspectives. In contrast, Liang found a major within-state variation in the policy and implementation of teacher evaluation in the state of Missouri based on a statewide teacher survey, ranging from no evaluation to a systematic evaluation using multiple data sources, involving multiple evaluators, and offering merit-pay. Liang found that those teachers who were evaluated based on their teaching practice and who received a large amount of merit-raise improved their practice of constructivist instruction. Teacher compensation and career advancement systems serve as a critical driver for professionalizing teachers. Generous compensation attracts highly capable candidates into teaching and career advancement opportunities retain them and capitalize on their talents for school improvement. These systems, if effectively tied to teacher evaluation and professional development opportunities, and supported by improved working conditions (e.g., autonomy, safety, resources), can result in a renewal of the teaching profession with a higher social status. There are only a small number of countries that reformed a career advancement system for teachers. Two of these countries are Mexico (Chapter 9 by Luschei) and Australia (Chapter 10 by Ingvarson).

xxxii

INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 9, Luschei examined the impact of 1993 Carrera Magisterial – a national teacher incentive program that provides salary bonuses and promotions for performance and persistence in the classroom – on students’ access to qualified teachers. Luschei found a narrowing gap in students’ access to qualified teachers over time in two Mexican states and explained that the advantages given to teachers in low-SES rural schools in Carrera Magisterial (e.g., faster promotion) and resulting gradual migration of qualified teachers to higher-need areas may have contributed to this narrowed gap. Chapter 10 by Ingvarson examined a development of a standards-based certification system for recognizing and rewarding accomplished teachers with four career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished, and Lead Teacher in Australia, which is scheduled to be implemented from 2013. Despite the benefits of a profession-wide certification system run by an independent professional body with expertise in standards and teacher assessment, the implementation was delegated to the state and territory registration bodies with varying capacities. Combined with a short timeline given to develop assessment methods and processes for training evaluators and financial and political instabilities, Ingvarson argues that, this could lead to a system that fails to gain credibility and respect with the teaching profession. It is important to note that while these 10 countries have focused on one of these three processes in teacher reforms, many teacher reforms introduced in these chapters involve multiple processes illustrated in Fig. 1. Teacher education system in France is tied to teacher hiring through the national examination through which successful candidates are guaranteed employment. The Teacher Certification Examination in the Republic of Georgia was developed in conjunction with teacher professional development reform that provides continuous learning opportunities to those who prepare for the examination. Successful hiring and distribution of qualified teachers in India, Malawi, and Afghanistan depend on the quality of formal and informal teacher education and training. Teacher evaluation in South Korea is closely tied to professional development opportunities, while school-level teacher evaluation in the United States is the major criteria for financial incentives such as merit raise or bonus. The career advancement system in Mexico requires reliable and equitable assessment of teachers’ performance and is tied to significant amount of salary raise. In Australia, the career advancement will be regulated by four levels of career stages accompanying advanced certification and bonus. Both of these career advancement systems aim for recruitment of highly capable teacher candidates and retention of these teachers in the teaching profession through rewarding excellent

xxxiii

Introduction

teachers and professionalizing the teaching profession. Thus, these three processes are integrally addressed in many of these teacher reforms to achieve the common goal of recruiting, developing, and supporting excellent teachers.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TEACHER REFORM IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME These chapters are unique in their focus on the implementation and outcome of a teacher reform in a specific national context. In order to examine implementations and outcomes of teacher reforms in 10 countries described in these chapters, I developed a conceptual model of reform development, implementation, and outcome in global context presented in Fig. 2 based on policy implementation literature (Honig, 2006; Penuel, Fishman, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2011; Weinbaum & Supovitz, 2010) and comparative education policy literature (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Paine & Zeichner, 2012; Robertson, 2012; Steiner-Khamsi & Waldow, 2012). Policy implementation literature identified three key conditions that are important for successful implementation. These are, what I call, ‘‘three Cs’’ of reform implementation: (1) commitment, (2) coherence, and (3) capacity. No teacher reform can be implemented without commitment from policy

Policy Design Goal Target Tools Timeline Process

Policy Actors Policy makers Policy facilitators Implementers Intermediary groups

Organizational Contexts Resources Structures Network Culture/Norm

Implementation 3Cs Commitment Coherence Capacity

Outcome Goal Achievement 1.Short-term vs. Long-term 2.Local vs. System-wide 3. Scalability and Sustainability

Global, National, State and Local Contexts

Fig. 2.

Conceptual Model of Reform Development, Implementation and Outcome in Global Context.

xxxiv

INTRODUCTION

actors at all levels involved. Especially teachers’ ‘‘buy-in’’ is important as they are the core implementers in a teacher reform and the level of teacher buy-in or support largely influences their commitment to engage in the teacher reform. Coherence between a teacher reform and other co-existing educational reforms around a shared goal or vision as well as between a teacher reform and teachers’ beliefs about excellent teachers influences the nature of teacher reform implementation. When there are competing agendas or goals among coexisting reforms or a gap between teacher reform goals and teachers’ beliefs, the reform is unlikely to be implemented as intended. Finally, even if there exist commitment and coherence, a teacher reform will not be implemented as intended without a capacity of policy implementers. A teacher reform could fail because teacher education programs, local governments, or certification agencies do not have the capacity to carry out the reform. The lack of capacity of teachers due to limited knowledge or learning opportunities could hamper implementation as well. These three Cs of reform implementation (commitment, coherence, and capacity) are largely influenced by three core elements of a reform: (1) policy design, (2) policy actors, and (3) organizational contexts. Policy design specifies a goal (what the policy is trying to achieve), a target (who or what is the target the policy is trying to change), and tools (what tools such as guidelines and frameworks are used to facilitate the policy implementation). In addition, the policy design specifies the timeline for full implementation and the process involved in the implementation such as roles of policy actors, stages of implementation, and resources. Policy actors include policymakers, policy facilitators, implementers, and intermediary groups. For teacher reforms, various groups including ministry/department of education, teacher education programs, teacher certification and accreditation agencies, school districts or local departments of education, schools, teachers’ unions, teacher professional associations, teacher leaders, teachers, and parents/community representatives can take one or multiple roles as policymakers, policy facilitators, implementers, or intermediary groups. Finally, organizational contexts include resources available from various key organizations where the policy actors come from, structures of key organizations and relationships or network among them, and cultures and norms characterizing these key organizations. These three core elements of a reform; policy design, policy actors, and organizational contexts interact with one another and collectively influence the implementation of a teacher reform. While a policy design may be influenced by the characteristics of potential policy actors and

Introduction

xxxv

organizational contexts, policymakers may also intentionally design a policy that changes the existing characteristics of policy actors or organizational contexts or that limits or modifies the involvement of individuals as policy actors or influence of organizational contexts. Likewise, the organizational contexts such as resources, network, and cultures and norms are determined by collective characteristics of policy actors, but such contexts also influence the roles and actions of policy actors. While the policy implementation literature identified that these three core elements interact with one another to influence implementation (Honig, 2006; Penuel et al., 2011), it is not yet known specifically ‘‘how’’ they interact with one another to influence reform implementation and outcome. The nature of reform implementation characterized by the degree of commitment, coherence, and capacity leads to a certain outcome. The outcome of a teacher reform is often measured by the degree to which the goal of the reform is achieved. The goal could range from sufficient supply of teachers to students’ equal access to qualified teachers, and to improvement of teacher knowledge or practice. However, the goal is often times broad and difficult to measure. Improvement of teacher quality or effectiveness is a goal of many teacher reforms, yet how to measure teacher quality or effectiveness is a topic of major debate in many countries. As a result, the authors of the chapters in this book have used various indirect measures of outcomes through qualitative interviews or surveys to examine the impacts of teacher reforms. While measuring the goal achievement in a teacher reform may be difficult, the outcomes may be conceptualized with three dimensions: (1) short-term versus long-term, (2) local versus system-wide, and (3) scalability and sustainability. First, a teacher reform may have both short-term and long-term outcomes. Short-term outcomes may be a wider recognition of a new teacher reform among all key stakeholders, teacher participation in the reform, or teachers’ positive experience with the reform. Long-term outcomes may include changes in teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and practice, and improved student achievement. Second, these outcomes can also come from several schools, several cities, one state, or the entire nation, ranging from local to system-wide outcome. A teacher reform may prove successful in a small region, but not in most other regions across the country. Finally, scalability and sustainability are important outcomes for a teacher reform to make a broader and lasting change. Scalability – whether a teacher reform can be implemented successfully on a larger scale – determines whether a teacher reform can reach and influence most teachers in a country. Sustainability – whether successful implementation can be

xxxvi

INTRODUCTION

sustained for a long term even after the funding runs out – is also as important in order for the change to be permanent. Even if a teacher reform was successfully scaled up nationwide, if it is not sustained, the positive changes in the outcomes could easily disappear with termination of financial support or a political change. It is likely that the three Cs of reform implementation (commitment, coherence, and capacity) largely influence the degree of scalability and sustainability of a teacher reform. In examining teacher reforms in 10 countries around the world, it is important to examine how global, national, state, and local contexts influence the reform development, implementation, and outcome. Previous comparative policy studies have identified that a country’s policy or reform is influenced both by global and local contexts (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Anderson-Levitt, 2003; Baker & LeTendre, 2005). A teacher reform in a country may be influenced by a global trend on standardization and accountability and a local need for equalizing students’ access to qualified teachers. I argue that global, national, state, and local contexts interact with one another to influence reform development, implementation, and outcome in a given country. These contexts influence the problem identification (e.g., ineffective teachers, teacher shortage, unequal student access to qualified teachers), which lead to development of a teacher reform with policy design both influencing and being influenced by policy actors and organizational contexts. The implementation processes characterized by commitment, coherence, and capacity are also influenced by these multiple levels of contexts. The outcome – the degree to which the goal was achieved – is not only a result of implementation, but also influenced by various contexts external to the reform framework. The conceptual model presented in Fig. 2 portrays complex relationships and influences among key factors that can be explained only through accumulation of knowledge from carefully conducted empirical studies in various national and regional contexts. This conceptual model provides a general framework I will use as a guide that can be either refined or modified based on empirical data provided by the chapters in this book and future studies. The conceptual model identifies possible key factors and possible relationships involved in development, implementation, and outcome of teacher reforms, yet we do not know the actual characteristics of these key factors and the nature of the relationships among them. That is what this book attempts to investigate through careful examinations of implementations and impacts of major teacher reforms in 10 countries around the world with uniquely different historical, political, and social contexts.

xxxvii

Introduction

SIGNIFICANCE This book is unique in its contribution to theory, policy, and practice in teacher reforms in global context. First, by focusing on major teacher reforms implemented in recent years, the chapters reveal the dynamic process each country is going through in its effort to improve the teaching profession. It overcomes the limitation of prior comparative studies and reports that portray countries with static characteristics on a dichotomy of successful countries versus unsuccessful countries. These chapters were written by researchers with in-depth knowledge of local contexts, most of whom reside or resided in the country of focus and who speak the native language. Second, these chapters reveal the complexity involved in the implementation of a teacher reform and impacts of the reform on teachers. They use the best available empirical data to carefully examine the contexts and processes of the implementation and analyze the impacts or outcomes of the reform based on existing literature, national statistics, case studies, and teacher surveys and interviews. These chapters discuss challenges in implementing a teacher reform as intended or processes or conditions that led to a smooth implementation through an analysis of the policy design, policy actors, and/ or organizational contexts. They also analyze how various outcomes such as teacher supply and distribution, teacher support or resistance, and teacher retention resulted from unique characteristics of the policy design, implementation processes, or national or local contexts external to the teacher reform. Third, the findings from these chapters will advance the existing knowledge in policy implementation literature. Relevant theories and literature on policy implementation were mainly derived from the U.S. contexts, which may or may not apply to other national contexts. These chapters introduce teacher reforms in major parts of the world: North and South America (the United States, Mexico), Europe and Middle East (France, Georgia, Afghanistan), Africa (Malawi), Asia and Oceania (India, Japan, South Korea, Australia). By analyzing the interactions between global and local contexts influencing the development and implementation of teacher reforms in various countries with unique historical, social, and political environments, this book will advance our knowledge on teacher reforms in global context and contribute to refining theories on policy implementation from a comparative perspective. In addition, this book will move us beyond the scholarly debate on whether the schools around the

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

worlds are converging or diverging by focusing our attention on the complexities involved in reform development and implementation. Finally, because most of these chapters examined the recent teacher reforms that are still ongoing, the findings from these chapters will greatly inform the future directions of these reforms in respective countries. The policymakers and other key stakeholders including teacher education programs, teacher certification and accreditation agencies, teacher associations, teachers’ unions, district and school administrators, teachers, and community members in any country can learn a great deal about the teacher reform in their own country in comparison to other countries and use these research findings for ongoing debates and discussions on the future direction of a teacher reform for improving the teaching profession. Policymakers will learn from the complex interplay between the global and local contexts in influencing the development, implementation, and outcomes of a teacher reform. Most importantly, these chapters draw policymakers’ attention to the importance of carefully examining the assumption underlying the teacher reform, involving key stakeholders to develop the reform design and procedure, and continuously modifying and refining the reform design and procedure through reflective processes based on pilot implementation results. When a teacher reform goes through these development and refinement processes over multiple years, it is likely that its implementation leads to a long-lasting change supported by the teaching profession and the society at large.

NOTES 1. In 2007 Trends for International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Taiwan ranked first, South Korea ranked second, and Japan ranked fifth among 48 countries in mathematics assessment. In science assessment, Taiwan ranked second, Japan ranked third, and South Korea ranked fourth. In 2009 PISA mathematics literacy, Korea ranked fourth, Taiwan ranked fifth, and Japan ranked ninth among 63 countries. In science literacy, Japan ranked fifth, Korea ranked sixth, and Taiwan ranked 12th. 2. In March 2011, U.S. Department of Education and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) along with other organizations hosted the International Summit on the Teaching Profession and discussed strategies for improving teacher quality with representatives from 16 countries. This was the first international summit on the teaching profession to share the world’s best policies and practices in developing and supporting the teaching profession. The second summit was held in March 2012, inviting representatives from 24 countries.

xxxix

Introduction

3. The number of participating countries has increased from 43 countries in 1995 TIMSS assessment to 63 countries in 2011 TIMSS (NCES, no date-a). A total of 65 countries participated in the 2012 PISA, a significant increase from 43 countries in 2000 (NCES, no date-b). 4. Nine U.S. states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina) participated in 2011 TIMSS and three states (Connecticut, Florida, and Massachusetts) participated in 2012 PISA. 5. The percentage of teachers who are not qualified decreased from 4% to 2%.

Motoko Akiba

REFERENCES Akiba, M., Chiu, Y., Shimizu, K., & Liang, G. (2012). Teacher salary and national achievement: A cross-national analysis of 30 countries. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 171–181. Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. K. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and achievement gap in 47 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. Alexandrou, A., Field, K., & Mitchell, H. (2005). The continuing professional development of educators: Emerging European issues. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Anderson-Levitt, K. (2003). Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Asia Society. (2011). Improving teacher quality around the world: The international summit on the teaching profession. New York, NY: Asia Society. Asia Society. (2012). Teaching and leadership for the twenty-first century: The 2012 International Summit on the Teaching Profession. New York, NY: Asia Society. Auguste, B., Kihn, P., & Miller, M. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining topthird graduates to careers in teaching. London: McKinsey & Company. Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Birman, B. F., Boyle, A., Le Floch, K. C., Elledge, A., Holtzman, D., Song, M., y Yoon, K.-S. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VIII – Teacher quality under NCLB: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Birman, B. F., Le Floch, K. C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., y O’Day, J. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volumne II – Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Blomeke, S. (2012). Content, professional preparation, and teaching methods: How diverse is teacher education across countries? Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 684–714. Britton, E., Paine, L., Pimm, D., & Raizen, S. (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

xl

INTRODUCTION

Carnoy, M., Beteille, T., Brodziak, I., Loyalka, P., & Luschei, T. (2009). Do countries paying teachers higher relative salaries have higher student mathematics achievement? Amsterdam, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Darling-Hammond, L., & Lieberman, A. (2012). Teacher education around the world: Changing policies and practices. London: Routledge. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (2004). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Dolton, P., & Marcenaro-Gutierrez, O. D. (2011). If you pay peanuts do you get monkeys? A cross-country analysis of teacher pay and pupil performance. Economic Policy, January, 5–55. Editorial Projects in Education. (2012). Education Week Quality Counts: The global challenge: Education in a competitive world. Bethesda, MD: Author. Furlong, J., Cochran-Smith, M., & Brennan, M. (2009). Policy and politics in teacher education: International perspectives. London: Routledge. Givvin, K. B., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J. K., Hollingsworth, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns of teaching? Evidence from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Comparative Education Review, 49(3), 311–343. Gordon, J. A. (2005). The crumbling pedestal: Changing images of Japanese teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(459-70). Griffin, R. (2012). Teacher education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Closer perspectives. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M. S., y Gallimore, R. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States Today (and Tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111–132. Honig, M. I. (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kang, N.-H., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 200–208. Karras, K. G., & Wolhuter, C. C. (2010). International handbook on teacher education worldwide: Issues & challenges for teacher profession. Athens, Greece: Atrapos Editions. LeTendre, G., Baker, D., Akiba, M., & Wiseman, A. (2001). The policy trap: National educational policy and the Third International Math and Science Study. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Practice, 2(1), 45–64. LeTendre, G. K., Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., Goesling, B., & Wiseman, A. (2001). Teachers’ Work: Institutional Isomorphism and Cultural Variation in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Educational Researcher, 30(6), 3–15. MacBeath, J. (2012). Future of Teaching Profession. Brussels: Education International. McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159. McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company. Meyer, J., & Remirez, F. (2000). The world institionalization of education. In J. Schriewer (Ed.), Discourse formation in comparative education (pp. 111–132). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Introduction

xli

Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company. NCES. (no date-a). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): Countries. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/countries.asp NCES. (no date-b). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): Participation in PISA by year. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/countries.asp OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2009). Evaluating and Rewarding the Quality of Teachers – International Practices. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2011a). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world: Background report for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: Author. OECD. (2011b). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD. Paine, L., & Zeichner, K. (2012). Special Issue on the local and the global in reforming teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 569–583. Pazquin, P. (2009). Global trends in teaching employment: Challenges for teacher education and development policies. In M. T. Tatto (Ed.), Reforming teaching and learning: Comparative perspectives in a global era (pp. 75–96). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. Poppleton, P., & Williamson, J. (2004). New realities of secondary teachers’ work lives. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Robertson, S. L. (2012). Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 584–607. Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., & Ingle, W. K. (2010). How principals ‘‘bridge and buffer’’ the new demands of teacher quality and accountability: A mixed-methods analysis of teacher hiring. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 211–242. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schmidt, W. H., Blomeke, S., & Tatto, M. T. (2011). Teacher education matters: A study of middle school mathematics teacher preparation in six countries. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schriewer, J. (2004). Multiple internationalities: The emergence of a world level ideology and the persistence of idiosyncratic world-view. In J. Schriewer & P. Wagner (Eds.), Transnational intellectual networks (pp. 473–534). Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag. Shinn, C. (2012). Teacher education reform in Palestine: Policy challenges amid donor expectations. Comparative Education Review, 56(4), 608–633. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2010). The politics and economics of comparison. Comparative Education Review, 54(3), 323–342. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Waldow, F. (2012). Policy borrowing and lending in education. London: Routledge.

xlii

INTRODUCTION

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc. Tatto, M. T. (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Tatto, M. T., Schwille, J., Senk, S. L., Ingvarson, L., Rowley, G., Peck, R., y Reckase, M. (2012). Policy, practice, and readiness to teach primary and secondary mathematics in 17 countries. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). Tucker, M. S. (2011a). Standing on the shoulders of giants: An American agenda for education reform. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. Tucker, M. S. (2011b). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems. Cambridge, MA. Harvard Education Press. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Montre´alCanada: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the Top Program: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author. Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. Weinbaum, E. H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 68–71. Wiseman, A. W. (2010). The uses of evidence for educational policymaking: Global contexts and international trends. Review of Research in Education, 34, 1–24.

PART I TEACHER EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION REFORM IN FRANCE Marina Sacilotto-Vasylenko ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter describes the Bologna process in teacher education in France. Since the beginning of the reform in 2005, university teacher training institutes (IUFMs) were integrated in the universities, and the possession of a master’s degree became a requirement to teach in France. The main objective of our study is to point out ambiguities, tensions and difficulties that have accompanied implementation of this reform. Methodology – The study is based on the examination of official publications of French stakeholders during the reform’s design and implementation. The content analyses of the collected data are carried out using the concept of ‘‘universitarisation’’ and its three dimensions: structures; knowledge and curriculum; and actors. Other data collected during the ‘‘Teacher Education Curriculum in the EU’’ research project complete this study. Findings – The impact of the reform on teacher candidates is described as a ‘‘disaster,’’ in French scientific literature. The policymakers did not

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 3–24 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019006

3

4

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

grasp the opportunity the Bologna process presented to enhance the quality of teacher education and improve the status of the teaching profession. On the contrary, in the context of budgetary constraints in education, the government has used this reform to remove the posts of teacher trainees, thus reducing the internship period. Value – This chapter addresses practitioners and researchers interested in comparative educational studies and teacher education policy development in the context of the Bologna process. Keywords: Teacher education reform; IUFM; Bologna process; universitarisation; teachers; France

INTRODUCTION Before the 1990s, teacher education had been delivered by the government entities, not by universities in France. Teacher candidates completed a 3-year bachelor’s degree program and entered government-organized teacher education institutions that provided practice-based trainings and secured placement of teachers into schools. Since the early 1990s, educational systems across Europe have undergone considerable reform, with teacher education shifting from representing a national concern towards becoming part of the discourse around Europeanisation (Harford, 2010). With the advancement of the Europeanisation process in education, teacher education has increasingly taken a special place in the activities of ministerial (TNTEE1, ENTEP2) and academic (TEPE3) networks. The exchange of information, data and best practice influenced the recent development in teacher education policy as well as the understanding of complex teacher education systems. European cooperation programmes (e.g., Erasmus, Tempus, Leonardo Da Vinci, etc.) have made a substantial impact on building convergences between different educational systems; however, teacher education systems remain extremely divergent (Hudson, Zgaga, & Astrand, 2010). This chapter describes the recent teacher education reform in France in the context of the policy guidelines of the Bologna (European) process, highlighting the changes concerning the organisation of teacher education studies. I will address these new challenges and focus mainly on the dimension of the universitarisation process in teacher education in France. According to Zeichner (2008), the debate about the place of teacher

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

5

preparation – university based or school based approach – was the most vigorous in the history of teacher education. The tensions also concerned whether teacher education programs should have liberal arts (theoretical) or professional (practical) orientation. Over recent decades, however, there emerged an international trend to improve the quality of the teacher profession, giving rise to higher qualifications – Master’s and Doctoral degree levels. For this, teacher education needs to be developed in and by universities that promote the professionalization of teaching. In France, two stages of ‘‘universitarisation of teacher education’’ can be identified. The first stage was the creation of the IUFM (university institute of teacher training)4 in 1989, which integrated elementary and secondary teacher preparations, teacher training and in-service training. The second stage, the ‘‘masterisation’’ of teacher education, since 2005 has involved integrating teacher education into master’s degree programs in universities. What are the characteristics of these two periods of ‘‘universitarisation’’ of teacher education in France? What is the impact of the current reform on teacher candidates and newly qualified teachers? The main objective of our study is to clarify the ambiguities, tensions and difficulties in conception and implementation of these recent reforms. Despite evident advancements in understanding the teacher education process, France remains ‘‘imprisoned’’ by its traditional system of teacher training5, which is a serious obstacle for quality reform changes. Some explanations to this particular situation can be found in its history. After a brief description of methodology and approaches, the roots of teacher education in France will be presented, followed by a qualitative analysis of findings and some conclusions.

METHODS AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The study presented in this chapter focuses on the implementation and impact of the recent teacher education reform in France. It is based on the examination of the information presented in official publications of French stakeholders: legislations, regulations, communications and reports since 2007. The content analysis of these documents focuses on the discourse of the government, teacher trade unions and educational associations concerning the implementation of initial guidelines of the reform. Recorded information indicates the divergences in government and practitioners’ visions of implementation procedures, namely the design of Master’s degree program offering, the place of national competitive examination and the organisation of practice periods.

6

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

Other data collected during our participation in the European research project, ‘‘The Teacher Education Curricula in the EU’’ from 2008 to 2009, were also analysed. It covered issues such as identification of teacher competency development in French teacher education programs; organisation of teacher induction and in-service training; quality assurance; and cooperation and collaboration. Also, in this chapter I use part of the findings from my doctoral research completed in 2007 (Sacilotto-Vasylenko, 2007). The main objective of this doctoral research was to compare the systems of teacher education and professional development in France and Ukraine. Using historical and socio-institutional approaches, the analyses of the systems were conducted taking into consideration social, political and institutional contexts of their evolutions. The peculiarities of these teacher education systems (organisations, institutions, actors, programs) were identified on different stages of their evolutions. The outcomes concerning French teacher education system are discussed in this chapter. To provide a qualitative analysis of the collected data, I have chosen the concept of ‘‘universitarisation’’ regarding the characteristics of teacher education reform in the context of Bologna process in France. In the scientific literature different definitions, forms and logics of this process have been described (Lang, 2001; Lessard & Boudoncle, 2002; Zgaga, 2008). Indeed, in many countries, a dual movement in teacher education can be observed: on the one hand, the increase in teacher practice (i.e., schoolbased teacher education); on the other hand, the responsibility for teacher education is given to universities in order to assure a research basis of this preparation. The first movement can refer to a professionalization process; the second refers to universitarisation. More and more, the professionalization of teacher education is considered as a process that helps a teacher to not only acquire practical skills in schools but to become ‘‘a teacher professional’’ (i.e., a professional who can develop a syllabus and innovate, analyse his/her practice, and be engaged in continuous self-learning during all teacher carrier; Etienne, Altet, Lessard, Paquay, & Perrenoud, 2009). For such ‘‘professionalization,’’ university teacher education becomes necessary in order to assure a research basis of teacher preparation. In Europe, there is a clear message that teacher education must prepare teachers to use research and evidence-based approaches in their work (Commission of the European communities, 2007). For this, all three cycles of the Bologna process should be implemented in teacher education, in order for future teachers to gradually acquire both academic and practice knowledge. The role of university-based teacher education is obvious, but some policymakers and practitioners continue to question its value and effectiveness.

7

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

In countries where teacher education was organised outside higher education institutions, the process of change is slow and sometimes controversial. Concerning the French system, two stages of ‘‘universitarisation of teacher education’’ can be identified: the first one concerns the period of the IUFM (university institute of teacher training)6 creation in 1989, and the second one is the on-going integration of teacher education into the university (Fig. 1). According to Bourdoncle (2009), ‘‘universitarisation’’ is effective when the university ‘‘absorbs’’ the premises of professional sector, its knowledge and its trainers. The former institutions of professional training may disappear or they may experience a major transformation to become consistent with the university structures, in terms of their specific functions. The professional knowledge is not only transmitted but also is developed according to the rules of the university, with a special focus given to

Certification Ministry of Education

1

Pre-service TE since 1989

4

3

2

1

Preparation of national competitive exam Internship Master thesis

University

Master degree with or without IUFM

5

national competitive examination Ministry of Education

pre-professional courses in teaching

2

national competitive examination Ministry of Education

1st year - teaching in responsibility Induction by University and Ministry of Education

University Bachelor degree

University Bachelor degree

3

Preparation of national competitive exam

1

pre-professional courses in teaching

IUFM

2

Professional training Internship

Certification Ministry of Education

Pre-service TE since 2005

Fig. 1. Universitarisation Process in Teacher Education in France.

8

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

research. The teacher educators are expected to obtain a new status of ‘‘teacher researcher’’ through doctoral studies. I will use this conceptualisation of the universitarisation process developed by Bourdoncle (2009) to analyse the teacher education reforms in France. Bourdoncle suggests analysing the universitarisation process according to three dimensions: institutional structures, knowledge and curriculum, and actors. I will start from the history and institutional development of teacher education and training in France.

THE HISTORY OF TEACHER TRAINING IN FRANCE In France, the teacher training system started to develop at the end of the 18th century. It evolved progressively, but until 19897, pre-service teacher education was different for primary and secondary (colle`ge and lyce´e) school teachers. This particular organisation, despite the recent changes, influences the contemporary system, where the balance between practical and theoretical components in teacher education programmes is not found. Since 1879, colleges for the preparation of primary school teachers, ENIs (Ecoles Normales d’Instituteurs et d’Institutrices), were opened progressively in all counties. The country-level National Education Services (de´partements) took charge of pre- and in-service training. Future teachers of nursery and primary schools were recruited by a competitive examination. They acquired subject knowledge and also received pedagogical and didactic training in the ENIs and in the schools. The preparation finished with a certification (titularisation) and guaranteed teacher placement in posts at schools throughout the county. Secondary school teachers, however, did not receive any professional training until the mid-20th century. For many years, a university-based academic preparation and a high level of subject knowledge were considered as sufficient to become a teacher in French secondary schools (colle`ges and lyce´es). The situation changed in 1952, when regional pedagogical centres were created (CPR: Centres Pe´dagogiques Re´gionaux) in each Acade´mie – a regional-level administrative entity representing the State. The trainees of the CPRs were recruited by a competitive examination taken after the Licence (3 years of university education). Then, all future teachers attended a year-long professional training focused on didactics and pedagogy in schools and in the centres. After a successful completion of the professional training and certification (titularisation), teachers could take a post

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

9

anywhere in France. In the 1980s, a new structure, Mission Acade´mique a` la Formation des Personnels de l’Education Nationale (MAFPEN)8, was opened in each Acade´mie to develop in-service training for secondary school teachers and to introduce research-based activities. The law, Loi d’orientation, of 1989 brought a major change in the French education system. It created a single institution for teacher education and training, Institut Universitaire de Formation des Maıˆtres (IUFM). Thus, 31 institutes were progressively opened, one in each Acade´mie. The main idea was to offer the same preparation, the same qualification, and the same professional status for all teachers of primary, secondary and vocational schools. The main missions were described as follows:  To prepare all candidates for the competitive examination of the recruitment;  To provide the professional preparation for teacher trainees who have passed the examinations;  To organise and offer in-service training for all teachers (since 1999);  To develop research in the field of education. The creation of the IUFMs could be considered as a revolution in teacher training in France because, for the first time, the common framework of training procedures was established for different categories of teachers at pre- and in-service stages. It also marked a shift from the ‘‘normal school’’ tradition in teacher education. The previous institutions (ENI, CPR, MAFPEN) disappeared, and their personnel was integrated into the pedagogical teams of the new IUFMs. The mission of the IUFMs was to ‘‘professionalize’’ the teacher education process by engaging future teachers in continuous reflection on their experience, using scientific knowledge acquired during the training. This new model of training introduced a ‘‘professional orientation’’ in the dominant ‘‘subject-based’’ teacher education in France (Dean, 2003; Mallet, 2011). Indeed, pre-service teacher education in France corresponded to a consecutive model: 3 years of education at the university followed by 2 years of training at the IUFMs. To submit an application for the IUFM, all trainees had to obtain a bachelor’s degree after 3 years of education. The first year at the IUFM was devoted to preparation for the national competitive examination (concours). The competitive examination evaluates academic skills of candidates and took place at the end of the first year. It includes two parts: written tests based on subject knowledge and an oral exam with a discussion of a professional topic. The passing rate varies, and it depends on the number of posts opened by the Ministry of Education and

10

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

the type of examination taken by candidates. For example, in 2001 only 26.1% of the candidates passed the competitive examination to become a teacher in primary schools, and 21% of the candidates passed that for teachers of secondary schools9 (Ministe`re de l’Education National [Ministry of Education], 2003). In addition, during the first year in the IUFM, students were placed into schools for internships supervised by the class teachers. They were encouraged to observe instructions in different classrooms and to have a short teaching experience. The students who passed the national examination were admitted into the second year of training at the IUFMs and become trainee teachers (stagiaires). They have a status of civil servant and receive a salary. During the second year, they attend training sessions in the IUFMs and in schools, prepare a professional thesis (me´moire) and defend it in an oral exam (viva voce), and take part in school practice. During the second year of school experience, trainee teachers were appointed to teaching positions in schools by the regional education authority (Rectorat), to fill vacant posts or to substitute for teachers participating in in-service training activities. They are fully responsible for teaching the assigned classrooms during the appointed period, while being supervised and evaluated by experienced teachers and trainers from the IUFMs. The three types of activities (training, practice and professional thesis) are examined by a panel of the IUFM, which approves the second year of training. The last stage of the certification process is supervised by the Acade´mie commission, which decides whether the trainee teacher has succeeded this professional preparation and should be appointed to a permanent post. In short, the following characteristics of the system should be taken into consideration while analysing recent teacher education policy development in France:  Teacher education corresponded to a consecutive model: first, future teachers acquired academic knowledge at the university, and then they received professional preparation at the IUFM;  Teachers had a status of civil servants, and they were recruited through national competitive examinations taken place after the 1st year of training at the IUFM;  Teacher education was predominantly subject-oriented because the certification process evaluated the subject knowledge of the candidates;  Departments of Sciences of Education did not play an active role in teacher training, and a gap existed between educational research and the reality of teacher practice.

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

11

There were many criticisms of the university teacher training institutes. They came from different actors (newly qualified teachers, researchers and intellectuals, etc.), and the debates often provoked vivid political and ideological discussions around education approaches and the role of the teacher profession in French schools (Cros & Obin, 2003). Concerning teacher training programmes developed by the IUFM, they appeared costeffective but failed to develop a quality professional preparation of future teachers. Nevertheless, teacher education underwent substantial changes and it entered into a ‘‘universitarisation’’ process due to the specific status of the IUFM: university institution of teacher training. Unfortunately, the teacher education policy development was concentrated in the hands of the ministry of education, a unique employer of teachers. The IUFM could not take a leading role in teacher education policy development and build a cooperative relationship with the national and regional education authorities, universities, and schools. Did the national government take time to consider the advancement in teacher education during the previous years? Did it proceed with pace and intelligence in order to integrate the new concepts and ideas emerged from teacher education research? To answer these questions, first, the context of the current reform is presented below.

BOLOGNA PROCESS AND ‘‘MASTERISATION’’ OF TEACHER EDUCATION In the framework of the Lisbon Strategy, the improvement of teacher education quality is one of the objectives of the European Union’s programme ‘‘Education and Training 2010.’’ The Communication from the European Commission (2007) defines the policy priorities on teacher education. A common vision of the teaching profession is described as follows:  A well-qualified profession: all teachers are graduates from higher education institution. Teachers have extensive subject knowledge, a good knowledge of pedagogy and of social and cultural dimensions of education, skills and competences necessary to guide learners.  Teachers are lifelong learners. They continue their professional development throughout their career.  A mobile profession. Teachers are encouraged to work and study in other European countries.  A profession based on partnership. Institutions of teacher education provide teacher education in collaboration with different partners: schools,

12

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

local authorities, stakeholders, etc. (Commission of the European communities, 2007). The Commission’s document emphasises the importance of reflective practice and research in teacher’s education and work. The career-long perspective of teacher professional development is recognised as a priority, in order to assure its quality through three interdependent stages: Initial Education, Induction and In-Service Training. It is stated that the European community accompanies the development of quality teacher education by encouraging cooperation between Member States, but the content of studies and the organization of systems remain a national responsibility. Therefore, the above-described principles are used as guidelines by the policymakers in European member states. At the same time, the recent reforms of initial teacher education are developed in the context of implementing the Bologna process. The Bologna Process concerns higher education, namely the degree structure, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation system, learning outcomes, and quality assurance. Regarding teacher education, the policy attention is given to raising the level of teacher education to master’s degree and the quality change of the content of teacher preparation programmes. As noted earlier, historically, academic preparation in future disciplines of secondary school teaching was situated within the university sector. But, the professional part of that preparation was mostly provided by the nonuniversity structures. For a long time, universities were absent in primary school teacher education. The Bologna process has brought further challenges to teacher education as a specific area of higher education. Indeed, teacher education studies are more complex compared to other studies in higher education. Zgaga (2008) identifies some elements of this complexity. First, the interdisciplinary character of teacher education makes it difficult for university faculties to establish a balance between ‘‘subject’’ and ‘‘pedagogy’’ components in programmes. Second, the Bologna two-cycle structure poses some problems regarding the principle of continuity of teacher professional development. How can in-service teacher training or post-graduate teacher studies be integrated in this model? How can it influence the level and the quality of qualification of primary and secondary school teachers? Finally, the consecutive (vs. parallel or concurrent) type of teachers’ initial education, still present in many countries, cannot adapt easily to the concept of flexible learning paths required in Bologna agreements. What place will traditional teacher training courses (non-degree professional preparation) take in bachelor’s and master’s degree programs?

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

13

Following these recent policy changes and developments, teacher education in Europe presents new features today:  It is an integral part of the higher education and research sector and, therefore, one of the youngest ‘‘academic disciplines’’ at the university;  As a part of higher education, it participates in the Bologna process of harmonisation of educational structures;  Teacher education policy development remains a responsibility of national stakeholders;  Europeanisation of teacher education is a more complex and complicated process compared to that of higher education in general (Campos, 2010; Zgaga, 2008). The European policy guidelines have had serious implications for teacher education reforms in France. In 2005, the French government passed a new law10, stressing the importance of requiring a high quality teacher education of at least five years located in higher education. This political decision follows European and international orientations concerning teacher education. The main objective is to raise the level of initial teacher preparation to the master’s level and to improve the quality of studies, giving them research bases. More, universities contribute to raising the prestige of the teacher profession by now offering teachers master’s degrees. Therefore, it was decided to integrate the IUFMs into the universities and to adapt the teacher education system to the Bologna process. The universities were invited to develop new master’s programs in teacher education. That is why this reform is called the ‘‘masterisation’’ of teacher education in the French education community. While the general consensus about the improvement of teacher education by raising the level of teacher education to the master’s degree level seemed to be achieved, other issues of the reform provoked vivid tensions. The national government wanted to proceed quickly and did not negotiate the key aspects of the reform with the key stakeholders of the process, including teacher and student trade unions, director and teacher trainers of the IUFM, and researchers. It appeared that the government’s strategy was financial rather than educational. The ‘‘masterisation’’ reform took place during the period of budget cuts in education and in teacher education. The government tried to reduce the number of teacher posts. The reform permitted the government to reduce the expenses for teacher education because student teachers in their second year of professional preparation at the master’s level did not receive salaries as their older colleagues having the status of civil servants as trainee teachers in the former IUFM. Thus,

14

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

the professional preparation through internship, which was the essence of the second year training, was purely removed. In addition, it was decided to place the national competitive examination of recruitment at the end of the master’s degree programs. This decision of the government was criticised by the trainers and university professors. Indeed, the master’s degree programs have led to an overload of students’ work because they are supposed to complete their coursework and master’s thesis and to take the competitive examination at the same time. It is clear that a compromise between the teacher trainers’ ‘‘pedagogical’’ orientations and the government’s political interests was not achieved. The centralized certification and teacher recruitment systems, through national examinations, allowed the government control over the teacher education reform. Finally, the meaning of ‘‘university’’ teacher education was not specified in the policy documents. It can be interpreted that any university with or without an integrated IUFM and with or without a Department of Sciences of Education can develop master’s degree programs in teacher education. Questions were raised about the capacities of universities to offer professional preparation and to collaborate with a number of different key stakeholders concerning teacher education in France. What can be affirmed today is that some aspects of the old system continue to exist in the new system:  The consecutive scheme of teacher preparation, with the acquisition of subject knowledge and short pre-professionalization courses during a 3-year bachelor’s degree program followed by a master’s degree program that prepares teacher candidates for national competitive examinations and the future profession;  The status of teachers as civil servants remains, and the national examination is continued to be controlled by the Ministry of Education, the teachers’ employer;  School practice takes the forms of ‘‘supervised and guided practice’’ (108 hours in the first year of a master’s degree program in teacher education) and ‘‘placement in responsibility’’ (108 hours in the second year). Compared to the old system, the practice period is considerably reduced, and its organisation and content vary according to the Academies, the specialisation of future teachers and the status of teacher trainees. In the next section a qualitative analysis of the ‘‘universitarisation process’’ in teacher education will be presented according to three dimensions: institutional structures, knowledge and curriculum, and actors.

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

15

UNIVERSITARISATION PROCESS: INTEGRATION OF TEACHER TRAINING INTO UNIVERSITIES THROUGH ‘‘MASTERISATION’’ Development of University Structures in Teacher Education As mentioned above, in France teachers have a status of civil servants. Teachers, like other ‘‘civil workers’’ (nurses, policemen, social workers) have a strong affiliation with the government. For a long time, French government kept control of the organisation and content of teacher education and training. The institutions of teacher preparation had ‘‘an administrative character’’ with a direct subordination to the state (Bourdoncle, 2009). It can be stated that the Bologna process brought serious challenges to this model. Universities have a greater autonomy due to their legal and structural characteristics. Their missions are scientific, cultural and professional. With the integration of teacher training into the universities, the question is: who will be in charge of financing and operations of teacher education? In addition, how will the Bologna principles of flexibility and interdisciplinary character of academic studies be applied to teacher education in the universities, known for their ‘‘conflict among faculties and departments’’ (Zgaga, 2008)? The creation of the IUFM, university institute of teacher training, in 1989, can be considered as a first step in the universitarisation process. However, the administrative status given to that institution permitted the IUFM to stay independent from the universities. For Bourdoncle (2009), from a structural point of view, the universitarisation of teacher education in the IUFM was a ‘‘false universitarisation.’’ First, the institutions were situated outside the university, i.e., they were distant from the university’s facilities (laboratories, libraries, technologies, etc.). Second, this independence was financial; the IUFMs had an independent budget allocated directly by the Ministry of Education, which was much higher than the state’s investment per student at the university (Cros & Obin, 2003). Finally, the development of research in and for teacher education was not their priority. Since their integration into universities in 2005, teacher education has been reorganised but hardly settled. On the one hand, universities that have integrated former IUFMs can benefit from their premises and experience in teacher preparation. However, the future of this integrated institution is uncertain. In the beginning of the reform, the new name for the IUFM, ‘‘internal university schools,’’ has appeared in the policy documents.

16

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

Progressively, the discourse about IUFMs’ abolition has appeared in the political discourses.11 On the other hand, the new law allows universities without an affiliation with an IUFM to develop a master’s degree program in teacher education. If they choose to do so, they need to develop courses not only in ‘‘subject discipline’’ but also in professional fields, such as pedagogy, didactics, and psychology. Universities have to work with external partners (e.g., schools and regional educational authorities) or develop cooperative programs between various faculties and departments within the universities. They can also create new institutions or restructure the operations of previous programs, such as the University Service of Teacher Training (Service Universitaire de Formation des Maitres – SUFOM)12 or Departments of Sciences of Education, with the traditional research missions. In 2009, 80 higher education institutions, including 76 universities, provided master’s programs in teacher education (Grosperrin, 2011). This number shows the great interest French universities have for teacher education. However, there are many challenges in the implementation of these programs. A question remains regarding whether French universities would be able to ‘‘professionalize’’ teacher education, to develop a meaningful two-stage teacher education with a bachelor’s degree program and a master’s degree program, and to collaborate with a number of key stakeholders, including those serving the other stages of teacher professional development (induction and in-service training).

Knowledge and Curriculum Development during Universitarisation The universities are the places both for transmission and creation of knowledge; therefore, teacher education can benefit from such free and independent environments. If teacher education is offered through a university degree program, its epistemological grounds as a university discipline have to be established and clearly recognised (Zgaga, 2008). This problem is particularly important in the French system, where the vision persists that the teaching profession needs in-depth knowledge in the subject areas of teaching expertise with limited practical training. In France, the sciences of education – a university discipline – was founded 40 years ago. It concerns the study of education processes. This discipline helped to change the understanding of teacher education. Progressively, training on the job is completed and later replaced by the institutionalised courses that provide knowledge to teach, knowledge for

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

17

teaching, and knowledge about teaching. However, the departments of the sciences of education were not unique providers of research on teacher education in France. Other disciplines, especially disciplines of social and human sciences contributed to the development and creation of knowledge for the teacher profession. According to Bourdoncle (2009), the place of the sciences of education was limited in the former IUFMs. The professional preparation content addressed mostly subject matter. In France, many teachers and educators, especially in secondary schools, tend to perceive their role as related to their expertise in the subject areas. They feel less responsibility for pedagogical or pastoral care compared to teachers in other countries, who equally value these roles of the profession. Further, there was a gap between theoretical and practical knowledge transmitted at the IUFM. The research-based knowledge was considered by the future teachers as too theoretical and unnecessary for the practice (Cros & Obin, 2003). A small number of university researchers participated in the teacher preparation, and their teaching was often disconnected from the realities of the teacher profession. Research for and about teaching was conducted mostly by university laboratories, outside the walls of the IUFMs (Sacilotto-Vasylenko, 2007). Later, however, that dominant ‘‘subject orientation’’ and ‘‘a pure theory courses’’ evolved towards more professional orientations because of the development of IUFMs. This model of training developed by the trainers of the IUFMs is based on the workshops of practice analysis, in order to develop reflexive practitioners. Integration of teacher education in the university can be an occasion to reconsider the curriculum and the content of teacher education. The main issue is to bridge the gap between the universities’ research focus and the traditional teacher training focus on practice. The balance between theory and practice has to be found and a purpose for a university-based teacher education has to be better determined. For French researchers, it is necessary to align the new programs to the standards of teacher competencies used by the employers of teachers (Etienne, Altet, Lessard, Paquay, & Perrenoud, 2009). Ten key competencies developed by the Ministry of Education13 for future teachers are defined as follows:  To act as a civil servant, be responsible and to respect ethical principles;  To have a good master of French language for teaching and communication;  To have a good knowledge of the subject(s) of teaching and to have a good general culture;

18

      

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

To To To To To To To

plan and organise his/her teaching; organise a class work; take into account pupils’ diversity; evaluate pupils; use new information and communication technologies; work within his/her teacher team, with parents and school partners; innovate and to be responsible for his/her own training.

The development of these professional competencies is possible if the universities promote teacher learning based on approaches, including reflective practice, problem-solving, and clinical analyses. For this, teacher education curriculum has to articulate knowledge and approaches coming from different university disciplines. Another way to establish connections between the knowledge of research and teacher practice is to involve student teachers in research projects together with the university teachers and schoolteachers. It is evident that highly qualified staffs of university teachers and teacher trainers are necessary to address this challenge.

Actors of the Universitarisation Process Bourdoncle (2009) describes the difference between the recruitment of teacher educators at the universities and at the IUFMs. The universities favour research excellence while IUFMs favour professional experience and/ or qualities in teaching or training. When there is a universitarisation process, two different solutions can be considered. Teacher educators from the IUFMs could be invited to change their status by obtaining a doctoral degree and become teacher-researchers. Those who do not choose this option are integrated in secondary education or other posts in education. Another idea is to maintain these teachers in post until the retirement. This process of change is longer and it presents some difficulties for the development of research capacity and the competencies of teacher educators. However, the second solution was always chosen in France. Indeed, teacher trainers, as teachers, have the status of civil servants, and their employment is guaranteed through retirement. Often, they do not have a doctoral degree, yet they teach to master’s degree students. When the former institutions of teacher education and training (ENI, CPR, MAFPEN) had disappeared in the 1990s, their personnel was integrated in the pedagogical teams of the new IUFM. Thus, the trainers,

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

19

coming to the IUFM from diverse institutions, brought training experiences and an educational culture that were readily adaptable to the IUFM. However, the cooperation between those actors was difficult during the first years and the conflicts of power were observed by French researchers (Sacilotto-Vasylenko, 2007). Moreover, as it was mentioned above, the IUFMs were isolated from universities and the educational system. Professors from universities were rarely involved in teacher education and training activities. According to the Grosperrin (2011) report, researchers in educational sciences represented only 18% of trainers of the IUFM. On the contrary, chief education officers (inspecteurs d’acade´mie) took a leading role in the teacher training activities. Today, the university and its staff are responsible for teacher education. The recruitment process of French universities, based on research skills, may provoke some difficulties for teacher education. University staff preparation is based on the research, and university career advancement depends mostly on the research outcomes. This is different from other countries where, according to Bertrand et al. (1994), different dimensions of academic work are taken into account: teaching, research, contribution to the university operations, and international visibility (cited in Bourdoncle, 2009). Another problem concerns the supervision of teaching internships. Today, teaching internships can be supervised by university teachers, by trainers of the IUFM, by regional inspectors, by class teachers, or principals, depending on the stages of practice. The cooperation between these actors is limited. Often, these teacher trainers work in separate institutions, and administrative obstacles for cooperation are mentioned in the scientific literature (Cros & Obin, 2003). Further, their professional cultures are different, and the old educational divide between the world of research (university professors) and the world of practice (teachers, inspectors, principals, etc.) survives in the new system. Several parliamentary and ministerial reports underline the negative consequences of this issue on the organisation and content of practice in teacher education (Grosperrin, 2011; Jolion, 2011). Our findings report that few references are made to teacher educators’ competencies and professional preparation in policy documents concerning ‘‘masterisation’’ of teacher education. However, the quality of university professors and teacher trainers directly influences the quality of teacher education. Unfortunately, the questions concerning status and professionalism of teacher educators are not the priorities of the present reform.

20

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

IMPACTS OF ‘‘MASTERISATION’’ON TEACHER CANDIDATES AND NEW TEACHERS For the first time, there is evidence that France has major difficulties in attracting quality candidates into the teacher profession. The Grosperrin (2011) report mentions that master’s degree registrations has considerably decreased: from 58,518 candidates in 2009–2010 to 23,039 candidates in 2010–2011. The number of candidates passing the competitive examination to become teachers has decreased14 between 2005 and 2009 (Manceau, 2011). With ‘‘masterisation’’ extending teacher education to five years, fewer young people are able to afford such a long education without any financial support, because scholarships are offered only to select students in the second year of the master’s degree program. In addition, the fifth year of teacher education has become intensive, with students needing to prepare for both the national examination of recruitment, the master’s program courses and master’s thesis for graduation. As a result, students privilege the preparation of the competitive examination, which is subject-oriented but guarantees qualification and recruitment. They neglect the course work in professional subjects (pedagogy and didactics) and internships (Grosperrin, 2011; Jolion, 2011). Moreover, the study by the Ministry of Education (2009) points out that 97% of teachers admit uneasiness or ill-being (malaise) in the teaching profession. This is a 14% increase compared to a similar study done in 2005 (Ministry of Education, 2005) The Ministry of Education (2009) study also reported that 67% of teachers feel personally concerned about the negative view. The lack of recognition of the profession in society, difficult working conditions and low salaries explain this phenomenon. The professionalization of pre-service teacher studies was recognised as an important issue in policy documents. However, the time of practice in master’s degree programs was reduced, thus the majority of beginning teachers only have their first teaching experience after five years of university preparation. As a result, they start their teaching career without real professional preparation. The national survey of teacher’s trade union ‘‘UNSA’’ reported an estimated dropout rate of 8% among beginning teachers in 2011, ten times as high as the previous years’ less than 1% attrition rate (Manceau, 2011). France is facing a new problem retaining new teachers in the profession and their accompaniment through tutoring and/or professional training during the first years of teaching. Finally, the integration of the IUFM in the university has led to minor changes in teacher education programs. The content and organisation of

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

21

studies are considered as inefficient (Grosperrin, 2011). The report for the National Assembly argued that the reform was not implemented as intended, and the results are unsatisfactory. It provided three explanations for this failure:  The detailed reform designs and implementation process were not provided by the government;  The reform was conducted at the time of financial crisis and budget cut in education and teacher education, resulting in the decision to remove the posts of teacher trainees;  There were tensions and contradictions in the work of stakeholders during the process of implementation, especially Ministry of higher education responsible for teacher education and Ministry of national education in charge of teacher recruitment (Grosperrin, 2011, p. 19). Policy documents were envisaged to raise the status, reward and qualifications of teachers. However, the highly politicised debate on masterisation of teacher education in France has mainly focused on the placement of the national competitive examination and the status of student teachers. Unfortunately, the financial priorities of the government have led to the absence of real reflection on how the university teacher education should be developed and conducted in collaboration with different partners present in teacher education. Indeed, the impacts of the Bologna process in French teacher education have been negative.

CONCLUSIONS In general, the recent regulations of teacher education in France support similar goals as the European Union’s policy documents. However, the teacher education reform has faced multiple challenges in implementations and seems to have produced negative impacts on teacher candidates. The policymakers did not grasp this opportunity to enhance the quality of teacher education and improve the status of the teaching profession in its design of the teacher education reform. On the contrary, in the context of budgetary constraints in education, the government has used this reform to remove the posts of teacher trainees, thus reduced the funding for teacher education. Our findings show that the ‘‘universitarisation’’ process in France remains slow and fragile. Indeed, the Ministry of Education maintained the central control over teacher education and it did not allow the autonomy of

22

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

universities in the qualification process. The Ministry continues to organise the national competitive examination of teacher recruitment, defining the content of the exams and evaluating the competencies of newly qualified teachers. As a result, a gap exists between the teacher education process provided by the universities and the evaluation and recruitment process supervised by the Ministry of Education. Further, teacher education in France has had some difficulties finding and confirming its place within the various institutions that were in charge of teacher preparation. Today, it has to be provided by universities, and it is facing new challenges. It is trying to define the knowledge base of teacher education; to articulate better theory and practice through the development of professionalized training (e.g., problem solving, practice analysis); and trying to reconsider the status and work of university-based and nonuniversity-based teacher educators. The recent results of research carried out by French researchers emphasise some conditions necessary to develop ‘‘reinforced professionalization’’ and ‘‘adapted universitarisation’’ in teacher education. Such conditions include:  The conception and construction of both a research-based and professional teacher education curriculum;  Mobilisation of all the actors in teacher education development, including researchers and practitioners;  Meaningful change in the practice of teacher education and training;  Development of collaborative research in and for teacher education. (Etienne et al., 2009). The universities should play a leading role in teacher education and training, in order to enhance the professionalism and prestige of this profession. If policy makers take this statement seriously and try to achieve this goal, the decision-making processes of teacher education reforms in France need to reflect the voice of teachers, teacher trainers and researchers. The presidential election took place in May 2012, and the new socialist government announced further reforms in teacher education with the main objective to reinforce the professional preparation of future teachers. It envisages creating High Schools for Teachers and Education (Ecole Supe´rieure du Professorat et de l’Education) within the universities, which will lead teacher education. How the new socialist government tackles the current challenge in reforming teacher education and contributes to the quality improvement of ‘‘universitarisation’’ process remains to be seen.

Bologna Process and Initial Teacher Education Reform in France

23

NOTES 1. TNTEE: Thematic Network on Teacher Education in Europe. 2. ENTEP: European Network of Teacher Education Policies. 3. TEPE: Teacher Education Policies in Europe. 4. IUFM- Institut Universitaire de la Formation des Maıˆ tres. 5. We use here the term teacher training as it shows the specificity of teacher preparation in France. Indeed, the term teacher training, formation des enseignants, is used in France to refer to pre-service teacher education. 6. IUFM- Institut Universitaires de la Formation des Maıˆ tres. 7. Loi d’Orientation, 1989. 8. Mission Acade´mique a` la Formation des Personnels de l’Education Nationale: Regional Centres for professional training of educational stuff. 9. Competitive examination for teachers of secondary school: CAPES (certificat d’aptitude au professorat de l’enseignement du second degree). 10. Law on orientation and programmes for future of schools: Loi d’orientation et de programme pour l’avenir de l’e´cole du 23 avril 2005 (JO n1 96 du 24 avril 2005). 11. President Sarkozy, a candidate for the re-election, declared that he would abolish the IUFMs during the president election campaign in spring 2012. 12. SUFOM is the university service of teacher training. It provides some preprofessional courses for the first cycle students who wish to become teachers, and it prepares students for some national competitive examination of teacher recruitment. 13. The new teacher education programs should be based on these competences in order to be accredited by the Ministry of education. 14. 36% less candidates between 2005 and 2009.

REFERENCES Bourdoncle, R. (2009). L’universitarisation. Structures, programmes, acteurs. In R. Etienne, M. Altet, C. Lessard, L. Paquay & P. Perrenoud (Eds.), L’universite´ peut-elle vraiment former les enseignants?: Quelles tensions? Quelles modalite´s? Quelles conditions? (pp. 19–29). Bruxelles, Belgium: De Boeck. Campos, B. (2010). Bologna and initial teacher education in Portugal. In B. Hudson, P. Zgaga & B. Astrand (Eds.), Advancing quality cultures for teacher education in Europe: Tensions and opportunities (pp. 13–33). Umea, Sweden: Umea School of Education. Commission of the European Communities. (2007, August 3). Communication from the Commission to the council and the European parliament. Improving the quality of teacher education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/com392_en.pdf Cros, F., & Obin, J. P. (2003). Attirer, former et retenir des enseignants de qualite´. Rapport de base national de la France, l’OCDE. Retreived from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/5/ 2958117.pdf Dean, M. (2003). Teacher education in France: Evolution or revolution? In B. Moon, L. Vlasceanu & L. C. Barrows (Eds.), Institutional approaches to teacher education within higher education in Europe: Current models and new developments (pp. 109–135). Bucharest, Romania: UNESCO CEPES.

24

MARINA SACILOTTO-VASYLENKO

Etienne, R., Altet, M., Lessard, C., Paquay, L., & Perrenoud, P. (2009). L’universite´ peut-elle vraiment former les enseignants?: Quelles tensions? Quelles modalite´s? Quelles conditions?, pp. 19–29. Bruxelles, Belgium: De Boeck. Grosperrin, J. (2011). Rapport d’information sur la formation initiale et le recrutement des enseignants. Commission des affaires culturelles et de l’education, Assemble´e Nationale. Retreived from http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/rap-info/i4033.asp Harford, J. (2010). Teacher education policy in Ireland and the challenges of the twenty-first century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(4), 349–360. Hudson, B., Zgaga, P., & Astrand, B. (Eds.). (2010). Advancing quality cultures for teacher education in Europe: Tensions and opportunities. Umea, Sweden: Umea School of education. Jolion, J. M. (2011). Masterisation de la formation initiale des enseignants. Enjeux et bilan. Rapport au Ministre d’enseignement supe´rieur et de la recherche´. Retrieved from http:// www.refondonslecole.gouv.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/rapport_jolion_la_masterisation_ enjeux_et_bilan_octobre_2011.pdf Lang, V. (2001). Les rhe´toriques de la professionnalisation. Recherche et Formation, 38, 95–112. Lessard, C., & Boudoncle, R. (2002). Qu’est-ce qu’une formation professionnelle universitaire? Revue Franc- aise de Pe´dagogie, 139, 131–154. Mallet, R. (2011). Formation des enseignants et/ou pre´paration d’une main d’œuvre enseignante en Europe. In J. L. Villeneuve (Ed.), La formation initiale des enseignants en Europe: Convergence, divergence, e´volutions (pp. 53–71). Paris, France: Edition le manuscrit. Manceau, C. (2011). Masterisation: Le pire est a` venir selon l’UNSA. Retreived from http:// www.educpros.fr/detail-article/h/59c083ac1e/a/masterisation-le-pire-est-a-venir-selon-lunsa. html Ministe`re de l’Education National [Ministry of Education]. (2003). Les concours de recrutement des enseignants du second degree. Session 2001, Note d’information, DEP, n1 03.17 mars, Paris, France. Ministe`re de l’Education National [Ministry of Education]. (2005). Portrait des enseignants de colle`ges et Lyce´es, Note d’information, DEP, n1 05.07 mars, Paris, France. Ministe`re de l’Education National [Ministry of Education]. (2009). Enseigner en colle`ge et lyce´e en 2008. Les Dossiers du DEPP, n1194, Paris, France. Sacilotto-Vasylenko, M. (2007). Vers une nouvelle conception de la formation continue des enseignants: Analyse comparative France/Ukraine. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). CREF, Universite´ Paris X Nanterre, France. Zeichner, K. (2008). Introduction: Settings for teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman, S. Nemser, D. J. McIntyre & E. Demers. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 263–269). New York, NY: Routledge. Zgaga, P. (2008). Mobility and the European dimension in teacher education. In B. Hudson & P. Zgaga (Eds.), Teacher education policy in Europe: A voice of higher education institutions, Umea. Sweden: University of Umea, Faculty of teacher education.

TEACHER CERTIFICATION EXAMINATIONS IN GEORGIA: OUTCOMES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Magda Nutsa Kobakhidze ABSTRACT Purpose – The chapter explores the newly launched Teacher Certification Examinations (TCEs) in one of the post-Soviet countries, Georgia, and describes the experiences and perceptions of Georgian teachers going through the process of teacher certification. The qualitative study develops an in-depth understanding of the perceived strength and weaknesses of TCE in Georgia. Methodology – This case study was carried out in the spring of 2012 in 17 Georgian schools. School teachers and school principals from public and private schools were interviewed. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit all participants. In addition to data obtained from research participants, various policy documents, laws on general education, minister’s decrees, and statistical databases are analyzed and incorporated into the study.

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 25–51 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019007

25

26

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

Findings – The data analyses showed that while the certification policy, in some way, increased teachers’ social status and prestige in the society, it failed to meet teachers’ expectations regarding remuneration policy and professional development opportunities. The TCE, without an adequate compensation policy as well as other types of incentives to increase teacher motivation, creates only a technical threshold for teachers to obtain a teacher certificate to secure jobs, rather than being a catalyst for a genuine professional development opportunity. Value – The study is the first attempt to empirically examine the teacher certification process in Georgia, thus it fills a knowledge gap that exists in the field. The Georgian TCE is the first TCE in south Caucasus; thus, the study of the implementation and outcomes of the Georgian reform provides a unique opportunity for the region and for the rest of the developing world to learn from the successes and failures of the reform process. Keywords: teacher certification policy; teacher professional development; teacher perceptions; teacher compensation; post-Soviet countries

INTRODUCTION This empirical study explores a newly launched teacher certification reform in one of the post-Soviet countries, Georgia. It describes the experiences and perceptions of Georgian teachers going through the process of teacher certification. Teacher certification in Georgia aims at professionalizing and regulating teacher occupation in the country by raising teaching standards and granting ‘‘right to teach’’ to only those who fulfill certification requirements. Certification policy encompasses two certification examinations: one in professional skills (pedagogy) and the other in a relevant subject matter. Teacher certification is granted only if a teacher passes thresholds in both examinations. Teacher certification policy applies to all in-service teachers in public schools as well as candidates who wish to enter into the teaching profession. This new reform on teacher certification initiated by the Georgian government in 2010 echoes the current global focus on enhancing teacher quality while also addressing one of the key education policy challenges in the country – teacher professional development. In addition, the teacher certification reform in Georgia reflects the agendas of

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

27

international donor agencies assisting countries in transition to improve the quality of their education system. This study is the first attempt to empirically examine teacher certification policy in Georgia, thus it fills the knowledge gap that exists in the field. Although teacher certification policy in Georgia has attracted a growing public interest, the investigation of its impact is absent. Considering that the Teacher Certification Examinations (TCEs) in Georgia is the first TCE in the south Caucasus, this study of implementation and outcomes of the Georgian reform provides a unique opportunity to learn from the successes and failures of reform policy for the region and for the rest of the developing world. Teacher certification was included in the Law on General Education of 2005 as a mandate for all teachers to obtain by the end of 2014. However, the Teacher Certification Charter adopted by the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia (MoES; decree no. 1101) is dated on December 12, 2009. Only since 2010 all in-service teachers in Georgia have been able to take the certification examinations. As of 2012, 18.6% of both public and private schoolteachers are certified. Standardized tests are used for the certification examinations in each subject. Test content is based on national curriculum and teacher standards, which have recently been updated and matched to modern teaching approaches. Except examinations in foreign languages (which also evaluate listening and speaking skills of teachers) all tests are administered in written form. Tests include both close and open-ended questions. Certification examinations are administered only once a year during summer. Although the general public agrees that TCE, as part of teacher professional development reform, was a needed policy change in the country, this policy also raised legitimate concerns among teachers related to equity, effectiveness, and expediency issues that will be discussed later in this chapter. This qualitative study attempts to explore Georgian teachers’ perceptions and understandings of teacher certification policy in the country, namely, the study aims at discovering the impacts of certification examination on teachers’ status and their professional motivation as perceived by the teachers. The study also addresses the following research questions: (1) What are the levels of teacher participation in the certification process and the success rates for passing the certification examinations? (2) What are teachers’ perceptions about the strengths and weaknesses of the teacher certification exam policy? (3) How did school principals experience the certification policy? and (4) How successful is the government’s agenda for TCE reform? Is the reform implementation process consistent with the goals of certification examination policy outlined by the MoES?

28

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

The chapter will first provide readers a background of teacher policies related to teacher salaries, teacher education, and professional development opportunities in Georgia based on a review of relevant studies conducted mainly in other post-Soviet countries. After presenting the study design and methodology in detail, the chapter will present the main findings of the study. While the last section summarizes the chief findings in the context of ongoing certification reform, it also discusses possible policy directions and provides questions for further research.

BACKGROUND When the MoES intruduced the TCE in 2010, both the MoES and general public believed that the examination would raise teacher quality and subsequently improve student performance at school. The Georgian government prided itself on being an initiator of a new reform in the teaching profession that would raise teacher professionalism and motivation. After serious disappointments from the low performance of Georgian students on international assesments (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, 2006; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, 2007; Programme for International Student Assessment, 2009+), critics resumed to question teacher quality at public schools throughout the country. Teachers’ unions, in general, have been extremely weak in the country; in most cases they uncritically follow the governmental agendas and have limited impact on teachers at schools. As indicated above, neither government nor nongovernmental organizations or universities in Georgia have been interested in conducting research on the certification policy and assessing the impact of the process on the quality of education at schools. While no study exists on teacher certification, professional status, and motivation in Georgia even after three years of its implemention, one could make an inference on the Georgian case from other related reports and/or available international and regional studies in the South Caucasus and Central Asia region. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, teachers’ social status and their professional development opportunities have diminished not only in Georgia but also in many other post-Soviet countries (Silova & Kazimzade, 2010; Steiner-Khamsi, Moldokmatova, & Sheriphanova-MacLeod, 2009). It is widely known that the teaching profession was highly valued in the Soviet society; teachers enjoyed various rights and benefits, being heavily subsidized by the state. Soviet teachers had been awarded ‘‘orders and medals’’ for their

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

29

distinguished service (Counts, 1961, p. 14). The Communist Party regarded teachers as an integral part of the Soviet intelligentsia and respected them in every possible ways. On the one hand, Georgia inherited the strong Soviet legacy of appreciating teachers; on the other hand, the country faced a remarkable decline in the prestige of the teaching profession over the last two decades. This contradictory image of post-Soviet teachers still remains in the country. In Changing status of the teacher profession in post-Soviet Azerbaijan: implication for teacher education, Silova and Kazimzade (2010) discussed similar public perceptions of the teaching profession in Azerbaijan and compare it with the teacher image in the Soviet Union. ‘‘Teachercenteredness’’ was a key aspect of the Soviet education, which soon after the fall of the regime was replaced by the western ‘‘child-centered’’ approach (p. 56). The idealized image of a teacher in Azerbaijan rapidly eradicated, according to the authors. Like in Azerbaijan and in some other parts of the region, after the breakdown of the Soviet regime and a painful process of nation building, teacher salaries have dramatically decreased in Georgia. Furthermore, the teaching profession has become very unpopular and considered a lowprestige career choice among graduates. By addressing similar challenges in Azerbaijan’s education system, Silova and Kazimzade linked the declining status of the teaching profession in Azerbaijan to the inadequate compensation of the teaching force. As a result of scarce salaries and insufficient access to professional development opportunities, the quality of teaching has declined in the country (p. 70). Teacher salaries still remain below the average national salary in Azerbaijan. Moreover, limited salaries have forced many teachers to start supplementary private tutoring to earn money for their families. Silova and Kazimzade’s description of Azerbaijan is very similar to the situation in Georgia. Earlier studies demonstrated the increasing number of private tutoring practices in Georgia (Silova, Bu¯diene’ , & Bray, 2006). Nowadays, private tutoring practice covers almost all curriculum subjects and reaches a wide geographical area of the country. The recent study on private tutoring in Georgia revealed that one in four students in secondary schools receives private tutoring (International Institute for Education Policy, Planning and Management (EPPM), 2011). Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, among other drivers of demand for private tutoring in Georgia, low salaries of teachers play a central role. Considering many social and economic factors in the country, the teaching profession is almost the last career choice of university graduates. In 2008, the study of teacher supply and demand in Georgia surveyed

30

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

students and graduates in the capital and surrounding regions and found that both target groups considered the teacher profession as a low-prestige career choice. Among the most prestigious professions that respondents named were doctor, business administrator, journalist, judge, and university professor (TPDC, 2008). Although the survey reported that respondents considered teaching as an honorable profession, a majority of students (56.6%) and graduates (54.6%) preferred that their family members find jobs elsewhere (p. 100). Interestingly, the study found that the teaching profession has a positive image among students and graduates, but when it is considered as a choice of their own or of their family members, the ‘‘positive image of the profession faded away’’ (p. 99). The real and symbolic meaning of the teaching profession in Georgia seems very different. This finding also reflects a contradicting image of post-Soviet teachers mentioned earlier in this chapter. It seems that less engagement of the young generation in teaching is mainly influenced by inadequate remuneration for the profession. To the question, ‘‘Would you agree to enter the teaching profession with a starting salary of 170 GEL (102 USD)?’’ only 16.8% of students and 23.3% of graduates answered positively (TPDC, 2008, p. 103). These numbers show the lack of motivation of the young generation in pursing teaching jobs, which may lead to a shortage of teachers in future. The study of teacher supply and demand in Georgia echoes another recent UNICEF study in Armenia. Following the methodologies of the 2009 UNICEF study on a teacher shortage in Kyrgyzstan, the Armenian report identified similar challenges in the teaching profession, such as inadequate compensation of teachers, income insecurity, low motivations of youth in teaching profession, and lack of quality professional development opportunities in the county (UNICEF, 2012, p. 66). The report addressed the issues of the declining reputation of the teaching profession and respect for public teachers that were enjoyed during the Soviet regime (p. 67). The Armenian report represents an extension of a previous cross-national UNICEF study on teachers in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS) region (UNICEF, 2011). Although Georgia was not a part of the UNICEF study, we can see the general trends and patterns of teacher professional development in the region from available data in six countries (Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, and Uzbekistan). The study reported the lowered status of the teaching profession in the region and linked it to various factors, such as overrepresentation of women in the teacher labor force, the option of working

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

31

part-time, and the high percentage of teachers at or above the retirement age (p. 38). These factors, combined with low teacher salary, make it difficult to attract new teachers into the profession in the CEECIS region (UNICEF, 2011). Similar to other post-Soviet countries, policies regarding teacher training and retraining were high on the agendas of every government administration in Georgia after the Soviet regime. In every strategy paper, the government emphasized the importance of the teachers’ role in preparing the new generation and developing human recourses in the country. Unfortunately, limited data and few studies are available to understand the full picture of the teaching profession in the 1990s. Only some technical documents from international organizations and reports on general education policies in the country mentioned teacher professional development to some extent. Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the mid-1990s, various international donor agencies came to Georgia to provide policy assistance. Among them, the World Bank played the major role in the education sector. The World Bank funded 22 educational programs in the country from 1996 to 1998 (UNESCO, 2000). Other major nonstate international organizations were: UNESCO, UNICEF, and the Open Society Institute – Soros Foundation. For supporting reform initiatives in the country, the World Bank and the Government of Georgia signed an agreement to allocate long-term credit. The first phase of the loan was launched in 2001 (World Bank, 2001). Teacher professional development plan was a part of the project’s Education System Realignment and Enhancement Program, started in 2001 and financed by World Bank credit of 60 million (USD). The financial and technical assistance of the World Bank and other international donor agencies considerably shaped teacher reforms in Georgia. Adoption of the World Bank’s neoliberal policies in education challenged the Georgian education system to follow new paradigms in teaching and learning by changing schools from a ‘‘teacher-centered’’ to a ‘‘childcentered’’ approach, redesigning textbooks, decentralizing the highly centralized system, introducing corruption-free standardized examination, and developing ‘‘money follows the pupil’’ approach within school voucher program. The MoES had to go through various extensive reforms (mainly from 2004 to 2007) and paid high political price for some of them. After introducing new teaching and learning models promoted by the government over the last decade, teacher preparation and professional development became the high-priority reform areas on the government’s agendas. Between 2001 and 2010, the MoES and various nongovernmental organizations offered ad-hoc teacher professional development to schools. The content and

32

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

methods used in these professional development programs were very different from the traditional Soviet pedagogical practices. Many of them introduced ‘‘new ideas’’ of teaching to Georgia, such as constructivist methodology, interactive teaching, problem-solving strategies, critical thinking, to name a few. The effectiveness and quality of these professional development programs and the learning materials are not known and need further investigation. Although teacher certification was considered as one of the main reform areas and included in the education strategic plans from 2007 to 2011, the reform was delayed for several years. Teacher certification was included in the Law on General Education of 2005 as a mandate for all teachers to obtain by the end of 2014. However, the Teacher Certification Charter was not adopted by the MoES until 2009, and the certification examinations became available for teachers to take on a voluntary basis only from 2010. The certification process becomes compulsory for all uncertified teachers only after 2014, according to the law. The government encourages teachers to take certification examinations while it is still voluntary (2010–2014), by offering financial incentives that will be later discussed in detail in the implementation section. Teachers are required to renew certification every eight years by retaking certification examinations or entering into the Teacher Professional Development Scheme (TPDS) that will be covered later in this chapter. The MoES offers the teacher training voucher program to every teacher prior to certification examinations. The voucher finances two professional development courses: one in a teacher’s relevant teaching subject and another in a professional skills domain. Teacher professional development programs generally cover curriculum required in certification examinations. Teacher participation in these programs is, again, voluntary but highly encouraged by the MoES. Many teachers take examinations without having previously taken teacher professional development courses offered by MoES. Teachers often criticize the quality of MoES-funded teacher training programs, and some of them even go to private tutors or private training programs to prepare for the examinations. The findings section of this article accounts teachers’ criticism related to those professional development programs, but the topic needs further in-depth research and analyses. TCEs in Georgia are considered as an important part of teacher professional development policy, since teachers need to learn new pedagogical theories and new approaches to teaching in order to successfully pass examination thresholds. Whether teachers decide to take preparatory professional development programs funded by MoES, rely on private service providers, or merely follow self-study practice is up to them.

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

33

It is worth mentioning that since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there had been no policy regulating teacher profession in Georgia. Until 2010, in-service teachers were teaching in schools without any professional development activities required; almost all teacher professional development programs were considered as voluntary. After the 1990s, the minimum requirement for teaching for the new candidates entering into the teaching profession was a university diploma with relevant teaching qualifications mentioned in a diploma transcript. School principals themselves decided on hiring teachers, taking into consideration prior teaching experience and/or university diploma of new candidates. After 2010, through the national certification examinations, the MoES now requires teachers to prove that they satisfy minimum standards of teaching predetermined by the teacher standards and national curriculum. Teacher certification reform can also be considered as a policy response to a changing demand of the teaching profession in Georgia. The government requires teachers to demonstrate that they are no longer ‘‘Soviet teachers’’ with ‘‘teacher-centered’’ approaches in teaching; rather that they have become ‘‘modern day,’’ ‘‘child-centered’’ teachers with all relevant skills and teaching practices in place. The certification examination policy is a tool for the MoES to ensure that all teachers in Georgia are equipped with new pedagogical approaches. However, the absence of a research-based approach for policy development and constant changes in the reform politics often lead to fragmented teacher professional development strategies. Moreover, in many cases, the lack of promised monetary and nonmonetary incentives for teachers for obtaining certification has resulted in low motivation and little engagment of the teaching force in the reform process.

METHOD This case study was carried out in the spring of 2012 in 17 schools in Georgia. The research team consisted of four local researchers from the National Examinations Center. Interviews were conducted in the capital Tbilisi and in two regions of Georgia: Kakheti (Sagarejo municipality) and Adjara (Kobuleti municipality), both in towns and in villages. The abovementioned regions were chosen to represent East and West Georgia, respectively, two very different regions from each other. Being close to Tbilisi (45 minutes drive), school teachers from Sagarejo, in general, are more informed about ongoing teacher professional development opportunities and are able to travel to Tbilisi to receive some kinds of professional

34

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

development training. Kobuleti (6 hours from Tbilisi) is considered to be a remote region with its mountainous villages, where teachers often are concerned to be far-off the information regarding the reform process. For the purpose of this study, schoolteachers and school principals from both public and private schools and parents were interviewed. A convenience sampling technique was used to recruit all participants. Overall, parents were relatively disengaged participants in the study, given that they were only indirectly interested in the topic. Taking into consideration parents’ lower engagement in the study and limited willingness to respond to the interview questions, this chapter does not include parents’ voices. The school principals seemed extremely cautious to be interviewed. In contrast, the majority of teachers were willing to discuss the topic freely, but in most cases, they refused digital recording in order to avoid ‘‘possible future complications.’’ Taking into consideration teachers’ requests, researchers took detailed notes to document teacher responses. Only in the cases of 2 out of 7 focus groups and 4 out of 12 individual interviews were digital recording devices used. The study covered the following categories of teachers: certified teachers, teachers who passed only one certification examination, and teachers who, at the moment of interview, were registered for the upcoming certification examinations in the summer of 2012. Teachers’ ages varied from 25 to 69, and a majority of them were female. The subject areas of teachers covered all three levels of school: elementary (grades1–6), basic (grades 7–9), and secondary (grades10–12). For the purpose of this qualitative study, a total of 17 schools (both public and private) were selected in Georgia. Researchers carried out 7 focus group and 12 individual interviews with teachers. Focus groups were composed of four to eight teachers. In total, 37 teachers participated in the study. All interviews with teachers were conducted at school settings. Participants were given extra time to reflect more on the topic if necessary. The focus group interviews were only conducted with teachers, while school principals were interviewed individually. Out of 17 school principals, only 9 agreed to be interviewed. Researchers used semi-structured interview questions during both focus groups and individual interviews with teachers. Interviews with teachers consisted of 11 guiding open-ended questions, while interviews with school principals consisted of 7 and 5 questions, respectively. The guiding questions for teacher interviews included questions about teacher expectations and attitudes, the influence certification had on relationships with colleagues, the quality of professional development trainings they received, certification

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

35

materials such as manuals and booklets, perceived benefits and shortcoming from certification policy, and the impact the process had on their public image. After several individual interviews, it became obvious that teachers were more motivated to take part in focus-group discussions and elaborate on each other’s opinions than being interviewed separately. But later, researchers also realized that teachers were careful to talk freely in front of each other in focus groups, especially when they criticized school management or the Ministry of Education. In addition to data obtained from research participants, various policy documents, the law on general education, minister’s decrees, normative documents on teacher certification policy, statistical databases, and various subject tests from certification examinations were analyzed and incorporated into this study. Moreover, several naturalistic observations were carried out during TCEs in 2010–2011, and extensive field notes and pictures were taken. Qualitative data from digitally recorded interviews were transcribed and integrated with handwritten notes. Owing to the nature of qualitative data, information from interviews was classified and coded thematically, while common ideas, patterns, and perceptions were identified, analyzed, and reported.

Teacher Certification Examinations, Professional Development, and Compensation In July 2010, Georgia launched a new teacher qualification reform in the form of standardized certification examinations, aiming at professionalizing its teachers. Although the first TCE was held in 2010, the MoES initiated the development process around 2007. The MoES made significant steps toward developing the certification policy in 2007–2008 by developing teacher standards and qualification requirements for teachers, as well as introducing amendments to the Law on General Education for regulating the teaching profession. Initially, the TCE was planned to be administered in 2008. Since 2008, however, the implementation of the TCE had been postponed twice for various reasons. While MoES declared that teacher professional development reform was ready for implementation in 2010, it was not yet specified regarding: (1) to what extent teacher salary would increase after certification and (2) what would be the other benefits of certification to teachers except salary raise.

36

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

Even after the implementation in 2010, policymakers changed the key policy directions several times. In addition, MoES was not ready for providing and/or monitoring quality teacher professional development programs. Along with the certification examinations, the MoES offered the ‘‘teacher voucher program’’ to finance teachers’ participation in professional development programs. Accreditation system of professional development programs offered by universities and different nongovernmental organizations to in-service teachers often failed with their low quality (Kobakhidze, 2010), which led to the centralization of professional development programs where MoES became the single service provider in 2011. In this way, MoES claimed to have more control on the quality of the teacher professional development programs. The Teacher Professional Development National Center (TPDC), together with another legal entity under the Ministry – National Examinations Center (NAEC) – is in charge of the certification process in Georgia. The duties of TPDC include: setting teacher competency-based standards for every subject, managing and controlling the quality of in-service teacher training curriculum, outlining examination programs, developing teacher manuals, and granting a certificate to teachers. NAEC is responsible for designing, piloting, and finalizing standardized tests as well as organizing and administering certification exams. According to the TPDC the main goals of the certification policy are:    

To raise the quality of teaching and learning in schools; To enhance the teacher qualification; To improve teacher professional development and career opportunities; To increase the motivation of the existing teachers and to attract new professional cadres (Teacher Professional Development National Center, n.d.a).

The first examinations in 2010 were held only for primary and secondary school teachers of Georgian language and literature, mathematics, and foreign languages. NAEC also prepared a new test in professional skills, which was focused on classical and contemporary pedagogical theories and modern practical approaches to teaching. In the following years, the number of TCEs was increased and included physics, chemistry, biology, history and civic education in 2011, and sport and music in 2012. Initially, in 2010, only individuals who had at least one year of teaching experience and any educational degree were allowed to take TCEs. However, in 2012, the MoES changed the policy and allowed any university graduate to take the certification examinations, without any prior teaching

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

37

experience. Although the policy change simplified certification procedures and permitted recent university graduates (in any discipline) to test themselves in certification exams, it also raised public concern related to allowing unqualified candidates to enter the teaching profession. TCE policy is a part of the major teacher professional development reform ongoing in the country. In parallel to the certification examinations, in 2011, the TPDS was designed by the TDPC as an addition to the teacher certification policy. To be accepted into TPDS, teachers first need to obtain a teacher certificate through certification examinations. The scheme covers all necessary ways for renewing or granting right to teach in schools. It distinguishes three stages of teacher professional status: certified teacher, teacher of first category, and teacher of highest category. In order to reach each category, the candidate must accumulate relevant credits, with the minimum thresholds for each teacher professional stage as follows: 21 credits for certified teacher, 32 credits for teacher of first category, and 42 credits for teacher of highest category. According to the procedures, after successfully passing certification examinations, a teacher is granted the status of a certified teacher and awarded 21 credits. After that, a teacher can accumulate more credits and take the next step forward in the professional development scheme. The main question for teachers is how to accumulate professional development credits. The TPDC made a list of activities that grant teachers different credits. The activities include:  Participation in local or international professional development programs;  Authoring/co-authoring school textbooks or educational projects;  Taking part in professional conferences and seminars;  Publishing scholarly articles in professional journals (Teacher Professional Development National Center, n.d.b). In order to renew their certificate, Georgian teachers now have two options: they can take certification examinations every eight years or enter in the TPDS and accumulate professional development credits. While Georgia teachers are well aware of certification examination standards and procedures, many ambiguities remain in the TPDS, which are predominantly related to the accumulation of so-called professional credits. Although there have been some positive changes in salaries of Georgian teachers in recent years, teacher remuneration policy remains far from the international standards, and teacher salaries are still very close to the national subsistence level. At the very beginning of the certification process, teachers as well as the public believed that new reform would not only raise

38

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

the quality of teaching at schools but also give substantial financial incentive for certified teachers. Table 1 presents the salary and supplements of certified teachers, specified by the government. The monthly base salary of a Georgian teacher working full time (18 hours per week) equals 245 GEL (B150 USD) (MoES, 2009a, 2009b). The addition to the monthly salary of certified teachers equals 75 GEL (B45 USD). Starting in 2011, the MoES has provided more financial incentives to teachers who successfully passed basic English and computer tests, in addition to certification exams. Once successfully passing English and computer examinations, teachers are rewarded 125 GEL (B75 USD). Moreover, certified teachers who also successfully passed integrated English and computer examinations are given a chance to be selected as ‘‘best teachers.’’ The ‘‘best teachers’’ constitute the top 25% of the certified teachers based on and calculated from certification examinations scores. The ‘‘best teacher’’ category is different from and not consistent with ‘‘teacher with highest category’’ defined in TPDS. These ‘‘best teachers’’ are given a special salary up to 1,000 GEL (B600 USD), including base salary and all supplements (Minister’s decree 170/N, November 18, 2011).

Teacher Participation and Success Rates in Certification Examinations Professional development of teachers and their certification was high on the agenda in the Consolidated Education Strategy and Action Plan 2007–2011.

Table 1.

Teacher Salaries and Supplements 2012.

Teacher Salaries and Supplements

Teacher monthly base salary (full time, holding BA degree) Monthly supplement to the certified teacher’s salary Monthly supplement to teachers who passed basic English and Computer test Total monthly supplement of teachers who are certified and have passed the basic English and computer test Monthly salary of certified teachers who have passed basic English and computer test and scored in the top 25% of teachers on certification examinations Source: Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia Minister’s decree # 170/N, 2011

Amounts in GEL and USD (gross) 245 GEL (B150 USD) 75 GEL (B45 USD) 125 GEL (B75 USD) 200 GEL (B120 USD) 1000 GEL (B600 USD)

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

39

In this plan, the government agenda for certification was not only teacher professional development but also offering better compensation to those teachers who are better qualified, and accordingly raising teacher professional motivation. According to the matrix for the strategy action plan, by 2011, 60% of schoolteachers should have been certified (MoES, 2007). Due to the delayed implementation of the policy, this target has not been reached even in 2012. Currently, only 18.6% of the total teaching cohort is certified. Table 2 presents the data on numbers and percentages of: (1) teachers who registered for examinations, (2) teachers who took the examinations, (3) teachers who passed one of the two examinations, and (4) teachers who became certified after passing two examinations in 2010–2012. From Table 2 we can see that the number of teachers who registered for the examinations has significantly increased from 2010 to 2012. The relatively low participation rate in the first year (18.8%) is explained by the fact that, at the beginning, teachers were cautious to explore new certification exams. It is expected that the number of registered teachers will increase in 2013, and the majority of uncertified teachers will take part in the process by the end of 2014. It is worth mentioning here that many teachers prefer to take only one examination per year and the second examination during the following year. Thus, the number of teachers who passed both examinations will increase naturally over time. A total of 10,461 teachers participated in the process in 2010 out of which 12.9% became certified, while in 2011, 15.4% of the 20,905 teachers who took the examinations became certified. A high number of teachers participated in the examinations in 2012 (34,852 teachers), out of which 22.9% became certified (NAEC, 2012). Teacher Perceptions of Strengths of Certification Policy One of the chief questions during interviews with teachers was a question of motives: major reasons for taking certification examinations during a period when it is not yet mandatory. Among numerous professional and personal reasons, mainly the following reasons were reported and typical teacher responses are listed below:  Financial incentive: ‘‘My motivation was salary. I thought my salary after certification would considerably increase and positively influence my monthly income’’;  Job stability: ‘‘Certification would give me more stability, so I will not be easily fired by the school principal’’;

13,549 23,399 39,172

18.8 36.8 63.7

Percentage (A)/ Total Teacher Population  100

10,461 20,905 34,852

Number (B)

77.2 89.3 88.9

Percentage (B)/(A)  100

5,606 10,265 16,821

Number (C)

53.5 49.1 48.2

Percentage (C)/(B)  100

Teachers who Passed One Examination

1,359 3,229 7,992

Number (D)

Source: National Examinations Center. a Teachers need to pass two certification examinations (pedagogy and subject matter) to be certified.

2010 2011 2012

Number (A)

Teachers who Took Examinations

12.9 15.4 22.9

Percentage (D)/(B)  100

1.8 5.0 11.8

Percentage (D)/ Total Teacher Population  100

Certified Teachersa

Number and Percentages of Registered and Certified Teachers in 2010–2012.

Teachers who Registered for Examinations

Table 2.

40 MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

41

 Testing knowledge: ‘‘I decided to test my own knowledge and experience in order to be in a good professional shape’’;  Increasing professional status: ‘‘My major motive was to increase my professional standing and reputation as a teacher’’;  Perception of easier examination: ‘‘I assumed that certification examinations during the beginning years of implementation would be easier than later, when it becomes compulsory.’’ A majority of teachers named expectation of higher salary and job stability as main reasons of their decision. It is interesting to note that a few teachers thought of certification examination as a chance for professional development opportunities. Most of them found it difficult to relate professional growth with certification examinations due to the limited professional development activities available prior to the examinations; however, some teachers thought that certification ‘‘returned teachers to professional development literature.’’ Further positive comments related to certification policy are as follows: ‘‘Teacher status and role in the society were raised after certification’’; ‘‘The certification examinations awakened teachers and did not allow them to be inert anymore’’; ‘‘Teachers’ self-confidence has increased.’’ One particular interest of this research study was to find out to what extent the preparation for certification examination, knowledge gained, and skills acquired during the process influenced teachers’ teaching style, pedagogical approaches, and classroom activities, as perceived by the teachers. Teachers found it difficult to answer these questions, and therefore, mixed results have been observed. According to their responses, the teachers can be grouped into two major categories. In the first category, respondents thought that preparation for the exam did not really make any substantial, positive change to their teaching style. They thought that they already knew and applied different educational strategies in classrooms, and what they studied for certification only confirmed their approaches. On the contrary, in the second category, teachers reported that the policy not only positively influenced their teaching style, but also deepened their understanding of the new pedagogy. In their opinions, certification gave them a chance to read various educational theories of Vygotsky, Piaget, Gardner, and Dewey, among others whom they had never studied at the universities. One of the perceived benefits of certification examinations that teachers reported during the interviews was an increased competition among schools to attract certified teachers. Some teachers mentioned that after passing the

42

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

certification examinations, they were offered part-time teaching positions in different schools. A teacher said, ‘‘Before certification I was stuck at one school, but now I can find second or third jobs in different schools, so I am more secure now and have no fear of losing one job.’’ They reported that schools try to offer positions for certified teachers, which allowed them to work in multiple schools, making them feel more secure.

Teacher Perceptions of Weaknesses of Certification Policy The main points of criticism of the certification policy made by teachers are linked to MoES. They point to: (1) MoES’s reliance solely on certification exams to evaluate teacher professionalism; (2) the poor quality of professional development programs; (3) MoES failing to meet promised monetary incentives; (4) limited learning materials; and (5) setting unfair and unequal conditions to provide financial incentives for those who pass English and computer exam, to name a few. One of the major and frequent themes in teacher interviews was a critical attitude toward the government’s policy on evaluating teacher professionalism based on examinations only. A female teacher with more than thirty years of teaching experience reported, ‘‘Teacher qualification development should be a continuous process and not limited by one or two centralized examinations.’’ Teachers talked about multidimensional evaluation models of teacher effectiveness, naming classroom observation, student’s performance in particular subjects, and constant participation in professional development activities as essential teacher evaluation criteria. However, teachers were also aware of possible limitation of school-level teacher evaluation policies. According to a Georgian language teacher, ‘‘With the Soviet historical context in mind, there is a risk of possible corruption and favoritism that might be related to school level teacher evaluation policy. The centrally administered examinations at this stage enjoy more credibility and objectivity.’’ Teachers often raise questions related to scoring schemes of open-ended items in examination tests. Although scoring schemes are freely available for public when certification exams are over, some teachers question the objectivity of scoring and find the process highly biased. Another critique among teachers was the teacher professional development policy offered by MoES. According to them, the ‘‘teacher professional development program is weak. Teacher trainings should have more quality control, be more frequent and longer in time.’’ Almost all interviewed teachers considered professional development programs for certification

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

43

exams as vital for exam preparation. Many teachers critically assesed the quality of teacher professional development programs, and in some cases, even criticized the qualification of teacher trainers.1 A few teachers, during interviews, expressed a concern that there was a gap between the content taught in professional development programs and content assessed during tests. Some teachers were positive about learning materials such as manuals, booklets, and brochures. However, others mentioned several problems related to materials, among them were the limited number and cost of mandatory books. Teachers need extensive support through quality professional development trainings, without which they feel insecure in the preparation process. They seek help from other sources, such as private tutoring, which is a major financial burden, given their limited salaries. It is noteworthy that the third year of certification policy brought a new wave of private tutoring in Georgia, mainly tutoring in the professional skills (pedagogical) test, which most of the teachers consider as a challenge. Oftentimes, certified teachers become private tutors of uncertified teachers. Teachers’ private tutoring appeared as a coping strategy and a response to the poor quality of teacher professional development programs in the country. According to the interviews, teachers in general had higher expectations of the certification policy. The source of major disappointments was related to the financial incentives provided after certification. One teacher reported, ‘‘During various meetings with the government people, they promised us to raise our salary after certification by 200 GEL, but they have not fulfilled the promise afterwards.’’ The supplement to the monthly salary for certified teachers is only 75 GEL, as shown in Table 1, but teachers reported that some government officials promised a higher amount of supplement before the examinations. It seems that limited communication of the accurate information or rumors among teachers considerably determined teachers’ higher expectations. While the first TCEs were held in July 2010, the MoES issued a decree on financial provisions of certified teachers on October 18, 2011, according to which, certified teachers are given a supplement of 75 GEL (B45 USD). Teachers considered 75 GEL (which after the 20% government tax leaves only 60 GEL) as an inadequate addition to salaries, relative to all the efforts they made, including time for exam preparation, cost of textbooks, cost of trainings (although there were free professional development programs available for teachers, some teachers paid extra for additional instructions), and pressure that accompanies the examinations. Another main issue that a majority of teachers brought into discussion was private tutoring as an alternative source of income for teachers.

44

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

According to them, they would prefer to allocate time to private lessons rather than prepare themselves for certification, which at the end of month does not improve their financial standing much. A teacher reported, ‘‘I make much more than 50 GEL from one private tutee per month.’’ At the same time, other teachers considered certified teacher status as another credential that attracts more students and their parents for tutoring. Therefore, these teachers thought that certified teacher status is still beneficial for raising the prestige of teachers and attracting students for private tutoring. Teachers also reported that the examination policy influenced their relationship with peer teachers. They reported that since the certification process categorized and labeled teachers, it increased tensions among colleagues, especially among teachers of the same subject. One teacher stated, ‘‘Certification policy developed a sense of inferiority and superiority complex among teachers.’’ Certified teachers often publicized that they are certified and therefore ‘‘better teachers,’’ while uncertified teachers tried to undermine the importance of the certification and argued that it does not assess true knowledge of the subject matter and pedagogical skills. Some teachers chose a more humble strategy and did not talk about certification at all to avoid upsetting uncertified colleagues, especially senior colleagues nearing the retirement age. Overall, it is obvious from the interview data that the certification policy not only increased competition among teachers, but also fostered tensions among colleagues. Considering teacher collaboration is hampered as a result of the certification process among the same subject teachers, how effective will the newly introduced ‘‘subject cathedras’’ – intended to increase teacher collaboration among same subject teachers – be? An overwhelming number of interviewed teachers were very negative about the latest addition to certification examinations – English and computer examinations tied to the salary supplement of 125 GEL. In their opinion, it is unfair to compensate more to teachers who passed English and computer tests than to those who passed exams in their subject matter and professional skills (who receive a salary supplement of only 75 GEL). They thought that knowledge of English and computer is important for teachers but not essential to be good teachers in different subject matters, such as science, Georgian language, and mathematics. A majority of teachers thought that they were treated unequally because English language teachers have the advantage of passing the English examination. A 52-year-old geography teacher said, ‘‘We do not have enough time, and we are not young enough to easily learn a new language such as English.’’ A 47-year-old

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

45

Georgian language teacher pointed out the lack of relevance by saying, ‘‘If I learn English now, it will be only for the sake of extra salary. I do not need it in my everyday practice.’’ Reflecting on the history, a 59-year-old history teacher said, ‘‘Earlier in the Soviet times, they forced us to learn Russian; now they oblige us to learn English. This exam is a violation of teacher rights.’’ The number of teachers who took the basic English and computer integrated exam significantly increased from 2011 to 2012. Only 719 teachers took the examination in 2011, but the number more than doubled in 2012, with 1,634 teachers. In 2011, 30.1% of the teachers (217 teachers) passed the examination, and in 2012, 56.1% (918 teachers) were successful. It is important to note that these teachers who passed the basic English and computer tests are relatively young, and a majority of them are English language teachers. This issue further raises the question of equity.

School Principals’ Experiences with Certification Policy To analyze the certification policy more fully, the study also addressed perceptions of school principals, as they are major stakeholders in the certification reform process. Data from interviews with school principals show that the majority of school principals are neutral to the process of certification and see it as a neccessary policy change that may have both positive and negative consequences. According to the school principals, a greater number of certified teachers contribute to increasing the prestige of the school and raising the scores in the school’s external evaluation. The School Branding System was another reform that MoES implemented in 2010 to introduce a competition mechanism among public schools. The School Branding System evaluates schools and grants them additional ‘‘stars’’ in the 10 star scheme, based on criteria including the number of certfied teachers, performance of students in national and international olimpiads, number of mentor teachers, and school infrastracture. School principals perceived that the school culture, in terms of teacher hierarchy, has significantly changed after the cerification policy. ‘‘Teachers became more competetive and less cooperative,’’ according to one of the principals. Certified teachers now consider themselves as possessing a ‘‘higher status’’ than uncertified teachers. Such attitudes have created a tension among teachers. One school principal confessed, ‘‘Oftentimes, the certified teacher is not the ‘best teacher’ at the school. We have better teachers according to our school-level evaluation and based on student

46

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

achievement.’’ Similar comments have been made by other school principals who questioned the content of the certification examinations, and said that school-level evaluations can often give a more adequate picture about the quality of teachers. Other school principals talked about challenges of having certified teachers at schools. According to the minister’s decree no. 170/N, schools should offer full-time positions to certified teachers. A problem arises when there are not enough teaching hours to allocate to every certified teacher. To satisfy this requirement in the minister’s decree, sometimes principals have to make a difficult decision to dismiss uncertified teachers. A principal confessed that ‘‘it happens sometimes that the dismissed teacher is a far better teacher in classroom than the certified one.’’ Overall during the interview process, both teachers and school principals expressed concerns related to their exclusion from some of the discussion on certification issues and the top-down policy intervention practice existing in the country. After passing certification examinations, some teachers collected suggestions regarding test improvements in several subjects as well as policy recommendations, but they have never been given a chance to share them with policymakers. The lack of active participation in teacher reforms in Georgia makes teachers feel disconnected from ongoing teacher certification policy.

DISCUSSION Findings of this study demonstrated teachers’ and principals’ experiences and perceptions regarding the certification process in Georgia. The qualitative nature of this study does not allow a broader generalization, but it provides us with an in-depth understanding of the teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of the ongoing certification policy. Given that this study is the first attempt to empirically examine the teacher certification process in Georgia, it can be used as a baseline study of the teacher certification policy in the country. Further quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to understand and evaluate the teacher certification policy to examine: (1) the influence of the teacher certification policy on teaching practice in the classroom; (2) methodologies and content of the teacher certification tests and their relevance to the teacher standards; and (3) the impact of the certification policy on student achievement and overall quality of school education in Georgia.

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

47

This study found that teachers feel that the current teacher certification policy in Georgia needs further revision and improvement. Teachers talked of both benefits and drawbacks of the certification process. While the certification policy, in some way, increased teachers’ social status and prestige in the society, it failed to meet teachers’ expectations regarding remuneration policy. As teachers reported, the supplement amount to the salary of certified teachers is inadequate relative to all the efforts they have to make in order to succeed in the exams. Limited monetary incentives led to the low motivation of teachers. Some teachers still see private tutoring as a better option for increasing their salaries, which raises concerns of social inequity and educational ethics in the country. The majority of private tutors, 69% precisely, are schoolteachers in Georgia, and a considerable number of them provide tutoring to their own students (EPPM, 2011, p. 14). Learning different educational theories and new approaches to teaching required for the certification exams is mainly seen as beneficial for everyday classroom activities, but many teachers find it difficult to link certification policy to teacher professional development, without the availability of quality professional development programs. The increase of competition between certified teachers should be regarded as a positive sign; school principals may further develop an incentive system to better attract a certified force into teaching, thus creating more opportunities for teachers in finding a better job. Both reported slightly increased collaboration among teachers and amplified irritation by someone’s certificate are significant indicators that certification policy changed school climate and the dynamics of teachers’ relationships at schools. Increasing collaboration among teachers is one of the purposes of the reform introduced by implementing ‘‘subject cathedras’’ in schools. This topic needs further research to investigate the impact of the certification process on relationships among peer teachers. Further, clear procedures are needed to address the concerns and dilemmas of school principals. If an experienced, respected, uncertified teacher competes with a less experienced and less educated, certified teacher for a single vacancy, what decision should a school principal make in order to maintain the teaching quality at school? How should schools avoid implicitly labeling uncertified teachers as ‘‘unqualified teachers,’’ to reduce the competitive anxiety among teachers? A choice made by many teachers to pursue private tutoring instead of certification is a sign of the pressure and stress teachers experience in this certification process. The new reward scheme raised a concern among teachers about the additional compensation for those who passed the basic English and

48

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

computer test. The MoES’s decision to select 25% of the top-performing teachers in the certification examinations and granting them competitive salaries (1,000 GEL) needs validation. How is it possible to select ‘‘the best teachers’’ when the certification examination model itself is based on a criterion-referenced testing method? Within an existing teacher certification test model, teachers are evaluated against predetermined teacher standards, and they are not compared with each other, like in norm-referenced tests. Moreover, giving priority to English language teachers and marginalizing other subject teachers raises serious questions of educational equity. This policy creates unequal conditions for teachers to be successful in exams and obtain financial rewards. It also highlights and uncovers the government’s preference in empowering certain subjects in schools by providing ideologydriven stimulus. The analysis of the interview data showed that a teacher certification policy without an adequate compensation policy, as well as other types of incentives to increase teacher motivation, creates only a technical threshold for teachers to obtain a teacher certificate to secure jobs, rather than be a catalyst for a genuine professional development opportunity. Moreover, without proper policies to attract top-performing students into the teaching profession, such as competitive remuneration relative to other professions, schools soon will face a new teacher shortage in the country. One of the major starting points for better implementation of future certification examination policies by MoES is to evaluate current reform – its successes and failures – to learn lessons from previous years, and only after that, pursue further implementation. This study showed that reform is fragmented and needs proper conceptualization of a whole process as well as more involvement of different stakeholders. Certification examinations should be only one part of evaluating teachers’ effectiveness and the purpose and details of the policy need to be explained to participants. Moreover, MoES should create additional activities to provide teachers with various professional development opportunities, such as creating a continuous cycle of teacher professional development programs that will be high in quality and will gain the approval of teachers. The government first needs to provide opportunities for professional growth, and then it can require teachers to meet certain teaching standards. In every society, teacher qualifications play a key role in ensuring a high quality of education. Teacher certification processes should serve as an incentive for acting teachers to improve their qualifications in accordance with contemporary standards. Closer examination of the Georgian certification process based on this study’s findings showed a major disconnection

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

49

between the purpose and content of the reform. Discussing the study’s findings in the light of major goals of certification – raising teacher quality, enhancing teacher qualification, and improvement of teachers professional and career opportunities – we see that reform goals have neither been reached after three years of implementation nor reconsidered. Overall, the analyses of the findings reveal the inability of the certification reform process to become an integral element of teacher professional development in Georgia. Part of the reason is explained by MoES’s lack of preparation for the policy implementation process. MoES failed to give sufficient consideration to time and other resources prior to the implementation process. Inconsistency in delivering the reform is expressed by MoES’s constant changes in certification policy, without preceding evaluation and consultation with relevant stakeholders. The teacher certification process has allowed the Georgian government to institutionalize teacher professional development, thus making a significant move from ad-hoc teacher training programs in early 1990s toward a more standardized certification process. However, MoES failed to support teachers with quality in-service teacher professional development programs as well as with relevant learning materials. These two remain a challenge for teachers as well as for the ministry. The MoES-initiated teacher professional development reform is unfortunately confined by the certification examinations that face many challenges and shortcomings, some of them described above. Further, limited participation of teachers in the reform process creates another problem: teacher voices are often left out of the policy discussions. Finally, building a strong tradition of research-based decision making would further facilitate sustained and significant developments, not only in teacher policies but also in every direction of education reform process in Georgia.

NOTE 1. Teacher trainers are hired by the TPDC. Any experienced teacher or professional with relevant theoretical knowledge along with teaching experience can become a teacher trainer.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted with significant supports from my former colleagues at the National Examinations Center, Georgia. The head of the

50

MAGDA NUTSA KOBAKHIDZE

research department Ia Kutaladze encouraged me and provided critical comments on the initial study design. I am very grateful to Natia Mzhavanadze, my colleague and friend who supported me throughout the entire research process. Natia and other colleagues of mine – Marina Elbakidze and Sopho Bakhutashvili – collected data from research participants with great enthusiasm and curiosity. My special thanks goes to the editor of this volume Motoko Akiba for her invaluable comments, which extended the scope of the study and enabled me to further deepen and elaborate my research arguments.

REFERENCES Counts, S. G. (1961). A word about the Soviet teacher. Comparative Education Review, 5(1), 13–16. International Institute for Education Policy, Planning and Management [EPPM]. (2011). Examining private tutoring phenomenon in Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: Author. Kobakhidze, M. N. (2010). Teacher incentives and the future of merit-based pay in Georgia. European Education, 42(3), 68–89. Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia [MoES]. (2007). Consolidated education strategy and action plan (2007–2011). Tbilisi, Georgia: Ministry of Education and Science. Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia [MoES]. (2009a). The teacher certification charter(decree No. 1101). Tbilisi, Georgia: Ministry of Education and Science. Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia [MoES]. (2009b). The minister’s decree on teacher salaries and conditions with all amendments # 576. Tbilisi, Georgia: Ministry of Education and Science. Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia [MoES]. (2011). The minister’s decree # 170/N. Tbilisi, Georgia: Ministry of Education and Science. National Examinations Center (NAEC). (2012). Data file obtained from the Department of Logistics of the Center. Silova, I., Bu¯diene’ , V., & Bray, M. (Eds.). (2006). Education in a hidden market place: Monitoring of private tutoring. New York, NY: Open Society Institute. Silova, I., & Kazimzade, E. (2010). The changing status of the teaching profession in postSoviet Azerbaijan: Implications for teacher education. In K. Karras & C. C. Wolhuter (Eds.), International handbook on teacher education worldwide (pp. 55–72). Athens, Greece: Atrapos Editions. Steiner-Khamsi, G., Moldokmatova, A., & Sheriphanova-MacLeod, G. (2009). Survival strategies of schools in the Kyrgyz republic: A school-level analysis of teacher shortages. Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan: UNICEF. Teacher Professional Development Center. (2008). Study on teacher supply and demand. Tbilisi, Georgia: Author (in Georgian). Teacher professional Development National Center. (n.d.a) Teacher certification goals. Retrieved from http://www.tpdc.ge/index.php?action=page&p_id=139&lang=geo

Teacher Certification Examinations in Georgia

51

Teacher professional Development National Center. (n.d.b). Teacher Professional Development Scheme. Retrieved from http://www.tpdc.ge/index.php?action=page&p_id=151& lang=geo UNESCO. (2000). The EFA 2000 assessments. Country reports: Georgia. Retrieved from http:// www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/georgia/contents.html UNICEF. (2011). Teachers: A regional study on recruitment, development and salaries of teachers in the CEECIS region. Geneva, Switzerland: UNICEF Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEECIS). UNICEF. (2012). Teacher quality and teacher work conditions in Armenia. Yerevan, Armenia: ‘‘ANTARES’’ Publishing House. World Bank. (2001). Report No: 20952-GE, Project appraisal document on the first phase of the proposed adaptable program credit. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/georgia/projects/all

PART II TEACHER RECRUITMENT AND HIRING

TEACHER LABOR FORCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS OF A RECENT POLICY CHANGE AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS Amita Chudgar ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter discusses an education law recently enacted in India – The Right of Children to Free and Compulsary Education – its implementation plan and potential implications, focusing on the teacher labor force composition and the teacher education system. The Right to Education Act specifies acceptable pupil–teacher ratios, levels of teacher vacancy in the school, qualifications required for teacher appointments, and terms and conditions for teacher hiring, among other things. Methodology – This study draws on government documents and reports to conduct a systematic analysis of existing data and historical trends. It generates an understanding of how this policy shapes the demand for teachers, the quality of the existing system, and its ability to respond to these increased demands.

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 55–76 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019008

55

56

AMITA CHUDGAR

Findings – These policy changes intended to increase equity in teacher distribution may in the near future exacerbate inequities in access to quality teachers and teaching across India. The policy creates important and urgent changes in the Indian teacher labor force, and by extension, it demands changes in the Indian teacher education system. But that system may be unprepared to meet these goals. Therefore, the chapter underscores the need for reform in India’s teacher education system, if this policy’s mandate to provide equal access to quality education to all Indian children is to be fulfilled. Value – This chapter explains and analyzes a recent, large-scale teacher policy reform in a regionally diverse, developing nation with an urgent need to improve the quality of education received by its children. Keywords: India; education policy; teacher training; teacher labor market

INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses an education law recently enacted in India in 2010, The Right of Children to Free and Compulsary Education (hencerforth Right to Education), along with its intended implementation plan, and its potential implications, with a specific focus on the composition of the teacher labor force and the system of teacher education. The Right to Education Act specifies acceptable pupil–teacher ratio, permissible levels of teacher vacancy in the school, qualifications required for teacher appointments, and the terms and conditions for teacher hiring among other things. In particular, this chapter reflects an interest in understanding how this policy will shape the demand for teachers and what is known about the quality of the existing system and its ability to respond to these increased demands. In the process of doing so, the chapter also introduces several relevant aspects of the Indian teacher education system to provide the necessary context. Given how recently this policy was enacted specific predictions about its final implications are hard to make. After a systematic analysis of existing data, and historical trends, the chapter underscores the need for reform in India’s teacher education system if this policy’s mandate to provide equal access to quality education to all Indian children is to be fulfilled.

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

57

THE TEACHER LABOR FORCE IN INDIA India has a large teacher labor force. According to a 2010–2011 estimate, the nation employs close to 6.5 million teachers at the elementary level (grades 1 through 8), of whom more than 4 million or 66% are employed in government schools (Mehta, 2012). As a point of comparison, according to the most recent U.S. census, close to 3 million teachers work at the elementary and middle school level combined (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Yet, both the quantity and the quality of the teacher labor force in India remain causes for concern. A large number of teacher positions remain vacant across the country, and a recent national report estimates that 500,000 additional teachers are needed to fill those positions. A significant portion of the current teachers are underpaid; they are often under-trained and hired on a contract or nonpermanent basis (e.g., Fyfe, 2007). Currently, 11.2% of the Indian teacher labor force is hired on a contract basis with prominent cross-state variations. In the state of Jharkhand, for instance, close to 50% of teachers are on a contract; in contrast, in the state of Karnataka, the percentage is far lower at less than 1%. Moreover, some argue that the quality of existing teacher training leaves much to be desired. There is a concern about a general disconnect between institutions of higher education and institutions of teacher education. Studies have found that teachers who have received regular pre-service and in-service training often perform no better than untrained teachers (e.g., Kingdon & SiphaimaliniRao, 2010). A recent study of five Indian states showed that teachers themselves had difficulty answering complex language and math questions, or explaining the process by which they arrived at the answer (Bhattacharjea, Wadhwa, & Banerji, 2011). The concerns about quality of teaching are exacerbated by observations that accountability, especially of government teachers, is limited (e.g., Kingdon & Muzammil, 2010) and it is not uncommon for teachers to be systematically absent from work (Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidhiran, & Rogers, 2006). This already complex situation is now likely to be compounded with the 2010 enactment of the Right to Education law. This law has important implications for the size and composition of the teacher labor force in India, as well as for teacher education. It aims to increase both the quantity of teachers in India, by reducing class sizes and limiting teaching vacancies, and the quality of those teachers, by requiring uniform standards, testing, and higher qualifications. Thus, the law will create a need to train and hire additional teachers. It will also create the need to retrain and qualify existing teachers. What implications will these dual pressures have on the existing

58

AMITA CHUDGAR

systems for teacher supply and teacher distribution? This issue is not well understood, nor has it been thoroughly studied. While much attention in the academic and peer-reviewed literature has been devoted to universal elementary enrollment, and to the quality (or lack thereof) of the education offered in Indian schools, little research has yet focused on the teacher labor force in India. As research from elsewhere in the world shows that teachers are crucial to ensuring high-quality learning, the issues of teacher education and teacher demand and supply, and the issues surrounding both the quality and the quantity of the teacher labor force will continue to gain prominence in the Indian literature. To guide both future policy and research in this area, a clear understanding of the current policy landscape is important. In this chapter I aim to contribute to that conversation. Before introducing the Right to Education policy and its implications for teachers, I first briefly provide some relevant background concerning Indian education.

INDIAN EDUCATION: SOME RELEVANT BACKGROUND In the last decade or so, the Indian educational system has experienced a renewed commitment to improve and increase its performance. More than a decade ago, tens of millions of Indian children were not even enrolling in school. Universal elementary education (UEE) became the focus of government efforts under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (Education for All) scheme launched in 2002. These efforts were backed by large financial outlays. The aim was to increase the quantity and quality of school infrastructure and ensure universal access to elementary education. Over the first decade of the 21st century, the nation did see a tremendous rise in elementary school enrollment. Toward the end of the decade, various government reports indicated that the nation was close to achieving the goal of UEE (e.g., Government of India, 2009). In 2009 this effort was followed up by the national secondary school mission, known as the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), which focused on secondary education as the next area of priority. The RMSA calls for increasing the secondary enrollment rate to 75%, aiming for universal enrollment at the secondary level as well by 2017 (Government of India, 2012). With a steady increase in enrollment, or an improvement in the access situation, has come an increasing focus on the quality of education that

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

59

children are receiving in the classroom (e.g., Chudgar & Quin, 2012). Pratham, a prominent Indian nongovernmental organization, can be credited with bringing national attention to the relatively low reading and mathematics performance of Indian children. Since 2005 it has been conducting an annual large-scale survey of rural India where thousands of children are given a basic reading and math test. These Annual Status of Education Reports (e.g., Pratham, 2010) highlight the fact that even if many more Indian children are enrolling in school, the quality of education they receive is woefully inadequate. Against this backdrop, teachers and teacher education became a focus of attention with the 2005 National Curriculum Reform for schools. These reforms for school children also placed new demands on teacher education, which needed to respond to the changing learning requirements in the schools. A series of nationwide discussions held in 2009 and 2010 led to the formulation of the National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education, which made recommendations about pre- and in-service teacher education. The Right to Education law enacted in 2010, which is my focus here, is the next important landmark on the Indian education policy landscape, with important implications not just for pre- and in-service teacher education but also for the teacher labor force.

METHODS In this section, I briefly discuss the conceptual framework of this study, and the primary data sources I utilized.

Conceptual Framework This study is guided by an economic perspective. My broad interest is to understand how the changes proposed by the Right to Education act will affect the dynamics of the teacher labor market in India. This study seeks to understand how this policy will shape the demand for teachers across this large and diverse country. What kind of supply response, particularly from the teacher education side, will be necessary to meet these demands? For the teacher labor market to be in equilibrium, it is essential that the demand for and supply of teachers are equalized over the long run. But in a nation that is geographically vast and culturally diverse, it may not be easy to achieve this balance of demand and supply in certain locations, states, or regions, at

60

AMITA CHUDGAR

least in the short term. One of the key supply-side bottlenecks is likely to arise from the limited availability of quality teacher education. As a secondary focus, this study also discusses the quality of the teacher labor force in India based on the existing literature and government reports. The study does not evaluate the validity of various teacher education requirements or class size requirements proposed by the Right to Education law from a pedagogical perspective. However, such an analysis would also be valuable in its own right.

Data Sources This study relies primarily on government documents and reports to generate an understanding of the context and its implications. Unfortunately, peer-reviewed research literature on these subject matters is rather limited. I rely on such literature where available, but I also use news reports and published media reports and discussions to inform the study. This study does not involve an empirical component or data analysis. However, I rely extensively on empirical reports that are based on data from the District Information System for Education (DISE). DISE is the largest official source of district-level data on school infrastructure, enrollment, and teachers in India. Each year the DISE team generates reports that summarize key educational statistics for each Indian state, and often separately for rural and urban India. Among other things, these reports provide state-level information, including the size of the teacher labor force, teacher education, teacher certification, and class sizes, which is relevant to the understanding of the potential implications of the Right to Education law.

THE INTENDED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TEACHER LABOR FORCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION IN INDIA The Right to Education law has a broad mandate to ensure equal access to quality education for all Indian children. Many aspects of the law, in particular an element of school choice that would give poor children access to private schools, are contentious and invite regular debates and

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

61

discussions in the popular media and among Indian academics (e.g., Jain & Dholakia, 2009, 2010; Ramachandran, 2009). This law also has important implications for teacher training and recruitment, which is the focus of this chapter. In this section, I explain the salient aspects of the law that pertain to teacher training or recruitment. In order to do so, where necessary, I also provide additional background on specific aspects of the teacher training system in India.

Teachers and the Right to Education Act: Implications for Teacher Quantity and Quality The Right to Education act (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, 2009) is focused on elementary levels (grades 1 through 8) and applies to Indian schools widely. This includes public schools, privately run but publically funded schools, private schools that are funded and operated privately, and special schools established for unique educational purposes or populations. Sections 23–28 pertain to teachers. Section 23 specifies the qualifications required for teacher appointments and the terms and conditions for teacher hiring. Section 24 specifies teachers’ duties and processes for addressing grievances. Section 25 specifies the pupil–teacher ratio. Section 26 outlines permissible levels of teacher vacancy in schools. Section 27 identifies the nonteaching duties that the teacher may perform, including collecting census data, helping with disaster relief, and other duties related to local, state, and parliamentary elections. Finally, section 28 prohibits private teaching activity outside of school (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, 2009). Given my focus on the demand and supply of teachers, I will pay close attention to Sections 23, 25, and 26. Sections 25 and 26 have implications for the number of new teachers required. The law requires schools to maintain a pupil–teacher ratio of 1 to 30. This requirement is to be met urgently, ideally within six months of the enactment of the law. In addition, the law requires that no school will continue to have more than 10% of its teacher positions vacant; the timeline on this mandate is not clear. The implications of Section 23 are more involved and they relate to both teacher education and teacher recruitment practices. If this section is followed in letter and spirit, then it would homogenize teacher qualification across the country, ensuring that students from all over the country have access to similarly qualified teachers.

62

AMITA CHUDGAR

According to Section 23, the central government in New Delhi will authorize a national academic entity. This entity will then decide on the minimum qualification requirements to become an elementary school teacher. States are allowed to relax these minimum requirements for up to five years, and teachers who had not met the minimum requirements at the time the law was enacted (with some exceptions) will also have five years to acquire the additional training. The conditions of service and salary are left to the appropriate state and local governments to prescribe; however, states are required to pay salaries that are commensurate with teacher experience and work expectations (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2010a). In April 2010, the central government identified the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as the academic authority vested with the power to prescribe minimum qualification standards for all of India’s elementary school teachers (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2010b). NCTE proposed these minimum qualification requirements in August 2010, and they were amended slightly in July 2011 (NCTE, 2010). Given the centrality of NCTE in this process, it is worth noting that NCTE’s own status and role have undergone changes and challenges over the years. The enactment of a 1993 act (NCTE, 2011a) converted NCTE from an advisory group to a group with legal and regulatory authority. NCTE was charged with ‘‘achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country (and) the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system’’ (Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, 1993, p. 1). Thus NCTE essentially became the central government institution that maintains the standards for teacher education in the country, which makes its current role under Right to Education appropriate. However, NCTE’s own record has been seriously criticized. It has been argued that NCTE has not carried out its regulatory responsibilities effectively. A particular concern relates to the proliferation of low-quality institutions of teacher training, which receive NCTE approval despite failing to meet the prescribed criteria (Maheshwari, 2007). In fact, as recently as 2009, a government report suggested that NCTE should be completely disbanded, but that suggestion did not come to pass (Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2009). NCTE’s own struggle to remain relevant and valid in the Indian educational discourse is important to bear in mind given its newly conferred ability to define what a minimally qualified teacher of the future will look like.

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

63

What Are the Proposed Minimum Teacher Qualification Requirements? NCTE has laid down minimum teacher qualification requirements for classes 1–8 that apply to all schools covered by the Right to Education act and to teachers of language, social studies, math, and science (NCTE, 2010). These requirements specify (a) the level of educational qualification along with minimum educational performance, (b) pre-service and in-service teacher training levels, and finally (c) a requirement to pass the newly instituted Teaching Eligibility Test (TET). I discuss each of these below. For classes 1 through 5, a teacher is required to have at least senior secondary (grade 12) level of education or equivalent. They are required to have passed their senior secondary level examination with scores of at least 45% on the final exam. In addition, a teacher is expected to hold a two-year diploma in elementary education or a four-year bachelors’ degree in elementary education. Teachers of higher grades (6 through 8) are required to have at least an undergraduate degree, and to have completed formal teacher training in the form of either a one-year bachelor’s degree in education or a two-year diploma in elementary education (where elementary education includes grades 1 through 8). To teach secondary grades, teachers with senior secondary level education are acceptable only if they have completed a four-year teacher training program in elementary education. The teacher training diploma and degree must be obtained from institutions recognized by NCTE, but an exception is made for teacher training in special education, where courses recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India are also accepted. Taken together, these requirements clarify both the level of education and the level of pre-service teacher training that a future teacher is required to obtain. While teachers teaching lower grades are not required to have subject-specific training, a higher level of education is generally expected of a teacher teaching higher grades. The expectations in terms of the future teacher’s educational performance are rather limited. For example, admissions to programs leading to other professional degrees such as engineering or medicine have traditionally required a senior secondary level performance that far exceeds the 45% performance requirement to become a teacher. To the extent that NCTE-recognized teacher training courses indicate a certain quality of teacher training, future teachers are also expected to receive at least a specific quality or type of teacher training. NCTE also specifies the requirements for in-service teacher training. It appears that a teacher hired before September 2001 ‘‘in accordance with

64

AMITA CHUDGAR

the prevalent recruitment rules’’ (NCTE, 2010, p. 7) is not required to acquire these new minimum qualifications. All other teachers will be required to undergo six-month in-service teacher training in a program recognized by the NCTE, though it is not clear what the specific focus of this program will be, how it will be delivered, or how the costs of this training will be shared between the central, state and local governments, and the teachers. Perhaps the most unique teacher qualification requirement suggested by NCTE is that every future teacher will have to pass a TET. These tests may be conducted by the central government and also by the states separately. The TET is guided by a vision to create a national benchmark of teacher quality. As the NCTE (2011b, p. 2) notes, ‘‘It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality.’’ In theory, this is indeed an invaluable recommendation. If TET were to become a norm, and were to be conducted in a uniform manner across the country as recommended, its results might, for the first time, provide a valuable source of information to measure teacher knowledge on a comparable and quantifiable scale. The current TET design is as follows. Separate TET tests are developed for grades 1–5 and 6–8. Each test contains 150 multiple-choice questions on child development and pedagogy, and content areas include language, math, and science. Once again, the level of performance expected is not exceedingly high. An exam-taker has to obtain at least 90 correct answers (60%) or more to be considered a ‘‘TET pass.’’ Whether passing TET is a reflection of one’s true ability to teach is a separate question. As an example, consider the first two questions from the section on Child Development and Pedagogy in the central government’s TET test of May 2012. 1. Human development is divided into domains such as a. Psychological, cognitive, emotional, and physical b. Physical, spiritual, cognitive, and social c. Physical, cognitive, emotional, and social d. Emotional, cognitive, spiritual, and social–psychological 2. Which of the following is a principle of development? a. It is a discontinuous process. b. All processes of development are not inter-connected. c. It does not proceed at the same pace for all. d. Development is always linear (Central Board of Secondary Education, 2012).

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

65

It may be debated if correctly answering such questions identifies someone as an effective teacher. Finally, it is important to note that while passing the TET and possessing the minimum education and training required is a prerequisite for being hired as a teacher, simply having passed these hurdles does not guarantee that one will be hired as a future teacher. By any account, for a system with more than 6 million teachers, these sweeping pre-service and in-service changes suggested by the Right to Education law are likely to have important implications. The effort to ensure that all elementary school children are taught by teachers with a certain minimum level of education and teacher training in classes with no more than 30 students is laudable. Also praiseworthy is the effort to ensure that the training they receive is itself approved and meets certain criteria of acceptability. Similarly, the requirement that all teachers pass a teaching eligibility test is worth noting because it will, for the first time, create a national understanding and awareness of teacher skill level or teacher quality by linking it to a tangible, measurable outcome. But, as is often the case, the realities of implementing such a policy can be fairly complex and challenging. In the next section, I discuss the potential impact of implementing this policy and the potential challenges of meeting this new demand for qualified teachers.

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CHANGES IN THE TEACHER LABOR FORCE AND TEACHER EDUCATION REQUIREMENT DUE TO THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT The changes proposed by the Right to Education act are still recent. It is therefore not yet feasible to evaluate its long-term impact. I utilize the existing knowledge and data that are available about teacher labor markets and teacher education in India to provide some informed speculation about the potential impact of this new law.

Impact on Existing Teacher Shortage Teacher shortage is already a noticeable policy concern. The enactment of this law will create further shortages of qualified teachers, or increase the

66

AMITA CHUDGAR

demand for teachers. Before the act was implemented, there were already 500,000 unfilled teacher positions across the country. With the act in force, this demand for teachers will grow and an additional 500,000 teachers will be required (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012b). One of the main factors driving the teacher shortage will be the requirement to limit class sizes. While the pupil-to-teacher ratio in many states tends to hover around the expected 30 students per teacher, in certain states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Jharkhand, this ratio is much higher, at 40, 50, or even 60 students per teacher. In fact, in some of these states a significant portion of schools even have ratios of over 100 students per teacher (Mehta, 2011). Across India overall, in 243 districts out of a total of 637 districts student–teacher ratio is higher than 30:1. In the state of Uttar Pradesh this is true for 68% of all schools, and the numbers are equally high in states like Madhya Pradesh and Bihar (Mehta, 2012). Not surprisingly, then, there are distinct cross-state variations in teacher vacancies as well. For instance, the large state of Uttar Pradesh alone has over 150,000 vacancies (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012a). The vacancy rates are also high in terms of absolute numbers in states like West Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. These large cross-state variations in teacher demand and teacher vacancy imply that unless teachers are willing to migrate or relocate in large numbers, or unless a local teacher labor force is trained and prepared overnight, some of these gaps in demand and supply may create inequalities in access to quality teachers across the nation in the short term. Teacher shortages may also arise because of the minimum educational qualification requirement. Cross-state variations also exist in teachers’ educational qualifications. The national statistics do not indicate the proportion of teachers who have less than a senior secondary level of education (which will be the new minimum norm), but there is information on teachers who have less than a secondary level of education, many of whom will become ineligible under the new law’s requirements. These percentages are low nationally. Overall only about 2% of the teacher labor force has education levels below secondary level. But once again, I find important cross-state variations. These proportions are especially high in India’s northeastern states. More than 14% of teachers in Tripura and more than 10% of teachers in Mizoram currently have less than a secondary education (Mehta, 2011). If these states have to meet the new Right to Education requirement, they may face the prospects of replacing a significant portion of their less educated teachers.

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

67

Impact on the Existing Teacher Education System The most important implication of the changes due to the new policy will be felt by the country’s teacher education system. Several related aspects will affect the functioning of that system. I discuss each of them here in turn. Increased Demand for Pre-Service and In-Service Training At the outset, the new policy creates the need to train more teachers. I have already noted the significant shortage in the teacher labor force. The nearly 1 million future teachers that the system will now require will all need preservice training in the existing teacher training institutions. This requirement is separate from ensuring that these future teachers pass the TET which I discuss separately below. There is also an equally large need for in-service training, because close to 10% or 600,000 current teachers are untrained, and would need additional qualifications to fulfill the Right to Education policy requirements (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012b). According to a different estimate, 78.6% of regular teachers are certified (Mehta, 2011) implying that more than 20%, or more than a million of the 6 million strong teacher labor force, will require in-service teacher training. The actual data on teachers who reported receiving recent in-service training, however, are not entirely promising. According to data collected in 2010–2011, close to 30% of teachers nationally reported receiving any inservice teacher training in the previous year (Mehta, 2012). And once again, we find significant cross-state variations in these numbers. In a state like Haryana or Chandigarh just 1% of teachers reported receiving in-service training in the previous year, whereas over 50% reported that to be the case in Tamil Nadu and Himachal Pradesh. Also, according to Mehta (2012), the numbers are mainly driven by government schools; in private schools the number of teachers receiving in-service training in the previous year is as low as 1% or 2% of total teachers. While the new policy may create a severe need for in-service teacher training, the overall situation implies that the culture, the facility, or the ability to provide such training on a large scale, especially in a way that includes private school teachers, may not be easily available across all the states. Need to Train the Untrained Teachers Hired on a Contract Basis Another likely pressure on the teacher education system will come from India’s traditionally heavy reliance on hiring teachers on a contract basis. In general, these teachers are less well paid and have no job guarantee.

68

AMITA CHUDGAR

In many states, though not all, they have different qualifications from regular teachers. They often have limited or no formal teacher training. For instance, compared to close to 80% of regular teachers, only 49% of contract-based teachers have received formal teacher training (Mehta, 2011). The new Right to Education regulations technically do not require states to pay these teachers at the regular rate, or even offer them job guarantees. But every state is now required to ensure that their teachers, regardless of their contract or permanent status, have the same level of education and teacher certification. The relatively lower level of training among this significantly large section of the teacher labor force will thus create additional demands on the current teacher education system to mainstream them. The cross-state variations are likely to be significant in this situation as well, given the wide variation in states’ reliance on contractbased teachers. Ensuring a High Success Rate in the Teaching Eligibility Test While there is no evidence yet that links teacher performance on the eligibility tests with improved teaching capabilities or higher student performance, it will still be important for teacher education institutions to ensure high performance on this test for teacher trainees. The alarmingly low performance of future teachers on these tests up to this point is a cause for concern. The national Indian daily Times of India reported in March 2012 that a mere 55,422 or 7% of the close to 800,000 future teachers scored the 60% required to pass the TET, the central government’s 150-question multiple-choice test. In 2011, the performance was equally dismal: a 9% pass rate (Gohain, 2012). Another Indian news source reported that in the state of Chennai, less than 1% of the more than 600,000 aspirants who took the TET passed it (Express News Service, 2012). Systematic data on TET pass rates are not available from all the Indian states, but in general it appears that the situation is similar across the states. Thus the Right to Education law will create additional pressure on the existing teacher education system to ensure that its students, the future teachers, perform at acceptable levels on the TET.

Impact on Student Performance The ultimate goal of such a policy change requiring minimum educational qualification and certification for all elementary school teachers presumably

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

69

is to improve the quality of the Indian teacher labor force, with the hope that it will improve the quality of learning in Indian schools. It is too soon yet to obtain empirical evidence that can document changes in student performance that are related to the act. However, existing empirical literature may provide some indication of what is likely to occur with these new requirements for teacher qualification and training. The limited empirical literature available from India has failed to find a systematic link between teacher education or teacher training and student performance. In a study of 4th and 6th grade children based on data from five populous urban towns in five Indian states, Chudgar and Sankar (2008) found no systematic difference in the performance of children whose teacher had an education at the bachelor’s or master’s level compared to children whose teachers had less than a bachelor’s level education. In a separate study of teaching and learning in rural India using data on 2nd and 4th grade children from five states; Bhattacharjea et al. (2011) also found that students whose teachers had an undergraduate or graduate-level education did not necessarily perform better than those whose teachers had lower levels of education. And, in various papers with her colleagues, Kingdon (Atherton & Kingdon, 2010; Kingdon & Sipahimalani-Rao, 2010) confirms a similar finding using data from grades 2 and 4 from the Indian states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that supports a specific performance cut-off (such as 45%) at the senior secondary education level or successful performance on TET, as required by the Right to Education law, as being crucial in identifying effective teachers. Similarly, studies have failed to find a systematic link between formal teacher training and student performance (Bhattacharjea et al., 2011; Chudgar & Sankar, 2008). In fact, researchers using sophisticated data analysis approach (Atherton & Kingdon, 2010) or randomized control trial studies (Banerjee, Cole, Duflo, & Linden, 2007) have often argued that students whose teachers had limited or no teacher training (contract-based teachers) actually perform better than students whose teachers had received formal pre-service training. The reasons for why teachers hired on contract basis perform better have received less attention, but in general this literature argues that insecure job tenure may serve as a performance incentive, or alternatively job security and lower accountability may explain why regular teachers perform less well. While the specific mechanisms that explain these observations need to be further investigated, it is important to note that, so far the evidence that these changes related to Right to Education will improve student performance is limited.

70

AMITA CHUDGAR

In summary, the most immediate impact of the Right to Education law will be felt in the tremendous shortage of trained and qualified teachers and a new set of pressures on the existing teacher education system to train current and future teachers to meet certain qualification requirements. The evidence that these changes will ultimately have an impact on student performance is still limited. In the final section of the paper, I discuss the potential implications as the education system, especially the teacher education system, makes an effort to respond to the Right to Education policy.

DISCUSSION The goals of the Right to Education policy with respect to teachers and teaching are laudable. Who could disagree with the aim of having all Indian children study in classes of no more than 30 students, and providing them with access to teachers who have a minimum level of education, are trained by a recognized teacher training program, and have passed the TET? Even if researchers have yet to establish direct links between these teacher attributes and student performance, from an equity perspective, these goals are worth striving for. But another question arises: Is this goal of equal access to highquality teaching truly attainable with the present policy, in its present form? In this final section of the chapter, I offer some observations that raise serious concerns about the prospects of fulfilling the equity and quality mandate of this law. The first question requiring attention is: will the Right to Education policy promote equity in teacher distribution? At the outset it appears that while the policy is intended to create equal access to quality teaching for all Indian children, there are significant cross-state variations in teacher demand and teacher supply and also potentially in the spread and success of education institutions for future teachers (NCERT, 2009). These crossstate variations are a cause for serious concern to the extent that the teacher labor force may not be highly mobile across the country. The act may propose various measures to equalize teacher education and training requirement in theory, but if states are not able to train sufficient teachers locally, it is likely that, at least in the short run, these well-intended policies may further widen the gaps between children who do and do not have access to quality teaching. It is also important to ask if the policy is focused on the ‘‘right’’ measures of teacher quality. One of the central mechanisms through which the law proposes to measure quality and ensure that it is equally distributed is the

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

71

TET. This test, of 150 multiple-choice questions, will provide one of the first nationwide measures of teacher knowledge that may be directly comparable across diverse states all over the country. But this test and the notion of teacher quality it promotes also raise some concerns. Is it really possible for a multiple-choice test to determine who will make an effective classroom teacher? Are multiple-choice questions like the ones presented in the earlier section on TET good measures for identifying effective classroom teachers? The answer is not clear. Yet, it is likely that training for this highstakes multiple-choice test may actually become a primary focus of teacher education curriculum and teacher training nationwide. It is worth thinking about the long-term implications of such changes in the teacher education system.

Is the Teacher Education System Prepared to Produce these ‘‘Quality’’ Teachers? India’s teacher education system is in fact likely to bear the brunt of the success or failure of the Right to Education policies with regard to teachers. The system will face many new and immediate demands: preparing future teachers for the high-stakes TET is only one of them. Yet, it appears that the system is far from prepared to respond to these challenges. Teacher education in India is shaped and directed by multiple government agencies, including three national-level organizations. The NCTE, which I discussed in some detail earlier, focuses on approving and accrediting teacher training programs. The National Council of Educational Research and Training, along with its six regional institutes of education and state counterparts, prepares teacher training material and also undertakes training for teachers and teacher educators. Finally, the National University of Educational Planning and Administration primarily focuses on educational research (Department of School Education and Literacy, n.d.). Given India’s size and spread, there has also been a concerted focus on decentralizing the teacher education system. At the district level (within the state), the important teacher education institutions are the district institutes of education and training (DIETs); of the 571 sanctioned DIETs, 529 are functional across the country at the present time. Block resource centers and cluster resource centers occupy the lower rungs of local teacher training machinery (NCERT, 2009). In addition, the government has sanctioned 104 colleges of teacher education and 31 institutes of advanced studies in education as centers of excellence to focus on secondary education. Each of

72

AMITA CHUDGAR

these institutes and centers performs different yet overlapping functions of in-service and pre-service teacher training. In spite of this large and complex structure and a concerted effort at decentralization, there appears to be a general consensus that the current teacher education system in India leaves a lot of room for reform and quality improvement (Planning Commission, Government of India, 2008). One serious challenge facing these institutions is a shortage of qualified faculty and limited infrastructural facilities (NCTE, 2009b). A recent report from an education foundation notes that the DIETs have failed to meet their goals and are ‘‘dysfunctional.’’ It says that 17% of DIETs do not have their own building, while 80% have vacant faculty positions. The assignment of a government employee to a DIET is seen as a ‘‘punishment posting,’’ a situation where no government employee would prefer to work; not surprisingly, therefore, these key elements of the local teacher education machinery suffer from a lack of leadership and vision (Azim Premji Foundation, 2010, p. 2). There is also a concern about a general disconnect between institutes of teacher education and the broader university or higher education system. Commercial teacher education institutes have mushroomed as a ‘‘lucrative business proposition’’ (NCTE, 2009b, p. 5). According to an estimate from higher education statistics, in academic year 2009, there were over 3,000 institutes of teacher training nationwide (Bureau of Planning, Monitoring, and Statistics, 2011). According to a different estimate from around the same time, teacher training institutes have in fact expanded across the country, resulting in a revised estimate of over 11,000 such institutions (NCTE, 2009b). In theory these fast-growing teacher training institutions have all received recognition from the NCTE, but, as mentioned earlier, this central government agency in charge of granting recognition to teacher training institutes has itself been criticized for its poor performance and its inability to be a true gatekeeper in terms of identifying deserving institutions of teacher education. The general assessment of the teacher education system in India is bleak. A national report notes that ‘‘On the whole, the picture that emerges is one of ineffective resource mobilization and replenishment, persisting need for clear direction and stability in all efforts as well as concerted attempts towards better coordination and linkages within and with other institutions’’ (NCERT, 2009, p. 67). Independent scholars also confirm this sentiment (e.g., Dyer & Choksi, 2004). And perhaps most unfortunately, the realization that something is broken in the teacher education system in India is hardly new. Concerns about the low quality and insularity of teacher

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

73

education institutions have been reported in policy documents dating back to the middle 1960s. For instance, in the middle 1980s, a governmentappointed committee noted that ‘‘what obtains in the majority of our Teaching Colleges and Training Institutes is woefully inadequate’’ (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012a, p. 4). Such sentiments have continued to echo through the past decades in various committee reports (Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012a). In summary, it does not seem far-fetched to argue that the teacher education system, which will be called upon to do most of the heavy lifting under the new Right to Education mandate, may not be ready for its new role.

Concluding Thoughts: The Road Ahead This chapter aimed to discuss the recently enacted Right to Education policy, its intended implementation plan, and its potential implications, with a specific focus on the composition of the teacher labor force and teacher education. The analysis of various policy documents, reports, research literature, and data presented here leads to some important observations and highlight areas needing attention both immediately and in the longer term. The goal of the Right to Education law is highly desirable: to provide equal access to quality educational experiences to all Indian school children. This chapter has focused on an aspect of this policy that aims to enhance the quality of teaching received by Indian students. In the medium-to-long term it will be crucial for the research community to generate evidence that supports these massive policy changes. No doubt, access to similarly qualified teachers in all of India’s classrooms will enhance equity, but is it also likely to improve student performance? It will also be important for the policymakers to incorporate research findings on such questions in the next phase of policymaking and planning. In the more immediate future, however, it is likely that these policy changes may in fact exacerbate inequities in access to quality teachers and teaching across Indian states. The policy is creating important and urgent changes in the Indian teacher labor force, and by extension demanding changes in the Indian teacher education system. But that system may be unprepared to meet these new goals. Teacher education then emerges as an area needing urgent reforms if the mandate of this new policy is to be fulfilled. Recent policy conversations and government reports have begun to recognize this need. They are calling for

74

AMITA CHUDGAR

changes such as, better integration of the teacher education system with the higher education system to improve delivery and quality, asking for a greater focus on states facing a severe deficit of trained teachers, and on developing quality teacher training institutes (e.g., Department of School Education and Literacy, 2012a, 2012b; NCTE, 2009a). It is to be hoped that these recommendations to reform teacher education will receive serious consideration so that ultimately India moves one step closer to the goal of equal access to quality teaching for all.

REFERENCES Atherton, P., & Kingdon, G. (2010). The relative effectiveness and costs of contract and regular teachers in India. CSAE Working Paper Series. Oxford: CSAE. Azim Premji Foundation. (2010). Status of district institutes of education and training (DIET). Bangalur: Azim Premji Foundation. Banerjee, A. V., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235–1264. Bhattacharjea, S., Wadhwa, W., & Banerji, R. (2011). Inside primary schools: A study of teaching and learning in rural India. Mumbai: Pratham. Bureau of Planning, Monitoring, and Statistics. (2011). Statistics of higher and technical education: 2009–2010. New Delhi: Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Central Board of Secondary Education. (2012, May). Central Teacher Eligibility Test: Part I. New Delhi: CBSE. Retrieved from http://ctet.nic.in/ctetnovwebsite/pdf/paper12012.pdf Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J., Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K., & Rogers, F. H. (2006). Missing in action: Teacher and health worker absence in developing countries. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 91–116. Chudgar, A., & Sankar, V. (2008). The relationship between teacher gender and student achievement: Evidence from five Indian states. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 38(5), 627–642. Chudgar, A., & Quin, E. (2012). Relationship between private schooling and achievement: Results from rural and urban India. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), 376–390. Department of School Education and Literacy. (2010a). Right of children to free and compulsory education rules, 2010. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education and Literacy. (2010b, April 5). Notification. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. Retrived from http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/ upload_files/mhrd/files/5.pdf Department of School Education and Literacy. (2012a). Restructuring and reorganization of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme on teacher education: Guidelines for implementation. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. Department of School Education and Literacy. (2012b). Revision of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of restructuring and reorganisation of teacher education. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Teacher Labor Force and Teacher Education in India

75

Department of School Education and Literacy. (n.d.). Teacher education in India: Policy context. Retrieved from http://www.teindia.nic.in/Policycontext.aspx Dyer, C., & Choksi, A. (2004). District institutes of education and training: A comparative study in three Indian states. Leeds: POLIS. Express News Service. (2012, August 28). Less than 1% clear Teacher Eligibility Test. IBN Live. Retrieved from http://ibnlive.in.com/news/less-than-1-clear-teacher-eligibility-test/ 285554-60-120.html Fyfe, A. (2007). The use of contract teachers in developing countries: Trends and impact. Geneva: International Labor Office. Gohain, M. P. (2012, March 11). 93% of aspirants fail teacher’s eligibility test. Times of India. Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-03-11/news/31145151_1_ central-teacher-eligibility-test-ctet-aspirants Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2009, December 2). Teacher Training. New Delhi: Ministry. Government of India. (2009). Annual report 2009-2010. New Delhi: Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. Government of India. (2012). Secondary Education: Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/rashtriya_madhyamik_shiksha_abhiyan. Accessed on July 3, 2012. Jain, P. S., & Ravindra, H. D. (2009). Feasibility of implementation of Right to Education Act. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(25), 38–43. Jain, P. S., & Ravindra, H. D. (2010). Right to Education Act and public-private partnership. Economic & Political Weekly, 45(8), 78–80. Kingdon, G. G., & Sipahimalani-Rao, V. (2010). Para-teachers in India: Status and impact. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(12), 20–26. Kingdon, G. G., & Muzammil, M. (2010). The school governance environment in Uttar Pradesh, India: Implications for teacher accountability and effort. RECOUP Working Paper No. 31. Cambridge: Centre for Education and International Development, University of Cambridge. Maheshwari, S. (2007, July 23). NCTE grants recognition to underserving institutions. India Today. Mehta, A. C. (2011). Elementary education in India: Analytical tables 2010–2011 (provisional). New Delhi: National University of Educational Planning and Administration. Mehta, A. C. (2012). Elementary education in India: Progress towards UEE, flash statistics DISE 2010–2011. New Delhi: National University of Educational Planning and Administration. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. (2009, August 26). The Right of Children to Free and Compulsary Education Act. New Delhi: Government of India. Retrieved from http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. (1993, 30 December). The National Council for Teacher Education Act. New Delhi: Ministry. National Council for Teacher Education. (2009a). National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education: Draft for discussion. New Delhi: NCTE. National Council for Teacher Education. (2009b). National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education: Towards preparing professional and humane teachers. New Delhi: MemberSecretary, NCTE.

76

AMITA CHUDGAR

National Council for Teacher Education. (2010, August 23). Notification. New Delhi: NCTE. National Council for Teacher Education. (2011a, September 26). National Council for Teacher Education. Retrieved from http://www.ncte-india.org/index.asp National Council for Teacher Education. (2011b, February 11). Guidelines for conducting teacher elgibility test (TET) under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009. New Delhi: NCTE. National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2009). Comprehensive evaluation of centrally sponsored scheme on restructuring and reorganization of teacher education. New Delhi: NCERT. Planning Commission, Government of India. (2008). Eleventh five-year plan: 2007–2012 (vol. II, pp. 1–219). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Pratham. (2010). Annual status of education report (rural). New Delhi: Pratham. Ramachandran, V. (2009). Right to Education Act: A Comment. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(28), 155–157. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2011, table 615. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab

TEACHER TRAINING AND DEPLOYMENT IN MALAWI Joseph DeStefano ABSTRACT Purpose  This study illustrates how poor deployment and inefficient management contribute to poor usage of the Malawian school system’s teacher resources. Methodology  The author uses data from Malawi’s Ministry of Education Science and Technology’s Department of Teacher Education and Development and the Education Management Information System to examine the supply of and demand for teachers. The data illustrate the relationships between teacher assignment and the need for teachers at the district, school, and classroom levels. Findings  Teacher assignment policies and practices in Malawi result in class sizes in the first three years of primary school that are much larger than optimal. Additionally, the prevailing shortage of teachers is about 25% worse than necessary because of inefficiencies in teacher deployment. For example, teacher shortages and surpluses often exist in the same districts. Research limitations  This study was limited by the poor quality of data maintained by the Malawian Ministry of Education and the teacher

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 77–97 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019009

77

78

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

training colleges. While better data would elucidate and improve teacher deployment, existing data should more purposefully target assignment of teachers to schools with the greatest staffing need. Practical implications  Policy solutions identified include requiring minimum teaching workloads and clearer defining criteria for assignment of teachers to schools and grade levels. Value  By demonstrating the wide variations in student–teacher ratios at the district, school, and grade levels in Malawi, this study provides insight into ways in which prevailing policy and practice may compromise both efficiency and quality at each level. Keywords: Malawi; teacher supply; class size; pupil–teacher ratio; teacher shortage

INTRODUCTION In Malawi the supply and demand of teachers has been severely out of balance for more than fifteen years. The adoption of free primary education in 1994 exacerbated the insufficiency of teacher supply in response to rampant demand for schooling. To this day the country has faced a severe shortage of teachers, which results in, according to the UNESCO Institute of Statistics in 2009, one of the world’s highest average pupil-to-teacher ratios of 81:1 for primary school. This chapter examines how in addition to the constraints on the numbers of teachers who are trained each year, the way in which the Ministry of Education Science and Technology (MoEST) deploys teachers contributes to Malawi’s extremely high class sizes. Furthermore, imbalances between districts, across schools within districts, and across standards (grades) within schools, all contribute to inefficient use of teachers and extremely high pupil-to-teacher ratios in the lower grades of primary school. The relationship between teacher policy and the supply and demand of teachers is usually analyzed from the perspective of how changes in policy influence either the need for teachers or the willingness of individuals to enter the profession in response to that demand (or both). The supply of teachers includes the existing stock and the flow of people into and out of the profession. Policy can affect how many and how quickly interested candidates can become teachers or it can influence the rate at which teachers

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

79

leave the profession. For example, the South African Council for Educators (SACE) cites several policy variables that can be manipulated to alter teacher supply  the requirements for becoming a teacher; the number and types of institution able to offer teacher training; the length and mode of teacher preparation; and the conditions of work (2010). Additionally, the nature of a country’s labor market and the different opportunities for employment available to prospective teachers also influences the decisions individuals may make about whether to enter or leave the teaching profession. Individuals will weigh the requirements for becoming a teacher, the likelihood of being employed, and the associated rewards of the profession (whether pecuniary or nonpecuniary) against the costs, probability of finding a job in, and the pay and benefits of another profession. Models of how the supply of potential teachers is affected by these individual choices within a certain labor market dynamic can inform policy decisions about teacher recruitment, training, and career structure (Murnane, Singer, & Willett, 1989). On the demand side, policies and plans that decide how fast a school system will expand and that set the critical parameter of the pupil-to-teacher ratio determine the number of teachers that a school system will need. But how many of those desired teachers can actually be hired is a function of the willingness of the often monopoly purchaser (the government) to allocate resources to train and pay teachers. Country education sector plans must consider the available national resources, the goals they have signed onto (e.g., the Education for All targets for 2015), the rate of expansion needed to meet those goals, the resources they may receive from external funders, and therefore the number of teachers and class size which they can afford (Nilsson, 2003). Countries have instituted various policies in an attempt to improve supply and attenuate demand. On the supply side, ministries of education often reduce the amount of time required for preservice teacher training, in some instances taking the drastic measure of hiring and providing only minimal initial orientation to untrained teachers. Or, they may seek to improve the conditions of teachers  offering housing or subsidies to teachers who are posted to hard to staff, often rural schools  as a way to attract additional people into teaching and into particular areas of the country (Mulkeen, 2006, 2010). On the demand side, many governments have created a different category of employee, one for which pay and/or benefits are lower than that of permanent civil service teachers (e.g., contract teachers in much of Sub-Saharan Africa), thus making it possible to hire more. Or, frequently, a higher than optimum de facto class size is accepted, thereby

80

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

lowering the total number of teachers needed to accommodate the projected level of enrollment growth. Malawi, with the support of the funding agencies that are investing in helping the country expand and improve access to primary education, has put in place many of these policy reforms in attempts to address the demand for and supply of primary school teachers. Expanding access to primary schooling has created high demand for primary teachers, with a massive influx of students in the early 1990s creating a particularly acute shortage. In response to growing demand, the Ministry of Education has shortened the time trainees spend in preservice preparation and expanded the number and capacity of teacher training colleges (TTCs). In addition, the government implemented emergency recruitments and urgent on-the-job teacher training and support projects in an attempt to rapidly deploy as many as 20,000 additional teachers. Even with these changes, the severe budget constraints under which Malawi labors limit the number of teachers who can be trained and hired. Malawi continues to consider what policies can help increase the supply of primary school teachers. However, a fundamental additional question that should be of high importance to a country suffering under severe resource constraints like Malawi is how to ensure that the available teachers are deployed as efficiently and effectively as possible. This chapter explores three aspects of efficiency in teacher assignment in Malawi. Data from TTCs, from the MoEST’s management information system, and from the Department of Teacher Education are used to address the following questions: (1) Are primary school teachers assigned to districts where the need for teachers is greatest? (2) Within districts, are teachers assigned to schools based on need? and (3) Within schools, how are teachers allocated to the different primary standards? This chapter will show that the misallocation of teachers across districts, across schools, and within schools contributes to the extreme mismatch between teacher supply and demand in Malawi.

BACKGROUND Teacher Demand: The Impact of Free Primary Education In the early 1990s basic education was expanding in Malawi. The government was intervening on both the supply and demand sides to remove barriers to access. In addition to the usual set of externally funded projects that were building classrooms and helping procure inputs, the

81

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

government was experimenting with selective elimination of school fees, beginning in standard 1, and phased in for standards 2 and 3. Fee waivers were also granted to nonrepeating girls in primary school as part of an initiative to increase girls’ participation rates. In the first four years of the 1990s enrollment in primary school grew by 35% (World Bank, 2009). The idea to abolish all school fees was forged in the political race leading up to Malawi’s first multiparty election in 1994. The two main parties vying for the presidency adopted ‘‘Free Primary Education’’ (FPE) as a populist campaign strategy. The then ruling Malawi Congress Party (MCP) proposed a phased approach (like what they had been implementing), and the United Democratic Front (UDF) had no specific plans for how they would carry out FPE. In May 1994, the UDF won the election and moved quickly to keep its campaign promise, abolishing all school fees beginning the following September (World Bank, 2009). The new government had essentially given itself four months to figure out what to do. As can be seen in Fig. 1, at the start of the 1994/1995 school year, the impact of FPE was immediate and disastrous. At the start of that school year, almost 1 million additional students entered primary school (a 51% increase). Anticipating this, in the months leading up to the opening of school, the government scrambled to recruit 20,000 untrained teachers, gave them a semblance of initial orientation, and deployed them to schools. But the system was clearly overwhelmed. Class sizes swelled into the 4,000,000 Free Primary Education Introduced

3,500,000

Primary Enrollment

3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 1991

1994 1993

2005

2009

Year

Fig. 1.

Growth in Primary Enrollment Leading up to and Following FPE.

82

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

hundreds. That first year of FPE, and for several years afterwards, it was common to see football pitches covered with hundreds of students sitting in rows, ostensibly attending school. To this day, a shortage of over 20,000 teachers, or about one third of the teaching force, plagues the education system.

Teacher Supply Steiner-Khamsi and Kunje (2011) provide a concise summary of the evolution of teacher training in Malawi. Two basic approaches have been utilized, residential training at TTC and distance learning programs. From 1964 to 1994, preservice teacher education required two years in residence at a TTC. An alternative approach to teacher training was also provided through a three-year distance learning (correspondence) program up until 1993. For a period of four years, from 1993 to 1997, Malawi experimented with a one-year preservice program as one way to accelerate the recruitment, training, and deployment of teachers. Similarly, the Malawi Integrated In-service Teacher Education Program, or MIITEP, an emergency distance learning program was employed from 1997 until 2003. MIITEP placed teachers in schools and provided them with distancebased materials, occasional training workshops, and ongoing supervision and support to assure completion of their training. MIITEP was discontinued because of concern over the quality of teachers being produced due to low recruitment standards, poor attendance in periodic training sessions, and inadequate supervision (Steiner-Khamsi & Kunje, 2011, p. 11). At present, residential preservice training is still one year in duration, but since 2005 that year of TTC-based training has been followed by one year of supervised teaching. The current Initial Primary Teacher Education (IPTE) program is referred to as IPTE 1+1, indicating the one year of residential and one year of on-the-job training needed for certification. The most recent incarnation of distance learning is referred to as the Open and Distance Learning (ODL) program, which was launched in 2010. ODL is delivered as a series of correspondence modules to be completed by trainees over the course of two or three years, with evaluations at the end of the first set of modules, and then again upon completion of the second set. Along with implementing the IPTE 1+1 program, the ministry of education has pushed to expand the number and capacity of TTCs. This

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

83

includes opening one additional public TTC (Machinga), and encouraging the opening of additional private colleges. As a result, TTC enrollment has grown from 2,896 trainees for the first IPTE cohort (in 2005/2006) to 4,787 in the fifth cohort (2009/2010), surpassing the targets set by the MoEST in its 2008 National Strategy for Teacher Education and Development (NSTED). The ODL training program launched in 2010 augments the potential supply of teachers by an additional 3,500– 4,000 teacher trainees each year. The distance-based approach to primary teacher training has essentially doubled the ministry’s capacity to supply teachers. Available data suggest no shortage of people willing to become teachers. For example, for the second cohort of IPTE (in 2006), there were 27,000 applicants, of which 16,000 were deemed eligible based on their academic credentials. Only 2,500 were admitted, because of lack of space in the TTCs. For the first cohort of ODL recruits (2010), there were 22,000 applicants who were deemed eligible, but only 3,800 were admitted to the program (Steiner-Khamsi & Kunje, 2011). The low rate of admission of qualified applicants into either training program is due to the restriction on the number of places the ministry is willing to offer. One constraint is budgetary. The government is only willing to allocate a certain amount of resources to primary education, thus limiting the number of additional teachers that can come onto the payroll each year, despite the extreme and persistent shortage of primary school staff. Primary education in Malawi has been chronically underfunded. Expenditure per pupil in primary education in Malawi is the lowest among all Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) countries, while its expenditure per student in secondary and higher education is the highest among all African countries. At the start of the present Education Sector Investment Plan, the Fast Track Initiative (FTI) cited this as ‘‘indicative of underinvestment in primary education’’ and deemed it a ‘‘misallocation of public funds’’ that is ‘‘grossly inequitable’’ (Malawi Local Education Donor Group, 2009, p. 13). In addition to the decision not to allocate sufficient funds to allow recruitment of greater numbers of teachers each year, teacher training is also constrained by the capacity of the TTCs. In particular, the residential capacity of these institutions limits the number of trainees they can enroll. Furthermore, teaching staff at TTCs are underutilized, with light workloads and low tutor-to-trainee ratios (Steiner-Khamsi & Kunje, 2011). Despite a policy initiative to enroll students at TTCs who would not need places in the residence halls, enrollment of day students remains low. Steiner-Khamsi and Kunje (2011) report that the nonresidential program is unpopular, and, in at

84

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

least one TTC, students enrolled as nonresidents do not leave campus at the end of the day. They simply crowd into the dormitories with their classmates (p. 35). Besides limiting the number of teacher candidates they accept as trainees because of lack of funds and space, TTCs also are inefficient at turning trainees into teachers. Using the available data from 9 of the 12 TTCs, I compared the numbers of students enrolled in the TTC-based training programs with the numbers that complete the course of study and pass the end of year exam, that are placed in supervised practice teaching, and that complete the year of practice and obtain certification. On average, 12% of male trainees and 16% of female trainees fail to complete their training and become certified. For both men and women, the largest drop off occurs during the year of residential training, with many students leaving the TTC or failing to pass the exam at the end of the year. The reasons given for trainees dropping out at any point during the IPTE 1+1 were most often joining another profession for men or marriage and/or pregnancy for women. The projections included in Malawi’s Education Sector Investment Plan (ESIP) that covers the period from 2009 to 2013 estimated the need for approximately an additional 8,900 teachers each year in 2012 and 2013 to meet the growing student population and reduce the average pupil-toteacher ratio from almost 90 to 1 to around 60 to 1. TTC-based and ODLbased training combine to recruit approximately 8,700 teacher trainees each year, coming close to the annual need for teachers as predicted in the ESIP. But attrition during training reduces that number to roughly 7,400 because of the roughly 15% of trainees who drop out before becoming fully certified.

METHODS This study brings together data from the Department of Teacher Education and Development and the education ministry’s Education Management Information System (EMIS) in 2010. The Department of Teacher Education and Development provided information on a dimension of teacher supply. In 2010, the MoEST recruited the initial cohort of trainees into a new distance teacher training program. Data on that first cohort of recruits include their district of residence and the district to which they were assigned to begin teaching (after completing the initial orientation portion of the ODL training program). These data are then

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

85

analyzed to determine the extent to which school districts adhered to the teacher assignment policies put in place for this distance training program, thus addressing the first research question concerning recruitment from and assignment to districts of high need. The results of this analysis are presented in Fig. 2. The data on student enrollment and teacher deployment across all schools in the country were obtained from the 2010 EMIS files (covering the 2009 school year). These data are used to examine the supply and demand of teachers down to the school level. Enrollment figures for each standard (1 through 8) for every primary school in the country are combined with data on teachers and the standards they are assigned to teach. The resulting pupil-to-teacher ratios are computed and compared across districts, schools, and, within schools, standards. Figs. 3 through 5 present the results of the analysis of these data and address my second and third research questions. That analysis unmasks the great variations in pupil-to-teacher ratios that are papered over when looking only at the national average ratio.

DEPLOYMENT OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS In this section the abovementioned data are examined to analyze how teachers are deployed. The MoEST has recognized that teacher demand is highest in rural districts and schools. Official policy, therefore, stipulates that teacher candidates are to be recruited from districts with the greatest need for teachers so that, upon completion of their training, they can be deployed back to those districts. However, Ndalama and Chidalengwa (2010) find that the supply of teachers is still based on aggregate district enrollment, rather than school requirements. Decisions regarding assigning teachers to zones and schools are made at the district level, but respondents to Ndalama and Chidalengwa’s survey indicated that there is ‘‘interference’’ by local and national authorities and politicians in that decision making (Ndalama & Chidalengwa, 2010, p. 50). The problem of teachers being assigned to and serving in less desirable posts (usually rural, isolated schools in disadvantaged communities) will not be solved by simply providing more teachers (Mulkeen, 2006, p. 4). Data presented in the following sections reveal the extent to which policies governing teacher recruitment and deployment are or are not being applied, looking first at assignment to districts, then comparing assignments across schools, and lastly looking at assignment within schools.

86

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

Deployment to Districts with High Demand: The Example of the Open and Distance Learning Training Program The failure to target ODL recruitment (and placement) to the zones where the need for teachers is greatest represents one way in which inefficiencies in the education system lessen the impact of the government’s efforts to address the teacher shortage in Malawian primary schools. Official policy stated that trainees accepted into the ODL teacher training program were to be recruited from zones identified as having shortages of teachers (based on the average pupil-to-teacher ratio for each zone within a district). This is one way Malawi attempted to better match supply to demand for primary teachers. The MoEST reasoned that teachers from a disadvantaged zone would be more willing and better able to accept a posting to that zone. Luring teaching candidates to less desirable posts has long been a challenge in Malawi (and other countries). This policy was seen as an attractive alternative  instead of offering incentives to people to move to a remote post, the Ministry reasoned that people from such places would have the support networks already in place to make it easier for them to work as teachers there. However, identification of candidates at the district level appears to have not adhered to the policy of giving priority to the zones with the greatest need for teachers. Nor is it clear if the selection of trainees from the large pool that did apply took into account the degree of need in the zone from which each applicant was recruited. By analyzing 2009 EMIS data it is possible to compare the number of ODL recruits from a zone to the need for teachers in that zone. Need is calculated based on the number of teachers required at each school to get to a target pupil-to-teacher ratio of 60:1 (official policy). Schools are classified as ‘‘high need’’ if they require more than five teachers to get to 60:1 as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. School Classification based on Need and Surplus of Teachers. Schools Are Considered to Have High need Need No need Surplus High surplus

If They

Need more than 5 teachers to get to 60:1 Need 2 through 5 teachers to get to 60:1 Are 1 teacher on either side of being at 60:1 Have 2 through 5 teachers more what would equate to 60:1 Have more than 5 extra teachers

87

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi 50

# of ODL Recruits from a Zone

40

30

20

10

0 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of Schools in a Zone with a High Need for Teachers

Fig. 2.

Comparison of ODL Recruitment to the Need for Teachers.

Fig. 2 shows the relationship, or more accurately the lack of a relationship, between the number of ODL recruits in a zone and the percentage of schools in that zone with a high need for teachers (2009 EMIS and Department of Teacher Education and Development data, and author’s calculations). If ODL teacher training candidates were being recruited from high-need zones (in order to be more easily assigned back to those zones to serve as teachers), we would expect the scatter in Fig. 2 to reveal a direct relationship between the percentage of schools with high need in a district and the number of recruits from those districts (e.g., a clustering of points in the scatter plot around a positive sloping line). The scatter reveals a much more random pattern, indicating that recruits were not drawn primarily from districts with high percentages of schools with shortages of teachers. This indicates that the policy was not being applied as intended, perhaps because of the kind of ‘‘interference’’ by local and national authorities and politicians in the decision-making processes in recruiting teacher candidates (Ndalama & Chidalengwa, 2010). Teacher Deployment to Schools The education system’s inability to assign teachers to districts, zones, and schools with the highest need extends beyond just the ODL trainees. EMIS

88

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

data reveal that some districts in Malawi have more than their fair share of teachers, while others face severe shortages. The misallocation of teachers to districts is compounded by inefficient deployment within districts to schools. Looking more closely at the school-by-school data on teachers and enrollment (using 2009 EMIS data), it is possible to identify the schools according to the categories based on a comparison of their existing staffing to the target policy of an average school pupil-to-teacher ratio of 60:1. Fig. 3 shows the percentage of schools in each district, in each of these five categories of school classification specified in Table 1. In almost every district, there exist schools with surpluses and deficits of teachers  indicating a problem in teacher assignment. All districts but one (Likoma) have schools with surplus teachers. All but two (Zomba Urban and Likoma) also have schools with ‘‘high need’’ for teachers. In 14 out of Percent of Schools with Different Levels of Need for Teachers

0%

25%

50%

75%

Phalombe Machinga Chiradzulu Zomba Rural Lilongwe Rural East Mulanje Thyolo Mangochi Salima Chikwawa Dedza Dowa Mchinji Kasungu Ntcheu Lilongwe Rural West Nkhotakota Nsanje Ntchisi Balaka Blantyre Rural Mzimba South Neno Nkhata Bay Mwanza Karonga Chitipa Mzimba North Blantyre City Likoma Rumphi Lilongwe City Mzuzu City Zomba Urban

High Need

Fig. 3.

Some Need

No Need

Surplus

High Surplus

Deficits and Surpluses of Teachers within Districts.

100%

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

89

34 districts, the majority of schools have either no need or a surplus of teachers (the 14 districts at the bottom of the horizontal axis). There are 20 districts where more than half the schools have some or high need. There are seven districts where close to, or, more than 50% of the schools have high need for teachers (the districts represented by the bars at the top of the chart). This indicates that across districts, teacher deployment is not targeting the districts with highest need and that within districts, schools that lack teachers coexist with schools that have surpluses of them. This last point highlights the extent to which teacher deployment is not a function of a systematic application of teacher supply policy (e.g., by using the target pupil-to-teacher ratio) to determine where teachers are needed. Not surprisingly, the districts with the largest surplus are in large cities or towns  Lilongwe City, Lilongwe Rural West (suburban Lilongwe), Mzuzu City, and Zomba Urban. The surplus teachers in each district are the ones serving in schools in the town centers. In his analysis of teacher deployment in Malawi, Mulkeen (2006) found several factors that contribute to an urban bias in the assignment of teachers. It is a stated policy, when placing a female teacher, to take into consideration the location of her spouse (i.e., if a teacher’s husband is employed in a town, then she is posted to that town, especially if her husband is someone influential). Also, lack of adequate housing for teachers is often cited as a reason they are not posted to schools in rural areas. Teachers, even when posted to rural areas, are often allowed to later transfer to urban schools, even if there is ‘‘no vacancy in the school to which they are moving’’ (Mulkeen, 2006, p. 9). In their more recent study, Ndalama and Chidalengwa (2010) find that these same urban biases in teacher assignment and movement persist. The total number of teachers needed in the schools that are experiencing staffing shortages is 21,227. However, there are 4,050 surplus teachers in the schools that are overstaffed. The present shortage of primary school teachers is therefore 24% greater than it should be because one quarter of the primary schools in the country are overstaffed.

Teacher Deployment within Schools Within schools, the shortages and surpluses of teachers manifest themselves in two ways. First, class sizes and student-to-teacher ratios vary dramatically across standards, with the widest disparity between lower and upper primary standards. Second, some classes go without teachers, others have teachers covering them only part-time, and others end up with more than one teacher (which is discussed below).

90

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

Primary school in Malawi goes from standard 1 to standard 8; however, some schools do not include the full cycle. To analyze teacher deployment within schools, enrollment figures for each standard which a school did actually include were compared to data on teacher assignment to those same standards. Fig. 4 shows the ranges of pupil-to-teacher ratios for standards 1 through 8 across all schools in Malawi. It is immediately obvious that in most schools the pupil-to-teacher ratio in standards 1 and 2 is much higher than in standards 7 and 8. In more than 70% of schools, the standard 1 ratio is over 100:1; in about 55% of them the ratio is greater than 140:1. In contrast, in about 75% of schools, the pupil-to-teacher ratio in standard 8 is below the target of 60:1. In over 50% of schools, the standard 8 ratio is below 40:1, and in 18%, it is even below 20:1. Class sizes in the upper standards are not smaller because of more classes of students. Enrollment in primary school is concentrated in the early grades, with standards 1–3 having twice or three times as many students as standards 6–8. The large cohorts of students entering primary school are thinned out considerably before reaching upper elementary grades. Dropout rates remain high with only 35% of students who enter standard 1 surviving to complete standard

100% 90% 80% 70%

> 140 121 to 140

60%

101 to 120 50%

81 to 100 61 to 80

40%

41 to 60 21 to 40

30%

< 20 20% 10% 0% Stnd 1

Stnd 2

Fig. 4.

Stnd 3

Stnd 4

Stnd 5

Stnd 6

Stnd 7

Stnd 8

Pupil-to-Teacher Ratios in Primary Standards.

91

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

6 (Government of Malawi, 2009, p. 17). Therefore, a typical primary school may include two or three sections (or classes) of standard 1 and 2 students, each with 120–150 students, but may have only one class of standard 8 with about 20–30 students. However, teachers are not assigned with priority to standards with more classes and more students in each class. Since this analysis was conducted, the MoEST has stated that assigning teachers to lower primary standards is a priority that schools need to follow. Whether the ministry can carry out and enforce such a policy is an open question. Aside from the obvious crowding that is occurring in lower standard classrooms, the shortage of teachers means that in some cases classes go without a teacher. In fact, as shown in Fig. 5, 5% of standard 1 classrooms and 10% of standard 8 are without a teacher. In other cases, classes of 100%

11%

13%

19%

22%

22%

23%

27% 38%

75%

41%

41% 40%

38%

38%

38% 36%

50%

25%

27%

43%

40%

35%

30%

33%

32%

31%

5%

6%

7%

10%

7%

8%

7%

Stnd 1

Stnd 2

Stnd 3

Stnd 4

Stnd 5

Stnd 6

Stnd 7

0%

% w/o teacher % with 1 teacher

Fig. 5.

25%

10% Stnd 8

% sharing a teacher % with >1 teacher

The Impact of Teacher Surpluses and Shortages at the School Level.

92

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

students are sharing teachers because teachers have been assigned responsibility for more than one class of students. In fact, of the 43,960 teachers in the EMIS data files for 2009, just over 25% were assigned to more than one class. As shown in Fig. 5, many classes, especially in lower standards, are sharing a teacher with another standard, for example, 43 and 40% of standard 1 and 2 classes. This means that the pupils in those classes are actually with a teacher for only a portion of the time they are in school. The graph shown in Fig. 5 also captures another feature of inefficiency in schools in Malawi. Some of each standard’s classrooms are also assigned more than one teacher. For example, 38% of the standard 8 classrooms have more than one teacher and 11% of standard 1 classes do. In the lower standards this may represent a prudent attempt to reduce class size. Or it may just be an artifact of teachers being assigned to schools, and within schools to standards, irrespective of an explicit need. In many of the urban schools where there are surpluses, teachers are allowed to ‘‘team-teach’’ a class. Steiner-Khamsi and Kunje (2011) relate how this works. Each teacher handles a few subjects and is idle or absent while the other teaches (during the same day or on alternating days or alternating weeks). This is not a result of specific policy to compartmentalize instruction, but rather results from too many teachers being assigned to a school and/or standard and teachers then organizing themselves to lighten their workloads. The NSTED recognizes the need to establish minimum working hours and workloads for teachers. However, any such policy would be countervailed if personnel decisions continue to permit teachers to be assigned to schools where they are in fact not needed.

DISCUSSION The discussion regarding teacher supply and demand has long focused on whether the pay and conditions of employment of teachers are adequate to attract the number of people into the profession that would be sufficient to meet the needs of the education system (Zabalza, 1979). Mulkeen found in many Anglophone countries in Africa that the compensation packages offered to teachers is attractive to candidates with lower academic qualifications who likely have less alternative opportunities for employment. Teaching colleges, therefore, attract those who cannot get places in other postsecondary courses (Mulkeen, 2010). Teachers’ salaries are generally seen as low and the conditions of service are considered poor, both contributing

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

93

to teaching being a profession of last resort or a stepping stone to other opportunities in many African countries (Education International, 2007). Education International recommends that teachers’ unions ‘‘fight to improve teachers’ salaries and conditions of service’’ (Education International, 2007). Analysis of teacher supply and demand in Malawi indicates that when the government has increased training capacity (by adding TTCs, expanding existing TTCs and introducing a distance-based training program), many more candidates present themselves than the training programs are able to accept. Teacher supply is not constrained by the unwillingness of potential teacher candidates to enter the profession, though as pointed out by Mulkeen (2010), many recruits go into teacher training pending the opportunity to move into something else. Rather the greatest break on teacher supply in Malawi is the limited resources the government has available to pay for adequate teacher training and support and to cover the wage bill of an expanded teaching force. In such a context any consideration of raising teacher salaries  a policy option often advocated as a way to assure a greater supply of teachers  could in fact further constrain supply since the available resources would cover an augmented salary for fewer teachers than it is possible to employ at current wage levels. Of greater priority should be correcting the distortions in school staffing caused by teacher assignment referred to above. Not only are primary school teachers mis-assigned, they are in general underutilized. In an education system suffering the kinds of shortages that have persisted in Malawi, one would expect that teachers would be over worked. However, Malawian teachers have one of the lightest work loads of any teachers in Sub-Saharan Africa. As a matter of policy, the teachers in lower standards of primary school are only expected to teach 3.5 hours each day. Those in the junior and senior standards are expected to teach 5 and 6 hours, respectively (Government of Malawi, 2008, p. 54). The school day is compressed into only the morning, with early grade students dismissed by 11:00, and older students staying to 12:30 and 13:30. This is done to not over tax young learners, and in principle to allow students to return home to eat a midday meal (Steiner-Khamsi & Kunje, 2011). Ironically, teachers in Malawi complain of being overworked, but they effectively work a part-time job, being present only for the morning hours at school. Even though the short school day and part-time nature of most teachers’ workloads described above would lend themselves quite conveniently to double shifting, very little, if any, double shifting occurs in Malawian primary schools. In most education systems with shortages of teachers and facilities, double shifting is the norm (Mulkeen, 2010). Implementation of

94

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

double shifting in Malawi would allow the system to lower class sizes, yet it is not done. If every standard 1–3 teacher worked a morning and afternoon shift, the pupil-to-teacher ratio in those standards could be immediately cut in half. Such a move should be an absolute priority for an education system that has completely unmanageable class sizes in the lower primary standards. However, double shifting is neither official policy for primary schools, nor is it something schools are choosing to do in order to meet the needs of the students and families they are meant to serve. The declaration of FPE eighteen years ago overwhelmed the school system in Malawi. The government and its development partners have tried numerous reforms and strategies to address the shortages of classrooms, materials, and teachers created by the huge immediate influx and continued steady growth of primary students. Large sums of government and external resources have poured into the education sector. Between 1999 and 2007, $483 million in development assistance for basic education flowed to Malawi (Rawle, 2009). This trend will continue, as evidenced by the financial analysis prepared in conjunction with Malawi’s 2010 application to the FTI’s Catalytic Fund. It was calculated that the total cost of implementing the government’s plans for basic education during the period from 2010 to 2014 would be approximately US$ 962 million for the four years. Of that, the government estimated it would contribute US$ 495 million (51%) and external funders committed an additional US$ 334 million (35%), leaving a gap of US$ 133 million (World Bank, 2010). Both the Malawian authorities and the funders who wish to support them have devoted considerable effort to determining how much additional money is needed for Malawi to make progress toward universal primary education. However, from the analyses presented in this chapter, it is clear that not enough effort has been put into responsible management of a key resource  teachers. There are important efficiency gains to be made in terms of how teachers are recruited, trained, deployed, and managed. The three facets of teacher deployment investigated through the analysis presented in this chapter all represent ways in which teachers could be deployed more efficiently. First, when teachers are assigned to school districts (or when they are accepted into a training program), the MoEST should do a better job identifying districts with the greatest need for teachers. In the 2008 NSTED, the ministry recognized that primary teaching posts should established at the school level  defining a position for a teacher based on a specific need at a school. Secondary school teaching posts are established in this way. Primary school positions are defined at the division (regional) level, leaving

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

95

too much latitude for allocation of teachers within divisions to districts and then schools (Government of Malawi, 2008). The analysis presented here indicates that by improving the targeting of teachers – whether by more rigorously enforcing the requirement that they be recruited from areas with identified shortages, or by better managing deployment so as to fill vacant posts at the school level  the number of students without a teacher could be reduced by as much as 25%. The Department for Teacher Education and Development, which oversees teacher recruitment (whether into TTCs or into the ODL training program), should do a better job selecting candidates from districts categorized as high need. The pool of candidates appears to be established this way, but the attention to high-need districts appears to be lost when trainees are selected from the broader pool. The second major source of inefficiency in teacher deployment in Malawi stems from the way in which teachers are assigned to schools and within schools to particular standards. Regarding assignment to schools, in a system with such a severe shortage of teachers there is no justification for assigning teachers to schools that are already fully staffed. If the MoEST is incapable of fending off the political pressure that leads to the spouses of government officials often being assigned to particular (often urban) schools without consideration for staffing need, then perhaps the Ministry of Finance or other arms of government more concerned with not wasting scarce resources to pay teachers to work in schools where they are not needed could support establishing and enforcing stricter criteria for teacher assignment based on demonstrated need. With respect to assigning primary teachers within schools, school directors need explicit directives that favor reduction of class sizes in lower standards. District education officials can analyze enrollment and teacher data to determine which schools need how many teachers (based on the official policy of a target pupil-to-teacher ratio of 60:1), as the analysis in this chapter has done. Teachers could then be allocated to a specific school and specific standard. The analysis of enrollment and teacher data presented in this chapter reveals that better assignment of teachers within schools, so that pupil-to-teacher ratios are more equitable across standards rather than skewed in a way that favors small classes in upper grades, could reduce the shortage of teachers by 14%. Eliminating practices like team teaching (a euphemism for more than one person being assigned to a single teaching position) and establishing an explicit teaching work load requirement as official policy would also help reduce unacceptably high class sizes. Human resource policies within the Malawian teacher service would need to be changed in order to link the ‘‘establishment post’’ to a specific school and

96

JOSEPH DESTEFANO

standard. The establishment post is what allows the government to approve resources for the remuneration of new teacher service positions. The shock delivered to the education system in 1994 clearly destabilized the sector and created a crisis of such large proportions that Malawi is yet to recover from it. To meet continuously growing demand for access to basic education, the country needs more teachers and needs to manage their placement better. As the analysis presented here shows, inefficiencies in teacher assignment exacerbate the shortage of primary school teachers. Some of the problem stems from the poor management capacity of the MoEST, but some of it also arises because the government and the agencies that provide large amounts of funding to support education in Malawi lack the will to impose policies that establish clear criteria and procedures for assigning teachers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study could not have been completed without the contributions of numerous individuals. Steve Harvey, the chief of party, and Charles Gunsaru, the senior policy advisor, for the Malawi Teacher Professional Development Support project were instrumental in helping assure the collection of data and advised on the analysis. Stanley Nyirenda and Paul Nkhoma, of Millennium Consulting and Business Services, collected and compiled all the data on teacher training colleges and the principals of those colleges were also instrumental in making those data available. The leadership and technical staff of the Department of Teacher Education and Development helped secure additional data on teacher training and placement as did the EMIS Section of the Department of Education Planning.

REFERENCES Education International. (2007). Teacher supply, recruitment and retention in six Anglophone Sub-Saharan African countries. Retrieved from http://www.ei.ie.org/. Accessed on August 11, 2012. Government of Malawi. (2008). National strategy for teacher education and development. Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Department of Teacher Education and Development. Government of Malawi. (2009). Education sector investment plan. Lilongwe, Malawi: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

Teacher Training and Deployment in Malawi

97

Malawi Local Education Donor Group. (2009). Appraisal of the government of Malawi’s education sector plans (NESP 2008-2017, ESIP 2009-2013). Washington, DC: EFA-FTI. Mulkeen, A. (2006). Teachers for rural schools: A challenge for Africa. Paper prepared for the ADEA biennial meeting in Libreville, Gabon. Mulkeen, A. (2010). Teachers in Anglophone Africa: Issues in teacher supply training and management. Washington, DC: World Bank. Murnane, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1989). The influences of salaries and opportunity costs on teachers career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Education Review, 59(3), 325–346. Ndalama, L., & Chidalengwa, G. (2010). Teacher deployment, utilization and workload in primary schools in Malawi: Policy and practice. Lilongwe, Malawi: DFID. Nilsson, P. (2003). Education for all: Teacher demand and supply in Africa. Working Paper No. 12. Education International, Brussels, Belgium. Nyirenda, S., & Nkhoma, P. (2012). Study on the IPTE and ODL cost efficiency, methodological report. Prepared for the Malawi Teacher Professional Development Support Activity. Lilongwe, Malawi: MTPDS. Rawle, G. (2009). Mid-term evaluation of the EFA fast track initiative, country desk study: Malawi. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Education. South African Council for Educators. (2010). A review of teacher demand and supply: Identifying research gaps and the role of SACE. Retrieved from http://www.sace.org.za/. Accessed on July 15, 2012. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Kunje, D. (2011). The third approach to enhancing teacher supply in Malawi: Volume 1, the UNICEF ESARO study on recruitment, utilization and retention of teachers. Lilongwe, Malawi: UNICE. World Bank. (2009). Abolishing school fees in Africa: Lessons from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Mozambique. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2010). Project to improve education quality in Malawi. Project appraisal document. Washington, DC: World Bank. Zabalza, A. (1979). The economics of teacher supply. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

ACHIEVING EFA BY 2015: LESSONS FROM BRAC’S PARA-PROFESSIONAL TEACHER MODEL IN AFGHANISTAN Arif Anwar and Mir Nazmul Islam ABSTRACT Purpose – The intent of this chapter is to examine the lessons that BRAC, a Bangladesh-based NGO, learned over the course of implementing its para-professional teacher model in Afghanistan and Bangladesh, and their implications for UNESCO’s Education for All (EFA) initiative. Methodology – The objectives of this chapter are achieved by the analysis of secondary sources such as reports and academic articles. Findings – We find that through a combination of strong oversight and management, BRAC’s para-teacher model compensates for its comparatively less formally trained teachers. This may serve as a model for nations implementing EFA initiatives by allowing them to hire more para-teachers as a cost-saving measure. Research limitations – This study is mainly reliant on secondary sources, which highlights the limited information on the quality of BRAC’s education efforts in Afghanistan. Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 99–119 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019010

99

100

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

Practical implications – Through a combination of strong oversight and practical training, BRAC has seemingly developed a robust para-teacher model, one that may be implemented in other contexts, especially in countries that are members of the EFA initiative and face a shortage of qualified teachers who can help achieve Universal Primary Education (UPE). Social implications – In addition to being a cost-saving measure for education, hiring para-teachers from local communities has the additional benefit of providing employment for women in rural communities, which may have a positive impact on women’s empowerment. Value – This chapter provides a unique look at innovations in teacher training by NGOs and their implications for the global contexts of the EFA initiative. Keywords: para-teachers; primary education; teacher training; Afghanistan; Bangladesh; south-based NGO

INTRODUCTION Conceived and coordinated by the UNESCO across more than 150 signatory countries and organizations around the world, the Education for All (EFA) initiative is a broad global education movement initiated in Jomtien, Thailand, in 1990. EFA’s objectives encompass early childhood care, universal primary education, life-skills for adolescents, adult literacy, gender parity, and education quality. These goals contribute to the overall Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) described by the United Nations and agreed to in principal by a number of signatory countries. So far, the progress toward the EFA goals has been mixed, especially for Goal 2, universal primary education by 2015. The EFA Global Monitoring Report (2011) cites the primary challenge to universal primary education as a high dropout rate precipitated by overcrowded classrooms, scarcity of materials, and under-qualified, unmotivated teachers. This last factor is most concerning, as a lack of teachers cannot be resolved simply through increased funding, given that teacher salaries continue to be a large portion of national education budgets (Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Grissmer & Kirby, 1997).

Achieving EFA by 2015

101

We contend that, provided an educational approach maintains strong oversight and quality curricular materials, hiring lower-qualified, ‘‘paraprofessional’’ teachers is a way to address the challenge of teacher shortages, while still upholding quality imperatives. An organization that has seen success in this measure is BRAC,1 an international non-governmental organization (NGO) that has successfully used the para-professional teacher model at scale in Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Following brief discussions of EFA, BRAC, and the para-teacher model in India, we detail BRAC’s experiences in Afghanistan and the lessons EFA signatory countries can draw from its successes.

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT: EFA AND EDUCATION QUALITY Sometimes at the expense of targeted localized innovation, focus, and quality, broad global development movements mobilize action. And while broad global movements coordinated by the United Nations and the World Bank have been criticized for replicating stratified colonial approaches to schooling that ‘‘perpetuate inequalities’’ (Biraimah, 2005), the exploration or analyses of these criticisms are outside of the scope of this chapter, as are discussions of issues of pragmatic concern, such as the general ineffectiveness of target setting in EFA (Goldstein, 2004; Jansen, 2005). A more constructive avenue perhaps is to highlight EFA’s general approach of emphasizing access over educational quality (Alexander, 2008). For example, of the six education goals listed by the EFA, access is listed second, while quality is sixth. For Goal 2, Universal Primary Education, or access, EFA uses the total primary net enroll rate (NER) as indicator of progress. For Goal 6, Quality of Education, the indicator is similarly quantitative: survival to Grade 5 (EFA Global Monitoring Report Team, 2011). Alexander (2008) calls this measurement of education quality ‘‘uncomfortably reductionist’’ (p. 8), even while acknowledging the difficulty of measuring and comparing quality of education across more than a hundred different nations. The 2011 EFA Global Monitoring Report admits that the issue of education quality has ‘‘lagged behind’’ that of access (p. 83), and a key factor has been the difficulty in training, employing, and retaining quality teachers in rural areas where they are often most needed. Even when these teachers are available, time spent off task and teacher absenteeism contribute greatly to the dearth

102

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

of education quality (Abadzi, 2007). The lack of teachers, we can conclude, is a key contributor to EFA’s challenges in meeting not just access, but quality needs as well. In this chapter, we focus on teacher training innovations in Bangladesh and Afghanistan, particularly on training innovations by the Bangladeshbased NGO BRAC, which has implemented its nonformal schools model extensively in both countries. Given that BRAC’s nonformal school model is strongly dependent on its specialized para-professional teachers, it is instructive to explore the changes and adjustments BRAC had to make to its para-professional teacher model when it began operations in Afghanistan. We believe that the para-teacher model holds promise for countries implementing EFA initiatives. By tracing BRAC’s implementation efforts in Bangladesh and Afghanistan, we hope to glean lessons that can inform the adoption of the para-teacher model in other contexts. The research questions that guided this chapter are: 1. What challenges did BRAC encounter in expanding education access and improving education quality in Bangladesh and Afghanistan? 2. What are the characteristics of the BRAC para-teacher model, including hiring, training, work conditions, and management, that have improved educational quality in Afghanistan? 3. What lessons do BRAC’s experiences in Bangladesh and Afghanistan hold for other nations implementing EFA and Universal Primary Education?

BACKGROUND The Para-Teacher Model Developing a trained teacher corps takes time, and motivating teachers to relocate to rural and remote areas where they are most needed is a challenge of an entirely different nature. One solution is to source less qualified teachers from local communities (Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2006; McEwan, 1999). These teachers, known as ‘‘para-professional,’’ ‘‘contract,’’ or ‘‘community’’ teachers (Robinson & Yi, 2008), normally have less formal training and experience than professional teachers, and are often lower paid. The para-teacher model has been attempted with varied success in a number of countries. We highlight the implementation in India followed by a

103

Achieving EFA by 2015

description of the BRAC model for expanding education access and improving education quality.

Para-Teachers in India The para-teacher or community teacher model has been implemented at scale in India, with more than 300,000 employed at last count (Govinda & Josephine, 2005). The rationale behind hiring these teachers is that ‘‘a local person appointed as teacher is better able to establish a good rapport with the local community’’ (Pandey, 2006, p. 2). India’s Shiksa Karmi (education worker) Project, which has driven the bulk of para-teacher hires in recent years, was initially implemented to address the critical shortage of teachers in seven Indian states. These ‘‘barefoot teachers belonging to the local community’’ (Ramachandran, 2001, p. 3) were to teach children in day schools, courtyard schools, and schools with flexible timing. Despite being implemented since 1987, the learning achievements for the Shiksa Karmi Project have been mixed, and the opaque and nonuniform hiring policies of the states involved have led to exploitation of parateachers desperate to be hired or made permanent. While small-scale studies in India have not found significant differences between the learning achievements of children taught by para-teachers (Kingdon & Sipahimalini-Rao, 2010; Leclercq, 2003), concerns exist about ‘‘the ethical, legal, and political difficulties of sustaining two different standards of employment between regular teachers and contract teachers’’ (Kingdon, 2007). Govinda and Josephine (2005) conclude that ‘‘[a]ppointing teachers on contract as a cost-saving measure under exploitative conditions of service is not only indefensible but also reprehensible’’ (p. 221). India’s Shiksa Karmi experience is instructive, in that para-teachers should be one part of a holistic reform of educational priorities rather than simple cost-saving measures, as ably demonstrated by BRAC’s efforts in Bangladesh.

The BRAC Model In many EFA signatory nations, the challenge of meeting EFA goals has been shared between government, non-government, and private organizations. NGOs in particular, play critical roles in mitigating the overall number of out-of-school children in countries where the government is unable to meet educational demands on its own. Bangladesh is one example

104

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

of such a robust partnership between government and NGOs in tackling educational demand at the primary level. BRAC is the largest NGO in Bangladesh. Including 63,000 part-time para-professional teachers. BRAC employs more than 90,000 employees worldwide (BRAC Annual Report, 2011). Although initially focused on expediting relief and rehabilitation services to refugees returning from India following the Bangladesh War of Independence in 1971, BRAC has expanded its services in recent years to health, microfinance, and education alongside smaller, targeted development activities. Notable among its initial successes has been an expansion of a nationwide tuberculosis (TB) vaccination program that incentivized the completion of TB drug courses, and BRAC has popularized the use of oral rehydration salts (ORS) to replenish vital fluids of those affected by water-borne illnesses such as cholera (Ahmed & French, 2006). Micro-credit forms a large component of BRAC’s development work, generating much of the revenue that BRAC re-invests in other projects. With 5 million micro-credit clients, BRAC is the second largest micro-credit provider in Bangladesh, following Grameen Bank (Economist, 2012). Through a variety of businesses such as seed mills, dairy farms, and textiles that provide raw materials and marketing services to clients, BRAC has created a ‘‘closed loop,’’ where profits are reinvested in development activities. The revenue from these commercial interests, along with those from providing microfinance services, has allowed BRAC to be up to 70% self-funded, with the exception of its largely donor-funded education program, which runs a nation-wide network of nonformal primary schools in Bangladesh. Begun initially with 25 experimental schools in 1987, BRAC’s education program now operates more than 13,000 pre-primary and 24,000 primary schools in Bangladesh, with a total learner body of 1 million, overwhelmingly the children of the poor and the landless. Although BRAC now operates in 11 countries around the world, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are the two countries with the most extensive implementations of BRAC’s nonformal education model. In Afghanistan, BRAC currently operates more than 4,000 schools with a total learner body of 100,000. Supported financially by donors such as Norway, Canada, and the Netherlands, BRAC schools are always free (BRAC Annual Report, 2011). BRAC opens nonformal schools in new areas only following close coordination and communication with local communities. New schools are opened if pre-opening surveys confirm a minimum number of school-age children who may attend. Once an area’s eligible school-age children have

Achieving EFA by 2015

105

been exhausted, the school is closed and another opens in a new location. Schoolhouses are established close to the homes of most learners so that the walk to school is short. School hours are set in coordination with parents to leave children free to assist at home or in the field as needed. The schoolhouses are one-room bamboo or mud-wall structures. The School Management Committee (SMC) is normally composed of the teacher, parents, and local community leaders. Teacher–student ratios at BRAC schools are typically 1:33 (compared to about 1:70 in government schools), and girls receive enrollment and leadership priority to promote gender empowerment. BRAC schools employ a female teacher with at least a tenth-grade education, who teaches for 3–4 hours a day. BRAC uses much of its own curricular materials for the first three years of schooling, transitioning to government materials for the final two. BRAC schools aim to provide five years of equivalent government schooling in four years by increasing the contact hours between the teachers and students (Latif, 2004). To reduce pressure at home, BRAC school students are not assigned homework, and no annual assessments are conducted of their progress, apart from informal periodic assessments administered by BRAC’s own network of education monitors. Program organizers (POs) act as roving day-to-day managers who visit schools in a catchment area to provide pedagogical and management assistance to teachers. A critical factor in the longevity, expansion, and overall success of the BRAC nonformal school model has been its approach to teacher recruitment and training. Unlike government schools where teachers normally hold postsecondary certification, BRAC schoolteachers have lower levels of formal training and experience, typically a Grade 10 education and no previous instructional practice. Hiring lower-qualified community teachers has allowed BRAC to rapidly expand and – unfortunately – shed, hiring to meet opening goals (Ahmed & French, 2006). Compared to full-time government teachers, these teachers are more likely to be females and married, and befitting their nominal pay, teach for fewer hours a day to a smaller classroom. For BRAC, hiring locally eliminates the need for teachers to travel or relocate, often a cause for teacher shortages in rural areas (Hannum & Park, 2002; Mulkeen, 2005). Additionally, reduced expenditure for teacher salary has reified into a lowered cost-per-student for BRAC schools, allowing BRAC to scale up its school network dramatically when needed (Ahmed & French, 2006). BRAC’s strategy for teacher recruitment and training evinces a focus on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. For prospective teacher candidates, BRAC

106

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

considers marital and socioeconomic status to determine the likelihood of the teacher relocating from the community; physical fitness to determine if the teacher is able to travel to the school on a regular basis and able to teach for extended periods and a general commitment to working outside the home. Married teachers are favored to unmarried ones to reduce the likelihood of relocation after marriage. For married teachers, the presence and age of their children is considered for impact on the teacher’s availability (Islam & Anwar, 2012). Much of the research on BRAC schools emerges from BRAC’s own Research and Evaluation Department (RED) and rarely focuses on a systematic analysis. Farrell (2007) notes the ‘‘laudatory’’ nature of the available literature focusing on successful nonformal initiatives such as BRAC and Escuela Nueva in Latin America, warning that the individuals behind these programs are ‘‘human’’ and ‘‘learning as they go’’ (p. 386). Sweetser (1999) observes that while BRAC has taken notable steps toward encouraging child-centered learning in its classrooms, especially in comparison to government schools, the predominant teaching style is still based on rote learning. However, studies show that graduates of the nonformal school sector in Bangladesh, dominated by BRAC, show more success in achieving basic competencies compared to their government counterparts. Of nonformal school girls (aged 11–12), 34.5% achieved basic educational competencies, compared to 18.9% of government students, and 44.0% of nonformal school boys achieved competencies, compared to 24.2% of government students. This trend was more strongly observed in rural areas than in urban ones (Chowdhury, Choudhury, & Nath, 1999). In Bangladesh, more than 90% of BRAC school graduates enrolled in formal schools. Given the lack of formal assessment mechanisms in BRAC schools, this is considered a quality indicator. However, the dropout rate of BRAC school graduates, once enrolled in formal schools, was high. Among possible factors for this higher dropout rate are the inability of some students to adjust to the higher student-to-teacher ratio, food insecurity, and the socioeconomic status of the family, with children of lower socioeconomic status more likely to dropout than not (Nath, 2003).

METHODS This chapter derives in part from the authors’ previous report on BRAC’s education efforts in Afghanistan (Islam & Anwar, 2012). We use some personal communications from Islam (2005), external evaluations,

Achieving EFA by 2015

107

monitoring, and annual reports from BRAC Bangladesh and BRAC Afghanistan, in addition to existing studies on EFA, and EFA Annual Reports.

AFGHANISTAN CONTEXT By late 2001, apart from small-scale replications by NGOs outside of Bangladesh, the BRAC nonformal school model had only been implemented at scale in its country of origin. During this same period, BRAC became interested in expanding internationally to Afghanistan (Smillie, 2009). For BRAC, exporting its development and education model to Afghanistan would be a challenge, as although both Afghanistan and Bangladesh were low-income, predominantly Sunni Muslim countries located in South Asia, they differed in important ways. Afghanistan was socially very conservative, ethnically, and linguistically diverse, and much less densely populated. Critically, despite being technically post-conflict, a low-grade attritional war between the government, occupying forces, the Taliban, and regional warlords had in Afghanistan waged since 2002. In comparison, Bangladesh was linguistically and ethnically homogenous, socially moderate, densely populated, and had a network of enduring and established public institutions and government services. Despite periods of political turmoil and military rule, Bangladesh had not experienced war since its independence in 1971. Given that in 2001 BRAC’s development experiences had fully matured in the specific sociopolitical, demographic, and geographic contexts of Bangladesh, it is of interest to examine the adaptations the NGO made to its development approach in its early years in Afghanistan. Islam and Anwar (2012) detail BRAC’s initial experiences in Afghanistan, beginning in 2002, when BRAC sent an early exploratory team to assess potential areas of operations. However, this decision carried inherent risks. Years of war had left Afghanistan’s administrative and public services crumbling. Taliban rule meant severe restrictions on freedom of movement and education for women and girls, and regional warlordism was widespread. This context created an environment of general mistrust of development and development workers, which sometimes exploded into violence (Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO), 2009). BRAC arrived without the demerits of association with large multinational development organizations like the United Nations and the World Bank and, by adopting a carefully humble lifestyle for their employees, avoided the distancing from the local populace that some development

108

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

workers inadvertently trigger, known as ‘‘white SUV syndrome.’’ BRAC staff, weak in English, were encouraged to learn Pashto and Dari, the two major languages in Afghanistan. For inspiration and possibly in anticipation of challenges, BRAC managers were encouraged to approach their work in the country with a missionary zeal, and told to share their development experience with their Afghan ‘‘brothers and sisters’’ to help rebuild their education infrastructure (Islam & Anwar, 2012, p. 61). Islam and Anwar (2012) call this a ‘‘South-empathetic’’ (p. 51) approach to development, and on appearance, it was at least modestly successful; Afghans reported feeling inclined toward receiving assistance from a fellow Sunni Muslim country sharing similar historical and cultural ties (Chowdhury, Aminul Alam, & Ahmed, 2006).

BRAC NONFORMAL SCHOOLS IN AFGHANISTAN The crumbling infrastructure and power vacuum in Afghanistan presented BRAC with an opportunity to define educational reconstruction on its own terms. BRAC managers worked carefully with local and central government officials to guide the nascent Afghanistan educational system toward inclusion and empowerment for girls. Even though it risked the ire of the Taliban, BRAC established 24 schools in the Parwan and Balkh provinces, with a target population of girls aged 11–15, in early 2002. The goals for this phase were to assess the education system and attitudes of local communities toward BRAC activities at a micro level. Initial activities included fact-finding missions, parental and community member contact, and the encouragement of positive views toward girls’ education in local stakeholders. To this end, BRAC coordinated extensively with both local and central government officials (BRAC Afghanistan Annual Report, 2009). In its first year in Afghanistan, BRAC faced unexpected challenges. The lack of national newspapers in the country forced BRAC to advertise job openings through roadside signs thus limiting awareness. Compared to its experiences in the more educated, densely populated, and socially moderate Bangladesh, BRAC had difficulty recruiting sufficient numbers of qualified female staff from local communities. Not only were fewer educated female candidates available, but those qualified were unwilling to work for social or security reasons. When it was lucky enough to find some, BRAC only scheduled female candidates for oral and written

Achieving EFA by 2015

109

interviews, provided they had obtained permission from a male head of household. BRAC had years of material development experience from Bangladesh, but was short of original materials in Afghan languages. To this end, experienced BRAC material development experts worked with Afghan BRAC staff to translate training modules and training materials to Dari and Pashto, the two major Afghan languages. Given that new school models were developed for the Afghan context, BRAC staff rewrote teacher training manuals, teacher guide books, lesson distribution plans, charts, and cards entirely. The same unit charged with developing training material also developed story and reading books for the soon to be opened BRAC schools in Afghanistan (Islam, 2005). Other than for pedagogical content, the training imparted to Afghan BRAC teachers was identical to that received by their Bangladeshi counterparts. BRAC teachers in Afghanistan received twelve days of basic training on pedagogical content, such as Dari (a local language derived from Farsi), mathematics, and English. Additionally, the teachers were trained in teaching for comprehension, building relationships with parents, classroom management, and issues such as access, equity, and education quality. Following this initial training period, the teachers received monthly ‘‘refresher’’ training at BRAC Headquarters. Teachers who were unable or unwilling to travel overnight were allowed to attend training at BRAC offices close to their home (Islam & Anwar, 2012). An explanation for BRAC’s aggressive foray into Afghanistan so soon after the end of hostilities in 2001 can be attributed to the NGO’s ambitions. Having developed an ability to quickly take initiatives to scale and a robust management infrastructure, BRAC was eager to apply its development model in other settings (Smillie, 2009). This decision came with rewards and risks, the latter realized in the kidnapping and murder of several BRAC workers in Afghanistan since 2002 (Daily Star, 2012). Although BRAC’s experiences in Afghanistan provided the organization with a springboard to expand to 11 other countries, at this time Afghanistan remains the first and most extensive implementation of the BRAC education model outside of Bangladesh. BRAC now operates more than 4,000 schools in Afghanistan, with a combined student body of more than 100,000, and has hired more than 4,000 para-teachers (BRAC Annual Report, 2011). Currently, the only available metric for quality of BRAC’s education efforts in Afghanistan is the rate of transition of BRAC students into the government schools, a particularly high rate of 92% (BRAC Annual Report, 2011). On appearance, this metric provides an incomplete picture of

110

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

the overall quality of BRAC schools in Afghanistan, but it should be considered in the context of a country still beset by low-grade conflict, with an educational infrastructure being reconstructed from almost complete destruction, and a social environment where female learners still fear for their lives, as evinced by the recent attempt on the life of Malala Yousufzai in Pakistan’s Swat region.

Teacher Recruitment and Training in Afghanistan The previous general section on BRAC nonformal schools in Afghanistan, which provided an overview of the teacher selection process in Afghanistan, is expanded upon here with the specifics of the teacher selection, recruitment, and training process implemented by BRAC in 2002. In Afghanistan, BRAC tasked ‘‘area managers’’ in each province with recruiting teachers for BRAC schools. Although these area managers were experienced field workers, much of their experience had been in a different context, and they had to make adaptations where necessary. Given the lack of a national daily newspaper in Afghanistan in 2002, BRAC advertised teacher positions using road-side signs near their offices. This approach saw more success in the comparatively liberal North, where female candidates – many returning from refugee camps in Pakistan – did approach BRAC to apply for teacher positions. In conservative southern Afghanistan, however, BRAC had to resort to more active methods, such as dispatching POs to villages to approach women with appropriate educational backgrounds to apply to become BRAC school teachers. Simultaneously, BRAC lowered its requirement that teacher candidates have a minimum of ten years of schooling in order to expand the pool of applicants. Provided women were able to obtain permission to apply for teacher positions from their head of household, BRAC was eventually able to recruit more teachers for its schools, although still at a lower rate than in the North (BRAC personnel, Personal communication, 2005). Following application, teacher candidates were given a date of interview to attend oral and written exams at the local BRAC office. BRAC carried out schoolhouse selection in a manner similar to its Bangladesh operations. Appropriate schoolhouses were selected jointly with local community leaders and parents of selected learners. Their advice was followed to find potential house owners in the community willing to rent out space. This ‘‘schoolhouse’’ committee typically nominated a volunteer

111

Achieving EFA by 2015

tasked with finding a suitable schoolhouse. This volunteer also negotiated the terms of the final agreement signed by BRAC and the house owner. However, as with the teacher candidates, compromises had to be made in schoolhouse selection in Afghanistan. While it had been easy to find schoolhouses with the minimum number of doors, windows, and space that BRAC required in Bangladesh, such houses were harder to come by in the colder, more sparsely populated Afghanistan. In Bangladesh, if satisfactory schoolhouses could not be found, they could be built quickly to specification, constructed from thatch and bamboo in a matter of weeks. The mud-walled houses in Afghanistan, in comparison – designed to keep out the cold – took as long as three months to build, slowing the rate of school openings.

School Management Committee The same schoolhouse committee that picked schoolhouses in Afghanistan formed the nucleus of the SMCs. SMCs advise on classroom size, school periods, school activities, and maintenance and sanitation facilities to be provided. Given the sociocultural challenges of transplanting a development model from another country, BRAC was heavily reliant on SMCs in its initial years of operation in Afghanistan, where, as in Bangladesh, SMCs are formed with seven members, comprising three parents (two mothers and a father), a community leader, an ‘‘education patron’’ community leader, one teacher, and a BRAC PO. The responsibilities of the SMC include ensuring regular attendance for teachers and students, advising on education quality, ensuring schoolhouse construction and maintenance, fostering a ‘‘healthy relationship’’ between students and parents, and administrative tasks, such as ensuring regular meetings (BRAC Annual Report, 2011).

Staff Development Understanding the BRAC training model in terms of its format and recipients is crucial to the understanding of BRAC para-teacher model. BRAC’s management and support staff are trained to mitigate the educational shortcomings of BRAC para-teachers. BRAC POs, field workers tasked with supervising schools and assisting teachers, play a strong role in school oversight. In both Bangladesh and Afghanistan, BRAC POs receive

112

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

regular short training courses to develop practical day-to-day problem solving skills necessary for proper school management (Islam, 2005). BRAC POs receive an initial eighteen-day residential training on topics such as BRAC’s history and development model, educational development in Afghanistan, and BRAC ‘‘values and culture’’. These ‘‘theoretical’’ training sessions comprise the first three days of training, following which the trainee POs shadow more experienced colleagues for the remainder of training. The shadowing allows trainee POs to observe BRAC schools, the teaching– learning process, school supervision techniques, and other office activities. POs are also given an opportunity during this period to familiarize themselves with BRAC guidebooks, manuals, and research reports. The three broad categories for PO training are operations, supportive supervision and monitoring, and master trainer training. Of these, the first is intended to ‘‘orient the trainees for better school management and community-based survey’’ (Islam, 2005). Supportive supervision and monitoring covers textbook content for Grades 1–3, teaching–learning, and utilization of teaching–learning materials (BRAC, 2012). Master trainer training delivers to POs subject-specific pedagogical skills (e.g., mathematics and English) that they can, in turn, impart to teachers. During these sessions, POs observe demonstrations of lesson and teaching delivery, and they role-play teaching in the classroom. This is critical, as BRAC POs not only have administrative duties but are also expected to teach the classrooms in schools under their care. It is important to note that POs, who have at minimum a bachelor’s degree, are typically better educated than teachers. In this way, POs compensate for the lack of formal education and training of BRAC teachers. Although BRAC schools lack a formal assessment mechanism, POs fill this gap by administering ‘‘surprise quizzes’’ to students and continually assessing student achievement to maintain a real-time gauge of education quality. The observations of POs are shared in monthly refresher meetings with BRAC teachers. The PO is a position perhaps unique to BRAC. BRAC staff compare them to head teachers of formal schools, in that they not only teach classes but also supervise and coordinate the activities of other school staff (Islam, 2005). Most POs are responsible for between 7 and 15 schools. Here again, adjustments had to be made so that the PO model can address the unique circumstances in Afghanistan, because although female POs could travel easily from village to village in Bangladesh, in Afghanistan two female POs had to be assigned to work together for security reasons. As expected, this also affected the rate at which schools could be opened in Afghanistan.

113

Achieving EFA by 2015

Teacher Development Although BRAC para-teachers are, on the whole, less qualified than government teachers, they are more numerous, and thoroughly and consistently trained to mitigate their educational shortcomings. In a typical refresher course, the training content is divided equally between theory and hands on teacher training and role-play. During the initial three days of training, BRAC para-teachers are oriented on discipline and regulations, preparatory phases, student attendance, parental meetings, class routines, target setting, and role demonstration. Educational materials and class supplies are only disbursed once this initial training period is complete. The intent of this orientation phase is to provide teachers with the same practical classroom and school management skills given to the POs. These initial lessons are then repeated, expanded, or revised as necessary during the monthly refresher trainings that all teachers are required to attend.

Case Study: Nooria – BRAC Para-Teacher in Afghanistan Nooria (name changed), a housewife in Samangan province in the North, joined BRAC as a teacher upon returning from a refugee camp in Peshawar, Pakistan, following the War of 2001. In the Peshawar refugee camp, Nooria had set up and run a classroom for children, following requests from their parents. Even though Nooria had no formal training as a teacher, only a tenth-grade education, an unemployed husband and six children, she tried to do the best she could for her students with her limited resources. After attending her initial BRAC training, Nooria described the training system as ‘‘effective’’ and ‘‘helpful,’’ giving her ‘‘necessary’’ information regarding teaching techniques and methods, of which she admits having been ‘‘totally ignorant’’ prior to her orientation. While we note that Nooria’s training compares poorly with those of government or formally trained teachers, she is representative of the vast majority of BRAC para-teachers in Afghanistan. Nooria described 12 days of training that were divided by grade. Following training on Grade 1 subjects, Nooria completed six days of special refreshers courses focused on Grade 2. Among these, Nooria found mathematics to be the most difficult, but reported being helped by a special two-day training on mathematics. Given her lack of formal training in teaching, Nooria found the entire training session to be ‘‘very helpful.’’ Finally, Nooria shared with us some of the practical challenges she

114

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

encountered as a BRAC teacher and how she resolved them. When parents were reluctant to send their girls to school, Nooria reported that she politely urged them to reconsider, citing the need to educate girls as much as the boys. Overall, Nooria felt that the community was happy with her and satisfied with her work. As the sole female teacher in her village, she felt that she had garnered the community’s respect for having travelled so far away from her home to teach there (Personal communication, 2005).

School Types in Afghanistan The BRAC nonformal school models implemented in Bangladesh feature pre-primary schools for 4–6-year olds and primary schools for 8–12–year olds learners. This model, like many other aspects of the BRAC education model, was adjusted for Afghanistan, where BRAC eventually implemented three distinct school types, all based on a basic Community Based Schools (CBS) model and operated in rural areas with significant cooperation and assistance from local communities. Typically, CBS schools are opened in clusters in areas of comparatively high population densities. Teachers in CBS schools are typically female and selected in consultation with the community. The three sub-types that comprise BRAC’s CBS schools are Feeder Schools (FS), Basic Education for Older Children Schools (BEOCs), and Non-formal Primary Education Schools (NFPES). Feeder schools prepare children for Grade 2 compentencies of the Afghan formal primary education system. BEOC schools provide two years of study, target an older group of children, and ensure competencies up to Grade 3. Following the same format, Non-formal Primary Schools prepare students to join the formal primary education system starting at a Grade 5 level. In partnership with UNESCO, BRAC has implemented the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) in Afghanistan to help students whose schooling has been interrupted through war to catch up to their peers. ALP is implemented in a similar manner to the CBS school model, with community members comprising a committee that selects teachers and students, and negotiates schoolhouse requirements with locals. BRAC also implements the Emergency Education Rehabilitation and Development Project (EERDP) in Afghanistan, a joint venture with the World Bank. EERDP focuses on procedural and administrative improvements to the Afghanistan education system, including in teacher training, school construction, social mobilization, and idea exchange between concerned stakeholders. According to

115

Achieving EFA by 2015

BRAC staff, one of the primary tasks of the EERDP project is to improve the ‘‘pedagogical efficiency of teachers’’ (Islam, 2005).

DISCUSSION Although at a smaller scale, BRAC provides an interesting parallel to the EFA movement. Both emphasize aggressive expansion of primary education and gender parity, and both have emphasized educational access over quality. We find that the debate over education quality is founded on two potentially flawed premises. The first that educational access necessarily comes at the expense of quality (Wedgwood, 2007). We reject this ‘‘zerosum’’ analysis of the access/quality paradigm for education, and contend that access can be expanded in ways that do not compromise quality, provided that fundamentals such as management and training are strong. The second flawed premise, based on an ‘‘input/output’’ model of education quality (O’Sullivan, 2006), holds that teacher qualifications are an appropriate metric for the quality of an educational system. However, we stress that, lower qualifications of para-teachers become less of an issue when para-teachers are properly and specifically utilized as complementary to traditional teachers rather than as replacements. Para-teachers can provide out-of-school children with targeted and specific skills that can be expanded upon in formal school settings (Nath, 2002). We feel that the success of BRAC students in government schools illustrates this, at least in the Bangladeshi context. For Afghanistan, while we acknowledge the effective adaptation of the para-teacher model, we still await data on the education quality of BRAC schools there. The lower qualifications of BRAC para-teachers, and para-teachers in general, has engendered concerns about the impact on education quality (Kingdon & Sipahimalani-Rao, 2010; Pandey, 2006). However, Farrell and Oliveira (1993) calculate that the minimum level of formal schooling required for teachers is only slightly above that of the students, with negligible returns for investment in additional formal schooling for primary teachers. BRAC’s approach of recruiting teachers with a minimum of a tenth-grade education to teach first- through fifth-grade students would seem to be safely above this minimum level. Interestingly, in contrast to the focus of ever expanding teacher training and collaboration, BRAC has instead ‘‘spread’’ training and resources among a group of ‘‘pedagogical workers,’’ such as POs and monitors, alongside teachers, seeing the

116

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

development of a mobile cadre of pedagogy experts as a better investment than a group of highly trained, but less mobile teachers. BRAC’s hierarchical and extensive management system, requiring regular visits and coordination between a nationwide network of POs, monitors, and area managers, is strong. BRAC demonstrates that the educational shortcomings of para-teachers can be compensated through continuous training throughout the course of their employment, competent oversight and management, responsive support, and high-quality curricular materials. Any consideration of adopting a para-teacher program should be predicated on developing similar robust management models and quality curricular materials to compensate for the teachers’ inexperience and shortened formal training. This balancing of ‘‘low-quality inputs’’ of students, teachers, and buildings with ‘‘higher-quality teaching and learning environment,’’ along with an acceptable level of parental and community participation (Chabbott, 2006), ensures BRAC schools’ long-term sustainability. Apart from education quality, especially in the Afghan context, hiring para-teachers may hold unstated and underreported impacts on female employment and empowerment. Many BRAC para-teachers were housewives, women with adequate education who would otherwise be occupied as homemakers, likely given few opportunities to utilize or expand on their literacy skills. In this way, the para-teacher phenomenon may be a factor in the slow but inexorable move toward progressive attitudes on women’s empowerment seen in Bangladesh. But to its demerit, BRAC is yet to adopt a ‘‘mainstreaming’’ system for its para-teachers. BRAC para-teachers teach in limited capacities, are often bereft of employment upon school closing, and garner few prospects for career advancement even after many years of service. Although this can be mitigated through professional development training on a continuing basis, given BRAC’s focus on keeping teacher salaries at a manageable level, it is unlikely to happen soon. A halfway measure between fully trained teachers and para-teachers has been attempted in Zimbabwe, where trainee teachers completed a concentrated four-month theory course in college and went out to teach in schools for three years before returning for an additional four months to receive certification. Called the Zimbabwe Integrated Teacher Education Course (ZINTEC), this experiment solved immediate shortages but eventually created a glut of unemployed teachers (Ndawi, 1997). Clearly, para-teacher programs should be pursued with longer-term objectives in mind. Existing professional teachers are likely to protest and contest wider implementation of the para- or contract-teacher model, seeing it as a threat to their livelihoods. Professional teacher organizations in India have decried

117

Achieving EFA by 2015

the devaluation of ‘‘the professional nature of teacher’s work’’ (Govinda & Josephine, 2005). Yet, it is the resistance of underpaid government teachers, some of whom are de-motivated to move to rural or hardships posts, that has given rise to experimentation with the para-teacher model. Ironically, motivation to become permanent or full-time teachers may drive some parateachers to acquiesce to exploitative working conditions (Pandey, 2006).

CONCLUSION The broad global goals of the EFA initiative, despite being vulnerable to criticism for focusing on access over quality, are intended to be a rallying cry for developing nations, driving them toward increasing access to primary education for all their youth through hiring more teachers, building infrastructure, and making holistic policy changes. EFA has seen some impressive progress in the area of universal primary education and gender parity, but challenges of high dropout rates remain (EFA Global Monitoring Report Team, 2011), caused at least in part by a lack of qualified teachers. In most countries, the most significant cost-driver for education is teacher salaries (Mehrotra & Buckland, 1998). BRAC recognized this fact early and has aggressively reduced its expenditures on teacher salaries by hiring parateachers. These teachers, although less qualified than traditional teachers, perform their specific tasks well and are ably supported by BRAC’s robust management and monitoring staff. BRAC’s education program is an example of how a carefully managed and well-planned para-teacher scheme can lower unit costs thus expanding access, while retaining an acceptable level of education quality. Generation of employment opportunities for rural women is an added benefit of the para-, contract or community teacher model. As interconnected as the overall goals of the EFA are, so are the challenges, and the benefits of addressing one will likely cascade to another. BRAC’s experiences show that a well-managed para-teacher model can positively impact education access while upholding quality imperatives.

NOTE 1. BRAC was initially called the Bangladesh Rehabilitation Assistance Committee, and then the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee, but the acronym is no longer representative of a longer name, as BRAC has expanded its work beyond rural settings and national boundaries.

118

ARIF ANWAR AND MIR NAZMUL ISLAM

REFERENCES Abadzi, H. (2007). Instructional time loss and local-level governance. Prospects, 37(1), 3–16. Afghanistan NGO Safety Office [ANSO]. (2009). Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, 2009 quarter 3 report. Kabul, Afghanistan: Author. Ahmed, S., & French, M. (2006). Scaling up: The BRAC experience. BRAC University Journal, 3(2), 35–40. Alexander, R. J. (2008). Education for All, the quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy. Sussex: CREATE, University of Sussex. Biraimah, K. (2005). Achieving equitable outcomes or reinforcing societal inequalities? A critical analysis of UNESCO Education for All and the United States No Child Left Behind programs. Educational Practice and Theory, 27(2), 25–34. BRAC Afghanistan Annual Report. (2009). BRAC Afghanistan. Kabul. BRAC Annual Report. (2012). BRAC. Dhaka. Chabbott, C. (2006). Meeting EFA: Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) Primary Schools. Case Study. Washington, DC: Education Policy and Data Centre. Chaudhury, N., Hammer, J., Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K., & Rogers, F. H. (2006). Missing in action: Teacher and health worker absence in developing countries. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 91–116. Chowdhury, A. M. R., Aminul Alam, M., & Ahmed, J. (2006). Development knowledge and experience: From Bangladesh to Afghanistan and beyond. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(8), 677–681. Chowdhury, A. R., Choudhury, R. K., & Nath, S. R. (Eds.). (1999). Hope not complacency: State of primary education in Bangladesh, 1999. Dhaka: University Press Ltd. Daily Star. (2012, May). BRAC official killed in Afghanistan. Retrieved from http://www. thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=232817 Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14. Economist. (2012, October 28). Bangladesh and development: The path through the fields. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21565617-bangladesh-hasdysfunctional-politics-and-stunted-private-sector-yet-it-has-been-surprisingly. Accessed on November 4, 2012. EFA Global Monitoring Report Team. (2011). The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education. EFA global monitoring report: Education for all. Paris: UNESCO. Farrell, J. P. (2007). Community education in developing countries. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He & J. A. Phillion (Eds.), The Sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 369–389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Farrell, J. P., & Oliveira, J. B. (1993). Teachers in developing countries: Improving effectiveness and managing costs. EDI Seminar Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Goldstein, H. (2004). Education for all: The globalization of learning targets. Comparative Education, 40(1), 7–14. Govinda, R., & Josephine, Y. (2005). Para-teachers in India: A review. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 2(2), 193–224. Grissmer, D., & Kirby, S. (1997). Teacher turnover and teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 99(1), 45–56. Hannum, E., & Park, A. (2002). Educating China’s rural children in the 21st century. Harvard China Review, 3(2), 8–14.

Achieving EFA by 2015

119

Islam, M. N. (2005). Rebuilding girls’ education in Afghanistan, learning from BRAC’s Afghanistan experience: A case study. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Oslo, Norway. Islam, M. N., & Anwar, A. (2012). BRAC in Afghanistan: Building South-South partnerships in teacher training. Prospects, 1–16. Jansen, J. D. (2005). Targeting education: The politics of performance and the prospects of Education For All. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4), 368–380. Kingdon, G. G. (2007). The progress of school education in India. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(2), 168–195. Kingdon, G. G., & Sipahimalani-Rao, V. (2010). Para-teachers in India: Status and impact. Economic and Political weekly, 45(12), 20–26. Latif, S. (2004). Improvements in the quality of primary education in Bangladesh 1990–2002. Washington, DC: UNESCO. Leclercq, F. (2003). Education guarantee scheme and primary schooling in Madhya Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly, 1855–1869. McEwan, P. J. (1999). Recruitment of rural teachers in developing countries: An economic analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(8), 849–859. Mehrotra, S., & Buckland, P. (1998). Managing teacher costs for access and quality. Evaluation, Policy and Planning Series. New York, NY: UNICEF. Mulkeen, A. (2005). Teachers for rural schools: A challenge for Africa. Paper presented at Ministerial Seminar on Education for Rural People in Africa: Policy lessons, options and priorities, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from http://www.adeanet.org/adeaPortal/ adea/biennial2006/doc/document/B2_2_mulkeen_en.pdf Nath, S. R. (2002). The transition from non-formal to formal education: The case of BRAC, Bangladesh. International Review of Education, 48(6), 517–524. Nath, S. R. (2003). Basic competencies of the graduates of BRAC non-formal primary schools declining. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/3445400. Accessed on March, 25, 2008. Ndawi, O. P. (1997). Education for all by the year 2000 (EFA 2000) in some countries in Africa: Can teacher education ensure the quantity, quality and relevance of that education? International Journal of Educational Development, 17(2), 121–128. O’Sullivan, M. (2006). Lesson observation and quality in primary education as contextual teaching and learning processes. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(3), 246–260. Pandey, S. (2006). Para-teacher scheme and quality education for all in India: Policy perspectives and challenges for school effectiveness. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(3), 319–334. Ramachandran, V. (2001). Community participation in primary education: Innovations in Rajasthan. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(25), 2244–2250. Robinson, B., & Yi, W. (2008). The role and status of non-governmental (‘daike’) teachers in China’s rural education. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(1), 35–54. Smillie, I. (2009). Freedom from want: The remarkable success story of BRAC, the global grassroots organization that’s winning the fight against poverty. Kumarian Press. Sweetser, A. T. (1999). Lessons from the BRAC non-formal primary education program. Washington, DC: ABEL Clearinghouse for Basic Education, Academy for Educational Development. Wedgwood, R. (2007). Education and poverty reduction in Tanzania. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(4), 383–396.

PART III PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TEACHER EVALUATION

TEACHER LICENSE RENEWAL POLICY IN JAPAN Motoko Akiba ABSTRACT Purpose – The study examined: (1) the implementation of the 2009 Teacher License Renewal Policy (TLRP) by a large national university; (2) teachers’ responses to the TLRP, which requires teachers to take university courses to renew their licenses, and (3) completion rates for license renewal in 2011 and 2012. Methodology – This mixed-method study is based on: (1) a case study of TLRP implementation that involved observations of TLRP courses and interviews of instructors, TLRP steering committee members, and participating teachers at a large national university; and (2) a survey of 365 teachers who took the TLRP courses at this university. Findings – The data showed that the university’s successful implementation of the TLRP was largely influenced by the existence of ‘‘boundary practice’’ – a shared system that connects multiple organizations and groups implementing the policy. Lesson Study, as a shared system of teaching and learning improvement in Japan, guided the development of high-quality TLRP courses and teachers’ respect for university courses based on research knowledge. As a result, while teachers were dissatisfied with the policy requirement of renewing teacher licenses, they were

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 123–146 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019011

123

124

MOTOKO AKIBA

satisfied with their learning experiences through the TLRP courses, which also influenced their opinions about the policy itself. Value – This is the first empirical study that examined the implementation and impact of the TLRP in Japan. It highlights the importance of a shared system for teaching and learning improvement for supporting a teacher reform implementation. Keywords: professional development; license renewal policy; Japan; professionalism; Lesson Study; communities of practice

INTRODUCTION A highly contentious teacher accountability policy in Japan, Teacher License Renewal Policy (TLRP), was established in 2007 and has been implemented since 2009. This policy revised the 1949 Educational Personnel License Law for the first time by changing the permanent teacher license awarded to teachers upon completion of a teacher education program to a temporary license that needs to be renewed every 10 years. Every teacher, including those who received a permanent teacher license before 2009, is required to participate in 30 contact hours of university-offered courses called TLRP courses approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (Ministry of Education hereafter). Teachers are given 2 years prior to the date when their licenses expire to complete the TLRP courses. Since April 2009, over 90,000 teachers each year across the country (approximately 10% of the teacher population) have been required to complete the TLRP courses to renew their licenses, or lose their licenses and teaching positions (Ministry of Education, 2010a). Despite the highly debated nature of this national teacher accountability policy, few empirical studies have been conducted to examine how the TLRP has been implemented and how it influenced teachers. While prior studies identified the global and local contexts that influenced the development of TLRP (Akiba & Shimizu, 2012) and public and teacher opinions about the general impact of TLRP (Ministry of Education, 2010b), it is not yet known what characterizes the implementation and impacts of this national teacher accountability policy in Japan. To fill this knowledge gap, this study was conducted from 2010 to 2011 in the second and third years of the TLRP implementation. This mixed-method

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

125

study is based on: (1) a case study of TLRP implementation at a large national university University of Tsukuba that involved observations of TLRP courses and interviews of university professors who taught the TLRP courses, TLRP steering committee members, and teachers and (2) a survey of 365 teachers who took the TLRP courses at this university. The study is guided by the following research questions.  How was the TLRP implemented by a large national university?  How did teachers respond to the TLRP and TLRP courses?  What are the completion rates of TLRP courses to renew teacher licenses in 2011 and 2012 across the country? This study found that, despite the challenges identified by the university in offering TLRP courses, those who were involved were highly committed to offering high-quality courses to experienced teachers who are required to renew their licenses. As a result, while teachers were dissatisfied with the policy requirement of renewing teacher licenses, they were satisfied with their learning experiences through the TLRP courses, which also influenced their opinions about the policy itself. The completion rates of the TLRP courses across the country were over 99% in both 2011 and 2012. Based on the communities of practice perspective, the author analyzed how teachers’ positive learning experiences resulted from this university’s approaches to offering the TLRP courses and the traditional roles of Japanese universities to contribute to teacher professional development supported by Lesson Study as a shared system of teaching and learning improvement in Japan.

BACKGROUND Comparative studies of Japanese teachers and United States teachers have reported that Japanese teachers receive greater support for teacher induction and professional development than U.S. teachers (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Shimahara, 2002; Shimahara & Sakai, 1995). Japanese teachers engage in Lesson Study, a professional development model in which teachers work collaboratively to plan a lesson, observe the lesson in an actual classroom with students, and analyze and discuss student work and reactions to the lesson (Fernandez & Yoshida, 2004; Lewis, 2002; Lewis & Hurd, 2011; Lewis, Perry, & Hurd, 2004, 2009; Lewis, Perry, & Murata, 2006). It was introduced to the United States as a system that led to the high-quality teaching practice among Japanese teachers (Hiebert et al., 2005; Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Most of the professional development opportunities available

126

MOTOKO AKIBA

to teachers are organized around Lesson Study offered during the regular work hours at no or minimal cost to teachers. The quality of Japanese teaching profession is also supported by various national policies that regulate the entry into teacher education programs, certification, and hiring (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Wang, Coleman, Coley, & Phelps, 2003). University entrance examinations allow only the candidates with high academic ability to enter teacher education programs and they are granted a teacher license upon completion of the required courses and student teaching. They go through a rigorous hiring examination offered by Prefecture Departments of Education (equivalent to State Departments of Education in the United States) with the success rate of 32% (Shimizu, Akao, Arai, Ito, & Sato, 2008). These teacher candidates who passed the hiring examination are guaranteed lifetime employment in the prefecture with tenure after completing a 1-year intensive induction and mentoring program (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009). Since the 1980s, numerous problems including school bullying (Ijime), student absenteeism (Futoko), school violence, and uncontrollable classrooms (Gakkyu Hokai) have been reported in the media in Japan. During the past decade, academic achievement crisis (Gakuryoku Teika Mondai) became the focus of educational reforms especially after witnessing that Japan’s international ranking in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) dropped from 1st to 6th in mathematics literacy and 8th to 14th in reading literacy from 2000 to 2003 (Ministry of Education, n.d.; Takayama, 2007, 2009). In this climate, the media started to pay attention to teacher quality as the main cause for the series of student problems. The media has reported on teacher scandals and teachers with low instructional ability (Shido Ryoku Busoku Kyoshi), which increased public concerns and anger toward teachers. Gordon (2005) reported, based on interviews of teachers and parents, that Japanese teachers no longer perceive a high social status and respect they had enjoyed in the past, mainly due to increased parental education level and changing teacherparents relationship. Since 2000, the Ministry of Education has identified the teachers with low instructional ability and required them to participate in intensive fully paid professional development for up to 1 year (Ministry of Education, 2008b). The number of such teachers reached the highest with 566 teachers in 2004 with gradual decrease since then to 208 teachers in 2010 (Ministry of Education, 2009b, 2011a). Despite the public image and perceptions of teachers, these numbers account for only less than 0.02% of the population of over 900,000 teachers across the country.

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

127

Accountability reforms including a standardized national assessment and school evaluation have been implemented and the idea for the TLRP emerged in this context. As a way to professionalize teachers who have been repeatedly criticized in the media, the Ministry of Education stated, ‘‘The purpose of the Teacher License Renewal Policy is for teachers to maintain confidence and pride in teaching and to gain respect and trust of the general public through periodically updating teaching skills and knowledge and maintaining needed quality and competence’’ (Ministry of Education, 2008a, p. 10). Since it has been only 3 years since the TLRP has been implemented, few systematic analyses of the TLRP implementation and outcomes are available as of now. A recent nationally representative survey of teachers and parents conducted by the Ministry of Education revealed that only 9.6% of teachers and 31% of parents believe that public trust and respect on teachers will be improved by the TLRP (Ministry of Education, 2010b, p. 16). Akiba and Shimizu (2012) examined the origin and development of TLRP and identified that the development of the TLRP involved three stages: (1) internal criticism, (2) selection of a policy topic from reference societies using a cultural filter, and (3) development of its own policy scheme. As the internal criticism toward teachers grew, a need for a new teacher reform emerged. In search for a possible teacher reform topic, the license renewal policies in the United States were referenced among other alternatives including teacher salary reform and teacher evaluation reform, and it was chosen as the most culturally appropriate topic for the nationwide teacher reform. Once the topic was chosen, however, the U.S. origin disappeared in all the formal documents on the TLRP made available to the public, resulting in the development and presentation of the TLRP as a Japanese policy, not as an imported policy from the United States. The current study builds on this first study by investigating the process in which the TLRP was implemented and how teachers responded to this policy. I use ‘‘communities of practice’’ perspective as the theoretical framework to analyze the TLRP implementation and influence on teachers. Wenger (1998) conceptualized a school or a school district as a lived organization consisting of interconnected ‘‘communities of practice’’ that may not be recognized in or aligned with formal organizational structures and roles. The opportunities to learn across communities of practice are created by the interplay of ‘‘boundary objects’’ (objects that embodies a set of ideas or processes such as curriculum or content standards that can serve as tools for communication between members of different communities), ‘‘brokers’’ (individuals who belong to multiple communities of practice to

128

MOTOKO AKIBA

facilitate common practices), and ‘‘boundary practices’’ (ongoing mutual engagement between members of different communities) (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). This communities of practice perspective serves well as a theoretical framework for understanding how teachers’ experience with the TLRP implementation is influenced by the roles of boundary objects, brokers, and boundary practices that connect communities of practice for supporting the teaching profession in Japan.

METHODS This mixed-method study was conducted in Ibaraki prefecture located 50 miles north of Tokyo in the central region of Japan from summer 2010 to spring 2011. First, to examine the implementation process, I attended 18 hours of TLRP courses (12 hours of core courses and 6 hours of elective courses) in 2010 offered by the University of Tsukuba, a large national university ranked within the top 5 in the entrance selectivity. The University of Tsukuba is located in Tsukuba city and served 16,797 students and 4,445 faculty and staff members as of 2011. I interviewed three TLRP steering committee members including the committee chair, and five university professors who taught the TLRP courses. Second, to examine the perceptions and experiences of teachers, I conducted a survey of 365 teachers who were enrolled in the TLRP courses at the University of Tsukuba from August 2 through 5 in 2010. The teacher responses were to two aspects of the TLRP: (1) purpose and effectiveness of TLRP and (2) TLRP course contents as well as their level of support of the TLRP, which were analyzed in this chapter. These items were developed based on previous reports on teachers’ opinions about the TLRP, and refined based on feedback from researchers in the fields of teacher education and teacher policy and TLRP implementers at this university. The survey also included an open-ended question that asked teachers to write down their comments/opinions about the TLRP. This anonymous, one-page paper-and-pencil questionnaire was distributed to 513 teachers who were asked to complete it during the break time and turn it into the survey box prepared by the researcher right after completing all the courses offered from August 2 through 5 at the university. Of 513 teachers, 365 turned in the questionnaires (72% response rate). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the 365 teachers who participated in the survey in comparison to national statistics as of 2010 (Government Statistics, 2011). The majority of the survey participants were female (63%)

129

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

Table 1.

Characteristics of Teacher Participants in the Survey.

Teacher Characteristics

Categories

Percentage (%)

2010 National Statistics (%)a

Gender

Female Male

63 37

53 47

School level

Elementary school (G1–6) Middle school (G7–9) High school (G10–12) Others (secondary integrated schools, preschools, and special education schools) or not working at school

50 20 19 11

41 25 26 7

Job category

Regular teacher Contract-based teacher Not working as a teacher

89 10 1

92 8

Teaching experience

0–5 years 6–10 years 11–15 years 16–20 years 21–25 years 26–30 years More than 30 years

4 17 7 18 23 16 15

–

Education level

Junior college degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree

5 87 8

–

a

Goverment Statistics (2012). 2010 statistics on school teachers.

working at elementary schools (50%) as regular full-time teachers (89%). These figures are similar to the national figures that 53% of all teachers are female, 41% are working at elementary schools, and 92% are regular teachers. The teaching experience varied from 0 to 35 years with the mean of 20 years. A majority hold a bachelor’s degree (87%) and a smaller number of teachers hold a junior college degree (5%) or master’s degree (8%). Among these 365 teachers, 242 (66%) teachers provided an open-ended comment/opinion about the TLRP. After completing the interviews and survey at the University of Tsukuba, I interviewed 21 middle school mathematics teachers to further understand their perspectives and experiences with the TLRP courses from fall 2010 to

130

MOTOKO AKIBA

spring 2011. I limited my interviews to middle school mathematics teachers for the purposes of: (1) understanding their perspectives on the elective mathematics-related TLRP courses I participated in and (2) examining the variation in their opinions among the same-subject teachers at the same school level. These teachers were from nine different middle schools. Five teachers were female and sixteenwere male. The teaching experience ranged from 10 to 32 years with the mean of 23 years. The findings based on the interviews reflect only the experiences of experienced middle school mathematics teachers, not necessarily applicable to teachers in other subject areas or teachers in elementary or high school. Finally, in order to examine the completion rates of the TLRP courses and license renewal, two completion reports from the Ministry of Education were analyzed. The first report was released in 2011 on the completion rates of those who started the license renewal process in 2009 with a 2-year window to complete the TLRP courses and license renewal. The second report released in 2012 documented the completion rates of the second cohort of teachers who started the license renewal process in 2010 with the 2-year window for license renewal.

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEACHER LICENSE RENEWAL POLICY Design of TLRP The Ministry of Education was aware of the challenge of accommodating over 900,000 existing teachers in Japan for the TLRP courses required for license renewal across the country. Thus, the Central Education Committee (CEC)  the committee under the Ministry of Education consisting of knowledgeable citizens including researchers, corporate leaders, school administrators, and citizen group representatives  decided in its report titled, ‘‘How to implement the Teacher License Renewal Policy’’ that approximately 10% of existing teachers take the TLRP courses each year, completing all teachers’ first license renewal in a 10-year cycle (Ministry of Education, 2007). In 2009, those who are aged 35, 45, and 55 were required to take 30 contact hours of TLRP courses within 2 years (from 2009 to 2011). The CEC also developed guidelines for the TLRP course content and required the universities to go through the accreditation process before

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

131

offering the TLRP courses in order to make the course offering consistent across the universities and colleges. Of the required 30 contact hours, 12 hours need to be core courses consisting of four topics: (1) teaching profession (new social environments influencing schools, reflection on teachers’ work lives, and perspectives on students and education), (2) changing students (up-to-date research knowledge on child development, influence of social environments on students), (3) educational policy (national curriculum standards, education laws, roles of the Central Education Committee) , and (4) school partnership (organizational strategies, emergency management) (Ministry of Education, 2007). The remaining 18 hours are for elective courses on specific subject matters, instruction, student guidance, and other topics. The accreditation process required universities to submit a list of courses with course descriptions along with a checklist of covering specific content areas required by the Ministry of Education and the credentials and qualifications of the instructors (Ministry of Education, 2009a). In addition to these content requirements, the universities are required to give written exams on the course content and issue a TLRP course completion certificate to those who passed the exams.

Challenges in TLRP Implementation Since the establishment of the TLRP in 2007, universities and colleges across Japan have been informed of the full implementation starting from 2009 and invited to go through the accreditation process to offer the TLRP courses. By September 2010, about 400 universities and colleges across the country (52% of all universities and colleges in Japan) including the University of Tsukuba had gone through the accreditation process and had been approved by the Ministry of Education. The interviews with the TLRP steering committee members and instructors at the University of Tsukuba revealed two major challenges they perceived in offering the TLRP courses: (1) time and financial commitment required for coordinating and offering TLRP courses and (2) developing appropriate courses for experienced teachers. First, due to the specification of course content required by the Ministry of Education, the universities needed to develop new courses different from regular courses offered to preservice teachers or graduate students. In addition, these courses need to be offered on weekends or in August when elementary and secondary school teachers have a 1-month summer break without teaching duties. Evening courses are not an option for those teachers who live in the

132

MOTOKO AKIBA

area where no university is located or a nearby university does not offer TLRP courses. Therefore, the University of Tsukuba decided to offer these courses on weekends or during the summer break in August. Both of these factors, offering new courses on weekends or summer, require time and financial commitment from the university and the instructors. The funding for covering instructors’ time and operational cost needs to come from the tuition paid by teachers. The Ministry of Education recommended that universities charge tuition fees between 30,000 yen ($350) and 50,000 yen ($580) per teacher for 30 contact hours of TLRP courses. As in most other universities, the University of Tsukuba charged each teacher 30,000 yen ($350) for 30 hours of TLRP courses. The interviews revealed that they felt some reservation about receiving tuition from teachers for TLRP courses that are considered to be part of professional development, not for seeking an advanced degree. Until the implementation of TLRP, all the cost associated with teacher professional development had been covered by the Prefecture or Local Departments of Education (equivalent to state and school districts) and teachers have never paid for their professional development. However, the university also needs to compensate for the instructors for offering courses on weekends and summer. Therefore, the university decided to charge the minimal tuition recommended by the Ministry of Education. Second, developing appropriate courses for experienced teachers was perceived as a major challenge by the instructors. Traditionally, universities’ role has been offering preservice teacher education and they had never taken a major role in providing professional development for experienced teachers. Unlike the U.S. higher education system where universities actively offer courses for practicing teachers for renewing teaching licenses or receiving advanced certificates and offer Ed.D. programs to educate future leaders, Japanese universities have never taken an active role in offering professional development courses. Only a small number of teachers seek a master’s degree with advanced certificate (less than 10%), and these teachers complete graduate courses focused on research. In Japan, teacher professional development is offered by the Ministry of Education (through National Teacher Professional Development Center), Prefecture and Local Departments of Education (workshops and seminars organized by full-time instructional coaches), schools (e.g., schoolwide action research, Lesson Study), Teacher Research Associations at prefecture or local level led by school administrators for each subject area (e.g., mathematics education research association, social science education research association), and other organizations and groups including the

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

133

Teachers’ Union, teacher study groups, and private organizations (Akiba & LeTendre, 2009; Shimahara, 2002; Shimahara & Sakai, 1995). University faculty members with subject content expertise (e.g., mathematics education, literacy education) are often invited as a guest lecturer or a ‘‘knowledgeable other’’ (expert researcher) in Lesson Study by these teacher professional development providers, and they provide feedback to teachers based on the latest research findings on teaching and student learning. Despite this contributing role of university faculty members in teacher professional development, offering professional development courses to a large number of teachers was the first undertaking introduced by the TLRP. Because a large number of university faculty members need to teach the TLRP courses, the majority of the instructors had been never involved in teacher professional development either because they are junior faculty members or having expertise outside of subject content areas such as education policy or sociology of education. A majority of teachers taking TLRP courses are seasoned teachers with at least 10 years of teaching experience. Unlike the U.S. Colleges of Education where most faculty members have K-12 teaching experience, most Japanese faculty members in the College of Education lack teaching experience in elementary or secondary education level because of the separate preparation tracks for practitioners and researchers with limited flexibility to move between these tracks.1 Several instructors expressed their concerns about offering courses with limited understanding of everyday practices of teachers and how it could potentially risk the reputation of the university. It is not clear if these challenges are unique to the University of Tsukuba or common challenges experienced by other universities because of the limited scope of this study. However, according a national survey conducted by the Ministry of Education, 68% of 661 universities across the country reported that TLRP places a major burden on instructors and TLRP coordinators (Ministry of Education, 2010b). Therefore, these challenges expressed by the TLRP steering committee and instructors at the University of Tsukuba may also apply to other universities.

Addressing the Challenges in TLRP Implementation Despite these potential challenges, about 400 universities across the country including the University of Tsukuba decided to offer the TLRP courses mainly for their sense of responsibility for serving the needs of 100,000 teachers across the country each year to renew their licenses. Especially in

134

MOTOKO AKIBA

a large national university like the University of Tsukuba, the administrators felt the responsibility to offer quality courses to these experienced teachers as one of two national universities serving teachers in Ibaraki Prefecture. In 2010, the University of Tsukuba offered 12 hours of core courses four times in two campus locations in Tsukuba and Tokyo: (1) from June 5 to 6 and from August 2 to 3 on Tsukuba campus, and (2) from August 19 to 20 and from October 30 to 31 on Tokyo campus. For 18 hours of elective courses, the university offered concurrent 6-hour courses each day over an 8-day period scattered across the year in these two locations. A total of 97 different elective courses including teaching methods courses (e.g., mathematics teaching, English teaching, calligraphy, IT integration) and foundation courses (e.g., special needs students, health education, student counseling, career counseling) were offered during summer or on weekends. They established these schedules to accommodate the needs of teachers with busy and inflexible work schedule. In order to address the challenges discussed above, (1) time and financial commitment required for coordinating and offering TLRP courses and (2) developing appropriate courses for experienced teachers, the University of Tsukuba took three initiatives. First, the university established a TLRP curriculum committee consisting of instructors for making decisions on the TLRP course content and a separate TLRP steering committee that implements and oversees the offering of the TLRP courses. These committees worked side by side to facilitate the implementation of the TLRP courses. Because of the commitment and efforts of these two committees, the TLRP courses were offered and all the requirements including course registration, tuition payment, classroom and time arrangement, examinations, and certification renewal process went smoothly. Second, to address the second challenge of developing appropriate courses for experienced teachers, the TLRP steering committee sought partnership with the Ibaraki Prefecture Department of Education. The committee developed a partnership by: (1) inviting a principal as a visiting professor to serve on the TLRP steering committee and (2) establishing frequent communications with the Department of Education officials. This principal was recommended by the Ibaraki Prefecture Department of Education and he served as a liaison between the university and the Department of Education. In addition, the committee communicated frequently with the Department of Education officials to understand the teachers’ professional learning needs and their professional development offering. The committee representative also participated in a prefecture-wide networking meeting

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

135

organized by the Department of Education to understand the TLRP course offering across the seven universities in Ibaraki prefecture. Finally, the TLRP curriculum committee decided to offer practice-based professional development at 10 university-affiliated elementary, middle, and high schools taught by teacher leaders as part of elective courses. These practicums offered Lesson Study and other research activities that allowed active teacher involvement. In its first year of operation from April 2009 to March 2010, the number of teachers participated in the TLRP courses offered by the University of Tsukuba was 1,095. The enrollment rose to 4,879 teachers during the 20102011 year – the final year for the target teachers in 2009 (10% of all teachers who are aged 35, 45, and 55) to complete all the courses for license renewal.

IMPACTS OF THE TLRP: TEACHER RESPONSES AND COMPLETION RATES To understand how the TLRP influenced teachers, the study examined the perceptual data from teacher survey and interviews. No established measures of teacher knowledge or student achievement tied to teachers are available in Japan, thus I will discuss the policy influences on teachers through their perceptions and experiences with regard to the TLRP as a policy and TLRP courses. Teacher Opinions about TLRP Purpose and Effectiveness Most teachers’ responses to positive statements such as ‘‘Teacher quality will improve as a result of the TLRP’’ (mean of 2.8 on the scale of 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), and ‘‘We need the TLRP to professionalize teachers’’ (mean of 2.4) were between ‘‘disagree’’ and ‘‘neither.’’ In contrast, most teachers agree with the negative statements about the system such as ‘‘It does not make sense that we are required to take courses to renew our licenses’’ (mean of 4.2), ‘‘We do not need the TLRP because we already have many professional development opportunities’’ (mean of 3.9), and ‘‘I don’t think the licensure renewal system will succeed’’ (mean of 3.9). These data show that teachers were not generally content with the requirement of renewing their licenses. They received their permanent licenses and went through the competitive process to become teachers. In

136

MOTOKO AKIBA

Japan, teachers automatically receive teaching license upon completion of teacher education courses, yet they need to pass the hiring exams offered by Prefecture Departments of Education to secure teaching positions. In 2007, ten thousand one hundred teacher candidates received a teaching license and took the teacher hiring exams given by each hiring prefecture, and only 3,200 teachers were hired as regular teachers with the success rate of 32% (Shimizu et al., 2008).2 Although the success rate has increased from 12% in 2000,3 teaching position is still considered difficult to obtain. Thus, they were understandably not content with the media bashing of teachers and the establishment of the TLRP to gain public trust on teachers. Their frustration with the TLRP was expressed in written comments in the survey. .

I don’t like the fact that the Ministry of Education and government blamed on teachers for all the educational problems and created the TLRP while they pretended they had no responsibility. Elementary school teachers with 18 yrs of teaching experience I know this system was created in response to teachers’ low instructional ability. But I have never neglected professional development. I have been constantly engaged in various professional development activities. I don’t understand why they (policymakers) don’t get it. –Elementary school teachers with 30 yrs of teaching experience

The interviews with middle school mathematics teachers also revealed that all teachers regularly participate in professional development through various opportunities. A majority of teachers with over 15 years of teaching experience are taking leadership roles such as grade-level chair, professional development chair, and career placement chair and required to participate in leadership professional development programs offered by the Ibaraki Prefecture Department of Education. In addition, there are meetings by subject-specific teacher research associations; for these teachers, it is a mathematics education research association that meets five to six times a year. Ibaraki Prefecture Department of Education and Local Departments of Education also offer many professional development seminars on various subject area-related topics, classroom management, and instructional technology among others for teachers to participate on a voluntary basis. Inside schools, they have subject area committees in which teachers meet frequently within each subject area during regular school hours to discuss instructional approaches or materials. Each school also has a theme for school improvement and organizes professional development activities based on the theme. For example, in school A, the theme was ‘‘Integrated

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

137

education,’’ a new plan to facilitate a smooth transition from elementary to middle school through teacher collaboration. They conducted Lesson Studies in several subject areas in collaboration between elementary and middle school teachers focusing on student development from upper elementary grade (Grades 5–6) to lower middle school grade (Grade 7) throughout the year. In school B, the theme was ‘‘Mutual learning’’ (Manabiai) and they opened a lesson every month for teacher observation and discussed the approaches among teachers. Thus, the interview data showed that these teachers are engaged in various professional development activities on a weekly basis. The requirement of taking 30 contact hours of university courses beyond their weekly professional development activities for the purpose of improving teacher quality was considered as a major burden by many teachers. The policy assumption that teachers need to take more professional development to improve their quality was upsetting to many teachers and most had a difficult time understanding the value of the TLRP. However, their opinions about the TLRP courses presented a different aspect of teacher experience with the TLRP.

Teacher Opinions about TLRP Courses In contrast to their negative opinions about the policy itself, their opinions about the TLRP courses were generally positive. Many agreed that they gained new knowledge (mean of 3.8) and expanded their knowledge as a teacher (3.8). They also reported that they were glad to take these courses (3.7) and satisfied with the course content (3.7). The average rating for the statement, ‘‘I learned something useful for my daily practices’’ was slightly lower with the responses in between ‘‘neither’’ and ‘‘agree.’’ Yet, overall, their opinions about the TLRP courses were positive. The teacher interviews also showed their positive experiences with the courses. Q: What did you think about the TLRP course, ‘‘History and Culture of Mathematics’’? A: It was very interesting. It is not about whether you can use the knowledge or not. It was a high-level content, so quite stimulating to me. I know some people would say this is useless, but I think useful content is not always interesting. Compared to the professional development offered by the Department of Education, it was very interesting because of the new content introduced in these courses. –Middle school math teacher with 20 yrs of experience

138

MOTOKO AKIBA

Most teachers were satisfied with the TLRP course content and the instructors as we can see from the survey comments. I found it more stimulating than I thought, and I wish I could take other courses as well. I don’t agree with the TLRP as a system, but I think taking university courses as part of professional development is a good idea. –Secondary integrated school teacher with 21 yrs of experience I could see that university professors worked hard to prepare for these courses. I thank for their sincerity. They changed my negative attitudes towards the TLRP courses. –Elementary school teacher with 9 yrs of experience

My observations of 18 hours of courses taught by 10 different instructors and interviews with five instructors also confirmed their sincerity and sense of responsibility to offer high-quality courses. Instead of reusing or revising the previous courses for preservice teachers they had taught, they indeed developed these courses for experienced teachers from scratch. Such positive experience with the TLRP courses made some teachers reconsider their perspectives toward the TLRP. I was 100% against the TLRP, but the three courses I attended were all interesting and useful for me. I don’t like the requirement of ‘‘take the TLRP courses or lose the license’’, but I feel conflicted because I couldn’t have this learning opportunity without this policy. –Middle school teacher with 10 yrs of experience

The changes in teachers’ opinions about the TLRP after taking the TLRP courses were also shown in their support of the policy presented in Fig. 1. Teachers were asked of the level of their support before and after taking the

3.6 Strongly against Before

27.7

35.1

26.6

6.6

0.5

Against Slightly against Slightly support Support

After

16.4

0%

23.6

20%

24.4

40%

60%

25.2

80%

9.3 1.1

Strongly support

100%

Percentage

Fig. 1.

Changes in Teacher Support of Teacher License Renewal Policy.

139

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

TLRP courses. Fig. 1 shows that the percentage of teachers who were against the TLRP (sum of those who answered ‘‘strongly against, against, and slightly against’’) decreased from 89% to 64%. In contrast, the percentage of teachers who support the TLRP increased from 11% to 36%.

Completion Rates of TLRP Courses and License Renewal After 3 years since the implementation of the TLRP in 2009, two groups of teachers who were aged, 35, 45, and 55 in 2009 and 2010 were required to go through the teacher license renewal process to maintain their teaching licenses. Table 2 presents the completion rates of the TLRP courses and renewal process. In 2009, the number of teachers required to complete the TLRP courses within 2 years was 94, 288, and 93,898 completed the courses and renewal in 2 years with the completion rate of 99.4%. The completion was 99.3% for the second group of 91,475 teachers. During the 2 years, 492 teachers (0.5%) in the 2009 group and 558 teachers (0.5%) resigned their teaching positions and became ineligible for license renewal. The reports did not explain the reasons for these teachers’ resignation before the license renewal due, thus it is not known if their resignation was related to the TLRP requirements. A total of 98 teachers (0.1%) failed to renew their licenses in the 2009 group, and 117 teachers (0.1%) failed to do so in the 2010 group. Again the reasons why these teachers did not complete the TLRP courses within 2 years are not known. While we can benefit from

Table 2.

Completion Rates of Teacher License Renewala.

A. Number of Teachers due Renewal in 2 years

B. Teachers Who Renewed License

2009 2010

94,488 91,475

93,898 90,800

Total

185,963

184,698

C. Teachers who Resigned before Renewal Due

D. Teachers who Failed to Renew License

Completion Rates (B/A  100) (%)

492 (0.5%) 558 (0.6%)

98 (0.1%) 117 (0.1%)

99.4 99.3

1,050 (0.6%)

215 (0.1%)

99.3

a

The data are from: Ministry of Education. (2011b). Survey on teacher completion of teacher license renewal policy courses.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Survey on teacher completion of teacher license renewal policy courses.

140

MOTOKO AKIBA

future studies that discover the reasons for those who resigned teaching positions and who failed to complete TLRP courses, the completion rates of over 99% during the first 3 years of the TLRP implementation shows the overall success in the implementation of this national policy.

DISCUSSION The examination of the TLRP implementation through a case study of one national university revealed that, while they identified major challenges in implementing the TLRP, they overcame the challenges and offered highquality courses to experienced teachers for their license renewal. The findings from the teacher survey and interviews revealed that, whereas teachers were not supportive of the TLRP as a policy, they had positive learning experience through the TLRP courses which influenced their perceptions about the TLRP in the end. The Ministry of Education reports showed that over 99% of the teachers who were due renewal in 2 years successfully completed the TLRP courses and renewed their licenses in 2011 and 2012. In this section, the relationships between universities and other major organizations that provide teacher professional development are examined based on the communities of practice perspective. The role and initiatives of the University of Tsukuba in implementing the TLRP are examined and the conditions that led to the changes in the teacher perceptions of the TLRP and high completion rates of TLRP courses will be discussed. Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between universities and other organizations in Japan. As discussed above, Japanese universities have the traditional role of providing preservice teacher education and have rarely led teacher professional development before the TLRP. Teacher professional development is mainly provided by the Ministry of Education, Prefecture and Local Departments of Education, schools, and teacher research associations. However, senior faculty members of universities are often invited to participate in professional development as ‘‘guest speakers’’ or ‘‘knowledgeable others’’ (content expert) in Lesson Study organized by the Ministry of Education, Prefecture and Local Departments of Education, schools, and teacher research associations. This relationship is supported by shared respect for ‘‘research knowledge’’ for informing practice among teachers and administrators. With the communities of practice perspective as the analytical lens, my interviews with 21 middle school mathematics teachers first sought to identify informal communities that influence their opportunities to learn.

141

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan Pre-Service Teacher Education

Teacher Professional Development Ministry of Education

University Prefecture Departments of Education

Local Departments of Education

Teacher Research Associations

Schools

Lesson Study as a System of Teaching and Learning Improvement

Fig. 2.

Relationship among Organizations Supporting Teachers in Japan.

The interviews revealed that their described professional learning activities and colleagues they rely on for their professional learning align closely with the formal organizational structures and groupings in Fig. 2. Their ‘‘lived’’ organizations as sources for professional learning were indeed the ‘‘formal’’ organizations. In this context of TLRP implementation, ‘‘boundary objects’’ were TLRP course listing and schedule that were widely disseminated to teachers. The TLRP steering committee, especially the former principal who served as a visiting professor, served as the ‘‘broker’’ to facilitate the communication between the university and Ibaraki Prefecture Department of Education and to contribute to the course development that meets the professional learning needs of experienced teachers. Most importantly, however, the existence of the system of Lesson Study in Japan, served as the ‘‘boundary practice’’ that connects all the organizations serving preservice and in-service teachers across the country. As shown in Fig. 2, Lesson Study is taught and practiced in every organization involved in teacher education and professional development. It is a shared and supported system of teaching and learning improvement across the country. The University of Tsukuba offered a number of elective courses on Lesson Study at university lab schools taught by exemplary teachers as part

142

MOTOKO AKIBA

of the TLRP courses. Because Lesson Study integrates research and practice by its design of teachers conducting experiments with their teaching and analyzing data to inform and improve teaching and by involving university researchers as knowledgeable others who share latest research findings to inform Lesson Study, the TLRP courses offered by university professors and teacher leaders in lab schools were perceived positively by teachers. Because of the Lesson Study’s role as the well-established boundary practice in Japan, the implementation of the TLRP courses was supported by teachers despite their lack of support for the policy itself. Their positive experience with the TLRP courses also influenced the teacher perception of the policy as shown by the increase from 11% to 36% of the teachers supporting the policy after completing the TLRP courses. As increasing number of teachers continue to take TLRP courses at this university, it is likely that the level of support for the TLRP will continue to increase in the future. Before drawing the conclusion, it is important to discuss the limitations of this study. First, the findings from this study are based on only one national university in Japan. While the survey participants’ characteristics are similar to the national average, it is important to note that the approaches taken by the University of Tsukuba in networking with the Prefecture Department of Education and inviting a former principal as a visiting professor may be uniquely different from other universities. Their unique approaches as well as the instructors’ commitment to offering quality courses for experienced teachers likely contributed to the positive learning experience of teachers through the TLRP courses. Second, this study did not examine the perspectives about the TLRP of major professional development providers: Prefecture and Local Department of education officials, school administrators, and teacher research association representatives. Their perspectives would be valuable for examining how the TLRP can be integrated into the existing professional development system for supporting teachers. Finally, the data on how the TLRP influenced teachers’ knowledge and practice or student achievement were not available. These outcome data will be highly valuable in future studies for assessing whether the TLRP implementation achieved its goal of improving teaching quality and student achievement. Despite these limitations that future studies may seek to overcome, the findings from this study have important implications for policy and implementation literature. Regarding policy implications, universities could benefit from funding support from the Ministry of Education to offer highquality TLRP courses. Not all universities have the capacity of the major

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

143

national universities like the University of Tsukuba to develop network with the Prefecture Departments of Education (i.e., hiring a formal principal as a visiting professor) and use university lab schools to offer Lesson Study as part of the TLRP courses. As this study showed that the successful implementation of the TLRP courses was driven by the university’s initiatives to build network with the Department of Education and offer high-quality courses for experienced teachers, smaller universities and colleges can benefit from additional funding and support from the Ministry of Education to take similar initiatives and work with other major universities with better facilities and capacities to offer high-quality courses. Regarding implications for implementation literature, this study revealed new perspectives in considering implementation that future studies can further elaborate on. First, the communities of practice perspective about the distinction between lived organization and formal organization may not apply to Japan where informal communities teachers learn from are closely aligned with the formal organizational grouping and structures (i.e., subject committee, grade-level committee, teacher research association). Second, teacher policy implementation is largely influenced by the existence of ‘‘boundary practice’’ or a shared system that connects multiple organizations and groups implementing the policy. Lesson Study as a shared system of teaching and learning improvement in Japan guided the development of highquality TLRP courses and teachers’ respect for university courses based on research knowledge. Even though the policy assumption and design were not supported by the teachers, the positive learning experience through the TLRP courses resulted in successful implementation. This indicates a possibility that even a poorly designed policy with questionable assumption could be successfully implemented as long as the implementation is supported by a shared system for teaching and learning improvement like Lesson Study.

NOTES 1. While the Ph.D. programs in the College of Education in the United States are open to and often prefer the candidates with prior teaching experience, the Ph.D. programs in Japan prefer the candidates who just completed a bachelor’s or master’s degree without any prior professional experience. Likewise, while teaching positions in K-12 level are open to anyone in the United States, Japanese Prefecture Departments of Education that hire teachers mainly consider the new graduates of College of Education without any noneducation-related professional experience. The competitive admission process into Ph.D. programs for future professors and stringent hiring process into the teaching profession in also Japan make it difficult

144

MOTOKO AKIBA

for candidates to have various prior experiences before entering to the Ph.D. program or teaching profession. 2. Additional 2,600 teachers were hired on annual contract as ‘‘lecturers’’ without tenure in 2007. Although these teachers have the similar work duties and schedule as the regular teachers, they do not receive many benefits given to regular teachers such as annual bonus, paid professional development opportunities, and pension. Most of these teachers take the hiring exam each year until they become regular teachers. 3. The number of teacher education students decreased probably due to two reasons: (1) overall decreased number of college students due to decreasing birth rates and (2) decreased popularity in teaching position due to hard work schedule and many recent educational problems including school bullying, student absenteeism, and uncontrollable classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Kazuhiko Shimizu, Vice President of the University of Tsukuba, and Mr. Masahiro Miyata and Mr. Masato Suzuki in the TLRP Steering Committee at Tsukuba for their generous assistance with survey and teacher interviews. Also, I would like to thank two graduate students, Mr. Hiroyuki Sawada and Ms. Kuanysh Tastanbekova, for their assistance with data collection and entry.

REFERENCES Akiba, M., & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Akiba, M., & Shimizu, K. (2012). Teacher license renewal system: Global and local influences on teacher accountability policy in Japan. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012: Policy borrowing and lending (pp. 246–263). Oxon, OX: Taylor & Francis. Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gordon, J. A. (2005). The crumbling pedestal: Changing images of Japanese teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(5), 459–470. Government Statistics. (2011). Gakko kyoin toukei tyosa 2010 [2010 Statistics on school teachers]. Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/chousa01/kyouin/ 1268573.htm. Accessed on October 11, 2012. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., & Smith, M. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 111–132. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Teacher License Renewal Policy in Japan

145

Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook for teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc. Lewis, C., & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson Study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, February, 18–22. Lewis, C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14. Ministry of Education. (2007). Kyouin menkyo koshinseino unyouni tsuite [How to implement TLRP]. Tokyo, Japan: Author. Ministry of Education. (2008a). Miryokuaru kyoinwo motomete [Seeking ideal teachers]. Tokyo, Japan: Author. Ministry of Education. (2008b). Shidoga Futekisetsuya Kyoinni Taisuru Jinjikanri Shisutemuno Gaidorain [Guidelines for human resource management system for teachers with problematic instructional quality]. Retrived from www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/jinji/ 08022711.htm. Accessed on September 1, 2010. Ministry of Education. (2009a). Menkyo koshin konshu no nintei shintou youryou [Teacher license renewal course accreditation process]. Retrieved September 1, 2010 from http:// www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/koushin/008/1267120.htm Ministry of Education. (2009b). Monbu kagaku hakusho 2008 [Ministry of Education white paper 2008]. Retrieved September 23, 2010 from http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/ html/hpab200801/index.htm Ministry of Education. (2010a). Kyoin menkyo koshin sei no gaiyo [Summary of teacher license renewal system]. Tokyo, Japan: Author. Ministry of Education. (2010b). Kyouinno shishitsu kojo housakuno minaoshi oyobi kyouin menkyo koushinsei no kouka kenshouni kakawaru tyousa shuukei kekka [Survey results on reconsideration of teacher quality improvement approaches and effectiveness of TLRP]. Tokyo, Japan: Author. Ministry of Education. (2011a). Heisei 22nendo kouritsu gakko kyoushokuin no jinjigyousei no joukyou tyousani tsuite [2010 survey of human resource administration of public school teachers]. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/jinji/ 1318885.htm Ministry of Education. (2011b). Menkyojou koushin koshuno shuryo kakunin joukyoutouni kansuru tyouni tuite [Survey on teacher completion of teacher license renewal policy courses]. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/ koushin/012/1309370_13609.html Ministry of Education. (2012). Menkyojou koushin koshuno shuryo kakunin joukyoutouni kansuru tyouni tuite [Survey on teacher completion of teacher license renewal policy courses]. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/ koushin/012/1325734.htm Ministry of Education. (n.d.). PISA (OECD Seitono gakushu toutatsudo tyousa) [PISA(OCED student achievement assessment)]. Retrieved September 23, 2010 from http://www. mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/data/pisa/index.htm

146

MOTOKO AKIBA

Shimahara, N. K. (2002). Teacher professional development in Japan. In G. DeCoker (Ed.), National standards and school reform in Japan and the United States (pp. 107–120). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Shimahara, N. K., & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and United States. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc. Shimizu, K., Akao, K., Arai, A., Ito, T., & Sato, H. (2008). Saishin Kyouiku Detabukku [Databook of Educational Statistics]. Tokyo, Japan: Jijitsushinsya. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster Inc. Takayama, K. (2007). A nation at risk crosses the pacific: Transnational borrowing of the U.S. crisis discourse in the debate on education reform in Japan. Comparative Education Review, 51(4), 423–446. Takayama, K. (2009). Politics of externalization in reflexive times: Reinventing Japanese education reform discourses through ‘‘Finnish PISA success.’’ Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 51–75. Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachers around the world. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH KOREA Nam-Hwa Kang ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of the research was to examine the process of new teacher evaluation policy development in South Korea, in order to gain insight into how a controversial policy could be established in education. Research questions were about the process of the policy development, political actors involved and their influences, and the meaning of teacher evaluation in the newly established teacher evaluation policy. Methodology – The study uses a qualitative and descriptive-analytical process from a hermeneutics perspective that views policy as text to be interpreted. This perspective allows policy to be connected to a larger social context through interpretations of text. The main data sources included policy documents, statements by various organizations, research reports, and public media artifacts produced between 2000 and 2012. For data analysis, constant comparison and content analysis methods were used. Findings – The findings show that the process of developing a teacher evaluation system demonstrated an unsuccessful attempt to apply the Habermasian notion of discursive democracy. Relevant stakeholders were invited to deliberate on the reform, but official meetings ended

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 147–177 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019012

147

148

NAM-HWA KANG

prematurely without consensus. In the end, the government proceeded without full support of any stakeholders. During the deliberation process, teacher organizations and parent groups demonstrated conflicting perspectives on teacher work and the new evaluation system only partially accommodated both perspectives. The effectiveness of the new evaluation system remains to be researched. Value – The policy development process and the evaluation system shown in this study should inform similar efforts in other contexts. Keywords: Teacher evaluation; teacher appraisal; teacher assessment; South Korea; teacher policy; teacher reform

INTRODUCTION Teacher policy has gained interest in the international community, corresponding with a global recognition that transforming schools greatly depends on the quantity and quality of teachers who meet the changing needs of schools. In 2005, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) education committee published an international review of teacher policy to inform possible teacher policy options. With respect to teacher quality, the report stated that almost all participating countries, including South Korea, indicated concerns about keeping teachers’ knowledge and skills updated and appropriate for emerging needs. The report also found, in most participating countries, a lack of proper teacher evaluation for improving classroom teaching and a lack of rewards for teachers’ work. In response to a national call for education reform and informed by the OECD report, South Korean government reformed various teacher policies during the last decade. These teacher policies target various aspects of the teaching profession, such as teacher licensure, induction of novice teachers, professional development, and in-service teacher evaluation, among which this chapter focuses on in-service teacher evaluation in a South Korean context. The purpose of the research presented in this chapter was to examine the development process of the new teacher evaluation policy in South Korea in order to gain insight into how a controversial policy could be established in education. Three questions guided the study: (a) How did a new teacher evaluation policy come into existence in the South Korean context? (b) Who were the political actors in the development of teacher

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

149

evaluation policy and how much were their voices reflected in the policy? (c) What was the meaning of teacher evaluation in the newly established teacher evaluation policy? Since the 1990s, a consistent theme stressed in South Korean reform documents has been the need to change the way school personnel are evaluated, encouraged, recognized, and rewarded. The existing teacher evaluation system has been considered inappropriate. Teachers are hired in public schools with tenure, and salaries increase automatically on a scale based on years of teaching. Teacher evaluation matters only when teachers are eligible for promotion to administrative positions after numerous years of teaching. Before the recent teacher evaluation reform, typical evaluations were conducted by administrators and used for decisions on promotion. They were heavily weighted on years of teaching and did not sufficiently weight teachers’ professional capacity to encourage teachers to seek professional development opportunities. Furthermore, the criteria for the evaluation were unclear and its result was not open to others to review. These deficiencies of the typical evaluations caused teacher indifference and/ or distrust of evaluations. At the turn of the century, the inadequate teacher evaluation system received enough attention from various stakeholders, including the general public, and in the midst of strong demand for school reform, public debates on how to reform the teacher evaluation system started. After about a decade of debates, nationwide implementation of a new teacher evaluation system started in 2008. Meanwhile, governmental statutes, regulations, and guidelines have been published to guide local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement teacher evaluation. A teacher evaluation system is a part of a teacher’s entire career that starts from initial license. In the following sections, teacher licensure and hiring processes in Korea are introduced. Then, how the current evaluation came to exist is explicated. Finally, the new teacher evaluation system is introduced in terms of its content and process.

KOREAN TEACHER EDUCATION CONTEXT Teacher Licensure Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, teachers are licensed by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST). Teachers are categorized as regular (Level 1 or 2), skills, librarian, health, food, and

150

NAM-HWA KANG

nutrition teachers. Regular teachers are licensed at Level 2 upon graduation of an undergraduate or graduate-level teacher education program approved by the MEST. To obtain a Level 2, teacher license in typical academic fields, pre-service teachers in an undergraduate program should take at least 50 credits of semester courses in their major field (e.g., elementary education, mathematics, history, physics, biology) and 22 credits in general education (e.g., educational philosophy, educational psychology, assessment), and obtain a GPA of above a C across 120–145 undergraduate degree credits. The 50 credits in the major field include 24 credits of subject-specific pedagogy courses. The 22 credits in general education include a minimum of a two-credit course on special education and four credits of practicum. Onecredit practicum is equal to 30 hours of part-time or 1 week of full-day practicum/student teaching. Regular teachers with Level 2 licenses can upgrade their licenses to Level 1 by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) at least 1 year of teaching experience and a master’s degree from an education program designated by the MEST, (2) 3 years of teaching experience after getting a Level 2 license from a master’s program, or (3) 3 years of teaching and completion of a professional development program designed for level upgrade. The upgrade to Level 1 license is motivated by pay increase. Most teachers upgrade their license. Under the current teacher promotion regulation, regular teachers fill in administrative positions through licensing and promotion. Regular teachers can obtain a vice principal license by meeting one of the following conditions: (1) 3 years of teaching and completion of a designated professional development program for leadership after obtaining a Level 1 license or (2) 6 years of teaching and completion of a designated professional development program for leadership after obtaining a Level 2 license. Those who hold a vice principal license can obtain a principal license by completing 3 years of educational experience with a vice principal license and a designated professional development program for leadership. In addition, MEST can license those who are deemed to be qualified for a principal position.

Teacher Hiring Process Teacher supply has not been a concern for the recent decade. The Korean teacher employment system is what OECD (2005) called a ‘‘career-based’’ model, in which teachers generally stay in public service throughout their

151

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

entire career. While the starting salary is not necessarily competitive, salaries increase with years of teaching, and after 15 years of teaching, the salary is found to be competitive. Also, pension schemes are known to be good. Furthermore, teaching is still held in high regard (Kang & Hong, 2008). Thus, teaching is a popular career choice (Yonhapnews Agency, 2012), and there are many more qualified applicants than teaching vacancies. In this model, major ways to ensure teacher quality include making the entry selection criteria closely related to competencies needed in the field, providing incentives to continue professional development and introducing more flexible employment (OECD, 2005). Public school teachers are selected for hiring through a national exam administered by LEAs once a year. Only those who have a teacher license appropriate for the position can take the national exam, and yet the exam is very competitive. Data show that less than 60% of applicants for elementary teaching positions and less than 10% of applicants for secondary teaching positions were selected (KEDI, 2010). Undoubtedly, the supply of qualified teachers is much greater than the demand (Table 1). To ensure the entry selection criteria are consistent with the competencies needed in schools, the exam has been revised several times, with the most recent revision made in 2011. The recent revision claims to select ‘‘teachers with excellent teaching skills’’ and ‘‘teachers with creativity and admirable character’’ (MEST, 2011). The teacher selection exam consists of two steps. In step 1, all applicants take multiple-choice exams in general education and their subject areas. Applicants who pass the step 1 exams move on to take essay exams on their subject matter content and pedagogy and have in-depth interviews, in which they demonstrate teaching a lesson. In the recent revision, the length of the lesson demonstration was extended from Table 1. Number of Teachers and Number of New Hires for Public Schools. Year

Total Number of Teachers (Female Rate)

Number of Applicants

Number of New Hires

2005 2010

158,404 (71%) 174,901 (75%)

Elementary Public School 10,890 11,084

6,050 4,263

2005 2010

145,691 (59%) 235,204 (37%)

Secondary Public School 81,822 26,603

5,245 2,634

Success Rate (%)

56 38

6.4 9.9

152

NAM-HWA KANG

10 minutes to 20–30 minutes. During the interviews, problem-solving skills in diverse teaching situations, teaching aptitude, and teaching philosophy are evaluated. The interviewers are teachers and administers from LEAs.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study took the perspective on democracy by German philosopher Ju¨rgen Habermas. In his book Between facts and norms, Habermas (1996 [1992]) advocates what he calls, ‘‘discursive democracy.’’ He contrasts three perspectives on democracy: liberal, social-welfare, and proceduralist (p. 388). In its extreme form, a classical private law of a liberal paradigm guarantees freedom to do as one pleases within a certain set of rights and institutions. This liberal paradigm assumed the functioning of the market mechanism and the economy as power-free spheres, but these assumptions no longer hold true for postindustrial societies (Habermas, 1996 [1992], p. 250). Social classes formed as a result of differential use of the same private rights, which were ultimately limited to the bourgeoisie, creating factual inequalities. The dysfunctions of liberalism were dealt with through the extended role of public administration in the nation-state guided by a social-welfare paradigm. The notion of social rights, such as the right to minimum material and education standards, emerged. This was a change of paradigm, in that each individual’s private right to equal liberty was situated in a social context and balanced with social rights. A private right to liberty is replaced with a universal right, resulting in the abolishment of privileges incompatible with the equal distribution of individual liberties. A social-welfare paradigm manifests different versions of social-welfare models depending on the degree of state intervention. As much as state intervention is involved, private actors lose autonomy. This strain has been debated in Western societies since the introduction of social-welfare provisions. The insensitivity of growing state bureaucracies to restrictions on their clients’ individual self-determination has been criticized to be as bad as the blindness of liberal paradigms to inequalities between social classes. Habermas (1996 [1992]) argues that both paradigms share ‘‘the productivist image of a capitalist industrial society’’ (p. 407) by focusing on equal distribution of either liberty or socially produced life opportunities. Habermas (1996) claims that seeing private rights and social rights as goods to distribute is an error. As an alternative, Habermas (1996 [1992]) proposes

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

153

a procedural concept of democracy that calls for deliberative processes in which public autonomy is warranted through individual political rights to participate in public discourses or deliberations for decision-making. The premise of this type of democracy is that everyone has the sense of rational acceptability, in that all those possibly affected should be able to reach an understanding or compromise on the basis of good reason during argumentation. For successful proceduralist democracy, Habermas (1996 [1992]) argues, equal rights to participation in policy deliberation should be guaranteed by law, based on the moral principle of discourse (i.e., equal consideration is given to the interests of all those possibly involved). A few researchers have applied Habermasian perspective on democracy in policy analysis. For example, Carleheden (2006) observed the dominance of neoliberalism in Swedish political agenda since the 1990s as a crisis of the social-welfare paradigm. In the political documents of the early 21st century, he identified some progress toward Habernasian democracy. Based on their analysis of participatory forums in South Africa from the Habermasian perspective, Baccaro and Papadakis (2009) argued that rational deliberation is more likely to occur in the informal public sphere where preferences of citizens are still malleable, thus building communicative power through articulating moral arguments is possible. For an effective deliberative, discursive democracy, both formal and informal discourse should be promoted and supported.

LITERATURE REVIEW ON TEACHER EVALUATION Darling-Hammond, Wise and Pease (1983) claim that the evaluation of teachers depends on the conception of teacher work. They present four views on teacher work: labor, craft, profession, and art. Under the view of teaching as labor, teacher evaluation examines predetermined and specified routines and procedures that are deemed to produce the desired results. A view of teaching as craft requires teachers to have a repertoire of specified techniques along with general rules of application, and such techniques and their use are evaluated. While these two perspectives assume relatively context-free knowledge and skills of teachers, the other two acknowledge the ambiguity and complexity inherent in teacher work and emphasize the effect of teaching context. A view of teaching as profession requires a repertoire of specialized knowledge and skills and an ability to make a professional judgment about when and how to apply one’s knowledge and skills to solve problems. Thus, teacher evaluation requires much inference

154

NAM-HWA KANG

and an insider’s view. From this perspective, peers develop standards for evaluation that focus on competency in problem solving. A view of teaching as art emphasizes the unpredictability of teacher work to the extent that the possibility of generalized standards is dismissed. Teaching is deemed to have personal elements, such as intuition and creativity, thus evaluation involves examining work patterns to find out holistic qualities. Darling-Hammond et al. (1983) also suggest that different views of school organization mediate teacher evaluation. One may view schools as rational organizations, in which schooling processes are orderly and bureaucratic. This view assumes a division of labor, hierarchic orders, and operation based on rules or procedures that limit discretionary performance. In this view, a school is well organized and causes little variation in teacher work. This view of minimal organizational context effect is consistent with the view of teaching as labor or craft. In contrast, a view of schools as naturally functioning systems assumes loose coupling of organizational elements that have functional autonomy. Bureaucratic procedures may still be employed but are considered to have limitations, while more emphasis is on the interactions between teachers and contexts. Thus, the view of teaching as profession or art is allowed. Given these conceptual underpinnings, Darling-Hammond et al. (1983) introduce two widely discussed models of teacher evaluation for professional growth. One evaluation model for teacher improvement is ‘‘Mutual Benefit Evaluation (MBE).’’ The MBE model has four steps: (1) the school board and administration determine evaluation standards; (2) a diagnostic evaluation is performed; (3) with the cooperation of the teacher, the evaluator sets targets for the teacher’s performance improvement; and (4) after a specified time, the teacher is reevaluated, and new improvement targets are set. The second model differs mainly by an additional step, in which the teacher and the evaluator jointly establish individual objectives, an action plan, and progress indicators prior to evaluation. In implementing these researchbased models, it was found that schools followed the paths of least resistance to balance several goals, such as sorting teachers, maintaining collegiality, maintaining accountability, and devising improvement. As for implementation, studies describe politics (use of power to achieve a goal) involved in the process of developing teacher evaluation systems. Bridges and Groves (1999) report major types of decisions and corresponding major actors in a case of a California school district in the United States. In the case, teacher associations exercised strong power in relation to all the major decisions, and their interests were met while the interests of parents and students were largely muted. Regardless, given the widespread

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

155

dissatisfaction with the performance of public schools, signs of a balance between the interests of teacher associations and the interests of students and parents in quality education were found. In addressing power issues in teacher evaluation system development, Stronge and Tucker (1999) present a successful case of teacher evaluation system design and implementation, in which power in a school system is distributed so that decision-making becomes a bargaining process to arrive at solutions that satisfy several constituencies. Thus, the perspectives of various constituencies of the school community are understood and addressed in designing and implementing a teacher evaluation system. In contrast, Johnson, Jr. (1999) presents an unsuccessful case of statewide teacher evaluation system due to the failure in understanding and negotiating different perspectives of various constituencies of the school system. These successful and unsuccessful cases support the Habermasian paradigm of democracy, in which a communicative and deliberative process of decision-making is key to successful policy design and implementation.

METHODS The study was carried out through a qualitative and descriptive-analytical process from a hermeneutics perspective that views policy as text to be interpreted (Lejano, 2006). This perspective allows connecting policy to the larger social context through interpretations of text. The main data sources were texts produced by multiple stakeholders between 2000 and 2012. This time period was selected to include years before the most heated public arguments about teacher evaluation arose in 2004 and 2005 and years after the first nationwide implementation of teacher evaluation in 2008.

Data Sources and Analysis The data for this study were collected retrospectively over the past 3 years. The main data sources included policy documents, statements by various organizations, research reports, and artifacts of public media. Policy documents included government-published announcements (33 documents published for broadcast and web) and teacher evaluation implementation plans and evaluation reports published every year from 2008 to 2012 (five implementation handbooks, two improvement plans, and four evaluation

156

NAM-HWA KANG

reports). Statements by major teacher unions and associations (63 documents) and parents advocacy groups (12 documents) were collected and analyzed. These documents were available on the web of each institution and were found with the key word of teacher evaluation. For articles published in academic journals and related professional magazines between 2000 and 2012, two major journal/magazine search engines in Korea (KISS and RISS) were used with key words of teacher evaluation, teacher policy and teacher promotion. Among a total of 215 hits, excluding theses and dissertations, selected were the papers that directly addressed teacher evaluation issues in Korea, resulting in 36 articles in peer reviewed journals and 34 nonempirical papers (e.g., position papers). Also included is a random sample of five evaluation reports submitted to the MEST by school districts. Artifacts of public media were collected by searching archives of major newspaper web pages with a key word of teacher evaluation. For data analysis, constant comparison and content analysis methods (Miles & Huberman, 1995) were used. Data from the government, parents groups, and teacher organizations were cross-examined to compare perspectives and actions. Journal, magazine papers, and mass media artifacts were used to triangulate the analysis as they tended to be written sometime after each policy negotiation event.

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT Most public school teachers in Korea are permanently employed (OECD, 2009), and teacher evaluation has long been used only for promotion to the few administrative positions available. The lack of mechanism for teacher evaluation and reward has been discussed in the political arena since 1995 to address public demand for school accountability (Yoo, 2009). In 2004, public discontent with school education reached a critical point after the mass media’s continuous report of a phenomenon called, ‘‘school collapse’’ or ‘‘classroom collapse,’’ showing that public school education is not functional (Whang, Yang, Jun, & Huh, 2001). In response, the Korean government suggested teacher evaluation as the main target of school reform. After intense public debates and negotiations between interest groups including parents, teacher organizations, and the government, pilot testing of teacher evaluation began in 2006. After years of pilot testing, a national teacher evaluation system was fully established by gaining legal ground in February 2011 (Table 2).

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

157

Table 2. Major Events during Teacher Evaluation Policy Development during 2003 and 2011. Date 7–12/2003 4/2004 6/2005 1/2006 10/2006 2/2007 11/2007 9/2008 2009 2010 2/2011

Major Event MEST held workshops for ideas about Promotion Regulation reform. First public forum about teacher evaluation - failed. Teacher evaluation turns into a part of School Educational Capacity Improvement project, and MEST convened a special committee. MEST announces a total of 67 schools recruited for pilot implementation against teacher groups’ objections. MEST held a public hearing about pilot results and revised teacher evaluation system plans. MEST announces a total of 506 schools for the second-round pilot implementation without agreement or negotiations with teacher groups. MEST held a public hearing about the second pilot results and a revision of teacher evaluation plan. A total of 669 schools participated in teacher evaluation. A total of 3,121 schools participated in teacher evaluation. Almost all schools in the nation (11,403) participated in teacher evaluation. A presidential decree of teacher professional development regulation was amended for nation-wide implementation.

Before the Current Evaluation System As of 2004, the only teacher evaluation system was based on ‘‘Educational Civil Servant Promotion Regulation’’ (Promotion Regulation hereafter) stipulated in the Presidential Decree established initially in 1964 and revised several times (Jeon, 2001; Kwon, 2000). Promotion Regulation was instituted for the purpose of collecting data for decisions on teacher promotion to administrative positions. Even with multiple revisions over the previous 40 years, teachers had been evaluated based on similar criteria, including years of teaching, performance appraisal, grades in professional development programs, and any additional points assigned to special accomplishments. Based on these criteria, teachers are evaluated by the vice principal and the principal of a school. Several issues have long been raised regarding the Promotion Regulation (M. Han, 2007; J. J. Lee, 2004). First and foremost, Promotion Regulation is not intended to encourage professional development of teachers in their primary job of classroom teaching. The single promotional pathway based on the license system starting with Level 2 teacher license and moving to Level 1 teacher license, vice principal license, and finally principal license

158

NAM-HWA KANG

fails to provide incentives for professional development throughout the teaching career. Furthermore, there is no systematic arrangement of rewards that recognized excellence in teaching. In addition, the evaluation based on Promotion Regulation has been criticized for its lack of validity (Jeon, 2001; J. J. Lee, 2004). Too much emphasis on years of teaching systematically closes a door for young and able teachers to be recognized. In the scoring system, more experienced teachers tend to be scored higher than those with less experience but who, nonetheless, are excellent in teaching. Furthermore, evaluation of academic instruction constituted only 16% of performance scores, and the evaluation results are not even open for review. Essentially, the teacher evaluation system for promotion serves as summative assessment in which teachers are assessed only after many years of teaching. Thus, there is a need for some formative assessments that ensure teacher accountability in classroom teaching and provide rewards for excellence in teaching.

Classroom Collapse The term ‘‘classroom collapse’’ emerged at the turn of the century in discourse on education in South Korea to describe school failure (K. Hwang, 2001; M. Kim, 2000; K. Park, 2006). ‘‘Classroom collapse’’ refers to a social phenomenon, in which a teacher fails to manage student behaviors to the extent that classroom lessons cannot be delivered, teacher’s authority is threatened, and the basic function of schooling is weakened. As a result, the public loses trust in the education system. The kinds of student behaviors during lessons described in the discourse of classroom collapse include various kinds of students’ disengagement, such as sleeping, playing games, teasing peers, chatting, moving around, and ignoring teacher questions or directions in lessons (Hwang, Yang, Jun, & Heo, 2001; J. W. Kim, 2000). Researchers explain this phenomenon in relation to various aspects of social contexts (K. Hwang, 2001; Mok, 2002; K. Park, 2006). For example, K. Park (2006) summarized the origins of school failure in Korea from macroscopic, cultural, and microscopic perspectives. In a macroscopic perspective, the inappropriateness of the current educational system is focused. The argument is that the current Korean education system is still based on a model of industrial society and conflicts with the current knowledge- and technology-based society. In particular, an exam-based education system, which makes school education inflexible and irrelevant to student life, reflects the traditional view of learning as knowledge

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

159

transmission as opposed to the modern epistemology, in which knowledge is inseparable from learners and their everyday lives (Polanyi, 1958) in a lifelong endeavor (Hwang et al., 2001). From a cultural perspective, schools are criticized for being slow to catch up with the changes of the teenage culture that is embedded in the current diverse and multifaceted society. Thus, cultural conflicts are inevitable and school experience does not engage students. From a microscopic perspective, school failure is attributed to the inner workings of schools. Authoritarian and bureaucratic school systems make schools less responsive to immediate needs of students and the community while efficiency, rather than quality, is prioritized. Furthermore, a number of changes in school educational policy based on neoliberalism are found to be ineffective. Many of neoliberal market mechanisms, including several educational policies that promote ‘‘educational choice’’ (Seo, 2006) and competition between schools, teachers, and students (e.g., increasing the number of private and specialized schools, differentiated curriculum, promotion of achievement grouping, competitive merit-based teacher bonuses, etc.), and unintentionally disintegrated school communities. The notion of classroom collapse represents the failure of public school, and the various perspectives on the origins of classroom collapse imply the need for an extensive change in all aspects of schooling. A heated public discourse on the issue in the early 21st century in South Korea served as a jumpstart for subsequent school reform efforts, including development of teacher evaluation system.

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development The initiation of the teacher evaluation system in Korea was influenced by the public call for school reform, by the OECD reports on the limitations of teacher policy in Korea, and by the dissatisfaction with the Promotion Regulation (J. Lee, 2004; Yoo, 2009). The direction of the new teacher evaluation system is toward creating an evaluation system in which teachers are continuously evaluated throughout their career to identify areas for improvement, while rewarding effectiveness and ensuring support for teacher professional development. As described in this section, this direction is the result of negotiation between various stakeholders during the formation of teacher evaluation policy (Table 2). Reform of the Promotion Regulation was first formally suggested in a policy document in 1995 but was limited to a general policy agenda with no

160

NAM-HWA KANG

details until 1999, when a concrete plan for reform that included teacher evaluation was proposed (Korea Ministry of Education, 1999). The idea of teacher evaluation survived for several years despite strong objection from teacher associations and unions (teacher organizations hereafter) until the phenomenon of classroom collapse became central in the public discourse, giving rise to the teacher evaluation policy issue. As a major policy response to the public call for school reform, the government prepared a reform of Promotion Regulation centered on teacher evaluation (J. Lee, 2004). Taking a bottom-up approach in drafting a teacher evaluation policy, a committee of educational researchers was formed and the committee hosted multiple workshops with relevant stakeholders over six months in 2003. In these workshops, four major teacher organizations first presented their positions toward teacher evaluation and reform of Promotion Regulation, and subsequently responses from various stakeholders, including parent and general advocacy groups, were discussed. The first public forum to report these efforts was held in April 2004 but was disrupted by the protest of a teacher union. Apparently, the workshops ended prematurely before reaching an agreement among the participants. For a couple of years after the first failed public forum, the data in this study – publications of statements by stakeholders, media reports, additional public forums, and picketing – show heated debates between teacher organizations, parents, and general advocacy groups. The arguments revealed different positions on teacher evaluation. Teacher organizations commonly indicated their concerns about the nationally standardized evaluation because of the possibility of (1) misusing the system to punish teachers who oppose the government’s education policy and (2) misapplication of market mechanism of competition to education (B. Kim, T. Kim, & E. Kim, 2006). Some differences between the positions of teacher organizations could be summarized into conservative versus progressive approaches to teacher evaluation reform (J. Lee, 2004; Yoo, 2009). A conservative approach promoted careful examination of alternative models for teacher evaluation within the promotion-based system. The proponents suggested making the Promotion Regulation two strands by adding formative assessment functions. Also suggested was diversification of selection methods for school administrators to open possibilities for young and able teachers. On the other hand, a progressive approach promoted the abolition of Promotion Regulation and delegation of teacher evaluation and promotion to individual schools as professional communities. Also promoted was the idea to change the process of hiring administrators from promotion to election.

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

161

While teacher organizations were split by their ideologically different positions, most parent groups and general public focused on creating a mechanism for dismissing inappropriate teachers built into the evaluation system and promoted competition among schools and teachers to improve the quality of educational services (e.g., Yonhapnews Agency, 2005). As a way to reconcile different positions, the government announced a project called ‘‘School Educational Capacity Improvement’’ that included a teacher evaluation system. For this, MEST convened a special committee, consisting of representatives from parent groups, teacher organizations, and advocacy groups, in June 2005. The committee did not progress much, and a parent group dropped out of the committee for some time to protest uncompromising attitudes of teacher organizations during negotiation and to urge the government to show strong intent to conduct teacher evaluations (Chamkyo-yook hak-boo-mo hyeo, 2005). The MEST drafted two versions1 of teacher evaluation systems, each of which was partially agreed upon by different groups. Without full support from teacher organizations, the MEST pilot tested the two versions of teacher evaluation system in early 2006 and held a public hearing about pilot results and revisions of the teacher evaluation system to accommodate teacher organizations’ demands. At this time, the purpose of teacher evaluation had become focused solely on formative appraisal for rewards and support for professional development. The name of teacher evaluation changed to ‘‘Teacher Evaluation for Professional Development’’ (TEPD) in order to clarify its sole purpose. Teacher career ladder (e.g., promotions to master teacher status and administrative positions) and the issue of teacher dismissal were separated from the TEPD. In addition, a basic evaluation system was settled. Teachers of grades 1–12, principals, and vice principals were to be evaluated by their colleagues, while parents and students provided feedback on teaching and other school activities. Teacher evaluation contents were extended to student advising in order to encompass all aspects of teachers’ responsibility in South Korea, including teaching academic contents, advising, and guiding students in their personal and social development. Students were to be surveyed about their satisfaction with their teachers’ classroom teaching and advising, and parents were to be surveyed about their children’s satisfaction with school experience. Each school was encouraged to develop specific assessment items based on the national guidelines that include evaluation framework and sample items. The new teacher evaluation system had become an addition to the

162

NAM-HWA KANG

existing teacher personnel system. Unlike the previous evaluation for promotion, the unique approach to the evaluation was that all the members of the school community participate in the evaluation process in some way or another. Also, evaluation extended to include school principals. Furthermore, the evaluation system had become sensitive to local contexts by shifting from a nationally unitary evaluation to a locally customized one. MEST administered another pilot testing in 2007 and held a public hearing for reporting the results. For three subsequent years, MEST recruited schools to participate in pilot implementations, while calling for collaboration of education departments of each province or city to revise district regulations to institutionalize teacher evaluation systems on a local level. Simultaneously, the MEST tried to give the system a legal status through the amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. After failing to gain a legal ground in the 2010 legislation, the government amended the presidential decree of teacher professional development in 2011. This allowed nation-wide obligatory teacher evaluation implementation based on the Guidelines issued by the MEST. In the process of developing the TEPD, different positions of the stakeholders were revealed in three issues. The first issue was whether assurance of teacher quality through teacher evaluation could be an effective solution for recovering the public trust in school education. In the midst of the public discussion on classroom collapse, the policy makers proposed teacher evaluation reform as if teacher quality was the primary reason for school failure. In objection to this perspective, teacher organizations proposed to discuss improving teaching and learning conditions, along with teacher evaluation, to approach reform from all aspects of public education. Second, the general public and parent organizations challenged the traditional view of teaching as civil service. Based on neoliberal arguments, it was demanded that schools utilize competition among teachers as a way to improve teacher quality (Kim, Park, & Joo, 2009; S. Kim, 2011). Teachers challenged this view for the reason that teaching was different from for-profit activities, and competition might distract teachers from student learning. Third, some teachers asserted that teaching is a professional activity that should be evaluated within the professional community (S. Kim, 2011; S. T. Kim, 2011). From this perspective, nonexperts are not qualified as evaluators. Parent groups opposed this view. They positioned themselves as consumers of school ‘‘services’’ and demanded their participation in evaluation as consumers.

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

163

CURRENT TEACHER EVALUATION SYSTEM In this section, I introduce the teacher evaluation system in Korea as of 2012 (MEST, 2012a, 2012b). The new evaluation system is still being refined while the system is continuously challenged by all stakeholders. The evaluation system introduced here is developed by the MEST after several meetings with teacher organizations, parent organizations, local education agencies, and experts, as well as opinion surveys, for the feedback on the previous year’s implementation. Therefore, what is introduced here should be considered as policy in the making rather than a well-established one. Teacher Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the TEPD is to diagnose teachers’ professional capacity for continuing support in its development. By developing teachers’ professional capacity and improving the satisfaction of school community members, it is intended to improve trust in schools and their educational capacity. Ultimately, the evaluation is to provide quality educational services to all students in the nation in order to increase general contentment with school education and to recover trust in public education through communication among those involved. Evaluation Target All teachers in schools governed by the Elementary and Secondary School Act who have taught in the current school more than 2 months are to be evaluated. Each school can, however, determine whether to include teachers in temporary positions.2 Evaluation Participants TEPD implementation is conducted by two parties: the implementation leader and implementation participants (MEST, 2012a). The explicit separation of the two parties implies a power relationship. Those designated as leaders include the MEST minister and superintendents of cities or provinces. These leaders may delegate their role to the leaders of LEAs or school principals. This delegation is due to the administrative structure, in

164

NAM-HWA KANG

which elementary and middle schools are supervised by LEAs while high schools are supervised directly by provincial offices. Implementation participants refer to teachers, students, and parents. Teachers are evaluated by a Peer Teacher Evaluation team that includes a principal or vice principal, a master teacher, and three other teachers. Students (in grades 3–12) and parents (of children in grades 1–12) complete a survey about their satisfaction with school education to complement evaluation. Evaluation Content Evaluation content is organized in four hierarchical levels: evaluation areas, evaluation elements, evaluation criteria, and evaluation items. Evaluation areas include two primary responsibilities of Korean teachers: academic instruction and student advising. To these basic areas, LEAs may add other aspects, such as disposition and aptitude. Each evaluation area consists of evaluation elements that are detailed by evaluation criteria (see Table 3). The TEPD manual presents examples of evaluation items for LEAs (see Table 4). LEAs or schools may tailor these items to specific local context. Evaluation Methods For each evaluation, a participant completes an assessment sheet that has three components: (1) five-scale Likert-type items (see Tables 4 and 5), (2) details of excellence, and (3) details of areas for improvement. Schools can also choose to provide online and/or paper surveys to parents to increase their participation. The national average rate of parent participation in 2011 was 45.6% (MEST, 2012a). As a way to support parent evaluation, schools provide information on educational activities through brochures, open classrooms for observations, and video clips of classroom lessons (Table 6). Evaluation Timeline and Process The guidelines (MEST, 2012b) require schools to implement teacher evaluations once a year. It is recommended that the evaluation be completed at least 3 months before the end of the school year in order to allow sufficient time to report the results to the participants, who will then have time to plan for appropriate professional development the following year. The guidelines provide an outline of the teacher evaluation process, which is very similar to the MBE model of teacher evaluation (Darling-Hammond

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

165

Table 3. Teacher Evaluation Content: Areas, Elements and Criteria. Evaluation Area Academic instruction

Student advising

Evaluation Element Lesson preparation

Evaluation Criteria

1. Understanding of the curriculum and teaching and learning methods 2. Understanding of student characteristics and subject matter content 3. Plan teaching and learning strategies

Lesson implementation

4. Lesson introduction 5. Questioning 6. Attitudes 7. Interaction with students 8. Use of lesson materials 9. Lesson progression 10. Lesson Wrap-up

Assessment and its use

11. Assessment content and methods 12. Use of assessment results

Advising of personal aspect

13. Understanding of students’ personal issues and advising for creativity and character development 14. Collaboration with parents in advising 15. Career education and support for talents

Advising of social aspect

16. Advising on basic life habits 17. Advising on school life 18. Advising on democratic citizenship

Adopted from MEST (2012a).

et al., 1983). First, each school appoints a person in charge of the entire process and includes a teacher evaluation plan in the yearlong school education plan. Then, a teacher evaluation committee (principal or vice principal, a master teacher, and five other teachers) is formed. This committee generates relevant rules in order to complete the evaluation and develops a specific evaluation plan. Based on this plan, other teachers, students, and parents are introduced to the evaluation procedures. Schools are expected to use brochures to communicate the various aspects of the evaluation in detail, including aggregated results from the previous year, the purpose, participation methods, and effects expected from the evaluation. These brochures are developed in different versions respectively for teachers, parents, and students. After these introductory procedures, schools start opening classrooms for parents’ observations and invite parents to observe

166

NAM-HWA KANG

Table 4.

Examples of Evaluation Item: Peer Teacher Evaluation.

No.

Evaluation Criteriaa

Evaluation Itemsb

1

3

Understanding of the curriculum and teaching and learning methods Understanding of student characteristics and subject matter content Lesson introduction

4

Attitudes

5

Interaction with students

6

Use of lesson materials

7

Lesson progression

8

Assessment content and methods

9

Understanding of students’ personal issues and advising for creativity and character development Career education and support for talents

Understand the current curriculum and reflect it in instructional methods Analyze subject matter carefully and plan lessons based on student capacity and speed Choose appropriate lesson content and methods to motivate and intrigue student curiosity Demonstrate a passion in instructional activities Increase student self-confidence through frequent praises and encouragement Engage students for active participation Uses appropriate lesson materials to help students understand better Keep student interest throughout a lesson Utilize assessment items or tools that are consistent with student levels and provide instant feedback Identify student individual characteristics through continuous counseling with students Understand student characters through observations and counseling with students and provide appropriate guides Understand student diversity and help students understand diversity through various ways Examine school violence frequently and help students who are in trouble

2

10

11

Advising on basic life habits

12

Advising on school life

Excellent areas:

Areas for improvement:

Adopted from MEST (2012b). a MEST did not use all evaluation criteria (see Table 3) in this example. b Each item has five-point scale evaluation from ‘‘above excellent’’ to ‘‘very poor.’’

167

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

Table 5. No.

1 2 3 4

5

Student Survey Sample: Survey on Subject Instructora.

Evaluation Items about Teacher Instruction

The teacher prepares various materials for class. The teacher makes the lesson content easy to understand. The teacher summarizes the lesson content and assesses it. The teacher provides information on ways to find my talent and aptitude. The teacher is interested in my future education or career and provides relevant information.

Level of Satisfaction Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

What I like about the teacher:

What I want for the teacher:

Adopted from MEST (2012b). a For students in grades 3–6 the question 5 is replaced with a question about preventing bullying. Students in grades 1–2 do not participate in the survey.

various school activities. These activities are to help parents complete informed surveys. About two-thirds into the school year, the evaluation is implemented, and the results are reported to individual teachers. Before the end of school year, these results are used for planning and/or implementation of teacher professional development that should be completed by the end of the summer of the following academic year. Use of Evaluation Results The primary purpose of the evaluation is to diagnose teacher professional capacity in order to identify professional development needs. After the evaluation results are reported, each teacher is to turn in a report that

168

NAM-HWA KANG

Table 6. No.

Parent Survey Sample: Survey on Subject Instructor.

Evaluation Items about Teacher Instruction

Level of Satisfaction Strongly Agree

1 2

3 4 5

My child enjoys the teacher’s class. The teacher uses praise and encouragement to help my child study confidently. The teacher provides information on how my child is doing in class. The teacher helps my child to find his/her talent and aptitude. The teacher provides advice about future education or career relevant to the subject.

Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

What I like about the teacher:

What I want for the teacher:

Adopted from MEST (2012b).

includes a plan for professional development based on self-assessment and a synthesis of peer teacher evaluation and feedback from students and parents. The teacher evaluation committee in each school aggregates all teacher reports and produces a school report to turn into LEAs. This final school report is open to the public for teachers and parents to review. LEAs utilize the evaluation results in designing professional development in two ways. For those who have received excellent ratings, a yearlong sabbatical for furthering professional capacity can be awarded. On the other hand, teachers who are determined to be in need of professional development are required to take professional development courses in areas where their ratings are low. Teachers may request support for their professional development as LEAs are required to meet their needs. LEAs are also required to provide professional development opportunities for those whose evaluation results are lower than the cut criteria. Those whose ratings are low in both teacher and student assessments (average score of below 2.5 out of 5 scale by peer teachers and 2.0 by students) are mandated to participate

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

169

in long-term (more than 210 hours or 6 months) professional development, and those whose ratings are low in student assessment, but not necessarily teacher assessment, are mandated to participate in short-term (more than 60 hours) professional development.3

Cases of Teachers Rated Excellent To inform what teacher qualities the evaluation taps into, cases of teachers whose ratings are high are reported (MEST, 2010). One exemplary teacher is an elementary teacher who was characterized as ‘‘a nice teacher’’ good at communicating with parents. This teacher was evaluated excellent in lesson planning and generating lesson material that engages students. Most of all, the teacher was recognized for her excellence in communicating with parents. She used e-mails and phone texts frequently to communicate with parents. Another exemplary case was a middle school language arts teacher who made lessons at a level students could grasp by using various everyday examples. She effectively used students’ knowledge and skills obtained from life experiences to help student learning. Another middle school language arts teacher was exemplary in terms of her focus on negotiating learning goals with her students and continuously finding effective teaching strategies by engaging in ongoing professional learning through learning communities with colleagues. Another exemplary case was a high school science teacher who produced and used multimedia materials to engage students, stimulating curiosity in science. He had a large library of multimedia resources of his own editing to use during instruction. He also demonstrated a deep understanding of students’ personal interests and supported them in his advising. The exemplary teachers demonstrated that excellence is shown in both academic instruction and nonacademic responsibilities. Also, they demonstrated that excellence in teaching takes different forms. Therefore, a key to effective evaluation is to find ways to tap into the diverse ways teachers do their jobs.

RESEARCH ON TEACHER EVALUATION IMPLEMENTATION It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the TEPD, yet it is possible to gain insight into ways to make it effective by examining implementation

170

NAM-HWA KANG

results and responses of relevant stakeholders. Two studies about pilot implementation and two studies about teachers’ perceptions of the system after participation in evaluation were identified in the data. S. T. Kim (2011) and K. Kim and D. Kim (2011) examined pilot implementation results. S. T. Kim (2011) analyzed reports from 16 LEAs that synthesized reports from all the schools (n=3,121) that participated in pilot implementation of TEPD in 2009. He reported that teachers tended to rate their peers highly (96.6% of teachers were rated excellent or above excellent on average). Students rated their teachers a little higher (average rating of agree or strongly agree was 60.1%) than their parents (average rating of agree or strongly agree was 55.4%). These general trends were also found in the sample of school reports for this study. K. Kim and D. Kim (2011) also reported that similar trends were found in all 4 years of pilot implementation. These researchers provided possible reasons for teachers’ high rating of their colleagues, if not actual quality performance of teachers, such as low standards held by teachers and lack of information for rigorous evaluation. These possible reasons, as well as the issue of validity of the evaluation tools and methods, should be further researched for meaningful interpretation of evaluation results. With regard to the level of students’ and parents’ positive evaluation and ways to address negative feedback, opportunities for dialoge between teachers and students or parents should be provided. For successful TEPD, understanding teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of TEPD is critical because the TEPD is for them to use in planning their professional development. S. H. Shin (2011) examined secondary teachers’ general perceptions of the teacher evaluation policy focusing on issues disputed during the policy development (purpose, student and parent participation, and usefulness). The study compared teachers who have more experience with the system through participation in previous pilot implementations with those who participated for the first time during the nationwide implementation in order to examine whether greater experiential understanding of the evaluation was related to perceptions of the evaluation system. The study surveyed teachers from 16 schools (8 middle and 8 high schools, half of them having participated in prior pilot testing) in the largest province (population of 11 million). A total of 145 middle school teachers and 191 high school teachers responded to the survey. Just as assumed, the experienced group demonstrated better understanding of the system than the inexperienced group on the items about the purpose of the evaluation. The findings showed that the teachers, in general, rated items about usefulness of the evaluation positively for helping to understand

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

171

professional development needs (above 3 out of 5 on all items). But the ratings by the experienced group were significantly higher than the first-time participation group on all items. With regard to the effectiveness and validity of parent and student surveys, the experienced group rated significantly higher on the usefulness of the items than did the first-time participation group. The results imply that efforts to help teachers better understand the system would make teacher evaluation more effective because teachers positively oriented toward the evaluation are more likely to utilize the results. In contrast to the research on general perceptions, J. Han (2011) examined perceptions of evaluation content. The teacher evaluation criteria in the MEST guidelines (see Table 3) are used as if all of them are equally important for quality teaching. One might ask, for example, whether lesson wrap-up (no. 10 in Table 3) is as important as understanding of student characteristics and subject matter content (no. 2 in Table 3). It is reasonable to expect that teachers, administrators, students, and parents might answer the question differently. J. Han (2011) surveyed students (n=1,116), teachers (n=574), parents (n=620), and administrators (n=214) who had participated in teacher evaluation in secondary schools across the nation about their perceptions on the relative importance of the evaluation criteria for effective instruction. When examining the top three most important criteria, the administrators ranked all three criteria of lesson preparation. Teachers agreed with administrators with regard to two of the three but they ranked interaction with students during lesson implementation the most important. This ranking was the same for the parents. They ranked interaction with students the highest in importance, lesson progression the second, and understanding of the curriculum and teaching and learning method the third. Students ranked lesson progression as the most important, teacher attitude the second most important, and understanding of the curriculum and teaching and learning method third most important. The results imply that the teacher evaluation results may fail to convince all the groups unless a teacher has scored evenly on all criteria. Different parties may assess the validity of the evaluation differently as they weight evaluation criteria differently. These different views challenge any attempt to deliberate on improving the validity of the evaluation. More research on the nature of the differences and ways to support productive communications between these stakeholders of education is needed. On the other hand, the results indicate that the new evaluation system is definitely an improvement from the previous system, where the administrators were the sole evaluators.

172

NAM-HWA KANG

DISCUSSION The current teacher evaluation system in South Korea was developed as a response to public calls for school reform. In spite of over 2 years of deliberation with relevant stakeholders on the nature of teacher evaluation system, partially supported drafts of teacher evaluation system were produced, pilot tested, and revised over 5 years. A legal ground for the system was not gained through the legislature but, instead, through an amendment of presidential decree. Over the years of pilot testing and revisions, the new evaluation system accommodated demands of teachers and parents to a degree but is still under criticism. The process of developing the TEPD system seems to demonstrate an unsuccessful attempt to apply the Habermasian notion of discursive democracy. In the beginning, relevant stakeholders were invited to the deliberation on the reform of the teacher evaluation system. However, official meetings such as workshops and forums ended prematurely without consensus or were disrupted by obstinate groups. In the end, the government proceeded without full support of the groups, which was likely the reason for failing to gain a legal ground in legislation. Habermas argues that participants in deliberation should believe in rationality (the possibility to make a consensus through negotiation on the basis of good reasons during argumentation) when a moral principle of discourse (equal consideration is given to the interest of all those involved in argumentation) is followed. The failed negotiations demonstrated in the process of teacher evaluation policy development might be because these premises and assumptions have not been acted upon or need more time to work than given. The imbalance of power shown in the process might also be a reason for the failure. Similar to the case explained by Bridges and Groves (1999), teacher organizations had great power, but the greatest power was exercised by government officials who proceeded without full support from all those involved. Balance in political power among various members might be necessary for successful decision-making through deliberative democracy. Alternatively, better and faster understanding of different positions and interests involved in the discussion could have been possible if more opportunities to communicate different positions had been provided in informal arenas before any formal meetings, as Baccaro and Papadakis (2009) suggested. During the deliberation process, teacher organizations demonstrated a view of the teacher as a professional (Darling-Hammond et al., 1983). This conflicted with neoliberal perspectives demonstrated by parents and general advocacy groups who advocate competition as a way to improve education.

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

173

The fully established new evaluation system seems to partially accommodate both perspectives, in that teachers evaluate their peers as most professionals do. Although competition is not built into the system, limited rewards for excellence open its possibility. Whether this kind of marriage between two perspectives is effective or not remains to be known after several implementations and analyses of results. The newly established evaluation system also seems to demonstrate a hybrid of different views of school organization (Darling-Hammond et al., 1983). The way the assessment leader and participants are defined in the MEST guidelines as well as other implementation procedures prescribed apparently demonstrate the face of bureaucracy. However, the room for discretionary decisions on the modification of MEST guidelines by teachers or LEAs clearly shows a view of organization with loosely coupled elements. Again, the effect of this hybrid remains to be examined.4 The new evaluation system missed opportunities to address other issues raised in the beginning of the discussion on teacher evaluation reform. The separation of summative appraisal from formative appraisal left the other half of the original problem, improving teacher evaluation for promotion, hidden from public discourse, and addressed without much input from the public. Similarly, parents’ demand for a mechanism to dismiss ineffective teachers was not publicly addressed as it was separated from the new teacher evaluation system. By highlighting only a part of the whole issue, the other parts were hidden from public discourse and failed to be part of a deliberative democratic decision-making process. In addition to the missed opportunities, the new evaluation system has its own problems. First and foremost, the validity of the evaluation should be addressed. The evaluation is done by the teachers and used for the teachers themselves. Therefore, for valid and effective evaluation, teachers should be knowledgeable of the system and skillful in performing evaluations.5 At the same time, teachers should be educated to fully appreciate its value for helping professional development. Different emphases on various evaluation criteria by different stakeholders should also be carefully reflected in the evaluation. It is possible to make different parts of criteria used by different stakeholders. For example, teachers might be evaluated in their instructional planning capacity by administrators while their ability to interact with students meaningfully might be informed by student feedback. More ideas on ways to accommodate different values on different aspects of teaching should be researched. The current evaluation criteria are context free. All teaching is embedded in teaching contexts and evaluation should reflect this characteristic of

174

NAM-HWA KANG

teaching. Although each school and teachers are encouraged to modify standard evaluation criteria and create appropriate evaluation items, there is no evidence of support for this highly demanding job. At a minimum, the MEST should suggest possible ways to modify items to reflect contextual variations based on the educational research findings available. The current teacher evaluation system is only a part of large reform efforts in response to public demand for quality public education. It focuses on individual teacher development, and this should be interrelated with reform efforts in other parts of school system. Future research on the effectiveness of the TEPD should examine the system in the context of entire school reform efforts by looking at the interactions between various parts.

NOTES 1. The major difference of the two versions was inclusion of principal as an evaluator. 2. Teachers in temporary positions are those who fill in positions of teachers on leave and hired through informal processes. Anyone who has a teaching license appropriate for the position can be hired. 3. Teachers continue to receive a regular salary during these intensive PDs and all the expenses for the PDs are paid by the LEAs. 4. There is a lack of evidence that schools or LEAs modify the MEST guidelines to localize the evaluation. In particular, the procedural guidelines are relatively strictly followed due to the requirements of reporting and following-up on the evaluation results (rewards and further professional development.) 5. This issue is apparent in that schools rarely add items or significantly modify sample items even when it is allowed.

REFERENCES Baccaro, L., & Papadakis, K. (2009). The downside of participatory-deliberative public administration. Socio-Economic Review, 7(2), 245–276. Bridges, E. M., & Groves, B. R. (1999). The macro- and micropolitics of personnel evaluation: A framework. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 321–337. Carleheden, M. (2006). Towards democratic foundations: A Habermasian perspective on the politics of education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(5), 521–543. Cham-kyo-yook hak-boo-mo hyeo [Parent Association for Authentic Education]. (2005). Ki-ja Hyeo-geon-moon [Statements for media interview]. Seoul, Korea: Author. Retrieved from http://hakbumo.or.kr/

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

175

Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 285–328. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Han, J. (2011). Kyo-sil soo-yup-eh-suh moo-ut-ee ka-jang joong-yo-han-ga: hak-sep-gi-doh neung-ryuk-eh dae-han da-yang-han kyan-jum [What is most important in school lessons: Various perspectives on teaching abilities]. Journal of Science education, 35(2), 138–148. Han, M. (2007). Kyo-won keun-moo pyeong-jung-pyo gae-sun-eh kyan-han yun-goo [A study of improving appraisal of teacher performance]. Seoul, Korea: KED. Hwang, G., Yang, E., Jun, Y., & Heo, H. (2001). Qualitative research for understanding the teacher-student conflicts known as ‘the classroom collapse.’ The Journal of Korean Education, 28(2), 247–276. Hwang, K. (2001). Patterns of on-line discourses about the school failure. Theory and Research in Citizenship Education, 33, 407–438. Jeon, J. (2001). Kyo-won pyung-ga-wa kyo-won sung-kwa-keup [Teacher evaluation and bonuses]. Kyo-yook Yee-ron-kwa Sil-cheon [Educational Theory and Practice], 11(2), 143–186. Johnson, B. L., Jr. (1999). Great expectations but politics as usual: The rise and fall of a state-level evaluation initiative. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 361–381. Kang, N.-H., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 200–207. Kim, B. J., Kim, T. W., & Kim, E. A. (2006). Reporting perspective analysis on teacher evaluation system in newspaper. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 23(1), 349–371. Kim, K. T., Park, K. Y., & Joo, Y. H. (2009). A political analysis of teacher evaluation policy streams in Korea. The Journal of Politics of Education, 16(1), 35–61. Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2011). An analysis of the effectiveness of teacher appraisal for professional development in model schools. The Journal of Elementary Education, 24(1), 21–42. Kim, M. (2000). School collapse: Is it myth or reality? Korean Journal of Anthropology of Education, 3(2), 1–29. Kim, S. (2011). The analysis of the logic of pro and con about teacher evaluation system. CNU Journal of Educational Studies, 29(1), 41–59. Kim, S. T. (2011). Kyo-won neung-ryuk gae-bal pyung-ga je-do woon-young boon-suk: Si-byum hak-kyo joong-shim [Teacher evaluation for professional development system management and results: Cases of pilot administration]. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 10(1), 187–217. Kim, W. J. (2000). Educational psychological analysis of classroom collapse. Korean Journal of Anthropology of Education, 3(2), 79–138. Korea Ministry of Education. (1999). Kyo-jig Bal-jeon Jong-hap Bang-ahn (si-ahn) [A comprehensive plan for development of teaching(draft)]. Seoul, Korea: Author. Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). (2010). Kyo-yook Tong-ke [Educational statics]. Seoul, Korea: Educational Statistics Database. Kwon, K. (2000). Development of evaluation criteria system for teacher evaluation in elementary and secondary schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 38(3), 107–131.

176

NAM-HWA KANG

Lee, J. J. (2004). Keun-pyung-je jaeng-jeum-kya kae-sun [Issues related to teacher promotion policy and its improvement]. Proceedings at the Forum for improving teacher promotion policy. Seoul, Korea. Lejano, R. P. (2006). Frameworks for policy analysis: Merging text and context. New York, NY: Routledge. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2010). Kyo-won pyeon-ga choi-go ba-deun sun-sang-nimb man-na bo-nee [Teachers who were evaluated excellent]. MEST Internet Magazine. Seoul, Korea. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2011, February 15). Eem-yong-si-heum je-do sun-jin-hwa-ro kyo-gik juck-sung-kwa een-sung got—choon kyo-sa sun-bal han-dda [Selecting teachers with teaching aptitude and character by advancing teacher selection exam system]. Seoul, Korea: Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012a). Ahn-jung-juk jung-chak-eul we-han 2012 nyun kyo-won neung-ryuk gae-bal pyung-ga system si-hang gi-bon kye-whaek [2012 Teacher evaluation for professional development implementation master plan]. Seoul, Korea: Author. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2012b). 2012 hak-yun-do Kyo-won neungryuk gae-bal pyung-ga manual [2012 Teacher evaluation for professional development manual]. Seoul, Korea: Author. Mok, Y. (2002). Kyo-yook jun-tong yuk-hak goo-do byun-wha-wa kyo-sil boong-kwae kwan-lyun sung yun-goo [A study of relation between changes of mechanism in educational tradition and the classroom collapse]. The Journal of Educational Idea, 11, 35–51. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD]. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Author. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: Author. Park, K. (2006). Kong-kyo yook jung-sang-hwa wee-han kyo-yook jung-chaek kyul-jung che-je cham-yuh-ja yuk-hal jo-myung [The roles of decision-makers in educational policy for the revitalization of public education]. The Journal of Research in Education, 26, 173–204. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kagan Paul. Seo, D. (2006). The formation of new-liberal discourse on education after ‘‘classroom collapse,’’ and resistance to it: A critical discourse analysis on homeschooling reports in South Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 16(1), 77–105. Shin, S.H. (2011). Kyo-won neung-ryuk gae-bal pyeon-ga si-hang ee-who: Kyo-won een-sik yun-goo [After implementation of teacher evaluation for professional development: Perceptions of teachers]. Unpublished master’s thesis.Korea National University of Education, Chung-ju, Korea. Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (1999). The politics of teacher evaluation: A case study of new system design and implementation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(4), 339–359. Whang, K., Yang, E., Jun, Y., & Huh, H. (2001). ‘‘Kyo-sil boong-gwae’’-ro bull-li-neun kyo-sa—hak-saeng gal-deung hyun-sang ee-hae wee-han jill-juk yun-goo [A qualitative study about tension between teacher and students in the phenomenon called, ‘‘classroom collapse.’’]. The Journal of Korean Education, 28(2), 247–276.

Teacher Evaluation Policy Development in South Korea

177

Yonhapnews Agency. (2005). Hak-boo-mo Kyo-won dan-chae, ‘Kyo-won Pyung-ga-je’ dea-lip [Oppositions between parent teacher associations (with regard to) teacher evaluation policy]. Yonhapnews. Retrieved from http://education.hani.co.kr/ Yonhapnews Agency. (2012, July 19). Chung-so-nyun Jang-rae-hee-mang 1 wee? Gyo-sa, yun-ae-en, Kong-moo-won’ soon [Ranks of future career by teenagers? Top teacher, the second entertainer, civil service as the third]. Yonhapnews. Retrieved from http:// app.yonhapnews.co.kr/ Yoo, I. (2009). Kyo-won neung-ryuk pyeon-ga je-do jung-chak sa-le boon-suk [Analysis of teacher competence evaluation policy case]. Seoul, Korea: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES IN THE UNITED STATES: IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTIVIST INSTRUCTION Guodong Liang ABSTRACT Purpose – The author examines the implementation and characteristics of teacher evaluation and explores their associations with improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. Methodology – This quantitative study uses statewide longitudinal Teachers’ Opportunity to Learn survey data collected in 2009 and 2010 from middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri and estimates a series of value-added models with two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling. Findings – Teachers in this study were mainly evaluated by principals who conducted classroom observations and held face-to-face meetings to evaluate teaching practice and professional development activities. The study provides empirical evidence and support for the use of multiple evaluators with multiple evaluation data and outcomes in teacher

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 179–206 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019013

179

180

GUODONG LIANG

evaluation. Additionally, it highlights the potential benefits of focusing on teachers’ instructional data instead of student achievement in teacher evaluation in order to improve their teaching practice. Research limitations – This study focused on middle school mathematics teachers in a single state in the United States. Whether these findings can be generalized to teachers of other subject areas or grades, or to states with different policy contexts, or to countries with country-specific structural, cultural, and social differences is unknown. Value – This study is the first effort to systematically examine teacher evaluation practices across a single state and provide empirical evidence on the relationships between the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ instructional practice. Findings of this study provide school, district, state, federal, and international policymakers and administrators with important, up-to-date information on teacher evaluation at the middle-school level in the United States. Keywords: Teacher evaluation; constructivist instruction; mathematics teachers; surveys; the United States; longitudinal data

INTRODUCTION Teacher evaluation is an essential component in all education systems. In most countries, the focus of teacher evaluation has shifted from ensuring adherence to established procedures, policies, and practices to how teacher evaluation influences learning outcomes (OECD, 2011). Internationally, teacher evaluation approaches vary widely from Singapore’s structured, government-mandated performance-management system to Finland’s school-based system which relies on self- and peer-evaluation (Asia Society, 2011). In the United States, teacher evaluation plays an important role in enhancing teachers’ effectiveness, promoting professional learning, and making personnel decisions (Brandt, Mathers, Oliva, Brown-Sims, & Hess, 2007). During the 2009–2010 academic year, 44 states have enacted policies that required formal evaluations of all teachers’ performance, 15 states that required annual evaluations, and 13 states that tied student achievement to teacher evaluation (Education Week, 2011). The evaluation systems in many school districts, however, do little to help teachers improve because the tools

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

181

for evaluating teachers often do not always represent the important features of good teaching and many principals cannot address the needs of some teachers for instructional support (Darling-Hammond, 2012). To improve the effectiveness of teacher evaluation, some researchers advocated for the use of student achievement data in teacher evaluation (Peterson, 2000, 2004) and value-added models which examine student test-score gains from one year to the next received much national attention (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2011; Harris & McCaffrey, 2010). Although this approach provides valuable information on teacher performance, there are wide concerns regarding its stability, reliability, and validity (Newton, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Thomas, 2010; Sass, 2008). In addition, high-stakes accountability tests may encourage teachers to engage in unintended behaviors such as placing ethnic minority students, low-SES students, and/or low-achievers into special education categories (Jacob, 2005), or even outright cheating (Jacob & Levitt, 2003) instead of improving their instructional practice. This situation may escalate if teachers are solely or mainly evaluated on students’ test scores. Because the ultimate purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve teachers’ instruction and promote authentic student learning, and constructivist instruction which focuses on active knowledge construction and meaning making is a major approach to improving students’ conceptual understanding (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2003; Ziegler & Yan, 2001), it is critically important to examine the relationships between the characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. This study used statewide longitudinal survey data collected in 2009 and 2010 from middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri and examined the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation and their associations with improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. Specifically, it addressed the following research questions: 1. What are the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation (evaluators, methods, data, perceived helpfulness, and outcomes) reported by middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri? 2. How are the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation associated with improvement in mathematics teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction from 2009 to 2010, controlling for their background characteristics? This study is the first effort to systematically examine teacher evaluation practices across a single state and provide empirical evidence on the

182

GUODONG LIANG

relationships between the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ instructional practice. Findings of this study advance the knowledge base on the implementation of teacher evaluation and its impacts on improving teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. This study provides school-, district-, state-, federal-, and even international policymakers and administrators with important, up-to-date information on teacher evaluation at the middle school level in the United States. In addition, this study focused on middle school mathematics teachers, who are working under the greatest pressure for higher student achievement in state-mandated standardized tests within the context of accountability reform and the findings may be of particular importance.

TEACHER EVALUATION In the United States, the focus of teacher evaluation has evolved from personal characteristics in the early 20th century to observable teaching behaviors from the 1950s to the 1980s and to accountability, professional development, and school improvement from the 1980s into the 21st century (Ellett & Teddlie, 2003; Teddlie, Stringfield, & Burdett, 2003). Today, the most important way to evaluate teacher performance is the standardbased approach (Kennedy, 2010), and a commonly used model was developed by Danielson (1996). Within Danielson’s framework, there are four major domains: (a) planning and preparation (e.g., knowledge of content and pedagogy); (b) classroom environment (e.g., respect and rapport); (c) instruction (e.g., communication and student engagement); and (d) professional responsibilities. Historically, teacher evaluation has been delegated from state governments to local educational agencies (Teddlie et al., 2003). With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, teacher evaluation has become a state-level policy target and tool for promoting teacher improvement and student learning (Ellett & Teddlie, 2003) and state governments are asserting more oversight and involvement in local practices such as specifying criteria and requiring specific instruments and procedures (Hazi & Rucinski, 2009). Despite the state policy focus on teacher evaluation, only a few large-scale descriptive studies have systematically examined teacher evaluation policies across districts (Brandt et al., 2007; Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup, Garland, Ellett, & Rugutt, 1996). These studies found that school administrators are

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

183

most commonly charged with conducting teacher evaluations and the most common methods are classroom observations and pre- and post-observation conferences. None of these studies, however, examined how the effectiveness of an evaluation system may be influenced by such important factors as who conducts the evaluation, what methods are used for data collection, and what data are gathered.

Evaluators Although principals are the most common evaluators, the findings on the reliability and validity of principal ratings are mixed and inconclusive (e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Jacob & Lefgren, 2008; Medley & Coker, 1987). Earlier studies tended to show low accuracy of principal judgment (Medley & Coker, 1987; Peterson, 2000). Although several recent studies in California (Gallagher, 2004), Cincinnati (Milanowski, 2004), and Nevada (Kimball, White, Milanowski, & Borman, 2004) reported positive relationships between principal evaluation and student test-score gains, the strengths of the association are generally weak or modest at most. Jacob and Lefgren (2008) found that principals are most effective in identifying the best teachers and the worst teachers, but they have far less ability to distinguish between teachers in the middle of the achievement distribution, which constitutes the largest portion of teachers. Kimball and Milanowski (2009) also reported substantial variation in the relationship between school leaders’ ratings of teachers and value-added measures of the average achievement of the teachers’ students. Teachers’ colleagues (e.g., peer teachers, mentors) may also serve as important evaluators. This approach received support from teacher unions (American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association, 1998). When carefully selected and trained, peer evaluators may provide ratings with moderate-to-high agreement with ratings by administrators (Heneman & Milanowski, 2003). In a longitudinal case study of one urban school district in California, Goldstein (2007) found that teachers identified for excellence may serve as consulting teachers and effectively conduct evaluations of their peers. These master teachers may have more time to support and evaluate the participating teachers and their evaluations are often more transparent. In addition, a good teacher evaluation system may involve outside experts (Peterson, 2000) such as independent observers from another school district. Their credentials and expertise may help increase the credibility of the evaluation.

184

GUODONG LIANG

Evaluation Methods Although principals’ classroom observations and meetings with teachers capture important information about teachers’ instructional practice, reliance on one or two formal principal visits presents serious problems because some other important dimensions of teacher performance, such as student assessment and professionalism, may not be readily observable. These aspects of teacher performance may be more effectively documented in teacher portfolios (Tucker, Stronge, Gareis, & Beers, 2003). Portfolios have also been used extensively in preservice teacher education and accreditation programs (Delandshere & Petrosky, 2010; Wei & Pecheone, 2010) and as a key component for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (Reese, 2010). Evaluation Data Because a main responsibility of teachers is to facilitate student learning, some researchers proposed that student achievement data should play an important role in teacher evaluation (Peterson, 2000, 2004). A leading method and rapidly advancing use of test-score data is value-added modeling (Harris & McCaffrey, 2010). Although student test-score gains are more objective and can eliminate favoritism and personal bias, researchers cautioned that these models should be used as only one of the several measures in an accountability system along with principals’ or peers’ ratings of teachers (Darling-Hammond et al., 2011; Rothstein, 2010). Research has shown that teacher ratings with the value-added models can vary significantly across time and across the classes (Newton et al., 2010; Sass, 2008), or even across tests (e.g., Lockwood et al., 2007). Alternatively, evaluators may evaluate teachers on their instructional data (e.g., studentteacher interactions) or professional development and service activities (Darling-Hammond et al., 2011). Student and parent surveys may also be used as important data sources (Kyriakides, 2005; Peterson, Wahlquist, & Bone, 2000).

TEACHERS’ PRACTICE OF CONSTRUCTIVIST INSTRUCTION With roots in the work of Dewey (1929), Piaget (1952), and Vygotsky (1978), the theory and philosophy of constructivist instruction have

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

185

dominated the fields of teaching and learning (Richardson, 2003; Tobias & Duffy, 2009). Viewing knowledge as temporary, developmental, socially and culturally mediated, and nonobjective (Brooks & Brooks, 1993), constructivist instruction has been embraced by the K-12 mathematics education communities (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989, 2000). Standard-based reforms also require teachers to make a transition from traditional teacher-centered didactic instruction which focuses student learning on the passive receipt of knowledge to student-centered constructivist instruction which focuses on active knowledge construction and sense-making. Following the previous studies (e.g., Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Nie & Lau, 2010), this study defined constructivist instruction broadly as instructional practices that emphasize deep understanding of knowledge, substantive and elaborated communication, and making connections with real-world situations. To help students construct their own knowledge through investigation, collaboration, and reflection, teachers may pose problems of emerging relevance to students, structure learning around primary concepts, and seek and value students’ points of view. Teachers may also adapt curriculum to address students’ suppositions and assess student learning in the context of teaching (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). Empirical studies showed positive relationships between constructivistoriented instructions and students’ mathematics achievement (Hamilton et al., 2003; Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996), and cognitive skills (Nie & Lau, 2010; Ziegler & Yan, 2001). For example, using a nationally representative sample in the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, Ziegler and Yan (2001) found positive relationships between student mathematics achievement and teachers’ constructivist instructional practices, specifically problem-solving strategies as measured by the degree of emphasis on problem solution, mathematical concepts, and the importance of mathematics.

PERFORMANCE-BASED TEACHER EVALUATION IN MISSOURI In 1983, Missouri passed legislation and required school districts to implement a performance-based teacher evaluation (PBTE) program. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MoDESE) provided school districts with evaluation guidelines in 1984 that assessed

186

GUODONG LIANG

teachers’ demonstrated standards of competency and academic ability. By the 1985–1986 academic year, 98% of the districts had used a PBTE program and a great majority used systems that were essentially identical to the state model (Valentine & Harting, 1988). In 1999, the MoDESE presented a new evaluation model based on the latest research at that time, including the work of Danielson (1996). The revised model consists of both a teacher evaluation phase and a teacher professional development phase. In the evaluation phase, the administrator or supervisor purposefully collects data from such sources as classroom observations and pre- and post-observation conferences. In the professional development phase, nontenured teachers have a mentor in developing the evaluation portfolio and they observe mentors’ teaching and are observed by the mentors. Tenured teachers may conduct a self-evaluation, develop and implement a professional development plan, and participate in professional collaborations on instruction and curriculum development. The PBTE model has six standards: (a) involving students to actively participate in the learning process; (b) using various forms of evaluation to monitor student learning; (c) being knowledgeable of the content and effectively maintaining students’ on-task behavior; (d) interacting in a professional manner; (e) keeping current on instructional knowledge and seeking changes in teaching behaviors that will improve student performance; and (f) acting as a responsible professional in addressing the overall missions of the school district. Each standard has two to five criteria. For example, the first standard requires teachers to help students acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze, and apply information and ideas, and to recognize and solve problems (MoDESE, 1999). Missouri is similar to many other states on the state-level policies of teacher evaluation. During the 2009–2010 academic year when the survey data were collected for this study, it was one of the 44 states that have enacted policies that required formal evaluations of all teachers’ performance, one of the 38 states that did not tie student achievement to teacher evaluations, and one of the 36 states that did not require annual evaluation of teachers (Education Week, 2011). Although the state mandates the frequency of evaluations, it leaves most details to local districts (Loeb & Miller, 2006). In addition, Missouri is a decentralized state (Pipho, 1991), and does not have a state right-to-work law (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). Similar to other 10 states, Missouri allows districts to bargain with a union representative at their discretion (Lindy, 2011), and although the state has a collective bargaining law, public school teachers are excluded from it (Education Commission of the States, 2008).

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

187

METHODS Data This study used two sets of data: (a) teacher data on their evaluation and practice of constructivist instruction from the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 Teachers’ Opportunity to Learn (TOTL) surveys (Akiba, 2012), and (b) administrative data from the MoDESE. In the 2010 TOTL, the population of 912 middle school mathematics teachers were identified as eligible and received a mail survey. The data were collected through five waves of mailings: (a) the first survey mailing to home addresses in early January 2010; (b) a postcard reminder 3 weeks later; (c) the second survey mailing to school addresses in February 2010; (d) a postcard reminder 3 weeks later; and (e) the final survey mailing to home addresses in late April 2010. Each participant who completed the survey received a $30 gift card from a major retailer as an incentive. A total of 633 teachers returned the complete surveys for a response rate of 69.4%. The 2009 TOTL survey used the same implementation procedures, and 577 out of 886 middle school math teachers completed the survey for a response rate of 65.1%.

Measures Teacher Evaluation The 2010 TOTL asked the teachers if they had had an evaluation conducted by the school or district for the purposes of instructional improvement, tenure or promotion decision, or performance/merit pay during the 2008– 2009 academic year. For clarification purposes, the survey instructed the teachers not to include end-of-course evaluations or exams at a university or college or the evaluation for the National Board Certification. If a teacher reported having had an evaluation, the survey asked a series of questions about the evaluators, data collection methods, data sources, teachers’ perceived helpfulness, and outcomes. Teachers were asked to provide more information if they marked other in the questions. Evaluators. In the survey, teachers were asked whether they had been evaluated by (a) a principal; (b) peer teacher(s); (c) mentor/coach/teacher leaders; (d) outside experts; and (e) other evaluators. Five dummy variables were created for each item with 1 ¼ yes and 0 ¼ no.

188

GUODONG LIANG

Evaluation Methods. Teachers were asked if the following data collection methods were used: (a) classroom observation; (b) teaching portfolio; (c) face-to-face meeting; and (d) other. Their responses were dummy coded as 1=yes and 0=no for each item. Evaluation Data. Teachers were asked whether the following evaluation data were used: (a) student achievement; (b) other student data (e.g., attendance rates, dropout rates); (c) professional development or service activities; (d) data on teaching practices (e.g., observation, course materials, student work); (e) student/parent survey or feedback; (f) teacher test scores (e.g., Praxis II); and (g) other. Their responses were coded as 1 ¼ yes and 0 ¼ no for each item. Perceived Helpfulness. Teachers were asked to what extent the evaluation was helpful for (a) improving classroom teaching; (b) providing new ideas for improving instructional methods; (c) promoting communication with colleagues; (d) promoting communication with principal/administrator; (e) identifying areas of strengths and weaknesses; and (f) planning future professional learning activities. Their responses were coded as 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ small extent, 3 ¼ moderate extent, and 4 ¼ large extent. A composite variable was created based on the means of the teachers’ responses to the six items as an overall measure of teachers’ perceived helpfulness of the evaluation (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .85). Outcomes. Teachers were asked if they received any of the followings as a result of their evaluation: (a) tenure or promotion; (b) one-time cash bonus; (c) salary raise; (d) professional development or teaching resources (e.g., fund, material, release time); and (e) other rewards. Their responses were coded as 1=yes and 0=no. If a teacher indicated having received a cash bonus or salary raise, he/she was asked to provide the dollar amount. Constructivist Instruction Both the 2009 and 2010 TOTL surveys asked teachers how often their students in a typical mathematics class participate in seven types of constructivist teaching activities: (a) solving mathematics problems in small groups or with a partner; (b) writing a few sentences about how to solve a mathematics problem; (c) writing reports or doing mathematics projects; (d) discussing solutions to mathematics problems with other students; (e) working and discussing mathematics problems that reflect real-life situations; (f) working with objects like rulers; and (g) talking to the class

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

189

about their mathematics work. These items were taken from Mayer (1999). Their responses were coded as 1 ¼ never or hardly ever, 2 ¼ 1–2 times a month, 3 ¼ 1–2 times a week, and 4 ¼ almost every day. A composite measure of teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction was created based on the means of the teachers’ responses to the seven items (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .75 for the 2009 survey and .74 for the 2010 survey). Higher values on this composite measure represent more frequent use of constructivist instruction in a typical mathematics class. Teacher-Level Control Variables Teachers reported the following background information: (a) certification; (b) math major; (c) math education major; (d) teaching experience; and (e) highest degree. In this study, teacher certification was coded as 1 ¼ having a full certification in mathematics and 0 ¼ otherwise. For teachers’ academic major, this study coded the teachers’ mathematics major as 1 ¼ majored in mathematics in undergraduate or graduate program and 0 ¼ otherwise, and did the same for mathematics education major. For teaching experience, teachers reported their total number of years of teaching and their responses were recoded into three categories: (a) beginning teachers (0–5 years); (b) midcareer teachers (6–15 years); and (c) experienced teachers (16 years or more). Two dummy variables were created for beginning teachers and experienced teachers. The highest degree was coded as 1 ¼ holding a master’s degree or above and 0 ¼ otherwise. School-Level Control Variables The following school data were obtained from the MoDESE: (a) poverty level as measured by the percentage of students receiving free or reducedprice lunch; (b) diversity level as measured by the percentage of ethnic minority students; (c) school size as measured by the K-12 enrollment; (d) school location (urban, suburban, and rural); and (e) improvement status. Two dummy variables were created for urban and rural schools. For improvement status, it was coded as 1 ¼ school in improvement for at least one year for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 academic years and 0 ¼ otherwise.

ANALYSIS To answer the first research question, this study reported the means and percentages of teachers who were evaluated on each characteristic. To

190

GUODONG LIANG

address the second question, this study merged the 2009 and 2010 TOTL survey data and used two-level Hierarchical Linear Modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to estimate a value-added model taking the form: Level 1: Teacher CI 2010ij ¼ poij þ p1ij CI2009ij þ p2ij ðEvaluation CharacteristicsÞtij þ p3ij ðCertificationÞij þ p4ij ðMath MajorÞij þ p5ij ðMath Education MajorÞij þ p6ij ðNew TeacherÞij þ p7ij ðExperienced TeacherÞij þ p8ij ðMaster’s DegreeÞij þ eij Level 2: School poij ¼ b00j þ b01j ðFRLÞij þ b02j ðMinorityÞij þ b03j ðEnrollmnetÞij þ b04j ðUrbanÞij þ b05j ðRuralÞij þ b06j ðImprovement StatusÞij þ r0ij p1ij ¼ b10j : p8ij ¼ b80j where CI2010ij is the measure of the practice of constructivist instruction of teacher i in school j during the 2009–2010 academic year; CI2009ij is that teacher’s practice of constructivist instruction during the 2008–2009 academic year; and Evaluation Characteristics is a series of variables on the characteristics of teacher evaluation. The coefficient p2ij represents the association between characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction after accounting for prior year’s practice and teacher- and school background factors.

IMPLEMENTATION OF TEACHER EVALUATION POLICIES IN MISSOURI Of the 633 teachers who participated in the 2010 TOTL survey, 492 teachers (77.7%) reported having had an evaluation during the 2008–2009 academic year, and 141 teachers (22.3%) indicated otherwise. Table 1 presents the findings on the characteristics of teacher evaluation based on these 492

191

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

Table 1.

Characteristics of Teacher Evaluation of Middle School Math Teachers in Missouri (N=492).

Evaluators Principal Mentor/coach/teacher leaders Peer teacher(s) Outside experts Other (e.g., area coordinator) Multiple evaluators Evaluation Methods Classroom observation Face-to-face meeting Teaching portfolio Other (e.g., paperwork) Multiple evaluation methods Evaluation Data Teaching practice Prof. development (PD) Student achievement (SA) Student/parents survey Other student data Teacher test score Other (e.g., reflection) Multiple evaluation data Evaluation Outcomes Tenure or promotion Salary raise PD or teaching resources Other (e.g., contract renewal) One-time cash bonus Multiple evaluation outcomes

n

%

474 53

96.3 10.8

36

7.3

29 45

5.9 9.1

109

22.2

490 433 58 15 434

99.6 88.0 11.8 3.0 88.2

407 234 108 55 25 5 12 262

82.7 47.6 22.0 11.2 5.1 1.0 2.4 53.3

76 69 34 14

15.4 14.0 6.9 2.8

0 35

0.0 7.1

n

%

367 27

74.6 5.5

25

5.1

15 58

3.0 11.8

Evaluation Methods in Combination Observation, meeting 362 Observation 57 Observation, portfolio, meeting 55 Other combinations 18

73.6 11.6 11.2 3.6

Evaluation Data in Combination Teaching practice PD, teaching practice SA, teaching practice SA, PD, teaching practice Professional development PD, teaching practice, survey Other combinations

151 121 29 29 24 19 119

30.7 24.6 5.9 5.9 4.9 3.9 24.1

Evaluation Outcomes in Combination Nothing 339 Tenure or promotion 55 Salary raise 39 PD or teaching resources 12

68.9 11.2 7.9 2.4

Evaluators in Combination Principal Principal, mentor/coach/ teacher leader Principal, other (e.g., area coordinator) Principal, outside experts Other combinations

Other combinations

47

9.6

teachers. The left column reports the frequency of each evaluation item and the percentage of teachers who were evaluated by multiple evaluators, methods, and data, and received two or more outcomes. The right column shows the frequency of the evaluation items in combination which sum to 100% within each category.

192

GUODONG LIANG

Evaluators Consistent with the literature, the table shows that principals are the most common evaluator. A majority of 474 teachers (96.3%) were evaluated by their principals, 53 teachers (8.7%) by their mentors, coaches, or teacher leaders, 36 teachers (7.3%) by peer teachers, 29 teachers (5.9%) by outside experts, and another 45 teachers (9.1%) by some other evaluators such as area coordinators. Only slightly more than one fifth of the teachers (109 teachers or 22.2%) were evaluated by two or more evaluators. In the frequency of combination of evaluators reported in the right column, 367 teachers (74.6%) were evaluated solely by their principals, 27 teachers (5.5%) by principals and mentors, coaches, or teacher leaders, 25 teachers (5.1%) by principals and some others, and 15 teachers (3.0%) by principals and outside experts. The remaining 58 teachers (11.8%) were evaluated by some other combinations of the evaluators. Evaluation Methods We can see from the table that classroom observation and face-to-face meeting were the most common methods for data collection, and most of the teachers were evaluated with multiple methods. Almost all the teachers (490 teachers or 99.6%) were evaluated by means of classroom observation, and 433 teachers (88.0%) had meetings with their evaluators. Only 58 teachers (11.8) had teaching portfolios in their evaluation and 15 teachers (3.0%) were evaluated with other methods such as growth plans. A majority of the teachers (434 teachers or 88.2%) were evaluated with two or more data collection methods. In the frequency of combination of evaluation methods, a majority of the teachers (362 teachers or 73.6%) were evaluated with classroom observations and face-to-face meetings, 57 teachers (11.6%) with classroom observations only, and 55 teachers (11.2%) with the combination of classroom observations, teaching portfolios, and faceto-face meetings. The remaining 18 teachers (3.6%) were evaluated with some other combinations of the methods. Evaluation Data The table shows that teachers’ teaching practice constituted the most important data and slightly over one half of the teachers were evaluated on

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

193

multiple data sources. The majority of the teachers (407 teachers or 82.7%) were evaluated on their teaching practice, and 234 teachers (47.6%) on their professional development or service activities. About one fifth of the teachers reported the use of student achievement data, and 55 teachers (11.2%) had student or parent surveys or feedback in their evaluation. Comparatively much smaller percentages of teachers were evaluated on other student data (25 teachers or 5.17%), teachers’ test scores (5 teachers or 1.7%), and other data including reflections or extracurricular activities (12 teachers or 2.4%). Over half of the teachers (262 teachers or 53.3%) were evaluated on two or more data sources. The frequency of combination of evaluation data shows a major variation in the types of data used for teacher evaluation: 151 teachers (30.7%) were evaluated on their teaching practice, 121 teachers (24.6%) on a combination of teaching practice and professional development or service activities, and the remaining 220 teachers (44.7%) on other combinations such as student achievement, professional development/service activities, and teaching practice.

Evaluation Outcomes For a majority of teachers (339 teachers or 68.9%), there was no outcome of the evaluation in the forms of tenure or promotion, salary raise or bonus, or professional development or teaching resources. Among the 492 teachers, only 76 teachers (15.4%) received tenure or promotion, 69 teachers (14.0%) received performance-related pay (PRP) in the form of salary raises, 34 teachers (6.9%) received professional development or teaching resources, and 14 teachers (2.8%) had other outcomes such as contract renewal. No teachers received a cash bonus and only 35 teachers (7.1%) saw two or more outcomes. In the frequency of combination of evaluation outcomes, 55 teachers (11.2%) received tenure or promotion, 39 teachers (7.9%) received PRP, and 12 teachers (2.4%) received professional development or teaching resources. The amount of the PRP that the 69 teachers received varied from a minimum of $150 to a maximum of $5,000 with an average amount of $1,463 (SD=$1,004). These teachers’ base salary ranged from $25,500 to $79,400 with a mean of $44,908 (SD=11,771). The ratio of the PRP amount to the teachers’ base salary as a measure of the size of the PRP varied from 0.3% to 14.7% with an average ratio of 3.3%.

194

GUODONG LIANG

Perceived Helpfulness of Evaluation In the 2010 TOTL, teachers reported their perceived helpfulness of their evaluations on six items such as improving classroom teaching and providing new ideas for improving instructional methods. All the mean ratings for their perceived helpfulness were between 2.00 that was designated as a small extent and 3.00 as a moderate extent on the Likert scale. The overall teachers’ mean rating was 2.26 (min ¼ 1.00, max ¼ 4.00, SD ¼ .68). The highest mean rating among the six aspects was for helping teachers identify areas of strengths and weaknesses (mean ¼ 2.70, SD ¼ .93). The lowest mean rating was for planning future professional learning activities (mean ¼ 2.00, SD ¼ .89). The other four mean ratings fell somewhere between these two including promoting communication with principal/ administrator (mean ¼ 2.46, SD ¼ .95), improving classroom teaching (mean ¼ 2.23, SD ¼ .71), providing new ideas for improving instructional methods (mean ¼ 2.14, SD ¼ .92), and promoting communication with colleagues (mean ¼ 2.03, SD ¼ .92). Therefore, teachers in this study were generally positive about the helpfulness of their evaluation, yet not to a large extent. They perceived their evaluation as most useful for helping them identify areas of strengths and weaknesses, but least helpful for planning future professional learning activities.

IMPACT OF TEACHER EVALUATION ON IMPROVEMENT OF CONSTRUCTIVIST INSTRUCTION How is teacher evaluation associated with improved instruction? Table 2 presents the results of the Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM) models on the relationships between the implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction, controlling for prior year’s teaching practice and background characteristics. We can see that when teachers were evaluated by their mentors, coaches, or teacher leaders, the frequency of their practice of constructivist instruction improved significantly more than that of the other teachers. Although neither peers nor outside experts showed significant influence on the improvement of teachers’ instruction, teachers improved their practice of constructivist instruction when multiple evaluators were involved in the

Urban school

School Size (in 1,000)

% Ethnic minority

Level 2: School (N ¼ 146) % FRL

Master’s degree

Experienced (W15 yrs)

Beginning (0–5 yrs)

Math Ed major

Math major

Constructivist instruction 2008–09 Math certification

Level 1: Teacher (N ¼ 313) Teacher evaluation

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .106 (.112) .046 (.077)

.021 (.086) .658 (.042) .054 (.079) .049 (.051) .055 (.048) .008 (.053) .056 (.049) .079 (.050)

Peer Teacher(s)

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .110 (.112) .053 (.077)

.244 (.089) .651 (.042) .049 (.077) .046 (.050) .045 (.047) .034 (.053) .064 (.049) .095 (.049)

Mentor/ Coach

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .107 (.112) .045 (.077)

.020 (.098) .659 (.042) .057 (.078) .049 (.051) .055 (.047) .009 (.053) .055 (.049) .079 (.050)

Outside Experts

Evaluators

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .103 (.113) .044 (.078)

.119 (.055) .656 (.042) .043 (.078) .047 (.051) .054 (.047) .017 (.053) .060 (.049) .081 (.049)

Multiple Evaluators

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .099 (.111) .037 (.076)

.179 (.065) .664 (.042) .047 (.077) .041 (.051) .050 (.047) .011 (.053) .053 (.049) .081 (.049)

Teaching Portfolio

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .104 (.112) .048 (.077)

.058 (.062) .657 (.042) .057 (.078) .056 (.052) .063 (.048) .011 (.053) .049 (.050) .079 (.049)

Meeting

Evaluation Methods

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .102 (.112) .048 (.077)

.090 (.062) .658 (.042) .058 (.078) .059 (.051) .067 (.048) .012 (.053) .046 (.050) .079 (.049)

Multiple Methods

Table 2. Teacher Evaluation and Improvement in Teachers’ Practice of Constructivist Instruction.

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States 195

.001 (.064) .002 (.081) 2.771 (.085)

Experienced (W15 yrs)

Beginning (0–5 yrs)

Math Ed major

Math major

Math certification

Constructivist instruction 2008–09

Level 1: Teacher (N ¼ 313) Teacher evaluation

Intercept

Improvement status

Rural school .002 (.064) .026 (.081) 2.772 (.084)

Mentor/ Coach

.054 (.052) .655 (.042) .050 (.078) .047 (.051) .058 (.047) .011 (.053) .047 (.050)

Student Achievement

Peer Teacher(s)

.049 (.100) .656 (.043) .057 (.078) .047 (.051) .056 (.047) .006 (.054) .055 (.049)

Other Student Data

.002 (.064) .002 (.081) 2.772 (.085)

Outside Experts

Evaluators

.012 (.064) .009 (.080) 2.756 (.084)

Teaching Portfolio

.070 (.043) .651 (.042) .046 (.079) .053 (.051) .059 (.047) .010 (.053) .049 (.049)

PD/Service Activities

.168 (.053) .653 (.042) .066 (.077) .055 (.050) .067 (.047) .017 (.052) .064 (.049)

.046 (.063) .657 (.042) .063 (.079) .049 (.051) .060 (.048) .010 (.053) .051 (.050)

Survey/ Feedback

.000 (.064) .004 (.081) 2.723 (.099)

Meeting

Evaluation Methods

Teaching Practice

Evaluation Data

.004 (.065) .006 (.081) 2.761 (.085)

Multiple Evaluators

Table 2. (Continued )

.096 (.043) .653 (.042) .039 (.078) .052 (.051) .063 (.047) .012 (.053) .043 (.049)

Multiple Data

.001 (.064) .006 (.081) 2.696 (.099)

Multiple Methods

196 GUODONG LIANG

Math major

Math certification

Constructivist instruction 2008–2009

Level 1: Teacher (N ¼ 313) Teacher evaluation

Intercept

Improvement status

Rural school

Urban school

School size (in 1,000)

% Ethnic minority

Level 2: School (N ¼ 146) % FRL

Master’s degree

.069 (.032) .654 (.042) .066 (.078) .046 (.051) .014 (.056) .660 (.042) .057 (.078) .049 (.051)

.103 (.060) .653 (.042) .056 (.078) .044 (.051)

Salary Raise

.170 (.094) .657 (.042) .048 (.078) .043 (.051)

PD/Teaching Resources

Tenure/ Promotion

.002 (.002) .003 (.001) .115 (.112) .046 (.077) .008 (.064) .010 (.081) 2.633 (.095)

.087 (.049)

Perceived Helpfulness

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .098 (.111) .036 (.076) .001 (.064) .015 (.080) 2.743 (.086)

.075 (.049)

Evaluation Outcomes

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .099 (.113) .052 (.078) .000 (.064) .006 (.081) 2.766 (.085)

.078 (.050)

Helpfulness

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .095 (.113) .047 (.078) .005 (.065) .015 (.082) 2.765 (.085)

.080 (.049)

.153 (.082) .653 (.042) .045 (.078) .050 (.051)

Multiple Outcomes

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .101 (.112) .043 (.077) .002 (.064) .006 (.081) 2.763 (.086)

.081 (.050)

.069 (.029) .654 (.042) .060 (.078) .052 (.051)

PRP Amount

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .088 (.110) .041 (.076) .003 (.063) .029 (.081) 2.739 (.085)

.082 (.049)

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States 197

 po.05,  po.01, po.001.

Intercept

Improvement status

Rural school

Urban school

School size (in 1,000)

% Ethnic Minority

Level 2: School (N ¼ 146) % FRL

Master’s degree

Experienced (W15 yrs)

Beginning (0–5 yrs)

Math Ed major

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .097 (.111) .033 (.076) .005 (.064) .007 (.080) 2.760 (.084)

.057 (.047) .023 (.053) .056 (.049) .077 (.049) .001 (.002) .003 (.001) .108 (.112) .047 (.077) .002 (.064) .002 (.081) 2.775 (.087)

.057 (.047) .011 (.054) .053 (.050) .079 (.050) .001 (.002) .002 (.001) .103 (.112) .053 (.077) .006 (.064) .006 (.081) 2.763 (.085)

.058 (.047) .011 (.053) .060 (.049) .081 (.049) .001 (.002) .002 (.001) .106 (.111) .053 (.077) .010 (.064) .001 (.080) 2.778 (.085)

.051 (.047) .020 (.053) .055 (.049) .081 (.049)

PD/Teaching Resources

Salary Raise

Perceived Helpfulness

Tenure/ Promotion

Evaluation Outcomes

Helpfulness

Table 2. (Continued )

.001 (.002) .003 (.001) .113 (.111) .059 (.077) .006 (.064) .002 (.081) 2.779 (.085)

.052 (.047) .014 (.053) .059 (.049) .086 (.049)

Multiple Outcomes

.001 (.002) .002 (.001) .112 (.112) .053 (.077) .010 (.064) .006 (.081) 2.778 (.084)

.058 (.047) .005 (.053) .056 (.049) .086 (.049)

PRP Amount

198 GUODONG LIANG

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

199

evaluation significantly more than when they were evaluated by a single evaluator. For data collection methods, the results suggest that portfolio could be used as an effective tool. Holding other factors constant, the improvement in the practice of constructivist instruction for teachers who were evaluated with portfolios was greater than those who did not. Face-to-face meetings, although commonly used in teacher evaluation, were not significantly associated with improved classroom teaching, nor was the use of multiple data collection methods. Evaluation data play a key role in communicating to the teachers what practice or outcomes are expected and valued. The results show that teachers who were evaluated based on their teaching practice improved their practice of constructivist instruction significantly more than those who were not evaluated based on teaching practice. In addition, teachers who were evaluated on two or more data sources also had a greater level of improvement. The use of student achievement, other student data, professional development or service activities, or students/parents surveys, however, were not associated with improved teacher practice of constructivist instruction. Table 2 also shows a positive relationship between teachers’ perceived helpfulness of their evaluations and a greater level of improvement in their classroom teaching. Teachers who reported that their evaluations were helpful for helping them identify areas of their strengths and weaknesses and improving their classroom teaching among others were more likely to improve the practice of constructivist instruction than those who reported that their evaluations were not helpful. The relationships between evaluation outcomes and improvement of teachers’ instructional practice were not as strong as those for other evaluation characteristics. Teachers who reported having received tenure or promotion, PRP, professional development or teaching resources, or multiple outcomes were not more likely to improve their practice of constructivist instruction than those who did not receive the outcomes. However, when teachers received a larger amount of PRP, the frequency of their practice of constructivist instruction improved significantly more than that of the other teachers.

DISCUSSION This study builds on the previous study (Liang & Akiba, 2012) and is the first study to examine the implementation characteristics of teacher

200

GUODONG LIANG

evaluation based on a population survey and the associations between the characteristics of teacher evaluation and improvement in teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. Before discussing the findings and implications, it is important to identify the limitations of the study. This study focused on middle school mathematics teachers in a single state in the United States. It is therefore unclear whether these findings can be generalized to teachers of other subject areas or grades, or states with different policy contexts, or countries with country-specific structural, cultural, and social differences. This study shows that most teachers in the sample were solely evaluated by principals who conducted classroom observations and held face-to-face meetings, a finding consistent with the previous literature (Brandt et al., 2007; Ellett & Garland, 1987; Loup et al., 1996). Although classroom observations may capture important information about teachers’ instructional practice, principals tend to be less accurate when evaluating a majority of teachers whose practice is similar to the average (Jacob & Lefgren, 2008). In addition, one or two brief classroom observations or meetings may not be sufficient to capture other important dimensions of teacher performance such as student assessment and professionalism. This study shows that mentors, coaches, and teacher leaders could be involved as important evaluators. Being familiar with the subject matter, curriculum, and instruction materials, these experienced teachers can provide highly specific and constructive feedback to their mentees and promote a positive collegial learning environment. However, the analysis shows that only about one tenth of the middle school mathematics teachers were evaluated by mentors, coaches, or teacher leaders. The finding that only 11.8% of the teachers were evaluated with teaching portfolios is also something that may deserve attention. Although there is not enough rigorous evidence on the effectiveness of portfolios, previous research suggested that portfolios may provide the evaluators with a genuine measurement of multiple dimensions of teacher performance and help capture the complexities and contexts of teaching (Tucker et al., 2003). This study also found a positive relationship between the use of teaching portfolio and improvement in teachers’ practice of constructive instruction. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which portfolios can be a useful tool for teacher evaluation. Despite the national interest and focus on linking teacher compensation with student achievement, this study found no statistically significant association between the use of student test scores or other student data and improvement in teachers’ instructional practice, a finding consistent with the previous studies on PRP (e.g., Glewwe, Llias, & Kremer, 2010; Lavy, 2009;

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

201

Winters, Ritter, Greene, & March, 2009). Instead, when teachers are evaluated on their teaching practice, they are more likely to improve their instruction. This may indicate the importance of focusing on teaching practice data for teacher evaluation. This study provides some empirical evidence and support to the use of multiple evaluators with multiple evaluation data and outcomes to improve teachers’ instructional practice. However, the descriptive analysis showed that in practice, only small percentages of teachers were evaluated by multiple evaluators (22.2%) or received multiple outcomes (7.1%). Although over half of the teachers were evaluated on multiple data sources (53.3%), the finding that almost half of the teachers were evaluated on a single data source is a concern. A previous study (Liang & Akiba, 2011) found that highly qualified teachers in high demand are not more likely than other teachers to receive a larger amount of PRP. One plausible explanation is that principals’ brief visits to the classrooms and meetings with teachers are not sufficient to identify excellent teachers who can teach students higher-order and critical thinking skills. Therefore, it is important for district and school leaders to revisit the implementation of teacher evaluation policies and engage multiple evaluators, evaluation data and outcomes to improve teachers’ practice of constructivist instruction. This study also shows that when teachers perceive their evaluations as helpful, they are more likely to improve their practice of constructivist instruction at a greater level than the other teachers. However, the descriptive analysis indicates that the overall level of teachers’ perceived helpfulness of the evaluation was low. More research may be needed to investigate how to improve teacher’s perceptions of the helpfulness of their evaluations, particularly for such important aspects as planning future professional learning activities and promoting communication with colleagues.

Policy Implications High-stake tests may encourage teachers to game the system instead of enhancing students’ understanding and cognitive skills (Jacob, 2005; Jacob & Levitt, 2003). Given today’s national interest and emphasis on evaluating teachers based on student scores in standardized tests, this study highlights the potential benefits of focusing on teachers’ instructional data instead of student achievement in teacher evaluation in order to improve their teaching practice. The findings from this study suggest that when data

202

GUODONG LIANG

on instructional practice are effectively used in teacher evaluation, it is likely for the evaluation program to improve teachers’ classroom instruction, and in turn enhance students’ cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills. In addition, this study suggests the benefits of involving experienced teachers such as mentors, coaches, and teacher leaders as evaluators, using teaching portfolios, and rewarding financially based on the excellence in teaching. More future studies are needed to examine how these implementation characteristics of teacher evaluation may collectively contribute to instructional and school improvement efforts. Furthermore, although only small percentages of teachers are evaluated by multiple evaluators (22.2%) on multiple data (53.3%), and receive multiple rewards (7.1%), this study found modest yet positive associations between improvement in teachers’ practice of constructive instruction and evaluations conducted by multiple evaluators using multiple data sources and multiple rewards. Therefore, more research is needed to investigate how teacher evaluations that use multiple evaluators and multiple data sources and that provide multiple rewards may enhance the effectiveness of teacher evaluation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Motoko Akiba for granting me permission to use the survey data from her Teachers’ Opportunity to Learn (TOTL) project which was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant no. 0746936). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I also wish to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful and detailed comments.

REFERENCES Akiba, M. (2012). Professional learning activities in context: A statewide survey of middle school mathematics teachers. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(14). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/838. Accessed on October 10, 2012. American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association. (1998). Peer assistance and peer review: An AFT/NEA handbook. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/ teachers/paprhandbook0998.pdf

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

203

Asia Society. (2011). Improving teacher quality around the world: The international summit on the teaching profession. New York, NY: Author. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the measures of effective teaching project. Seattle, WA: Author. Brandt, C., Mathers, C., Oliva, M., Brown-Sims, M., & Hess, J. (2007). Examining district guidance to schools on teacher evaluation policies in the Midwest Region. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs Brooks, J. G., & Brooks, M. G. (1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E. H., & Rothstein, J. (2011). Getting teacher evaluation right: A background paper for policy makers. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education. Delandshere, G., & Petrosky, A. R. (2010). The use of portfolios in preservice teacher education: A critical appraisal. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 9–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogic creed. Washington, DC: Progressive Education Association. Education Commission of the States (2008). State collective bargaining policies for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/27/7727.pdf Education Week. (2011). Uncertain forecast: Education adjusts to a new economic reality. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Inc. Ellett, C. D., & Garland, J. (1987). Teacher evaluation practices in our largest school districts: Are they measuring up to ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ systems? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(1), 69–92. Ellett, C. D., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101–128. Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79–107. Glewwe, P., Llias, N., & Kremer, M. (2010). Teacher incentives. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(3), 205–227. Goldstein, J. (2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113, 479–508. Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. (2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1–29. Harris, D. N., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2010). Value-added: Assessing teachers’ contributions to student achievement. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 251–282). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hazi, H. M., & Rucinski, D. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB.

204

GUODONG LIANG

Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/ v17n5/ Heneman, H. G., & Milanowski, A. T. (2003). Continuing assessment of teacher reactions to a standards-based teacher evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(2), 173–195. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761–796. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101–136. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalance and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877. Kennedy, M. M. (2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 225–249). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34–70. Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 54–78. Kyriakides, L. (2005). Drawing from teacher effectiveness research and research into teacher interpersonal behaviour to establish a teacher evaluation system: A study on the use of student ratings to evaluate teacher behaviour. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 44–66. Lavy, V. (2009). Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity and grading ethics. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1979–2011. Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2011). Performance-related pay: District and teacher characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 21(6), 844–869. Liang, G., & Akiba, M. (2012). Teacher evaluation, performance-related pay and constructivist instruction. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association (AERA) annual meeting, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Lindy, B. A. (2011). The impact of teacher collective bargaining laws on student achievement: Evidence from a New Mexico natural experiment. Yale Law Journal, 120(5), 1130–1191. Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B., Le, V.-N., & Martinez, J. F. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 47–67. Loeb, S., & Miller, L. C. (2006). A review of state teacher policies: What are they, what are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance? Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, School of Education, Stanford University. Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evalution practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203–226. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45. Medley, D. M., & Coker, H. (1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgements of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80(4), 242–247.

Teacher Evaluation Policies in the United States

205

Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1999). Guidelines for performance-based teacher evaluation. Jefferson City, MO: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M., & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280–312. Newton, X. A., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Thomas, E. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu. edu/ojs/article/view/810 Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411–423. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Building a high-quality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world. Paris: Author. Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Peterson, K. (2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 88(60), 60–79. Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., & Bone, K. (2000). Student surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 135–153. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, trans.). New York, NY: International Universities Press. Pipho, C. (1991). Centralizing curriculum at state level. In M. F. Klein (Ed.), The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum (pp. 67–97). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Reese, J. P. (2010). The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: An investment for the future? In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 283–296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214. Sass, T. (2008). The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington, DC: CALDER. Teddlie, C., Stringfield, S., & Burdett, J. (2003). International comparisons of the relationships among educational effectiveness, evaluation and improvement variables: An overview. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 5–20. Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure. New York, NY: Routledge. Tucker, P. D., Stronge, J. H., Gareis, C. R., & Beers, C. S. (2003). The efficacy of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 572–602.

206

GUODONG LIANG

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/righttowork.htm Valentine, J. W., & Harting, R. D. (1988). Performance-based teacher evaluation in Missouri: A three-year report. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wei, R. C., & Pecheone, R. L. (2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education. In M. M. Kennedy (Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69–132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Winters, M. A., Ritter, G. W., Greene, J. P., & Marsh, R. (2009). Student outcomes and teacher productivity and perceptions in Arkansas. In M. G. Springer (Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American K-12 education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Ziegler, J. F., & Yan, W. (2001). Relationships of teaching, learning, and supervision: Their influence on student achievement in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

PART IV TEACHER CAREER ADVANCEMENT

THE IMPACT OF MEXICO’S CARRERA MAGISTERIAL TEACHER INCENTIVE PROGRAM ON EDUCATIONAL QUALITY AND EQUITY Thomas F. Luschei ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to examine the impact of Mexico’s national teacher incentive program, Carrera Magisterial (CM), on educational quality and equity. Methodology – I conduct a descriptive analysis of data from two Mexican states, Aguascalientes and Sonora, to explore whether the distribution of teachers across schools and communities has changed since the implementation of CM. Findings – Although more qualified teachers tend to be disproportionately concentrated in wealthier municipalities and urban areas in both Aguascalientes and Sonora, I find some evidence that the distribution of qualified teachers has become more equitable over time in both states.

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 209–236 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019014

209

210

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

Research limitations – These results suggest that CM’s design, which allows teachers to advance more rapidly through the system if they teach in low-development zones, may have increased equity in children’s access to qualified teachers. However, these trends could result from influences beyond CM, such as salary incentives to teach in less developed areas. We must also take care in extrapolating results from two Mexican states to other states with different populations and geographies. Practical implications – This research suggests that policymakers must apply a careful analysis to the design of CM, especially the allocation of points to teachers based on their students’ test scores. In particular, educators and policymakers must consider the potential movement of more qualified teachers to higher-scoring schools and classrooms. Value – Although substantial research has examined whether CM has improved educational quality in Mexico, this is one of few studies to explore the program’s impact on educational equity. Keywords: Mexico; teacher incentives; teacher quality; teacher distribution; educational equity

INTRODUCTION In 1993, Mexico’s government initiated a national teacher incentive program known as Carrera Magisterial (CM), or Teaching Career. CM was designed to attract and retain high-quality teachers through ‘‘horizontal promotion,’’ in which classroom teachers received salary bonuses and promotions for performance and persistence in the classroom (Ornelas, 1995; Tatto, 1999). Another objective of CM was to promote equity in children’s access to qualified teachers by providing incentives for teachers working in underdeveloped and remote communities (SEP, 1998). The design of CM hints at a potential conflict: on one hand, the program’s emphasis on rewarding teachers working in difficult areas could enhance educational equity; on the other, by rewarding teachers for higher student test scores, the program could draw effective teachers away from lowscoring schools and classrooms. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the impact of CM on educational quality and equity, with a focus on Mexican children’s access to qualified teachers.

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

211

Governments across the globe have increasingly looked to teacher incentive systems to encourage teachers to exert greater effort to raise student achievement. As one of the oldest and largest such systems in the world, CM provides an important case to assess the effectiveness of this approach. To date, research has not found strong evidence that the program has improved student outcomes (Luschei, 2006, 2012; McEwan & Santiban˜ez, 2005; Santiban˜ez, 2002, 2006; Santiban˜ez et al., 2007). In a comprehensive evaluation of CM, Santiban˜ez et al. (2007) found that in most cases, the program did not lead to improved student achievement. Luschei (2012) found that teacher characteristics rewarded by CM, like education level and experience, are not consistently related to student test score gains. Luschei also argues that because CM rewards high student test scores, rather than test score gains or averages over multiple years, the program may encourage more effective teachers to switch to higher-scoring schools, thereby negatively affecting educational equity. Yet little research has examined the extent to which CM has altered the access of disadvantaged children to qualified teachers. This chapter begins with a review of teacher incentive systems in other countries and their impact on educational equity. I then discuss international evidence regarding the distribution of teachers and teacher quality opportunity gaps. To shed light on the situation in Mexico, I also discuss the background and design of CM and conduct a brief review of evidence regarding the implementation and impact of CM on educational quality and equity. This is followed by an analysis of data from two Mexican states, Aguascalientes and Sonora, to explore whether the distribution of teachers across schools and communities has changed since the implementation of CM. The results of this study will have important implications for CM and for other systems considering similar incentive programs.

TEACHER INCENTIVE SYSTEMS AND THEIR IMPACT ON EDUCATIONAL EQUITY CM represents one of many attempts across the globe to professionalize teachers’ work through the use of salary or other types of incentives (OECD, 2005). In Chile, the Sistema Nacional de Evaluacio´n del Desempen˜o de los Establecimientos Educacionales Subvencionados (SNED) provides salary bonuses to teachers based on school-wide improvements in student test scores (Carnoy et al., 2007). In the United States, the National Commission

212

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) published an influential report in 1996 calling for stronger standards and incentives for classroom teachers. This effort led to the development of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) certification, which has provided opportunities for teachers across the United States to earn advanced certification and receive substantial salary increases (Harris & Sass, 2009; NCTAF, 1996). To date, evaluations of teacher incentive programs in Mexico, Chile, and the United States have found little evidence that they have led to improved student outcomes (Carnoy et al., 2007; Harris & Sass, 2009; Santiban˜ez et al., 2007). Evaluations of CM have found that the program rewards teacher attributes that are not consistently related to student outcomes (Luschei, 2006, 2012; Santiban˜ez, 2002, 2006). In Chile, Carnoy et al. (2007) found that schools receiving salary rewards were those in which students in successive cohorts had higher scores, not those where the same students increased their test scores over time. In the case of NBPTS, evidence is mixed. In a study of Florida teachers, Harris and Sass (2009) found that NBPTS certification does not improve teacher effectiveness or serve to identify more effective teachers. Using data from North Carolina, Goldhaber and Anthony (2007) found that while the NBPTS certification helps to identify more effective teachers, the certification process itself does not improve teacher effectiveness. Most studies seeking to evaluate teacher incentive systems have focused on the impact of these systems on teacher productivity or effectiveness. Much less research has examined whether and how incentive systems influence educational equity. One possibility is that in systems rewarding student test scores, teachers seeking salary bonuses move from lower- to higher-scoring schools or classrooms. Assuming that switching teachers are more effective than nonswitching teachers, lower-scoring students and schools could increasingly find themselves with less effective teachers. On the other hand, incentive programs that reward gains in test scores or averages in student test scores over time may avoid problems of teacher switching. Alternatively, incentive programs may divide schools into different categories based on location or student population, so that comparisons are made across teachers with similar student populations. Chile’s SNED, NBPTS certification in the United States, and Mexico’s CM program all provide significant salary bonuses to teachers. In contrast to SNED and CM, NBPTS certification does not consider student test scores. SNED rewards a combination of school-wide student test scores and

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

213

gains in test scores across cohorts, but does not reward gains in achievement over time for a given student cohort.1 Prior to ranking schools and awarding bonuses, SNED also divides schools into similar groups based on socioeconomic level, urban/rural location, and level of schooling (Carnoy et al., 2007). Similarly, CM divides teachers based on the socioeconomic strata in which they teach, and then assigns points based on how teachers perform within their groups. However, CM does not reward improvements in student scores or averages in test scores over time. Instead, student achievement scores in a given year constitute one of six factors that influence whether teachers receive promotions, as discussed below. Recent changes in the CM point scheme place a much stronger emphasis on student test scores, allocating up to 50 of 100 points to teachers based on the performance of their students (SEP, 2011). How might design differences across teacher incentive programs affect differences in educational equity? In Mexico, an emphasis on student test scores could influence teachers to switch to higher-scoring classrooms or schools. Although teachers are divided and awarded points by socioeconomic stratum, there is likely to be great variability within strata and even within schools, which could prompt teachers to change classrooms or schools within the same stratum in order to work with higher-scoring students. On the other hand, teachers in less developed areas can advance much more rapidly in CM than other teachers, which could encourage more effective teachers to switch to less developed areas. The analysis in the following sections offers a preliminary examination of whether the distribution of teachers has become more or less equitable in the time since CM was implemented.

THE DISTRIBUTION OF TEACHERS AND TEACHER QUALITY OPPORTUNITY GAPS Although little research has examined whether teacher incentive systems have altered the distribution of teachers across classrooms and schools, the problem of teacher sorting, whereby more qualified or effective teachers choose to work in schools with academically or economically more advantaged students, has received increasing attention and raised serious concerns regarding educational equity. In the United States, researchers have found that teachers of disadvantaged and minority children often have

214

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

lower educational attainment, experience, or ability than teachers of more advantaged children (Bacolod, 2007; Clotfelter et al., 2005, 2006; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002). In a study of teachers in New York State, Lankford et al. (2002) found that highly qualified teachers sort into schools with students who are more economically advantaged and have higher levels of academic achievement, leaving disadvantaged and minority students with less skilled teachers. Using nationally representative data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study, Bacolod (2007) found that teachers with higher SAT scores and college grade point averages are more likely to teach in suburban schools than in central city schools. In contrast to the U.S. evidence, international research has found more heterogeneity in the prevalence of teacher sorting. In an analysis of eighthgrade data from the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Akiba, LeTendre, and Scribner (2007) found large crosscountry differences in the access of economically disadvantaged students to qualified teachers. Whereas many countries have teacher quality ‘‘opportunity gaps’’ that place lower-income students at a disadvantage, the distribution of teachers in some countries is much more equitable. In these countries, more qualified teachers are disproportionately concentrated among disadvantaged children (Akiba et al., 2007). For example, the authors found that in South Korea, the percentage of low-SES students taught by qualified teachers is nearly 4% greater than the percentage of high-SES students taught by qualified teachers. Kang and Hong (2008) argue that this ‘‘negative’’ opportunity gap in South Korea is due to uniformly high-quality teachers, periodic rotation of teachers to new schools, and incentives to teach disadvantaged children. In contrast to South Korea, evidence suggests that Mexico is plagued by a strong teacher quality opportunity gap that places poor children and children living in remote rural areas at a disadvantage (Reimers, 2006). Because Mexico does not participate in TIMSS, we cannot compare it to the 46 countries featured in Akiba et al.’s (2007) analysis. However, analysis of data from CM has found that in two Mexican states, more experienced, more educated, and higher-scoring teachers are disproportionately concentrated in wealthier municipalities and in urban areas. As a result, poor children and those living in rural areas tend to have less access to qualified teachers than other children (Luschei, 2006, 2012). However, this analysis aggregated data over several years, so it is difficult to determine whether patterns of teacher quality have become less or more equitable over time since the inception of CM.

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

215

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CARRERA MAGISTERIAL CM, which was a central component of Mexico’s 1992 basic education reform, the National Agreement for the Modernization of Basic Education (ANMEB), is administered by a joint commission of members from Mexico’s National Secretariat of Public Education and the national teachers union. Although participation in CM is voluntary, the majority of Mexican teachers participate in the program (Santiban˜ez et al., 2007).

Requirements to Participate Primary-level teachers must meet several requirements to participate and advance in CM. Teachers with bachelor’s degrees must have at least two years of experience to advance, while teachers with lower levels of education face different requirements, ranging from ten to three years of experience (SEP, 1998). To encourage teachers to work in difficult areas, CM requires less experience of teachers working in ‘‘low development’’ zones.2 For example, teachers with bachelor’s degrees in primary teaching can participate after only one year of experience. In both regular areas and low development zones, teachers with master’s degrees or doctorates may participate in CM immediately after beginning teaching (SEP, 1998).

Advancement and Promotion Teachers can advance a total of five times in CM, beginning with Level A and ending with Level E. To enter the program and advance to Level A, the average primary teacher must have two years of experience. A teacher must have three additional years of experience to advance from Level A to Level B and from Level B to Level C. To advance to Levels D and E, a teacher must have four years of additional experience. The average new teacher must participate in CM for a minimum of 16 years to advance to Level E. However, teachers in low development zones can reach Level E in a minimum of nine years (SEP, 1998). Teachers can earn substantial salary increases by advancing through the CM system: estimates indicate that primary teachers who advance to Level A receive an additional 27% of their base wage, while teachers advancing to Level E earn an additional bonus of 215% of their base wage.

216

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

Salary increases are permanent and teachers cannot be demoted to lower levels unless they change schools (Santiban˜ez et al., 2007).

Point System To advance from one level to another in CM, teachers must receive at least 70 of 100 points in an annual assessment. According to the guidelines published by the Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1998, classroom teachers earned points based on their experience, educational attainment, professional preparation, scores on federal and state training evaluations, professional performance, and student performance. Teachers earned up to 10 points based on their level of experience and up to 15 points based on their level of education. ‘‘Professional preparation’’ refers to teachers’ scores on tests of their knowledge of relevant subject matter, pedagogy, and legislative and administrative issues. Teachers could earn a maximum of 28 points in this category by scoring well on these tests. Teachers participating in CM also take part in federal and state training courses and receive points based on evaluations of their performance in these courses. Teachers performing well on federal training evaluations earned up to 12 points, while state training evaluations were worth a maximum of 5 points. CM’s ‘‘professional performance’’ component was intended to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness in planning, development, participation in the functioning of the school, and participation in the community. Teachers’ scores, which were based on evaluations by their colleagues and principal, were worth up to a maximum of 10 points (SEP, 1998). Finally, teachers earned up to 20 points based on the performance of their students on tests of the curriculum and skills taught in their grade or subject. To promote equity in the CM system, teachers’ point totals are adjusted to reflect the level and conditions in which they teach. Teachers are first placed in groups according to the level and subject they teach, as well as the socioeconomic stratum in which they work. Teachers then receive points based on their performance relative to other teachers in the same group. Several adjustments have been made to CM’s point system. Initially, teachers could earn up to 35 points for professional performance, but education officials discovered that between 80% and 90% of teachers gave their peers the highest possible score. In 1998, CM guidelines were modified, reducing the maximum for this component to 10 and increasing the maximum for student achievement scores from 7 to 20 (Santiban˜ez, 2002).3 In 2011, the point scheme was modified again. The current system allocates

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

217

50 points for student test scores, 20 points for professional development, 5 points for ‘‘teacher evaluation,’’ 5 points for experience, and 20 points for extra-school activities (SEP, 2011).

IMPACT OF CM ON EDUCATIONAL QUALITY According to many observers, the joint participation of the Mexican government and the national teachers union greatly influenced the design and implementation of CM. Ornelas (2002) argues that while the Ministry of Education aimed to provide incentives to reward only the most effective teachers, the union hoped to reward all teachers equally. Santiban˜ez et al. (2007) argue that as a result of these competing goals, CM ‘‘lies somewhere between a merit-pay system and a new salary schedule’’ (p. 38). This tension has important implications for CM’s impact on educational quality. As a merit pay system, CM could serve to motivate teachers to work harder to increase their chances of receiving a promotion. As a new salary schedule, CM may simply increase salaries across the board for Mexican teachers, without identifying or rewarding those who are most effective. Santiban˜ez et al. (2007) point out that, although one would expect that teachers who advance to the highest levels of CM would be among the most effective, there are actually no major differences in point totals among teachers once they reach Level B. Advancement to Level C and beyond is driven largely by factors that either increase automatically with time, like experience, or vary little across teachers, like education levels. Moreover, student and teacher assessments do not become more difficult as teachers advance through the system: Level E teachers take the same tests and training courses as Level A teachers. As a result, Santiban˜ez et al. (2007) argue, ‘‘these programmatic components could lead one to doubt that teachers in the upper echelons constitute the most competent teachers’’ (p. 39). According to a comprehensive evaluation published by the RAND Corporation in 2007, ‘‘despite more than a decade of implementation at considerable cost and effort to the Ministry of Education, CM has never been formally and independently evaluated’’ (Santiban˜ez et al., 2007, p. 2).4 Yet prior to RAND’s report, several studies had examined whether CM has had a positive impact on educational quality. One key question is whether CM rewards the ‘‘right’’ teacher attributes. In other words, are the factors rewarded by CM’s point scheme positively associated with desirable student outcomes? In a study of Mexico City, Santiban˜ez (2002, 2006) found that few of the teacher attributes rewarded by CM  subject matter knowledge

218

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

and university-level education are exceptions  were positively related to student achievement gains. In a comparative study of two Mexican states, Luschei (2006, 2012) found that of the factors rewarded by CM, only teachers’ own test scores were positively and significantly related to student test scores in both states. Another important question is whether CM’s incentive system induces teachers to work harder or better to raise student test scores. In a cross-state analysis of the program’s effect on teacher behavior, McEwan and Santiban˜ez (2005) found that the program did not have an impact on student test scores. This failure may result in part from the fact that until recently, student achievement comprised only 20% of the CM point total. Teachers may have perceived that high student scores alone were not enough to push them across the threshold to advance to the next level. If so, these teachers may not have felt sufficient motivation to work harder. The authors addressed this issue by limiting their analysis to teachers who were close enough to the threshold so that higher student achievement scores could make the difference in whether they earned a promotion. Yet even among these teachers, participation in CM did not have a measurable impact on teachers’ ability to elicit larger test score gains. The most comprehensive evaluation of CM to date, which was conducted by RAND, found that among primary teachers, CM incentives do not have a measurable effect on student test scores. The evaluation found modest evidence of a positive effect on the student test scores of secondary teachers competing to enter CM, but this effect is isolated to the 20% of teachers in the study sample who are most likely to benefit from high student test scores. The evaluation also found evidence of negative effects on the test scores of students whose teachers were incorporated or received a promotion in CM. The authors suggest that because teachers continue to receive CM salary bonuses throughout their careers regardless of their performance, teachers might begin to exert less effort after receiving promotions (Santiban˜ez et al., 2007).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Several factors could influence the distribution of teachers and the question of who teaches whom. Three scenarios are possible: (1) a uniform distribution of teachers, in which all children have access to similarly qualified teachers; (2) an inequitable distribution of teachers, in which less advantaged children find themselves in the classrooms of teachers who are

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

219

less qualified than the average teacher; and (3) an equity-enhancing distribution of teachers, where opportunity gaps are reversed and teachers who are more qualified than average work with less advantaged students. Here I discuss the institutional and social factors that may influence which scenario we see in Mexico. I also address the question of what constitutes a qualified teacher.

Level of Centralization and Commitment to Equity Although many features of a society influence who teaches which children, here I focus on two key factors, (1) the level of decision making in the teacher hiring and assignment process and (2) the commitment to equity in the education system and larger society (Luschei, Chudgar, & Rew, 2013). In more centralized systems, decision makers can hire and assign teachers so that disadvantaged children have equal or even greater access to qualified teachers relative to other children. In decentralized systems, teachers are more likely to negotiate directly with school leaders for teaching positions. More qualified teachers are more likely to take positions with higher salaries and more desirable working conditions, while less qualified teachers with less negotiating power may find positions in more challenging or lowerresource schools. All else equal, centralized systems are more likely to have a uniform or equity-enhancing distribution of teachers relative to decentralized systems. As Akiba et al. (2007) suggest, cross-country differences in teacher qualification gaps may be due in part to the level of centralization of an education system. The authors give the example of Japan, in which teachers are hired regionally rather than locally, and are then periodically rotated across schools to reduce school-based gaps in teacher quality. The commitment to equity within a school system and broader society also influences the distribution of teachers across students and could interact with the level of educational decision making in determining patterns of teachers across schools. In a centralized system that is committed to equality of opportunity, decision makers are more likely to implement policies that ensure an equitable distribution of teachers, such as incentives for teachers to work with disadvantaged children or the periodic rotation of teachers. In contrast, in an inequitable centralized system, decision makers may be more interested in favoring the children of elites or the politically powerful. In such cases, centralized decision making may result in a distribution of teachers that is skewed toward the children of politically powerful or wealthy citizens. For example, Luschei and Carnoy’s (2010) analysis of

220

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

teachers in Uruguay, which has a centralized education system and large income inequality, found that the distribution of teachers systematically favors economically advantaged children. Within the framework of centralization and commitment to equity, Mexico presents a compelling case. Although the country has a long history of social and educational inequality, reforms beginning in 1992 have resulted in a gradually decentralizing system, which according to this framework, could further exacerbate educational inequality, as central officials lose influence over how teachers are hired and assigned to schools. Decentralization also means that the behavior and distribution of teachers could look very different across the Mexican states. At the same time teacher hiring has become decentralized to the states, CM has provided incentives to increase student test scores, which could negatively influence educational equity by prompting teachers to switch to higher-scoring schools and classrooms. But by providing quicker avenues for advancement to teachers in less developed areas, and by grouping teachers according to socioeconomic stratum, CM has put in place incentives to work with less advantaged students. Together, these changes could have any number of effects on disadvantaged children’s access to qualified teachers.

What Is a Qualified Teacher? Before examining the distribution of qualified teachers across students and schools, we must first address the question of what constitutes a qualified teacher. Despite years of research addressing this question, little consensus has emerged regarding the measurable attributes that make teachers good. Goldhaber (2002) has referred to this problem as the ‘‘mystery of teacher quality.’’ Studies that have explored the distribution of teachers across students and schools have used a multitude of teacher characteristics, including SAT scores and undergraduate grade-point average (Bacolod, 2007); selectivity of teachers’ undergraduate college, scores on certification exams, experience, education level, and certification status (Lankford et al., 2002); certification, education level, undergraduate major, and experience (Akiba et al., 2007); education, experience, and self-reported readiness to teach (Luschei & Chudgar, 2011); education and experience (Luschei & Carnoy, 2010; Luschei et al., 2013); and the various teacher attributes rewarded by CM (Luschei, 2012; Santiban˜ez, 2002). Most of these studies employ secondary data analysis, which means that the researchers are constrained by the data available to them and cannot hope to capture the

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

221

complexity and nuance of teaching and teacher quality. On the other hand, measurable teacher characteristics are generally observable by educators and policymakers. By understanding their distribution, we can shed light on educational policies and priorities. Additionally, education and experience determine teachers’ salaries across most of the globe (OECD, 2005); the distribution of these teacher characteristics across students provides direct evidence of whether all children share equally in key educational resources.

METHODS AND DATA The central question I examine is whether CM has had an impact on educational equity. To explore this question, I conduct an analysis of CM data over time in two diverse Mexican states, Aguascalientes and Sonora. Aguascalientes is a small state in central Mexico, while Sonora is a large state in northern Mexico that borders the U.S. state of Arizona. In addition to large differences in geography, systems for hiring and assigning teachers to teaching posts are different across the two states. Aguascalientes has one system in which education officials and teachers’ union officials assign teachers to posts, while Sonora has two systems. In one, teacher assignment decisions are made jointly as in Aguascalientes, while the teachers’ union controls the other system (Guevara & Gonza´lez, 2004). In each system, new teachers apply to teach within a given state and have little control over the schools where they teach because educational laws dictate that teachers must be assigned to schools according to supply and demand. It is also difficult for teachers to transfer to new schools once they have begun teaching. A teacher seeking a transfer to another school within the same state must submit a formal request to a commission made up of representatives of the state education agency and the teacher union (Santiban˜ez, 2002). Of course, informal processes in the initial assignment and transfers of teachers also influence the allocation of teachers to schools. Despite the seeming difficulty of transferring schools, teachers interviewed in both Aguascalientes and Sonora reported that there is more mobility than one might expect considering the design of the system. In general, this mobility seems to be driven by two principal factors: the desire of teachers in remote rural areas to take positions in urban areas or areas closer to their homes, and the desire of teachers on the verge of retirement to transfer to areas with higher salaries (Luschei, 2006).

222

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

To examine the distribution of teachers across communities in Aguascalientes and Sonora, in each state I calculate school-level averages of the education and experience of primary teachers in grades three through six across municipal poverty levels and urban and rural schools. If there is no sorting across urban and rural schools, for example, teachers’ average education and experience should be similar in both settings. If teachers in urban schools have significantly higher qualifications than teachers in rural schools, this provides evidence that highly qualified teachers sort to urban locations. In both states, I examine trends over time, from 1999 to 2004 in Aguascalientes and from 2000 to 2004 in Sonora. While this period begins seven to eight years after the implementation of CM across Mexico, the data should contain enough time points to ascertain trends over time in the distribution of teachers. In examining these trends, I hope to determine whether the distribution of teachers has become less, equally, or more equitable over time. In other words, have the education and experience of teachers working in poor and rural areas decreased, remained the same, or increased relative to teachers in wealthier and urban communities? This analysis makes use of large administrative datasets generated by the CM program. The Aguascalientes sample consists of teachers participating in CM in grades three through six from the academic year ending in 1999 to the academic year ending in 2004.5 These data include 400 individual schools in each year of the data, ranging from a low of 383 schools in 2004 to a high of 421 schools in 2003. Over the six years of data, a total of 2,406 schools appear in the analysis, many of them more than once. Data from Sonora, which are not available for the academic year ending in 1999, contain 1,206 schools. The number of schools in a year ranges from 890 in 2004 to 917 in 2001.6 The key variables I examine are teacher education, teacher experience, municipal poverty, and urban/rural location. Due to various reforms in teacher training and requirements, Mexican teachers hold a number of different education levels. The major teacher education levels for current primary teachers are Normal Ba´sica, a secondary-level normal school degree; Normal Licenciatura, a bachelor’s degree in primary teaching; and Normal Superior, a bachelor’s degree in secondary teaching. Some teachers in the sample have master’s degrees and a few have doctorates. In this analysis, I collapse all teachers with Normal Licenciatura or higher into one group, while all other teachers are reported as having less than Normal Licenciatura. In the sorting analysis, the teacher education variable is measured as the percentage of teachers in a school with Normal Licenciatura

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

223

or higher. Teacher experience is measured as the average years of experience of teachers in a given school. I examine school averages of teacher education and experience across municipal poverty levels and urban/rural location. I use the 2000 municipal poverty index of Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n (CONAPO) to reflect the average wealth of a given municipality. This index is based on nine indicators that represent four dimensions of poverty: educational outcomes, quality of housing and basic infrastructure, average income, and proportion of the population located in sparsely settled communities. The index is derived using principal component analysis and ranges from 2.4 (lowest poverty) to 3.4 (highest poverty). It is also used to divide municipalities into five discrete poverty levels: very low, low, medium, high, and very high poverty (CONAPO, 2001). As relatively affluent states, Aguascalientes and Sonora do not have municipalities with very high poverty. Sonora does have municipalities with ‘‘high’’ poverty, but municipalities in Aguascalientes range in poverty level from ‘‘very low’’ to ‘‘medium.’’ Unfortunately, the level of aggregation of this index is too high to understand variations in poverty across schools, or to attribute municipal poverty levels to specific schools. Similarly, schools in communities designated as rural could vary considerably in terms of poverty and school resources.

Analysis of Teachers Changing Schools in Aguascalientes and Sonora The final analysis I conduct aims directly at the central question underlying this study: have more qualified or more effective teachers switched from low-scoring to high-scoring schools in order to increase their chances of receiving CM bonuses? If we do see switching behavior over time, this provides evidence that the program has weakened equity in children’s access to qualified teachers. To examine this question, I compare the education and experience of teachers switching schools to those not switching schools in each year from 2000 to 2004 in both Aguascalientes and Sonora. I then test whether differences in education levels and experience between switching and nonswitching teachers are statistically significant. Finally, I examine the characteristics of schools that lost transferring teachers between 2000 and 2004. Specifically, I examine whether schools losing transferring teachers during this period had higher levels of municipal poverty and were more likely to be rural than schools not losing teachers.

224

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

RESULTS To examine the impact of CM on educational equity, I examine data from the CM program in the Mexican states of Aguascalientes and Sonora during the period 1999–2004. First, I examine whether the distribution of teachers across levels of municipal poverty and urban/rural location changed during this period, using teacher experience and education as proxies for teacher quality. I then explore the nature of teachers who changed schools during this period to see whether more experienced or better educated teachers were more likely to change schools. Finally, I examine the characteristics of schools that lost transferring teachers between 1999 and 2004 to identify patterns in average student achievement, municipal poverty, and urban/ rural location.

Teacher Experience and Education Across Levels of Municipal Poverty According to Table 1, Aguascalientes and Sonora are similar in levels of municipal poverty and urbanization of teachers participating in CM in grades 3 through 6 between 1999 and 2004. In both states, just over 60% of these teachers worked in municipalities with very low poverty and around a quarter worked in municipalities with low poverty. The key differences between the states are that almost double the percentage of teachers in Aguascalientes worked in schools with medium poverty compared to Sonora, and Aguascalientes had no municipalities designated as having high poverty by CONAPO in 2000. In Sonora, almost 2% of teachers worked in high-poverty municipalities between 2000 and 2004. Fig. 1 illustrates trends in the average experience of teachers across municipal poverty levels. In Aguascalientes (Panel 1), teachers in municipalities with very low poverty had, on average, three more years of experience than teachers in low- and medium-poverty municipalities in 1999. By 2002, the difference between municipalities with very low poverty and those with medium poverty increased to just over four years. However, by 2004, the difference between very low- and low-poverty municipalities decreased to less than a year, while the difference in experience between very low- and medium-poverty municipalities decreased to just over two years. As a result, there is little evidence that the distribution of teacher experience became less equitable over time. Nonetheless, in every year of the data, teacher experience in low-poverty municipalities was substantially greater than teacher experience in medium-poverty municipalities, indicating that

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

Table 1.

Aguascalientes and Sonora: School-Level Descriptive Statistics, 1999–2004.

Variable

Aguascalientes

Average student test score (% correct) % Teachers with Normal Licenciatura or higher Teacher experience in years Teacher test score points Teacher test score (% correct) Municipal poverty index Municipal poverty levela Very low Low Medium High Rural school a

225

Sonora (Data Reflect Years 2000–2004)

N

Mean

SD

Range

N

Mean

SD

Range

2,407

41.47

6.85

18 to 79

4,512

42.00

6.76

18 to 74

2,346

57.39 30.76

0 to 100

4,511

68.51 33.31

0 to 100

2,345

17.52

5.24

2 to 33

4,512

16.58

6.03

2 to 38

2,345

16.67

4.77

0 to 28

4,512

17.72

2.96

7 to 28

–

–

–

–

4,510

50.93

9.63

18 to 93

0.50

1.87 to 0.52

4,509 1.32

0 to 100 0 to 100 0 to 100 – 0 to 100

4,509 4,509 4,509 4,509 4,511

2,406 1.47

2,407 2,407 2,407 – 2,406

61.55 26.14 12.30 – 28.60

67.64 23.15 7.25 1.95 22.10

0.42 2.04 to 0.32 0 0 0 0 0

to to to to to

‘‘Very low’’ indicates lowest level of poverty, that is, highest level of wealth.

Fig. 1.

Average Teacher Experience by Municipal Poverty, 1999–2004.

100 100 100 100 100

226

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

more experienced teachers are disproportionately concentrated in municipalities with lower poverty. In contrast to Aguascalientes, Sonoran teachers in medium- and highpoverty municipalities had greater experience in all years of the data relative to teachers in municipalities with very low and low poverty (Fig. 1, Panel 2). With the exception of 2002, the difference between high-poverty and very low-poverty municipalities increased steadily between 2000 and 2004, and the average experience of teachers in high-poverty municipalities increased by more than one year each year. Together, these trends suggest the possibility that more experienced teachers may have moved to higherpoverty municipalities. Fig. 2 shows differences in the percentage of teachers with Normal Licenciatura degrees or higher over time in Aguascalientes and Sonora. As with teacher experience, Aguascalientes exhibits a pattern in which the gap in teacher qualifications narrows over time, with the difference in the percentage of highly educated teachers between very low- and medium-municipalities decreasing from 14.3% in 1999 to 4.8% in 2004. In Sonora, we see a similar trend. In 1999, the percentage of highly educated teachers in very low-poverty municipalities was more than 10% higher than the percentage in high-poverty municipalities. In 2004, high-poverty municipalities had the highest percentage of highly educated teachers of all poverty levels. Teacher Experience and Education Across Urban and Rural Areas Given large urban/rural differences in educational opportunities and quality in Mexico, we must also examine whether teacher experience and education

Fig. 2.

Average Teacher Education by Municipal Poverty, 1999–2004.

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

227

are on average higher in urban areas, and if so, whether this difference has grown over time. Fig. 3 compares the average experience of teachers participating in CM over time in Aguascalientes and Sonora. In Aguascalientes (Panel 1), average teacher experience is substantially higher in urban areas for all years of the data, but the difference decreases from four and a half years in 1999 to just over three years in 2004. In Sonora (Panel 2), average experience of teachers participating in CM is similar across urban and rural areas, with averages in both urban and rural areas ranging from 16 to 17 years between 2000 and 2004. Fig. 4 illustrates differences across urban and rural areas in teacher education over time. In Aguascalientes (Panel 1), the advantage of urban areas in the percentage of teachers with Normal Licenciatura degrees or higher decreases from 7.2% in 1999 to 3.8% in 2004. Sonora exhibits a

Fig. 3.

Average Teacher Experience by Urban/Rural, 1999–2004.

Fig. 4.

Average Teacher Education by Urban/Rural, 1999–2004.

228

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

similar pattern, with the urban advantage decreasing from 8.3% in 2000 to 2.2% in 2004. Taken together, these comparisons do not provide compelling evidence that more qualified teachers moved to lower-poverty municipalities or urban areas between 1999 and 2004. However, this analysis examines averages of participating teachers across fairly broad categories. Next I examine the characteristics of specific teachers and schools.

Teachers Changing Schools By rewarding student test scores, CM could have the perverse effect of inducing effective teachers to switch to higher-scoring schools. Table 2 displays the characteristics of teachers who changed schools in Aguascalientes and Sonora from 1999 to 2004. In Aguascalientes the average experience of teachers not changing schools is significantly higher than those changing schools in all years except 1999. In terms of the percentage of teachers with Normal Licenciatura degrees or higher, we do not see a clear pattern over time. The difference between teachers changing and not changing is statistically significant in only 2002, with the advantage going to teachers changing schools (62% compared to 53%). In contrast, Sonoran teachers changing schools are significantly more experienced than nonchanging teachers in every year of the data. The percentage of teachers with Normal Licenciatura degrees is also higher among changing teachers in all years, but the difference between changing and nonchanging teachers is statistically significant only in 2002. To examine whether certain types of schools have systematically lost teachers over time, Table 3 provides averages of student test scores, municipal poverty, and rural status in schools that lost teachers in Aguascalientes and Sonora from 1999 to 2004, relative to those that did not lose teachers in the same year. In Aguascalientes, we do not see a clear trend in statistically significant differences across schools, although municipal poverty levels are slightly lower in schools losing teachers relative to schools not losing teachers. In some years, schools losing teachers are more likely to be rural, while this trend is reversed in other years. Similarly in Sonora, schools losing teachers tend to have lower municipal poverty compared to schools not losing teachers. On average, schools losing teachers are more likely to be rural than schools not losing teachers.

9.67 7.44 7.52 7.81 8.78

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

17.93 16.97w 16.75 18.11w 17.29

Changing

16.03 18.16 18.96 19.21 18.96

Not Changing

Experience

Aguascalientes

59.73 62.73 62.24 55.41 58.82

Changing

54.52 55.49 53.05 56.62 65.85

Not Changing

% Z NL

– 10.95 13.05 12.76 12.80

% changing schools – 19.45 18.65 18.74 18.47

Changing

– 16.19 16.46 16.62 16.62

Not Changing

Experience

Sonoraa

– 67.70 77.07 74.67 79.31

Changing

– 66.19 68.99 72.80 76.29

Not Changing

% Z NL

Aguascalientes and Sonora: Characteristics of Teachers Changing Schools, 2000–2004.

wSignificant at 10%; significant at 5%; significant at 0.1% (t-tests between teachers changing and teachers not changing). a Because data from Sonora include only years 2000 to 2004, I cannot estimate a year-to-year change for 2000 in this state.

% Changing schools

Year

Table 2.

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program 229

40.77 39.47 40.26 40.51 46.19

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

39.77 39.49 41.03 41.76 45.13

Did Not Lose

1.65 1.71 1.71 1.69 1.69

Lost

1.60 1.60 1.67 1.51 1.56

Did Not Lose 25.00 19.30 15.45 26.09 0.00

Lost

40.23 13.68 20.49 11.56 35.09

Did Not Lose

% Rural

– 42.13 41.43 43.09 44.16

Lost

– 40.94 41.21 43.52 43.51

Did Not Lose

Average Student Test Score

– 1.43 1.40 1.43 1.37

Lost

– 1.37 1.33 1.36 1.36

Did Not Lose

Municipal Poverty

Sonoraa

a

Lost

Because data from Sonora include only years 2000 to 2004, I cannot estimate a year-to-year change for 2000 in this state.

– 10.73 17.93 13.57 8.18

Did Not Lose

% Rural

– 36.36 6.88 26.39 15.79

significant at 5%; significant at 1%; significant at 0.1% (t-tests between schools losing and not losing teachers)

Lost

Year

Municipal Poverty

Aguascalientes

Characteristics of Schools Losing Transferring Teachers Relative to Those Not Losing Teachers, 2000–2004.

Average Student Test Score

Table 3.

230 THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

231

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The objective of this chapter is to examine evidence regarding the impact of CM on educational quality and equity, with a focus on children’s access to qualified teachers. A review of literature finds that despite the objectives of the program to increase educational quality, there is little evidence that the program has done so. Instead, research to date has found that CM rewards teacher attributes that are not consistently related to student achievement. Moreover, there is evidence that, among teachers attempting to advance in the program, CM does not induce teachers to raise student test scores. There is also some evidence that the performance of students worsens as teachers advance in the program. These problems may stem at least in part from the design and implementation of CM as a joint project of the national Secretariat of Education and the national teacher union. These two entities have held competing visions of CM that have turned it into a hybrid of a merit-pay system and a new teacher salary arrangement. If improving student outcomes is a central objective of CM, the student achievement factor should also play a larger role in rewarding points. Recent changes to the CM point system address this problem by allocating up to 50 points for student performance. Increasing points for student performance will reduce the number of teachers who cannot advance in the CM system regardless of their students’ test scores, as well as those who advance almost automatically due to their own experience and education. As a result, the number of teachers who can materially benefit by increasing student test scores will increase. Although McEwan and Santiban˜ez (2005) found little evidence of an effect of CM among this group of teachers, a greater emphasis on student achievement could motivate teachers to place more emphasis on student learning. A greater allocation of points toward student performance may also serve to attract and retain teachers who are successful in raising student test scores. Of course, because achievement-based points in CM are derived from a one-year test score, rather than gains in achievement over time, teachers with low-achieving students are at a disadvantage; a greater allocation of points toward student performance is likely to exacerbate this disadvantage. CM adjusts for this possibility by grouping teachers based on where and what they teach and the nature of the environment in which they work, and then assigning points according to student test scores within each group (Santiban˜ez et al., 2007). However, there is likely to be a great deal of student heterogeneity within these groups; teachers within each group with higher-achieving or more advantaged students will receive more points,

232

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

while teachers with lower-achieving or disadvantaged students will receive fewer points. By increasing the weight of student performance to 50% of the overall teacher evaluation, the change in CM’s point system is likely to create even greater incentives for teachers to move to higher-achieving schools or classrooms, thereby placing lower-achieving students at a disadvantage. Teachers with lower-achieving students who do not change schools or classrooms may lose motivation to teach well due to their low student performance scores. The analysis presented here does not find evidence that such behavior occurred in the Mexican states of Aguascalientes and Sonora between 1999 and 2004. In fact, I find evidence that teacher experience and education gaps between lower- and higher-poverty municipalities diminished during this period. In Sonora, teacher experience and education in high-poverty municipalities actually surpassed experience and education in all other levels of municipal poverty in 2004. This pattern may result in part from the availability of salary incentives to teach in low-development zones, combined with opportunities to advance more quickly through CM for teachers working in low-development areas. Whereas Aguascalientes does not have any high-poverty municipalities, the existence of such municipalities in Sonora also means a greater likelihood of such incentives for teachers. Unfortunately, the data used here do not allow me to test the hypothesis that greater incentives have led to seemingly greater equity in Sonora. In examining differences across urban and rural areas, I find that the teacher experience gap between urban and rural areas decreased in Aguascalientes, while experience levels across urban and rural areas remained very similar in Sonora over time. In both Aguascalientes and Sonora, teacher education gaps decreased over time. An analysis of teacher transfer behavior also does not find compelling evidence that more qualified teachers changed schools, or that lower-scoring schools in higher-poverty municipalities, or schools in rural areas were more likely to lose teachers than other schools. The one exception is teacher experience in Sonora, where teachers changing schools have significantly more experience than teachers who do not change schools. Taken together, this evidence fails to find a trend toward lower equity in children’s access to qualified teachers, using teacher experience and education as proxies for teacher quality. Instead, there is some evidence that the distribution of qualified teachers has become more equitable over time in both states. Thus we cannot use these results to argue that CM has had a negative influence on educational equity. In fact, the opportunity to advance through CM more quickly for teachers working in low-development

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

233

zones may actually have attracted more qualified teachers to work in such areas. As discussed above, the total time required to advance to the highest level of CM is considerably lower in low development zones, which could act as a strong incentive for ambitious teachers to move to these areas. Of course, the trends we see toward greater equity may not be attributable directly to CM. They could instead result from other influences beyond CM, such as salary incentives to teach in remote and less developed areas. Such incentives could be strongly influencing the results we see in high-poverty municipalities in Sonora, as teachers in these areas are most likely to receive such incentives. As discussed above, this is due to the existence of municipalities with very high poverty in Sonora, and the absence of such municipalities in Aguascalientes. Finally, a combination of CM advancement opportunities and salary incentives may have led to a small and gradual migration of more qualified teachers to work in higher-need areas. Further research should attempt to disentangle the impacts of salary incentives and CM advancement opportunities on the behavior of teachers. It is also possible that I do not find many changes in the distribution of teacher qualifications over time simply because teacher mobility is relatively low in Mexico (Santiban˜ez, 2002). Teachers’ choices regarding where they will teach are constrained at both the time of their initial assignment and when attempting to transfer to new schools. However, the evidence that I present here is enough to suggest that (1) there is at least some movement of teachers across schools and (2) teachers are not distributed uniformly across schools in either Aguascalientes or Sonora. As discussed above, teachers in urban areas and lower-poverty municipalities tend to be more experienced and have higher levels of education than teachers in rural areas and higherpoverty municipalities, especially in Aguascalientes. Whether these patterns occur as a result of initial assignments or transfers is beyond the scope of this analysis, but the key point is that teacher sorting does occur in Mexico, and it is important to explore whether CM has ameliorated or exacerbated this phenomenon. We also must take care in extrapolating results from two Mexican states during a relatively short period of time. Aguascalientes and Sonora are quite different geographically, but in terms of poverty levels and student outcomes they are similar in several ways. The impact of CM in other states with different populations and geographies could be very different. Additionally, the data used here begin six years after implementation of CM in 1993, and extend only to 2004. The major impacts of CM on educational equity may have occurred soon after the program was implemented, or they may still be occurring as more teachers reach the highest levels of CM.

234

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

Future analysis of CM’s impact on educational equity must consider a wider variety of states and more years of data, where possible. Such analysis should also examine the impact of changes in CM’s point scheme, to examine whether a greater emphasis on student test scores induces teachers to change classrooms or schools. Additionally, future analysis should explore whether CM’s incentives for teachers in remote and marginalized areas have had their intended effect. Given the large scope and longevity of CM, further analysis of its impact on educational equity will be important for educators and policymakers in Mexico and beyond.

NOTES 1. In addition to test scores and inter-cohort test score gains, SNED bonuses are based on school-based activities, work conditions at schools, a measure of ‘‘equality of opportunity’’ at the school that includes student indicators like promotion rates and student retention, and teacher and parent participation in the school. For more information on SNED, see Carnoy et al., 2007 and Mizala and Romaguera, 2002, 2005. 2. Low development zones: (1) have no access to piped water, (2) have no electricity, and (3) are removed from ‘‘urban’’ services, meaning that the nearest town with services is at least 30 minutes away by public transportation (SEP, 1998). 3. The data used for this analysis include teachers’ scores for all Carrera Magisterial components except professional performance. 4. Other studies not discussed here have examined various aspects of CM, including Garcı´ a Manzano (2004), Ornelas (2008), Ortiz Jime´nez (2003), Santizo (2002), and Schmelkes (2001). 5. Primary education in Mexico includes grades one through six, but data on first and second grade teachers are not available for this analysis. 6. It is important to note that because the data come from the CM program, teachers not participating in CM in a given year are not represented in the data.

REFERENCES Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387. Bacolod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they teach: College graduates of the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 155–168. Carnoy, M., Brodziak, I., Molina, A., & Socias, M. (2007). The limitations of teacher pay incentive programs based on inter-cohort comparisons: The case of Chile’s SNED. Education Finance and Policy, 2(3), 189–227. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.

Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial Teacher Incentive Program

235

Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2006). Teacher–student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, XLI(4), 778–820. Consejo Nacional de Poblacio´n [CONAPO]. (2001). I´ndices de Marginacio´n, 2000. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: CONAPO. Garcı´ a Manzano, M. (2004). Una mirada al esquema de Carrera Magisterial en Me´xico: Recorrido histo´rico y estudio de caso en dos escuelas primarias del Distrito Federal. Me´xico D.F., Me´xico: Departamento de Investigaciones Educativas, Cinvestav. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50–55. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board Certification as a signal of effective teaching. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134–150. Guevara, M. del R., & Gonza´lez, L. E. (2004). Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Country background report for Mexico. Paris: OECD. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(1), 55–80. Kang, N., & Hong, M. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 200–207. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62. Luschei, T. F. (2006). In search of good teachers: Patterns of teacher quality in two Mexican states. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in International Comparative Education, Stanford University School of Education, Stanford, California. Luschei, T. F. (2012). In search of good teachers: Patterns of teacher quality in two Mexican states. Comparative Education Review, 56(1), 69–97. Luschei, T. F., & Carnoy, M. (2010). Educational production and the distribution of teachers in Uruguay. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 169–181. Luschei, T. F., & Chudgar, A. (2011). Teachers, student achievement, and national income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions. Prospects, 41(4), 507–533. Luschei, T. F., Chudgar, A., & Rew, W. J. (2013). Exploring differences in the distribution of teacher qualifications in Mexico and South Korea: Evidence from the Teaching and Learning International Survey. Teachers College Record, 115(6). McEwan, P. J., & Santiban˜ez, L. (2005). Teacher and principal incentives in Mexico. In E. Vegas (Ed.), Incentives to improve teaching: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 213– 253). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Mizala, A., & Romaguera, P. (2002). Evaluacio´n del desempen˜o e incentivos en la educacio´n chilena. Cuadernos de Economı´a, 118, 353–394. Mizala, A., & Romaguera, P. (2005). Teachers’ salary structure and incentives in Chile. In E. Vegas (Ed.), Incentives to improve teaching: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 103–144). Washington, DC: World Bank. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future [NCTAF]. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD. Ornelas, C. (1995). El sistema educativo Mexicano: La transicio´n de fin de siglo. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: Fondo de Cultura Econo´mica. Ornelas, C. (2002). Incentivos a los maestros: La paradoja mexicana. In C. Ornelas (Ed.), Valores, calidad y educacio´n. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: Santillana.

236

THOMAS F. LUSCHEI

Ornelas, C. (2008). Polı´tica, poder y pupitres: Crı´tica al nuevo federalismo educativo. Mexico City: Siglo XXI Editores. Ortiz Jime´nez, M. B. (2003). Carrera Magisterial: Un proyecto de desarrollo profesional. Cuadernos de Discusio´n 12. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: Secretarı´ a de Educacio´n Pu´blica. Reimers, F. (2006). Teaching quality matters: Pedagogy and literacy instruction of poor students in Mexico. In B. Piper, S. Dryden-Peterson & Y. Kim (Eds.), International education for the Millennium: Toward access, equity, and quality (pp. 195–214). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. Santiban˜ez, L. M. (2002). Why we should we care if teachers get A’s? Impact on student achievement in Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation in International Comparative Education, Stanford University School of Education, Stanford, California. Santiban˜ez, L. M. (2006). Why we should we care if teachers get A’s? Impact on student achievement in Mexico. Economics of Education Review, 25, 510–520. Santiban˜ez, L. M., Martı´ nez, J. F., Datar, A., McEwan, P. J., Setodji, C. M., & Basurto-Da´vila, R. (2007). Breaking ground: Analysis of the assessment system and impact of Mexico’s teacher incentive program ‘‘Carrera Magisterial.’’ Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Santizo, C. (2002). Implementing reform in the education sector in Mexico: The role of policy networks. Unpublished thesis, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Schmelkes, S. (2001, March). Teacher evaluation mechanisms and student achievement: The case of Carrera Magisterial in Mexico. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative and International Education Society, Washington, DC. Secretarı´ a de Educacio´n Pu´blica [SEP]. (1998). Lineamientos generales de Carrera Magisterial. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: SEP. SEP. (2011). Programa nacional de Carrera Magisterial: Lineamientos generales. Me´xico, DF, Me´xico: SEP. Tatto, M. T. (1999). Education reform and state power in Me´xico: The paradoxes of decentralization. Comparative Education Review, 43(3), 251–282.

REFORMING CAREER PATHS FOR AUSTRALIAN TEACHERS Lawrence Ingvarson ABSTRACT Purpose – This chapter focuses on the challenges of introducing a nationally consistent and credible system for recognizing and rewarding accomplished teachers  a standard-based professional learning and certification system. Such systems aim to provide attractive incentives for professional learning for all teachers, in contrast with competitive merit pay or one-off bonus pay schemes. Methodology – The chapter provides a case study of one country’s progress in reforming teacher career structures and pay systems, and it also draws on the experience of other countries that have been pursuing similar policies, such as Chile, England, Scotland, and the United States. Using document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders, the chapter describes progress in Australia’s latest attempt to introduce a system for the certification of teachers, this time at two levels – the Highly Accomplished Teacher and Lead Teacher levels. Findings – Despite strong support in principle by the main stakeholders, implementation is proving difficult in changing political and economic contexts. Reasons for these difficulties are compared with problems in other countries as they seek to implement advanced certification schemes.

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 19, 237–273 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000019015

237

238

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

Practical implications – The Australian case indicates the importance of ensuring that agencies established to provide professional certification have the independence, stability, and professional ownership they need to carry out their function effectively. Social implications – Recent Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports highlight the relationship between the degree to which the work of teaching has been professionalized and student performance. An independent professional certification system is a concrete and relevant way for countries to ‘‘professionalize’’ teaching and treat their teachers as trusted professional partners; however, the Australian case indicates some of the challenges involved in making this a reality. Value – The chapter is the first to compare professional certification schemes in different countries and analyze factors affecting their success. Keywords: Teacher certification; professional development; teacher evaluation; teacher promotion; teaching profession; professional recognition

INTRODUCTION Debate has long raged about how to strengthen links between pay and performance for teachers in Australia. While most agree that the current pay system needs to become a much stronger instrument for ensuring optimal opportunities for students to learn, there is distinct disagreement about how this should be done. How should teacher pay be linked to performance? How can pay schedules promote professional learning and excellence in teaching? This chapter focuses on the challenge of introducing a nationally consistent and credible certification system for recognizing and rewarding accomplished teachers. It not only describes one country’s progress in reforming teacher career structures and pay systems, but also draws on the experience of other countries that have been pursuing similar policies, such as Chile, England, Scotland, and the United States (Ingvarson & Kleinhenz, 2006a). A certification system is a system for defining high-quality teaching standards, promoting development toward those standards, and identifying those who reach them. Professions are normally trusted to run their own

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

239

certification systems. If convinced about its rigor, employing authorities encourage members of the profession to seek certification and reward its attainment through access to higher salary scales and eligibility for promotional positions. Certification systems for teachers aim to build a closer alignment between increasing expertise and career progression. The assumptions underlying such systems  about how to link teacher pay to performance and ‘‘incentivize’’ teachers  stand in stark contrast to those underlying quotabased merit pay schemes, typically limited to annual one-off bonus payments (Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008; Johnson, 1984, 1986; Murnane & Cohen, 1986). Reformed career structures based on professional certification aim to enhance student learning by driving higher quality teaching. A rigorous certification system creates a basis for significantly increasing salaries for accomplished teachers, thereby making teaching a more attractive career option for abler graduates and better able to retain its best practitioners. They aim to build what will be referred to in this chapter as a standard-based professional learning and certification system (Ingvarson & Kleinhenz, 2006b). Certification is the way most professions drive continual improvement in their member’s practice, in their own and in the public interest  not competitive annual bonus pay schemes. They provide novices with high performance standards to aim for over several years. They provide a rigorous and independent system for assessing when they have attained those standards. Successful applicants gain a respected certification that employers are willing to pay for, thus creating a strong market for their knowledge and expertise. They gain the esteem of having ‘‘made it’’ in their profession. It is an open question whether the certification model can be applied to the teaching profession. Australia has made several unsuccessful attempts to reform salary schedules over the past 20 years or more. While the weaknesses of the traditional incremental scale are widely recognized in review after review, it has proved highly intractable (Australian College of Educators, 2003; Crowley, 1998; Dinham, Ingvarson, & Kleinhenz, 2008). The need for reform has now become an imperative as the academic quality of entrants to teacher education programs has fallen significantly in recent years and the resignation rates of teachers in their first 5 years of teaching continue to rise (Productivity Commission, 2012). While some form of advanced certification is common among most professions, it is rare in the teaching profession. Why is it that teachers have rarely been entrusted with such a responsibility? Who should have ‘‘jurisdiction’’ over a function like professional certification? However, as

240

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

countries focus policy more on teacher quality, increasing numbers are introducing certification schemes for accomplished teachers. Examples are as follows:  Chartered Teacher Scheme in Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2001, 2008);  National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) scheme in the United States (NBPTS, 1989);  Certification of Teaching Excellence (Asignacio´n de Excelencia Pedago´gica) Program in Chile (Araya, Taut, Santelices, & Manzi, 2011; Araya, Taut, Santelices, Manzi, & Min˜o, 2012; Manzi et al., 2007);  Excellent Teacher and ‘‘Advanced Skills Teacher’’ levels in England and Wales (Fuller, Goodwyn, Francis-Brophy, & Harding, 2010; Ofsted, 2001); and  Master Teacher career track in Singapore1 (Lee & Tan, 2010; Sclafani, 2008). This chapter describes progress so far in Australia’s latest attempt to introduce a system for the certification of teachers, this time at two levels: the Highly Accomplished Teacher and Lead Teacher levels. Despite strong support in principle by the main stakeholders, implementation is proving difficult. In fact, attempts to introduce certification schemes for teachers in most countries have met with difficulties. The NBPTS (1989) is arguably the most ambitious attempt by any country to establish an independent national system for the advanced certification of teachers. Over 200,000 teachers have applied and nearly 100,000 have been successful. Yet, after more than 20 years, despite positive evaluations of its professional development benefits (NBPTS, 2001a, 2001b), its validity and the reliability of its assessment procedures (National Research Council, 2008), it is yet to become an integral part of career pathways for most teachers. However, notwithstanding this, it remains the most highly respected and longest standing system for recognizing and rewarding accomplished teachers in the United States. It is no accident that practicing teachers play a major part in every level of its operation. What is becoming clearer from recent international research is the link between the professional status of teaching as a career and the quality of student learning. Recent OECD reports, for example, increasingly emphasize the central importance of building a high-quality teaching profession (e.g., OECD, 2009, 2010, 2011). However, these reports rarely elaborate what it might mean to build a profession of teaching, or what the necessary conditions might be in raising the status of teaching to that of a profession.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

241

The Australian prime minister recently announced (September 2012) a range of plans for improving education,2 stating that: The aim of these improvements is to ensure that by 2025 Australia is ranked as a top five country in the world for the performance of our students in Reading, Science, Mathematics, and for providing our children with a high-quality and high-equity education system.

Achieving this goal will certainly require a strong teaching profession, and governments willing to pay more for teaching who attain high professional standards. It calls for a radically revised model for how teachers should be paid  a model of a highly educated profession, capable of defining standards for effective teaching, promoting development toward those standards and providing recognition for those who reach them. In other words, it calls for the teaching profession to be entrusted with the responsibilities of a profession; one of these is the responsibility, and the resources, to establish a standard-based professional learning and certifications system.

A STANDARD-BASED PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEM Certification refers to an endorsement by a professional agency that a member of that profession has attained a designated standard of practice. A professional certification is portable. It is not a job or position with a particular school, though it may be a criterion for eligibility for promotion to one of these. A professional certification system leading to a substantially higher salary scale aims to provide strong incentives for all teachers to develop their practice to the level where they can demonstrate they have attained high professional standards and earn professional certification. To be effective, certification should be a career step that most teachers aspire to – something achievable by most teachers given opportunities for professional learning, not just an elite few. Certification is open to all teachers and is based on demonstrated attainment of the standards. Unlike bonus pay schemes, it is a noncompetitive award as it is standard-based rather than norm-referenced. The main components of a standard-based professional learning and certification system are:  High teaching standards that articulate what teachers should get better at and provide direction for professional development over the long term.

242

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

 A rigorous, voluntary system of advanced professional certification based on valid methods for assessing teacher performance against the standards.  Staged career paths that provide recognition for good teaching and provide substantial incentives and for teachers to attain the standards for certification.  An infrastructure for professional learning that enables teachers to gain the knowledge and skill embodied in the teaching standards. These components can be conceptualized as four pieces of a jigsaw, whose interlocking character is captured in Fig. 1. Taken together, the four components form a ‘‘system’’ of interdependent and mutually supportive parts. Each component has its own functions and characteristics, but each is less effective without the others. If one is taken away the system loses its capacity to function effectively as an instrument for encouraging and recognizing evidence of professional learning. For example, the certification procedures for assessing performance define what counts as meeting the standards. Few teachers will undertake assessment for certification unless employing authorities provide recognition. New

Fig. 1.

A Standards Guided Professional Learning System.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

243

models for professional learning are needed to help teachers prepare for certification, and so on. Countries vary in the extent to which they get all four components right. The English ‘‘threshold’’ scheme failed to engage teachers at any stage in its development or to ensure rigor in its standards and assessment process. Consequently, the scheme had little impact on professional learning and quickly lost respect (Wragg, Haynes, Chamberlin, & Wragg, 2003). The scheme has been discontinued. Scotland, for example, got the recognition part right in its recent Chartered Teacher scheme (Scottish Executive Education Department, 2001). They ensured strong buy in from teacher unions, governments, and employing authorities and all agreed to provide substantial incentives for teachers who gained certification (20% pay rise). It also mobilized the universities to provide an impressive professional learning infrastructure to support applicants (Forde & McMahon, 2011). However, the scheme has faltered, partly because the credibility of the assessment process for certification was not clearly established. A recent review of the Chartered Teacher scheme (McCormac Review, 2011) claimed that: While we received evidence that demonstrated the commitment and professionalism of many chartered teachers, the widely held view is that the existing cohort of chartered teachers does not singularly represent the best teachers in Scotland.

Insufficient attention was given to ensuring that the process for assessing teachers was rigorous – and therefore capable of withstanding criticism about its credibility. Consequently, the system has come into question recently as the economy has weakened. Proponents are struggling to provide good arguments for retaining the system as governments seek to cut costs. In contrast, the NBPTS certification scheme carried out extensive research to ensure that its assessments met high psychometric standards procedures before offering certification (Ingvarson & Hattie, 2008). It encouraged rigorous tests of the reliability and validity of its certification from leading figures in educational measurement (NBPTS, 2007). These studies provided convincing evidence that the assessment process was rigorous (National Research Council, 2008). Others have shown how preparation for certification has beneficial effects on teachers’ professional learning (Lustick, 2011). However, because the NBPTS operates in a large federal system with local school management and industrial bargaining, persuading governments and school districts to provide substantial salary recognition for professional certification has been a slow process.

244

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

Australia reached a consensus about the need to build a standard-based professional learning system in 2008. As we shall see, maintaining that consensus and implementing such a system in a federal political system like Australia is also proving to be more difficult than anticipated.

RATIONALE FOR CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS The basic rationale for professional certification is to drive more effective professional learning and widespread use of successful teaching practices as defined in the standards. Certification schemes for teachers, like those in other professions, aim to provide a service to the public and to employing authorities seeking assurances of quality. Governments and employing authorities must be convinced that certification is a guarantee of high professional standards if they are to recognize it in terms of higher salary and promotion. To be successful, certification schemes must therefore be credible. They must be based on a rigorous assessment of professional knowledge and performance, as defined in a set of professional standards. The benefits of certification schemes include making teaching more attractive to abler graduates by providing a sounder basis for higher salaries, increasing incentives for professional learning, and more interesting career paths for accomplished teachers. Further benefits can multiply if schools can ‘‘free up’’ the expertise of such teachers and make it more accessible to other teachers  and if governments ensure an equitable distribution of such teachers across schools and school systems. In Australia, a further goal of certification is to encourage greater mobility of teachers across different states and school systems. Professional certification needs to be distinguished from ‘‘performance management’’ – such as annual teacher appraisal or review schemes. One of the main purposes of performance management systems is to ensure teachers fulfill their contractual duties and retain their current positions. Another is to provide the kind of evaluative feedback that assists teachers to progress toward higher standards and prepare for certification and career progression. Performance management and annual reviews are usually the responsibility of school principals in the Australian context. In contrast, certification serves profession-wide purposes. A certification system makes decisions at key transition points in a teacher’s career, such as graduation, registration (entry to the profession), and advanced professional certification. These

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

245

decisions are usually the responsibility of a profession-wide body, such as the General Teaching Council in the case of Scotland or the NBPTS in the United States. Both purposes are important. National professional bodies usually run certification systems, independent of particular employing authorities. In contrast, performance management systems are right and properly the responsibility of employing authorities. Their function within the organization is different from professional certification. Both are important, and can be complementary. In fact, performance management systems frequently incorporate arrangements that encourage relevant staff members to seek professional certification. However, when performance management systems are combined with competitive one-off bonus pay schemes, negative consequences for staff morale and relationships usually follow. A profession-wide certification system sits in contrast with many merit pay or performance pay schemes based on gain scores in student achievement rather than standards for accomplished teaching. It also contrasts with such schemes in that responsibility for operating such a system is usually entrusted to a national profession body. In summary, if a standard-based certification system were working well,  Teachers would regard the standards as challenging and worth pursuing as a guide to their professional learning.  It would lead most teachers to seek professional learning experiences that helped them reach accomplished teaching standards and thereby improve student learning outcomes.  Teachers would regard the assessment methods as valid, reliable, and fair.  Employing authorities would regard certification as a reliable basis for recognizing accomplished teachers and providing salaries and career opportunities that retained the best teachers close to the classroom.  It would be Lead Teachers who could not attain the standards after a reasonable period of time to consider other occupations. These are the central characteristics of a profession-run certification system. The limitations of the traditional pay scales for Australian teachers are well known. Career progression and salary in Australia are almost entirely dependent on length of service. Further progression is linked to additional duties, not ability to use successful and innovative teaching practices. The traditional incremental pay system in Australia is therefore a weak instrument for promoting professional learning and improving student learning. Salaries rise quickly after only 8–9 years to a maximum that is less

246

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

than 1.5 times the starting salary. Countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan pay effective classroom teachers more than 2.5 times the starting salary. Ninety-two per cent of Australian teachers in the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) reported that if they improved the quality of their teaching they would not receive any recognition in their school (OECD, 2009). And 83% reported that the evaluation of their work has no impact on the likelihood of their career advancement; it is just an administrative exercise. In a recent survey of Australian teachers, 67% of primary teachers and 70% of secondary teachers strongly agreed or agreed that higher pay for teachers who demonstrate advanced competence would help retain teachers in the profession (McKenzie, Kos, Walker, Hong, & Owen, 2008). As a recent OECD report points out, A problematic aspect of the teaching profession in Australia is that career structures are, in most jurisdictions, dissociated from teaching standards and (certification) processes. This translates into a detrimental separation between the definition of skills and competencies at different stages of the career (as reflected in teaching standards) and the roles and responsibilities of teachers in schools (as reflected in career structures). (Santiago, Donaldson, Herman, & Shewbridge, 2011, p. 89)

The current salary scale says in effect that Australian teachers are not expected to get any better after 8 or 9 years. It also implies that expert teaching is lower in status and importance than administrative positions, which is the reverse of organizations employing professionals. Most important for this chapter, current salary structures do not create a market for professionally certified accomplished teachers, unlike Scotland and states such as North Carolina in the United States that provide recognition for National Board Certified Teachers. Australia has had a strong teaching profession, as demonstrated by its high relative standing in International tests. However, its standing has been slipping. There is mounting concern about the quality of entrants to teacher education. A recent Productivity Commission report (2012) documents how relative salaries for teachers have fallen significantly over the past 30 years. Several studies indicate that few high achieving students choose teaching as a career because of its status and low salaries relative to other professions; and the proportion of teachers who leave teaching within the first 5 years has risen (Department of Education, Science and Technology, 2003). These are problems that professional certification systems aim to address.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

247

TOWARD A NATIONAL CERTIFICATION SYSTEM: RECENT HISTORY In 1973, a major national report on education (The Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission, 1973) called for a more active role for the teaching profession in developing standards for practice and in exercising responsibility for professional development. Noting that teacher organizations had been more concerned with industrial than professional matters, it argued: A mark of a highly skilled occupation is that those entering it should have reached a level of preparation in accordance with standards set by the practitioners themselves, and that the continuing development of members should largely be the responsibility of the profession. In such circumstances, the occupational group itself becomes the point of reference for standards and thus the source of prestige or of condemnation. (p. 123)

Movement toward this vision, of a profession that speaks on equal terms with governments and other employing authorities on professional matters, has been slow over the past 40 years, although it has quickened over the past decade (Ingvarson, 2010). The Advanced Skills Teacher Concept The first attempt to reform teacher career structures in Australia emerged around the late 1980s and early 1990s amid concerns about the decline in academic quality of students entering initial teacher education courses. There were also concerns that career paths for teachers did little to encourage and reward evidence of continuing learning and skill development. Teachers reached the top of the salary scale quickly, after 8–10 years of experience. To gain higher status and salaries, teachers had to move into school management positions. In other words, the existing career structure did not place a high value on good teaching, nor did it provide strong incentives or recognition for developing into an accomplished teacher. To address these concerns, all employing authorities and teachers unions agreed in 1990 to the introduction of a new ‘‘alternative’’ career pathway for good teachers called the Advanced Skills Teacher (AST), leading to further salary increments (from 4 to 10%) beyond the top of the existing scale. Union leaders played a major role in shaping the way these reforms were implemented in the education industry. The AST concept of a career path in teaching, based on evidence of professional development and teacher leadership, failed in most states

248

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

(Ingvarson & Chadbourne, 1997; Watkins, 1994). Salary increases were too small. Teachers who gained AST status were often burdened with extra work or extra responsibilities; even though the intention was that they would continue to be classroom teachers. Many became stressed. It was difficult for many to accept the principle underlying the AST concept that a teacher should be able to earn more pay just for improving the quality of their teaching. Even though the AST was a national scheme, procedures for evaluating teachers were left to local negotiation between employing authorities and unions. Each school system developed its own set of standards and methods of assessments. Most lacked the expertise or the resources to develop and trial methods for evaluating teachers to ensure they were valid and reliable. Consequently, most school systems and local unions opted to conduct assessments by means of school-based interviewing panels, including the principal, a local union representative, a colleague, and a teacher from another school. Applicants presented written applications, but in most states these did not have to contain direct evidence or observation of classroom practices. As a result, it was very difficult for interviewing panels not to award AST status without risking accusations of bias and discrimination. Almost all eligible teachers who applied gained AST status. Consequently, the AST concept quickly lost credibility and, with it, its capacity to invigorate and reform the professional development system for teachers. In most states, the AST position was absorbed back into the traditional notion of career ladders based on movement out of professional practice into management hierarchies. The first lesson to emerge from the AST experience, therefore, was the importance of ensuring that procedures for evaluating teachers’ knowledge and performance were reliable, valid, and fair. An independent professional body was needed at the national level to operate the teacher evaluation system, drawing on agencies with expertise in standards and educational measurement. Related to this was the need to ensure a clear separation between the certification system and systems for giving recognition in terms of pay and status to that certification. While the latter was properly the business of employing authorities and unions to negotiate, it was becoming clearer that the former function would be conducted more effectively and efficiently if delegated to an independent professional body, with expertise in standards and methods of assessment. The certification system needed to be independent of the arrangements employing authorities chose to reward certification.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

249

Another lesson that emerged in the three states and territories that continued to offer AST positions was that it was a mistake to conceive of schemes for accomplished teachers in terms of providing an ‘‘alternative’’ career path. The idea of career path for good teachers as an ‘‘alternative’’ to traditional paths to career progression into school management had not worked. The alternative career path often turned out to be a dead end or a sideline rather than a viable career option. Few teachers applied as they could gain promotion and higher salaries through the traditional method of applying for school administration positions. Therefore, these schemes did not provide a form of professional recognition that most teachers regarded as credible or desirable. As a result, the AST schemes were unable to provide an effective ‘‘engine’’ for lifting teaching standards; or strong enough incentives for most teachers to seek the kind of professional learning that would help them reach high performance standards. These schemes were thus weak drivers of change and had little impact on the quality of teaching. The idea of an alternative career path as a way of giving recognition to good teachers had failed. The implication was to move to a situation where evidence of reaching accomplished teacher standards was either a necessary or highly favored criterion for promotion positions, including school principals. The main implications from research into these schemes were:  Mainstream schemes for recognizing good teachers and make certification a prerequisite for promotion to all positions above the top of scale;  Strengthen financial rewards for certification significantly;  Improve the validity and reliability of the assessment methods; and  Create interesting new roles for accomplished teachers as teacher leaders.

Teachers’ Associations and Development of Professional Standards Although implementation of the AST concept failed in most states and territories, the need for credible systems to recognize effective teachers and pay them what they were worth remained, especially as concern about teacher quality and the status of teaching grew during the 1990s. Concern reached such a point by the late 1990s that the Senate of the Australian Government instigated an Inquiry into the status of teaching. The Senator’s report (Crowley, 1998) had one main theme – strengthen the teaching profession, especially its role in the development of standards. The Senators recognized that an effective education system needed career structures that

250

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

kept good teachers close to students and provided incentives that led all teachers to pursue high standards. The Senate Report (Crowley, 1998) recommended that: A system of professional recognition for teachers must be established, which is based on the achievement of enhanced knowledge and skills and which retains teachers at the front line of student learning. Such knowledge and skills should be identified, classified, and assessed according to criteria developed by expert panels drawn from the profession. Education authorities should structure remuneration accordingly. (p. 7)

The Senators recommended that the Commonwealth Government should facilitate the development of a national professional teaching body with responsibility, authority, and resources to develop and maintain standards of professional practice. The Inquiry report emphasized that this body should work closely with state and territory governments and peak teacher organizations. During the 1990s and early 2000s, successive Commonwealth Ministers for Education on both sides advocated that teachers should play a stronger role in articulating their own standards and promoting excellence in teaching and learning. Opportunities became available for professional associations to gain funding for the complex work of developing and validating teaching standards. Teacher subject associations in English, mathematics, and science led these initiatives (Bishop, Clarke, & Morony, 2006; Brinkworth, 2005; Gill, 1999; Ingvarson & Wright, 1999). It was obviously in the interests of governments and employing authorities to foster this commitment among teachers. This work undoubtedly lifted the self-respect and the status afforded to these associations in policy circles. At the launch of the Australian Science Teachers Association (2002) standards in Adelaide, for example, a senior educational administrator from a state government held up the standards and said, ‘‘We would not dare to develop standards as high as these for our school system.’’ By 2009, over 20 professional associations had developed, or were in the process of developing standards for their specialist fields. These include subject associations, level-specific associations such as the Early Childhood Association, support associations such as the Australian School Librarians Association, and associations for school principals.3 Ingvarson and Kleinhenz (2006a) and Hayes (2006) provide summaries of this work. Two associations, the Australian Association for Mathematics Teachers and the Australian Science Teachers Association, had developed their standards and assessment methods to the point where they provide a potentially valid basis for a national certification system  one that

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

251

employing authorities looking to recognize and reward accomplished teachers could draw on with confidence (Brinkworth, 2005; Morony, 2009). Almost all associations want their standards to be used as part of a national certification system. In no other country, other than the United States, have professional associations mobilized themselves in developing professional standards to the extent they have in Australia. This is a unique feature of Australian education. England and Scotland have similar subject associations, but most have not been involved in developing the standards that underpin the new career frameworks and pay structures that are beginning to operate in those countries. The need for coordination of these efforts was recognized from the start. In 2003 a group of 20 teacher associations put together a National Statement from the Teaching Profession on Teacher Standards, Quality and Professionalism (Australian College of Educators, 2003). The National Statement recommended that A nationally coordinated, rigorous, and consistent system should be established to provide recognition to teachers who demonstrate advanced standards. y The enterprise bargaining process between employers and unions will be an important mechanism for providing recognition for professional certification. All employing authorities should be encouraged to provide recognition and support for professional certification as the process comes to demonstrate its credibility and its effects on professional learning. (p. 4)

Teaching Australia: A First Attempt to Establish a National Certification Body In reality, this aspiration was still a long way from realization. However, two initiatives emerged in the early 2000s, each aiming to progress the idea of a national professional standards framework for teachers, but from somewhat different directions. The first came from the Australian Government in July 2003 when the Minister for Education, Science, and Training, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP, unilaterally announced in that the Australian Government would establish a National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL). The Minister had a medical background and, in an earlier career, was the president of the Australian Medical Association. With this background, he assumed that teaching would have a similar national professional association to advise him on professional matters. On not finding one, he set about establishing NIQTSL  unfortunately, with little prior

252

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

consultation with state ministers of education or teacher unions (its name was changed later to Teaching Australia). Its Board of Directors consisted largely of representatives of teacher associations such as subject associations and principal associations. There were no representatives of teacher unions or state and territory governments or other employing authorities. Teaching Australia played an important role in bringing the standards development work of professional associations together. It also developed national standards for accomplished school principals in collaboration with principal organizations. Initially, the Board of Directors of Teaching Australia was not prepared to commit to a voluntary assessment and certification system. However, as support for the idea from teacher associations grew, the Directors began to embrace the concept. In 2008, the Board of Directors agreed and supported the introduction of a voluntary system of professional certification and believed the profession should independently manage this system, working in partnership with employers, regulatory bodies, and the community (Teaching Australia, 2009). By this time however, there was a change of government at the national level and support for Teaching Australia weakened. However, during the 2000s a clear consensus had emerged about the need for reforming career structures for teachers based on a framework of teaching standards. Teacher unions were supportive provided teachers would be assessed by an independent and fair process and rewarded through salary increases. In 2007, the in-coming Labor Government had promised to establish a rigorous standard-based certification system for recognizing accomplished teachers. This brief history indicates that the concept of a national professional standards and certification system for recognizing accomplished teachers has been developing over many years and has gained broad support across the professional associations. It also demonstrates that the professional associations have been building capacity to operate such a system. However, opportunities for the profession to play a leading role in the development of a certification system have yet to develop.

TOWARD A NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TEACHING Meanwhile, a second initiative came from state and territory education departments and teacher registration authorities who were developing

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

253

standards within their jurisdictions, mainly for registration (licensing) and performance management purposes. In 2003, the national council of Ministers of Education had developed a National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs [MCEETYA], 2003) with two dimensions: 1. Career dimensions, which conceptualized a teaching career at four stages or levels:  Graduate Teacher  Competent (i.e., registered) Teacher  Highly Accomplished Teacher  Lead Teacher 2. Professional domains and standards, which included:  Professional knowledge  Professional practice  Professional engagement The Ministers of Education conceived of the Framework as a common structure within which state and territory governments and other employing authorities would develop their own teaching standards for each of the career stages from graduation to leadership. Following the election in 2007, the new Labor Government instigated a process whereby the Australian Government and state and territory governments developed a range of ‘‘National Partnership Agreements’’ in key policy areas such as education and health. As part of this process, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) identified teacher quality as a major lever in improving education outcomes. COAG’s priority areas for reform included:  Developing and enhancing the skills and knowledge of teachers and school leaders throughout their careers;  Retaining and rewarding quality teachers and school leaders; and  Improved mobility of the Australian teaching workforce and equitable distribution of quality teachers across schools. To facilitate these reforms, COAG agreed in 2008 to the development of an updated version of the 2003 Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs4 (MCEECDYA) standards framework to be used as part of a certification process for recognizing and rewarding teachers and school leaders Framework (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2008). A revised version was presented to the new MCEECDYA late in 2009.

254

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

A MCEECDYA communique´ (2009) stated that the new national framework would be a keystone of the National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality. It will: Outline what teachers, at all levels of responsibility, know and do across the domains of professional knowledge, professional practice and professional engagement. This will in turn define an architecture within which generic, specialist and subject-area standards can be developed. (MCEECDYA, 2009)

In January 2010, the new Commonwealth Minister replaced Teaching Australia with another national body, The Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). The Minister charged AITSL with the responsibility to provide national leadership for Commonwealth, state, and territory governments in promoting excellence in the profession of teaching and school leadership. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality AITSL’s Board of Directors would now be directly responsible to Commonwealth, state, and territory governments as the main stakeholders, through MCEECDYA.5 AITSL would be funded by the Commonwealth (COAG, 2008). The Board was now made up predominantly of representatives of state and territory government, Catholic and Independent School employing authorities. Education unions had one place on the initial 17-member AITSL Board6 and national professional associations also had one place. In 2012, the number of Board members was reduced to seven. The teacher unions retained their place, but not the professional associations. The Minister indicated that AITSL was to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in achieving its reforms, including professional associations through a teacher advisory group. In her letter of expectation, AITSL was required to finalize the development of the National Professional Standards for Teachers, based on the MCEETYA Framework including their validation, refinement, and endorsement  and to work with jurisdictions to promote and support their implementation. The National Professional Standards for Teachers were to form the basis of the following reforms being led by AITSL, in consultation and collaboration with stakeholders: a. b. c. d. e.

National accreditation of initial teacher education programs; Nationally consistent registration (licensing) for teachers; Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers; Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework; and Professional learning, including the Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

255

THE NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FRAMEWORK In February 2011, the Minister of Education endorsed the National Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL, 2011), stating ‘‘the Standards will drive future reform in the areas of national accreditation of teacher education programs, nationally consistent teacher registration, and the certification of Highly Accomplished Teachers.’’7 At the same time, the Chair of AITSL announced that: AITSL will be working in partnership with the various regulatory authorities, teacher unions, and all school sectors, to implement the standards in all jurisdictions. This work will include explaining and elaborating on the standards, providing support materials, providing the processes, and deciding on how judgements are made.8

The National Professional Standards for Teachers provided a framework that made explicit the knowledge, practice, and professional engagement required across four professional certification levels or career stages as follows:  Graduate Teachers: Graduate Teachers have approved qualifications and have met all requirements for employment as provisionally registered teachers.  Proficient Teachers: Proficient Teachers are registered teachers who demonstrate professional knowledge, successful teaching practice, and effective engagement with the profession.  Highly Accomplished Teachers: Highly Accomplished Teachers are recognized by others as accomplished because they have a detailed and continually professional knowledge and are able to apply this to maximize learning.  Lead Teachers: Lead Teachers are outstanding teachers who successfully lead initiatives that make a positive contribution to the quality of teaching and learning and well-being in their schools and professional community. At the same time the Framework also contained a set of teaching standards in the same three domains as the 2003 version. Table 1 shows how the career stages (i.e., certification levels) and seven standards are brought together to form the National Professional Standards Framework. The meaning and scope of each of the standards in the Framework is elaborated by developing a list of ‘‘elements’’ or ‘‘indicators’’. Table 2 shows six indicators for each of the two standards in the Professional Knowledge Domain. There are 37 indicators in total.

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

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

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

Professional practice

Professional engagement

Standards

Professional knowledge

Domains Graduate

Registered (Proficient)

Highly Accomplished

Career Stages/Certification Levels

Table 1. The National Professional Standards Framework.

Lead Teacher

256 LAWRENCE INGVARSON

257

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

Table 2. Domain 1 of the National Professional Teaching Standards Framework. Domain Professional knowledge

Standard

Indicators

1. Know students and how they learn

1.1. Physical, social, and intellectual development and characteristics of students 1.2. Understand how students learn 1.3. Students with diverse linguistic, cultural, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds 1.4. Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students 1.5. Differentiate teaching to meet the specific learning needs of students across the full range of abilities 1.6. Strategies to support full participation of students with disability

2. Know content and how to teach it

2.1. Content and teaching strategies of the teaching area 2.2. Content selection and organization 2.3. Curriculum, assessment, and reporting 2.4. Understand and respect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians 2.5. Literacy and numeracy strategies 2.6. Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

Each of the standards and indicators is then described in more detail at four levels of certification, as shown in Table 3; Graduate Teacher, Proficient Teacher, Highly Accomplished Teacher, and Lead Teacher.9 The full set of standards contains this kind of elaboration for each of the 37 indicators. The Australian Framework is an example of a ‘‘generic’’ standards framework, in the sense that it is meant to be common to most teachers, regardless of the level at which they teach or the subjects they teach. Further elaborations of the Australian standards are currently being written, together with exemplars for different content areas and fields of teaching. The frameworks for England, Scotland, and Singapore are also generic in this sense. In contrast, the NBPTS has separate sets of subjectspecific standards for 25 different fields of teaching.

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of physical, social, and intellectual development and characteristics of students and how these may affect learning

Graduate Teacher

Use teaching strategies based on knowledge of students’ physical, social, and intellectual development and characteristics to improve student learning

Proficient Teacher

Select from a flexible and effective repertoire of teaching strategies to suit the physical, social, and intellectual development and characteristics of students

Highly Accomplished Teacher

Certification Levels/Career Stages

Lead colleagues to select and develop teaching strategies to improve student learning using knowledge of the physical, social, and intellectual development and characteristics of students

Lead Teacher

Standard 1: Showing Expectations for Each Career Stage for Indicator 1.1.

Professional knowledge 1. Know students 1.1. Physical, social, and intellectual and how they development and learn characteristics of students

Standard 1

Domain 1

Table 3.

258 LAWRENCE INGVARSON

259

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

LINKING CERTIFICATION LEVELS TO SALARIES While certification at the Graduate and the Proficient levels is necessary to gain entry to the profession, certification at the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher levels is voluntary. At the time the standards framework was released in 2011, it was not clear how the different jurisdictions would decide to give recognition in salary terms to teachers who gained certification at these levels. However, a report to the Business Council of Australia (Dinham et al., 2008) had shown how the National Standards Framework might be linked to teacher salary (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 is based on the assumption that teachers can steadily improve the quality and range of their professional knowledge and skill and consequently increase their value to schools. It shows how the career stages would be linked to increasing levels of professional knowledge and performance against the standards, and to increases in salary. While evaluation of teachers for graduation will remain the responsibility of universities, and evaluation of proficient or registered teachers will remain the responsibility of state teacher registration bodies, AITSL has been given responsibility for establishing a voluntary ‘‘nationally

SALARY (Proposed) School leader

Lead Teacher

2.5x

Highly Accomplished Teacher

2x

1.25x

x

Proficient teacher

Provisionally registered teacher TEACHING STANDARDS

Graduation standards

Registration standards

Fig. 2.

HATCertification LT standards Certification standards

School leadership Standards

A Standard-Based Career Structure.

260

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

consistent’’ system for the certification of teachers at the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher levels, based on the National Standards. In our report to the Business Council, we suggested that, over time, the profile of teachers might shift from the current situation where 75% of teachers in Australia are at or below the top of the current salary scale (i.e., proficient or graduate levels) to that set out in Fig. 2, where about 40% of teachers would be at the Highly Accomplished level (twice the starting salary) and 10% at the Lead Teacher level (2.5 times the starting salary), if they meet the standards. The remaining 50% of teachers would be seeking or have gained certification ‘‘at the proficient/registered/competent level.’’ We estimated that it would take about 10 years to move from the current teacher profile to that shown in Fig. 2. This means that the cost of the certification system would only increase gradually. In effect, our proposal meant that over time the proportion of teachers who have moved above the top of the old incremental salary scale would rise from about 25% to 50%. Salaries for Accomplished Teachers would rise to twice the salary for Graduate Teachers, or about $100,000. Salaries for Lead Teachers would rise to two and a half times that for Graduate Teachers, or about $125,000. (These teachers would of course still be subject to performance management expectations operating in their school or school system.) The eventual addition to the annual salary budget was estimated to be $56 billion, based on the figures in the previous paragraph.

IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS Certification: Whose Jurisdiction? From the start, AITSL faced a formidable challenge in building a professionwide and system for the assessment and certification of Highly accomplished and Lead Teachers. The COAG directed that AITSL develop a ‘‘nationally consistent,’’ not a national, system of certification. The original Letter of Expectation from the national Minister of Education, setting out AITSL’s roles and responsibilities, made it clear that, while AITSL was to develop the Standards Framework and guidelines for assessment, responsibility for conducting the certification process would rest with yet-to-be-defined ‘‘jurisdictional certifying bodies’’ in each state and territory. (Paradoxically, the Minister’s Letter also directed AITSL to develop a certification system

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

261

that would increase opportunity for teachers to move between different school systems.) In effect, this meant that the state and territory Ministers of Education and other employing authorities had successfully claimed the responsibility to operate the certification system. This represented an odd position for governments and other employing authorities to take. Employing authorities do not have jurisdiction over certification in any other profession and would not think of claiming they had. Their stance reflected either a misunderstanding about the concept of an independent professional certification system, as recommended repeatedly in national reports and reviews for many years (e.g., Crowley, 1998; DEST, 2003), or a reluctance to trust the teaching profession with the responsibilities of a profession. What was essential in their view, however, was to retain control over the assessment process and the numbers of teachers gaining certification. Despite years of rhetoric about the importance of strengthening teaching as a profession, the idea of an independent professional body providing certification was not contemplated. Nor were national teacher associations consulted on the matter, ignoring the fact that some of these associations had demonstrated their willingness and ability to operate a single national certification system 10 years earlier. In some states, this directive meant that there would be more than one certifying authority: one for public school teachers, one for teachers in the Catholic school sector, and one for teachers in the independent school sector. The Board’s decision meant that Australia would have at least eight different certifying bodies, and probably more. Most professions have a single national body for providing an advanced certification system. No reason was provided why teaching should be different. Whether the states and territories actually had ‘‘jurisdiction’’ in the sense of legislation giving them authority to provide a voluntary certification system was not clarified. After considerable confusion about who would actually have the jurisdiction, or want it, it now appears that the certifying authority in most states and territories will turn out to be the teacher registration body, the body responsible for licensing teachers. To facilitate the development of a nationally consistent certification process, AITSL was directed to develop a set of ‘‘guidelines’’ for certifying authorities to follow in operating their certification systems. These were developed during 2011, in consultations with key education stakeholders including teacher employers, regulatory authorities, teacher unions, national, state and territory peak bodies, and practicing teachers and school leaders. The resulting Certification Principles and Processes were published in April 2012 (AITSL, 2012).

262

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

Table 4 contains a summary of the guidelines for teachers preparing their applications for certification. Noteworthy is the expectation that teachers will undertake a self-assessment and check their readiness to apply with their school principal. Broad guidelines are provided for two stages in the assessment: one internal to the school and the other external. Local certifying authorities will develop more specific guidelines. Australia will obviously face considerable challenges in developing ‘‘national consistency’’ within a highly fragmented system for assessing teachers such as the one proposed. State and Territory registration bodies vary in their capacity to develop and conduct assessments with validity and reliability and early indications are that local certifying bodies are interpreting the guidelines in different ways. The proposed approach will certainly be less efficient than a national certification scheme and runs the risk that inconsistency will undermine its ability to provide teachers with a nationally respected professional certification. In April 2012, all Ministers for Education endorsed the AITSL ‘‘Principles and Processes’’ that local certifying authorities are expected to follow in developing their procedures for the certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers. Since that time, however, one state and one territory have gained approval to have preexisting procedures ‘‘deemed’’ to be equivalent to those developed by AITSL. At the time of writing, there is still uncertainty in some states about how the certifying authority will be formed.

Certification: A Basis for Career Advancement or Bonus Pay? As indicated earlier, the Federal Minister’s original brief in 2009 charged AITSL with the task of developing and implementing a voluntary, nationally consistent system for the certification of Highly Accomplished Teachers. Certification, by definition, is a portable qualification, usually linked to advancement in a professional career path. The following Minister reinforced this in February 2011 when he launched the new National Professional Standards for Teachers. This work, he emphasized, would draw on the standards developed by teacher associations. Meanwhile, without consultation with AITSL or other stakeholders, the Prime Minister had announced shortly before the September 2010 election that the government would introduce an annual bonus pay scheme called Reward Payments for Great Teachers if it won the election. The scheme would provide bonuses of about $8,000 for 10% of teachers each year,

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

Table 4.

263

Outline of Stages in Applying for Certification.

Detailed procedures for assessment have yet to be finalized, but the following stages are envisaged. 1. Pre-assessment determines eligibility and readiness to apply for Certification. Before applying for certification teachers need to determine their eligibility and readiness to apply for Certification. Applicants need to be registration (licensed) teachers. If applying for Highly Accomplished certification, teachers need to have two satisfactory annual performance assessments, and three if applying for Lead Teacher certification. 2. Self-assessment Before formally applying for certification, applicants are advised to undertake a self-assessment to determine their likely success in meeting certification requirements and to provide them with an understanding of what is required for certification. An online self-assessment tool is provided for this purpose. Applicants must also conduct a professional discussion with their principal/ supervisor regarding their readiness to apply for certification and/or what additional preparation they need to proceed with their application. Obtaining the endorsement of the principal to proceed is not mandatory, but is strongly recommended. 3. Assessment The assessment of certification applications has two stages. Applicants must be successful at stage 1 before proceeding to stage 2. Stage 1 – assessment of evidence submitted against the Standards, which includes annotated evidence of teacher practice, a written statement addressing the Standards, observation reports, and referee comments. Stage 2 – direct assessment of teacher practice onsite by an external assessor which includes observation, discussion with principal/supervisor, discussion with other colleagues as required, and professional discussion with applicant. Applicants’ achievement against the Standards will be determined through an independent assessment of evidence by two assessors external to the school/ setting of the applicant and nominated by the certifying authority. Assessors will be trained in the certification and assessment process, and have the expertise to assess against the Standards at the relevant career stage and in the applicant’s context. Applicants must nominate referees who are able to provide verbal evaluative statements regarding the applicant’s evidence and performance against the Standards. The current principal/supervisor must be a referee. Assessors will make the final recommendation to the jurisdictional certifying body based on the assessment of evidence against the Standards, observations of practice, referee statements, and onsite discussions. The applicant will be provided with a copy of the assessment against the Standards. The jurisdictional certifying body will endorse/decline the recommendation of the external assessors. Certification will be granted for a fixed period of 5 years.

264

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

which meant that 250,000 teachers would need to be evaluated each year to select the 25,000 who would receive a bonus. The task of developing the scheme was handed to AITSL and required AITSL to develop a performance management system, The Australian Teacher Performance Management Principles and Procedures. Under the scheme, assessments would be conducted at the school level by panels including the principal, a senior regional staff representative, and an independent third party. Assessment would be based on a range of methods, including:  Lesson observations;  Analysis of student performance data (including NAPLAN10 and schoolbased information that can show the value added by particular teachers);  Parental feedback; and  Teacher qualifications and professional development undertaken. A bonus pay scheme was clearly inconsistent with AITSL’s original brief to develop a certification system. The methods listed were undeveloped and untested, and the scheme would be expensive and a burden for schools and would have a negative effect on staff relationships. This proposal appeared to ignore the original role the Ministers gave to AITSL. Quite apart from the fact that this scheme was an ill-conceived election promise, it placed AITSL in an awkward, if not contradictory, position. Was its main role to establish a nationally consistent certification system, or was it to provide school managers with procedures for their performance management and annual bonus pay schemes? The latter was an unusual thing for a federal government to do, given that education in Australia is a state responsibility. However, the Australian Government budgeted $1.25 billion for the scheme for a 5-year period from 2013, and allocated $50 million to states and territories to enable them ‘‘to make necessary changes.’’ In the face of widespread concerns about its feasibility, the Reward Payments for Great Teachers scheme was modified in 2012 so that the assessment would instead be based on the National Professional Standards and the certification principles and processes that AITSL was developing that rather than value-added methods and the other methods proposed in the election policy. The assessment will be conducted mainly at the school level, rather than by independent, external, and well-trained experts in the same teaching field as teachers being assessed. The history of teacher evaluation indicates that this will make it difficult to minimize extraneous influences on the integrity and outcomes of the assessment process.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

265

In effect, the Australian certification scheme has been transformed into a bonus pay scheme. Under the current directions from the Australian Government Minister for Education, teachers who apply successfully for certification will gain a one-off bonus, not a certification recognized in terms of advancement to higher salary levels. At this time, it is unclear whether a teacher’s certification will be recognized profession-wide in other states or sectors of the education system. Since that time, the Australian Government, facing budget constraints, has also signaled that it would support a more limited introduction of the certification/bonus pay scheme in 2013. Funding will be available to make one-off ‘‘reward’’ payments to 8,000 successful applicants only. Certified Highly Accomplished Teachers will receive $7,500 and Lead Teachers $10,000 in 2014. Applicants will have to pay $1,500 to cover the costs of the assessment. Funding is allocated for a similar number of successful 2014 applicants to receive payments in 2015. After that, future funding is uncertain. Nor are there plans to ‘‘mainstream’’ the certification system, that is, to move over time to a situation where certification is a requirement to be eligible for promotion to leadership positions in schools. Without this, the incentives for large numbers of teachers to undertake certification will be greatly reduced.

THE CHANGING POLITICAL CONTEXT A remarkable consensus had emerged in 2008 among all stakeholders about the need to establish a standard-based professional learning and certification system in Australia. At that time, almost all state and territory governments, as well as the Australian Government, were Labor governments. This consensus was reflected in a number of ‘‘National Partnership Agreements’’ in key policy priority areas developed by the COAG mentioned earlier. That consensus has weakened significantly. One of the core Agreements concerned teacher quality. This Agreement recognized the need for complementary commitments by state and territory governments and other employing authorities to reward high-quality teaching, to create new staffing classifications for high-quality teachers, to ensure an equitable distribution of accomplished teachers and school leaders across schools, and to strengthen schools as professional communities. This was the other half of the bargain – that state and territory governments would support certification with financial incentives and other forms of recognition. Although AITSL has made rapid progress toward describing a

266

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

new professional career structure based on certification at four career stages, its progress has been hindered by several events, one of which is certainly the international financial crisis. The Australian case also reflects the complexity of achieving change in a federal system where states and territories are responsible for education, but Federal Government funding is necessary to fund initiatives such as certification. Because of elections since 2008, almost all state and territory governments have changed to conservative governments. Two of the largest states, Victoria and Queensland, have also withdrawn support for the certification scheme. They are planning their own performance management schemes based on annual bonus payments. The idea of a voluntary certification scheme was regarded as intruding on their ‘‘managerial prerogative’’ in managing teacher performance. The idea of a professional certification system independent of particular employing authorities was foreign. However, one Territory, the Australian Capital Territory, has been trialing the AITSL’s certification system with a small group of teachers in 2012. One reflection on these events is that the long-term stability of a national certification scheme might have been more assured if AITSL had been established as a national professional body with greater independence. It is interesting that a recent House of Commons Select Committee recently recommended the establishment of a Royal College of Teachers and emphasized that it must be established in such a way that ensured its independence from the vagaries of politicians.

CONCLUSION This chapter has presented the model of a standard-based professional learning and certification system as an important component of national policies to promote teaching as a stronger and more attractive profession. It has traced briefly attempts over the past 20 years to introduce such a system in Australia. The concept gained widespread support and was endorsed by all the major stakeholders in Australian education by the late 2000s. However, as in other countries such as Scotland and the United States, progress toward a national certification system has not been smooth (Ingvarson, 2009). The model has two components essential to its success: a rigorous process for the development, assessment, and certification of teachers who attain high standards and a recognition for the value of that certification in terms of substantial salary advancement and new career opportunities, for

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

267

example in teacher leadership. Ideally, responsibilities for these two components are distinct, for good reasons. Governments and other employing authorities usually do not see themselves as having the expertise to develop professional standards and assess performance against those standards. In most professions, responsibility for professional standards and certification rests with an independent national professional body, such as Engineering Australia, or the Medical Boards in the United States. However, the way in which governments and other employing authorities may choose to encourage and reward attainment of that certification is, of course, their prerogative. The NBPTS in the United States, for example, has developed a rigorous and respected certification process. However, in a Federal system with nearly 14,000 school districts, gaining recognition for its certification within salary schedules and career pathways has necessarily been a long road. In contrast, in Scotland, the government, the teacher union, and local employing authorities agreed to give substantial salary recognition for Chartered Teacher status before a credible assessment and certification process was in place. Because it is still not in place, and education budgets are being reduced, funding for the reform is under scrutiny (McCormac Review, 2011). A central feature of the Australian venture in establishing a certification system is the extent to which the process has been directed by politicians; AITSL’s agenda is determined by ministers of education at national, state, and territory levels, not what it takes to develop a rigorous professional certification system. As a result, its agenda has changed in significant ways with changes in government and changes in Ministers of Education. There is no certainty to AITSL’s future. This situation is quite different from the situation in which certification bodies are placed in other professions. It is also quite different from the situation in which teacher certification bodies are placed in other countries. The General Teaching Council for Scotland has been operating for nearly 50 years. The NBPTS in the United States was established 25 years ago. Both bodies are relatively independent of political cycles and influence. The Australian case is a good example of the problem that Elmore (2011, pp. 34–35) describes: I used to think that policy was the solution. And now I think policy is the problem. y. To policy makers, every idea about what schools should be doing is as credible as every other idea, and any new idea that can command a political constituency can be used as an excuse for telling schools to do something. Elected officials y generate electoral credit by initiating new ideas, not by making the kind of steady investments in people

268

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

that are required to make the educator sector more effective. The result is an education sector that is overwhelmed with policy, conditioned to respond to the immediate demands of whoever controls the political agenda, and not in investing in the long-term health of the sector and the people who work in it.

It takes a stable environment to establish a successful certification system and a patient long-term view. The first President of the NBPTS persuaded governments and other funders that the Board would not offer certification until they had learned how to do the assessment ‘‘right’’ through several trials and pilot studies, under the guidance of nationally respected experts in educational assessment. AITSL has been given less than a year to develop the assessment methods and processes for training assessors before the system goes ‘‘live’’ to scale. A rushed agenda to meet a political timeline will risk imposing a system that fails to gain credibility and respect with the profession. The future is uncertain. What can be said is that AITSL has established the basic architecture of a ‘‘nationally consistent’’ system for the certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers. In addition generic set of National Professional Standards for Teachers has been developed, in addition, a set of guidelines and procedures for assessing applications for certification to be followed by certifying authorities, usually state and territory based teacher registration bodies. A pilot of the certification system has just been completed in one territory, the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra), but it is a long way from proving its validity and reliability. It will be important to recognize that teachers are not generalists. They work in specialist fields like primary teaching, or mathematics teaching at the secondary level. The current standards do not spell out the differences in what accomplished teachers know and do in these specialist fields, nor different levels performance within specialist fields. Until they do, it will be difficult to develop rubrics that clearly discriminate between different levels of professional knowledge or performance. After recent elections and changes in government, two states, Queensland and Victoria, have opted out of the AITSL system. The Victorian Government is planning a merit pay scheme that will require school principals to evaluate all of their teachers every year and place them into one of four or five payment categories; those who will receive no salary increment, those who will receive an increment only, and those who will receive an increment plus a 10%, 6%, or 1.4% bonus. Given 30 years of research on merit pay schemes, it has to be said that this scheme is unlikely to succeed. It places a huge burden on principals, it will undermine staff morale, and there is no teacher evaluation system capable of validly

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

269

discriminating between four or five performance levels for every teacher every year. The future of the Australian certification system will depend on two closely related factors. The first is that it proves itself a reliable indicator of effective classroom teaching, both to employing authorities and to teachers. Unless it does this, it will fail. The second is that the profession takes greater responsibility for its operation at all levels and builds a sense of ownership and commitment to ensuring its success. These remain major challenges for the future. In planning for that future, it will be important to keep in mind the findings in a recent OECD report (2011): There may be a relationship between the degree to which the work of teaching has been professionalized and student performance. Indeed, the higher a country is on the world’s education league tables, the more likely that country is working constructively with its unions and treating its teachers as trusted professional partners. y (p. 240)

The Australian case indicates that there is room for its politicians and policymakers to place greater trust the capacity of the teaching profession to play a major role its developing a rigorous standards-based professional learning and certification system for its members.

NOTES 1. http://www.moe.gov.sg/careers/teach/career-info/ 2. http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/better-schools-national-plan-schoolimprovement 3. Detailed accounts of this work can be found on the websites of these associations. 4. The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood, Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) was created from the July 2009 reconfiguration of the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) and the Ministerial Council for Vocational and Technical Education (MCVTE). 5. The functions of MCEECDYA include coordination of strategic policy at the national level, negotiation and development of national agreements on shared objectives and interests in the Council’s areas of responsibility, negotiations on scope and format of national reporting, sharing of information and collaborative use of resources toward agreed objectives and priorities, and coordination of communication with, and collaboration between, related national structures. 6. The proposed composition is Chair, Deputy Chair, one person from each state and territory ministry of education, a catholic employer, an independent employer, a principal, a teacher, and a unionist. 7. http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/garrett/teachers-set-raise-school-standards

270

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

8. http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/Media_Statement_-_Standards_ Release_-_AITSL_Chair_-_Anthony_Mackay.pdf 9. A full list of indicators for all standards in the Australian Framework can be found on the AITSL website (http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/) 10. A national assessment of student achievement in literacy and mathematics at grades 3, 5, 7, and 9.

REFERENCES Araya, C., Taut, S., Santelices, V., & Manzi, J. (2011). Validez consecuencial del programa de asignacio´n de excelencia pedago´gica en Chile [Consequential validity of the Certification of Teaching Excellence Program in Chile]. Revista Estudios Pedago´gicos, 37(2), 25–42. Araya, C., Taut, S., Santelices, V., Manzi, J., & Min˜o, F. (2012). Teorı´ a subyacente del Programa de Asignacio´n de Excelencia Pedago´gica en Chile [Theory of action of the Certification of Teaching Excellence Program in Chile]. Revista de Educacio´n, 359, 530–553. Australian College of Educators. (2003). National statement from the teaching profession on teacher standards, quality and professionalism. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.austcolled.com.au/article/national-statement-teaching-profession-teacherstandards-quality-and-professionalism Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2011). National professional standard for teachers. Melbourne: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Retrievied from http://www.teacherstandards.aitsl.edu.au/ Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL]. (2012). Certification of highly accomplished and lead teachers: Principles and processes. Melbourne: Education Services Australia. Retrievied from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/_resources/Certification_of_ Highly_Accomplished_and_Lead_Teachers_-_Principles_and_processes_-_April_2012_ file.pdf Australian Science Teachers Association. (2002). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science. Canberra: Author. Bishop, A., Clarke, B., & Morony, W. (2006). Professional learning using the mathematics standards. Canberra: Teaching Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Ltd. Brinkworth, P. (2005). AAMT teaching standards assessment evaluation project: Evaluation report October 2004. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http:// www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/profiles/aamt_tsaep_ evaluation_report_oct2004.htm Council of Australian Governments [COAG]. (2008). National partnership agreement on improving teacher quality. Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/node/346 Crowley, R. C. (1998). A class act: Inquiry into the status of the teaching profession. Report from the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business, and Education Reference Committee, Canberra. Department of Education Science and Training. (2003). Australia’s teachers: Australia’s future. Canberra: Department of Education Science and Training. Dinham, S., Ingvarson, L., & Kleinhenz, E. (2008). Investing in teacher quality: Doing what matters most. Teaching talent: The best teachers for Australia’s classrooms. Melbourne,

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

271

Australia: Business Council of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.bca.com.au/ Content/101446.aspx Elmore, R. F. (2011). I used to think y and now I think y: Twenty leading educators reflect on the work of school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Forde, C., & McMahon, M. (2011). Accomplished teaching, accomplished teachers in Scotland. Scotland: Department of Education, University of Glasgow. Fuller, C., Goodwyn, A., Francis-Brophy, E., & Harding, R. (2010). Advanced skill teachers: Summary report. England: The Institute of Education, The University of Reading. Gill, M. (1999). If we don’t do it, someone else willy. English in Australia, (124), 70–75. Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. USA: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, Vanderbilt University. Hayes, T. (2006). Professional teaching associations and professional standards: Embedding standards in the ‘discourse of the profession’. Canberra: Teaching Australia – Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Ingvarson, L. C. (2009). Identifying and rewarding excellent teachers: The Scottish chartered teacher scheme. Professional Development in Education, 35(3), 451–468. Ingvarson, L. C. (2010). Recognising and rewarding accomplished teachers in Australia: Where have we been? Where are we going? Australian Journal of Education, 54, 1. Ingvarson, L. C., & Chadbourne, R. (1997). Reforming teachers’ pay systems: The advanced skills teacher in Australia. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 7–30. Ingvarson, L. C., & Hattie, J. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing teachers for professional certification: The first decade of the national board for professional teaching standards. Volume 11, Advances in Program Evaluation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Ingvarson, L. C., & Kleinhenz, E. (2006a). Advanced teaching standards and certification: A review of national and international developments. Canberra: Teaching Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Retrieved from http://www. teachingaustralia.edu.au/ta/go/home/projects/standards Ingvarson, L. C., & Kleinhenz, E. (2006b). A standards-guided professional learning system. Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education. Retrieved from http://www.cse.edu.au Ingvarson, L. C., & Wright, J. (1999). Science teachers are developing their own standards. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45(4), 27–34. Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of the Interim Committee of the Australian Schools Commission (the ‘‘Karmel Report’’). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Johnson, S. M. (1984). Merit pay for teachers: A poor prescription for reform. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 175–185. Johnson, S. M. (1986). Incentives for teachers: What motivates, what matters. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 54–79. Lee, C., & Tan, M. (2010, March). Rating teachers and rewarding teacher performance: The context of Singapore. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Conference on Replicating Exemplary Practices in Mathematics Education, Koh Samui, Thailand. Lustick, D. (2011). Certifiable: Teaching, learning and national board certification. New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield Education. Manzi, J., Araya, C., Gonza´lez, R., Barros, E., Bravo, D., Peirano, C., y, Torres, D. (2007, March). Validity evidence for the certification of teaching excellence in Chile: A pioneer

272

LAWRENCE INGVARSON

experience in Latin America. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL. McCormac Review. (2011). Advancing professionalism in teaching: Report of the review of teacher employment in Scotland. Scottish Government. Edinburgh, Scotland. McKenzie, P., Kos, J., Walker, M., Hong, J., & Owen, S. (2008). Staff in Australia’s schools 2007. Teaching and learning and leadership. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/ tll_misc/3 Ministerial Council for Education Employment and Training (MCEETYA). (2003). A national framework for professional standards of teaching. Carlton: MCEETYA. Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs [MCEECDYA]. (2009, November 6). Communique´: Second MCEECDYA Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/MCEECDYA_Communique_-_ FINAL.pdf Morony, W. (2009). Effective teaching of mathematics by teachers, for teachers: An Australian case study. J. Cai, G. Kaiser, B. Perry & N.-Y. Wong (Eds.), Effective mathematics teaching from teachers’ perspectives: National and cross-national studies (pp. 259–280). Rotterdam: Sense. Murnane, R. J., & Cohen, D. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and few survive. Harvard Education Review, 56, 1–17. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (1989). Toward high and rigorous standards for the teaching profession. Detroit, MI: Author. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2001a). I am a better teacher: What candidates for national board certification say about the assessment process. NBPTS: Washington. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2001b). National board certification candidate survey. NBPTS: Washington. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS]. (2007). A research guide on national board certification of teachers. Arlington, VA: Author. National Research Council. (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced level certification programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ofsted. (2001). Advanced skills teachers: Appointment, deployment and impact. London: Her Majesty’s Inspectors Report. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS (Teaching And Learning International Survey). Paris: Author. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2010). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). Building a highquality teaching profession: Lessons from around the world background report for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://fulltextreports.com/2011/03/16/building-a-high-quality-teaching-professionlessons-from-around-the-world Productivity Commission. (2012). Schools workforce: Productivity commission research report. Melbourne: Australian Government Productivity Commission. Santiago, P., Donaldson, G., Herman, J., & Shewbridge, C. (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. Australia: OECD.

Reforming Career Paths for Australian Teachers

273

Sclafani, S. (with Lim, E.). (2008). Rethinking human capital in education: Singapore as a model for teacher development. Paper prepared for The Aspen Institute Education and Society Program. Retrieved from http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/ content/docs/education%20and%20society%20program/SingaporeEDU.pdf Scottish Executive Education Department. (2001). A teaching profession for the 21st century: The agreement following the recommendations of the McCrone Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. Scottish Executive Education Department. (2008). Report of the chartered teacher review group: Report of the review group. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Teaching Australia. (2009). Standards for accomplished teachers and principals: A foundation for public confidence and respect. Canberra: Teaching Australia: Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. Watkins, P. (1994). Advanced skills teachers: Progress and problems in their establishment in Australia. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(4), 5–10. Wragg, E., Haynes, G., Chamberlin, R., & Wragg, C. (2003). Performance-related pay: The views and experiences of 1,000 primary and secondary head teachers. Research Papers in Education, 18(1), 3–23.

CONCLUSION: LEARNING FROM TEACHER REFORMS IN GLOBAL CONTEXT Teachers around the world are going through changes in their work lives due to teacher reforms implemented during the past decade. Teacher reforms introduced in these 10 chapters illustrated that these changes are nothing subtle, challenging the beliefs about the teaching profession held by teachers and the society. Ever changing global and local contexts influence the directions of teacher reforms, creating the complex and dynamic nature of teacher reforms, their implementations, and potential impacts on teachers and students. In this conclusion chapter, I discuss the major themes emerged from a comparison of teacher reforms in 10 countries focusing on their implementations and outcomes, followed by a discussion of global and local influences on teacher reforms. After identifying the common focus of teacher reforms on improving teacher quality, I introduce a major variation in how teachers are assessed and incentivized through these reforms across the countries. I conclude the chapter with a summary of findings and a discussion of future research agendas.

IMPLEMENTATIONS AND OUTCOMES OF TEACHER REFORMS From the implementations and outcomes of teacher reforms examined in these 10 countries with diverse historical, political, and social contexts, three themes emerged that deserve attention and elaboration. These themes are: (1) involvement of and coordination among key stakeholders in decisionmaking and implementation processes, (2) clarity and coherence in policy design, and (3) capacity for implementing the reform.

275

276

CONCLUSION

Involvement of and Coordination among Key Stakeholders In most of these countries, major key stakeholders included national ministry/department of education, state and local educational agencies, school administrators, universities or teacher education programs, teacher associations, teachers’ unions, teachers, and in some cases, parents and students. As policy actors illustrated in Figure 1 on p. 7 (this volume), they took one or multiple roles as ‘‘policymakers,’’ ‘‘policy facilitators,’’ ‘‘implementers,’’ or ‘‘intermediary groups.’’ However, the degree of involvement of these key stakeholders in the decision-making process and the level of coordination or collaboration among them in the implementation of a teacher reform varied from country to country. I focus on three countries: France, Australia, and South Korea to illustrate such variation. In France, the decision-making process for the 2005 teacher education reform did not involve teacher and student trade unions, teacher trainers of the government-directed teacher training programs (IUFM), or researchers. The reform moved the function of the IUFM outside the higher education system to master’s degree programs at universities. Prior to this reform, teacher candidates went through a 2-year training at the IUFMs with rigorous screening processes: (1) a competitive national examination at the end of the first year, which allows them to enter the second year of the training as trainee teachers with a status of civil servant with a salary and (2) a professional qualification examination through which the government appoints successful candidates to permanent teaching posts. This reform removed the second year of paid-training phase and moved the competitive national examination to the end of the master’s degree programs, which overloaded students who need to write master’s thesis while preparing for the examination. This decision was made with haste by the government without engaging key stakeholders, resulting in a falling number of teacher candidates who pass the national examination and increasing attrition rates among new teachers. The government rushed into the reform in the time of financial crisis and this reform has been severely criticized by IUFM trainers and university professors. In Australia, the State and Federal Ministers of Education established a new national agency, the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) to implement the standard-based certification system. AITSL’s Board is comprised of representatives of state and territory governments, Catholic and Independent School employing authorizes, and teachers’ unions, which works collaboratively with other stakeholders

Conclusion

277

including teacher professional associations through a teacher advisory group. Despite the involvement of major key stakeholders in the policy development process, AITSL has been given less than a year to develop the assessment methods and processes for training assessors before the system is implemented in 2013. This short timeline is less likely to allow careful deliberations over the development of implementation processes. In contrast, South Korean Ministry of Education spent 8 years for allowing multiple deliberations of the policy design by a committee consisting of teacher organizations, parent group representatives, and advocacy group representatives, and conducted multiple pilot implementations before the National Teacher Evaluation System was nationally implemented in 2011. During the deliberation process, a major conflict emerged between teacher associations who argue for a position of teachers as professionals and parents and advocacy groups that support teacher accountability based on neoliberal perspectives. Annual pilot implementations started in 2005, which served as the basis for ongoing discussions among key stakeholders and revisions and refinement of the policy design. The policy implemented in 2011 (which is still subject to improvement) met the middle ground of different perspectives and agreed upon by all stakeholders. A recent survey result cited in Kang’s chapter (in pp. 147–177, this volume) shows that teachers see the benefits of the system for enhancing their professional development opportunities and such positive perspective was stronger among those teachers who participated in teacher evaluation multiple times through pilot implementations. These cases seem to support that, when major key stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process and sufficient time is given for careful deliberations and development of the policy design for a teacher reform, it is likely that the reform is implemented smoothly and perceived positively by teachers. Continuous improvement of the policy design in consultation with key stakeholders based on multiple pilot implementation results also allowed the key stakeholders to be reflective and deliberate in their contribution to finalizing the policy design. Such deliberate process is likely to develop the coherence of the new teacher policy with the other new and existing policies and contexts and leads to the implementation process that builds on the capacities of various groups and organizations. This process would also influence the commitment of policy implementers especially when they are frequently communicated to all individuals and groups who are influenced, including district and school administrators,

278

CONCLUSION

teacher education programs, teacher associations, teachers’ unions, teachers, and parents/community groups.

Clarity and Coherence in Policy Design While continuous improvement of a policy design for a teacher reform is important, a certain level of clarity and coherence in the policy design is necessary when it is implemented on a large scale. Unclear and inconsistent policy design cannot communicate its goal and implementation procedure to implementers, which affects their commitment to implement the reform. I use the cases from Georgia, India, and Mexico to demonstrate the variation in the clarity and coherence in the policy designs used for teacher reforms in these countries and how such variation may lead to different outcomes. In the Republic of Georgia, constantly changing policy design in the Teacher Certification Examination seems to have led to the dissatisfaction with the reform among teachers. When the Ministry of Education and Science announced the implementation in 2010, the benefits and incentives for passing the examination were not clearly specified. Kobakhidze’s interviews revealed confusion among teachers as to the amount of salary supplement given to those who passed the examination and a major dissatisfaction among those who thought they would receive more salary than they actually did. In addition, the Ministry later changed the eligibility for taking the examination from the teachers with at least 1 year of teaching experience to any university graduates in any discipline. This dramatic change raised a public concern for allowing anyone without teacher education training to enter the teaching profession. Ambiguity in the policy requirements for in-service teacher training as part of the 2010 Right to Education Law in India also created a challenge in implementation. Although all the teachers hired since 2001 are required to participate in a 6-month in-service teacher training in a program recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the content and delivery methods of the trainings as well as the funding to cover the expenses for offering such trainings were not specified. In addition, the law did not address the existence of a large population of contract-based teachers to fill teacher vacancies in hard-to-staff schools and the major inequality in students’ access to qualified teachers across the countries. Chudger argued that the enactment of this law requires a greater number of teachers without addressing the reality of teacher shortage and it could potentially exacerbate the inequality in students’ access to qualified teachers.

279

Conclusion

In contrast, the criteria used to evaluate teachers for the national teacher incentive program, Carrera Magisterial, in Mexico were clearly laid out and communicated to teachers. The Mexican Secretariat of Public Education released guidelines in 1998, specifying that teachers are evaluated based on their experience, educational attainment, professional preparation, federal and state training evaluation scores, professional performance, and student performance with specific number of points allocated for each category. In addition, in order to promote equity, teachers are evaluated within the same socioeconomic categories and teachers in disadvantage areas are allowed to move up the salary scale more quickly. Despite the changes in the evaluation criteria over the years, there seems to have clarity and coherence when the criteria were revised and the consideration of equity in the system was consistent. Such clarity and coherence over the years may have contributed to the narrowed gap in students’ access to qualified teachers across regions in two states studied by Luschei. The clarity and coherence in the policy design for a teacher reform may be explained by the capacity of the government to lay out the specifics in consultation with key stakeholders and experts. The policymakers need to take the responsibility to develop the policy design, considering the capacities and resources available from the existing organizations and individuals involved in the implementation. The capacity of the implementers is the third theme that emerged from these chapters and introduced in the next section.

Capacity for Implementing the Reform The capacity of implementers to carry out a reform is critical. Without such capacity, even a well-designed and well-intended reform could fail. The reform may not be implemented as intended or may be modified to adjust to the capacity of the implementers. Using the cases from India, Malawi, and Japan, I discuss the capacity of teacher education programs in each country to carry out the teacher reform and how such capacity influenced the implementation and outcome. Chudger explained that more than 20% or over one million teachers in India need to receive in-service trainings to fulfil the Right to Education policy requirements. There is a large cross-state variation in the capacity of teacher education institutions to provide such trainings on a large scale. With absence of resources or support to build the capacity of teacher education institutions to offer quality trainings especially in the states and

280

CONCLUSION

regions with a major teacher shortage, Chudger argued that these wellintended policies may widen the inequality in students’ access to qualified teachers. In Malawi, there is indeed an oversupply of teacher candidates, yet the capacity of teacher education institutions does not allow accommodating a sufficient number of teacher candidates who are needed to fill the teaching vacancies. There were 27,000 applicants for the teacher education institutions, yet they could admit only 2,500 students because of the lack of space in classrooms and residential halls in these institutions. Likewise, the government’s distance teacher education programs could admit only 3,800 students out of 22,000 applicants. The lack of capacity to accommodate enough students in these teacher education institutions and programs caused a teacher shortage, affecting the country’s progress toward achieving the universal student enrollment and retention in elementary education. Japan presents a unique case where the capacity of teacher education programs at universities led to smooth implementation of the Teacher License Renewal Policy (TLRP), despite the intention of this policy is highly contested. The TLRP development was driven by the logic of teacher accountability and this policy requires teachers to complete 30 hours of university courses to renew their licenses every 10 years. Being aware of teachers’ continuous engagement in Lesson Study, a large national university studied by Akiba developed a partnership with the Prefecture Department of Education and offered courses that meet the professional needs of experienced teachers. As a result, teachers had positive learning experiences through these courses, which also changed their critical view toward the policy. This case illustrates the capacity of the university to implement the reform in a way that benefits experienced teachers was supported by the mutual respect between university faculty members and teachers and a shared vision of excellent teaching developed through engagement in Lesson Study as a system of teaching and learning improvement. India and Malawi’s cases illustrate that even a well-intended reform does not make an impact unless the implementers have the capacity to carry out the reform. The capacity does not emerge automatically when a new law requires implementation. The capacity development requires resources, human and social capital, and ongoing organizational supports. In designing the reform implementation procedure, it is important to establish a plan to develop capacity and maintain it in a long term. If the capacity of teacher education institutions was developed before the enactment of a new teacher

281

Conclusion

reform in India or Malawi, a large of number of teachers will be trained and students’ access to qualified teachers will be significantly enhanced. When the implementers have a strong capacity, even a contested reform can be evolved into a new form that is appreciated by teachers, as the case in Japan illustrated. Such capacity was supported by a shared system of teaching and learning improvement – Lesson Study – that was developed and established by the teaching profession.

GLOBAL AND LOCAL INFLUENCES ON TEACHER REFORMS The major teacher reforms reported in these chapters showed both commonalities and differences in how global and local contexts influenced these reforms. One commonality is that teachers have become the target of reforms in a growing number of countries. Most of these reforms did not exist two decades ago. They were developed during the past decade including a few new reforms that are not yet fully implemented (Teacher Certification Examination in Georgia, Standards-Based Certification System in Australia). Another commonality is that these teacher reforms aim to improve teacher quality by: (1) requiring more training (France) or professional development (Japan), (2) assessing or evaluating teacher quality (Georgia, India, South Korea, United States), or (3) providing incentives (Australia, Mexico). All of these reforms are based on the assumption that teacher quality is not as good as what we hope to see, and there needs a new mechanism to improve their quality. These approaches stand in stark contrast to the reforms that ‘‘support’’ teachers by improving their working conditions or social status of the teaching profession. These reforms are characterized by teacher accountability promoted by neoliberal perspectives. What exactly influenced the development of these accountability reforms varies across the countries, however. The extent to which international reports from the OECD influenced these reforms is uncertain. The influence of international assessments on these reforms seems to be limited to only certain countries (e.g., Japan, Georgia, Australia). There is indeed a diverse array of global influences reported in these chapters, ranging from global economic crisis (France, Australia) to international donor agencies (Georgia), and to the need to meet the Education for All (EFA) goals by 2015 (Malawi, Afghanistan, India). These

282

CONCLUSION

chapters did not identify a few common tangible global forces that influenced the development of the teacher reforms around the world. In addition, while most of these teacher reforms followed the logic of teacher accountability, their characteristics differed dramatically. A comparison of teacher evaluation reform between the United States and South Korea is a case in point. While teacher evaluation reform is often considered as a typical teacher accountability reform, the characteristics of these reforms in South Korea and the United States showed a striking difference. As explained in pp. 3–24 (this volume), in the United States, an increasing number of states are implementing teacher evaluation using value-added scores based on student achievement growth as important part of the evaluation data, which determines the financial incentives given to teachers through merit raise or bonus. In South Korea, teachers are evaluated by peer teachers, parents, and students on their effectiveness in academic teaching and student advisement, and teachers who received high evaluation are granted a paid yearlong sabbatical for furthering their professional development. The difference in the focus of teacher reforms (teacher education, certification, hiring and distribution, professional development, teacher evaluation, career advancement) across these countries is influenced by the local contexts that characterize the teaching profession. In the contexts where teachers’ salary has been traditionally low or the rate of salary increase is limited such as Australia, United States, and Mexico, teacher evaluation or incentive reforms tend to focus on rewarding teaching excellence with higher salary or bonus. In the countries where teachers’ salary have been higher than comparable occupations such as South Korea and Japan, the focus of the reform is on professional development, which is highly valued by the teaching profession. In the countries that are striving to increase student enrolment and retention such as Afghanistan and Malawi, training, hiring, and distribution of teacher candidates to fill the teaching positions become the priority. The process of teacher reform development influenced by various global and local contexts is not straightforward. So is its implementation process. The case of Australia reported by Ingvarson illustrates such complex and dynamic processes of teacher reform development and implementation. Australia developed a standard-based certification system with four career stages tied to salary increase, which is scheduled for implementation in 2013. Yet, after the system was developed, the prime minister budgeted $1.25 billion to introduce a new annual bonus pay scheme that distributes bonuses to the top 10% of teachers through building-level teacher evaluation

283

Conclusion

based on lesson observations, student performance data, parents feedback, and teacher qualification and professional development. This new scheme caused widespread concerns about its feasibility and inconsistency with the standard-based certification system, which forced the government to modify this annual bonus pay scheme so that teachers are evaluated by external evaluators based on the National Professional Standards and the Certification Principles and Processes, instead of building-level teacher evaluation. Since then, facing budget constraints, the Australian Government announced a limited certification system that makes one-time payments to only 8,000 teachers and requires teachers to pay $1,500 to apply for the advanced-level certificates. These dramatic changes that occurred only during the past few years were influenced by the global economic crisis and the country’s political changes, illustrating that these global and local forces can alter even a well-designed policy at any moment. Because each chapter in this book focused on the implementation and outcome of a teacher reform, not necessarily on global or local influences on development of the reform, we can benefit from more future studies that uncover the complex interactions among global, national, state, and local contexts in influencing teacher reform development.

ASSESSING AND INCENTIVIZING TEACHERS FOR IMPROVING TEACHER QUALITY The design of teacher reforms introduced in these chapters also revealed major differences across the countries. Such differences were especially pronounced in two central issues in these teacher reforms: (1) how to assess teachers (assessment) and (2) how to motivate all teachers to improve their practice (incentive). While all of these reforms were supported by the common assumption that teacher quality needs to be improved, there was a major difference in how each country approached these two issues.

Teacher Assessment Assessing teachers at national or state level is not a new endeavor for several countries introduced here. France has a national competitive examination to select top teacher candidates and guarantee their teaching posts. Likewise, both South Korea and Japan administer hiring examinations that screen

284

CONCLUSION

teacher candidates after completing teacher education at universities, and successful candidates are guaranteed life-time employment in the teaching career. These examinations assess not only teachers’ content and pedagogical content knowledge, but other dispositions such as commitment, personality, and communication skills. However, such examination system can function only in the countries where teaching is a popular occupation and there are significantly more candidates than the available teaching posts. This system is also feasible only in countries with a relatively centralized education system where teacher education and hiring processes are monitored by the national or state-level government. In the countries where there is a major teacher shortage and teacher hiring has been practiced locally, it is difficult to establish a standardized teacher assessment system. First, there may not be a national consensus on the characteristics of excellent teachers. When such consensus does not exist, teacher assessment may tend to focus on relatively objective measures such as years of teaching experience, education level, teachers’ content knowledge, and student assessment. The newly instituted Teaching Eligibility Test (TET) in India and Teacher Certification Examination (TCE) in Georgia assess teachers’ content and pedagogical knowledge. Passing these examinations is required in order to enter teaching. Yet, when such high-stake examinations focus on one dimension of the complex characteristics of the teaching profession, teachers’ content or pedagogical knowledge, negative consequences could follow such as narrowed teacher education curriculum focused on test preparation, pressure and stress associated with high-stake examinations, and possibly cheating or corruption. Yet other countries such as Mexico and Australia established an assessment scheme that considers multiple job aspects of the teaching profession. The annual assessment used in Carrera Magisterial is based on multiple criteria including student performance, professional development, teaching experience, teacher knowledge, and extra-school activities. In the United States, while there is no national or state standards that specify the evaluation criteria, local practice of teacher evaluation usually considers multiple aspects including teaching practice, student achievement (or valueadded scores), professional development. In Australia where a standardbased certification system was developed, national professional standards serve as the basis for the evaluation criteria. However, translating broad and nuanced definition of excellent teachers in any standards to specific evaluation criteria that can be interpreted consistently by the evaluators across the countries is a major challenge.

Conclusion

285

In contrast, in countries where a shared vision of excellent teachers exists among teachers and the society generally supports the vision as in South Korea or Japan, the policymakers do not see a need to establish national or state standards to establish consensus. While such shared vision is always contested and changing as in the case of South Korea where parent and advocacy group representatives tried to be involved in teacher personnel decision (i.e., dismissing ineffective teachers), the coherence and coherence in such vision serves as foundation for teacher assessment. South Korea’s national teacher evaluation system consists of peer evaluation (a panel of a principal, a master teacher, and three other teachers), student survey, and parent survey, and assesses teachers on their instructional practice and student advisement. This scheme was developed over 8 years with multiple discussions among key stakeholders and continuous revisions based on multiple pilot implementations. In Japan where teacher evaluation did not become a focus of a nationwide reform, teachers are evaluated locally by their principals and other teacher leaders. Yet the transparency of teaching effectiveness through the practice of Lesson Study (i.e., teaching demonstrations open to other teachers) and ample opportunities to demonstrate leadership in collaborative teacher practices both inside and outside schools (e.g., grade-level group, subject area group, teacher research association meetings) allow the identification of excellent teachers for leadership roles and positions. Another contrasting view about assessing teachers in relation to the definition of teacher quality was presented in the hiring criteria used by the BRAC in Afghanistan. Common criteria used in developed countries such as a completion of teacher education program, certification, or content and pedagogical content knowledge do not apply in developing countries that are working toward expanding educational access of children in isolated or unstable regions. Few government-trained teachers in cities are willing to relocate to these areas, and even if they did, they would face a major challenge in connecting with the local community with different culture and language. Therefore, the teacher quality is defined in terms of their local knowledge and commitment and stability to continue to teach (i.e., physical fit, married, and having older children). The BRAC’s hiring process uses these teacher quality criteria to recruit and select female teachers to expand girls’ access to education. While Afghanistan is vastly different from the United States in many aspects, the definition of teacher quality based on local knowledge, commitment, and stability has important implications for common problems of teacher–student cultural and linguistic gaps, low

286

CONCLUSION

morale, and high attrition rate among teachers in inner-city ethnically diverse schools in the United States. This major variation in how teachers are assessed formally and informally, as well as how teacher quality is defined, also reflects on the major variation in what motivates teachers to improve themselves across the countries. The following section discusses the variation in the incentive given to teachers through these teacher reforms.

Teacher Incentives What motivates teachers to engage in continuous improvement of teaching practice includes both (1) intrinsic motivation such as seeing their students being excited about learning, establishing a positive relationship with parents of their students, or receiving encouragement from senior teachers whom they respect and (2) extrinsic motivation such as salary raise, merit pay, public award/recognition, or promotion. Because it is difficult to influence intrinsic motivation directly, teacher reforms tend to focus on influencing extrinsic motivation through teacher compensation system, incentive system, or career advancement system. How each teacher reform targets to incentivize teachers seems to be influenced by the local context regarding what teachers already have and do not have. Financial incentives become powerful in the countries where teachers are not paid generously and the salary increase over the teaching career is limited. As a result, salary raise or bonus serves as the major incentive for teachers in the teacher reforms in Georgia, Mexico, Australia, and United States. However, cases reported in these countries showed that the amount of salary raise or bonus matters. In Georgia, the small amount of salary supplement given to teachers discouraged some teachers to pursue the certification process as they perceived the effort and time to prepare for the examination will not pay off by the minimal salary supplement. In the United States, survey data from Missouri showed that teachers did not report more frequent practice of constructivist instruction just because of the availability of merit-pay, but because of the amount of merit raise; only those who received a large amount of merit raise reported more frequent practice of constructivist instruction. In Mexico and Australia, teachers can receive a significant amount of financial incentive. In Mexico’s Carrera Magisterial, teachers who advanced to the highest level of the career ladder earn a salary of 215% of their base wage. Luschei reported that salary increases are permanent and teachers

Conclusion

287

cannot be demoted to lower levels unless they change schools. Australia learned from its last failed teacher reform – Advanced Skills Teacher (AST) that provided only a small salary raise (4–10%) to those teachers who gained the AST status and took on extra responsibilities. The new standard-based certification system is proposed to award $7,500 to ‘‘Highly Accomplished Teachers’’ and $10,000 to ‘‘Lead Teachers.’’ These significant amounts of financial incentives are likely to engage a large number of teachers in the reforms. In South Korea where teachers receive attractive salary and the salary increases over the years at a higher rate than other countries, additional salary would not motivate teachers to improve their teaching practice. Thus, they chose to focus on additional professional development opportunities through paid sabbatical leave as the incentive for teachers to improve their practice in instruction and student advisement. Those who received lower evaluation are required to participate in professional development that is fully financed by the local education agencies. South Korea chose professional development as the major drive to motivate all teachers to engage in continuous improvement, instead of financial incentives or personnel decision (e.g., dismissal, removal of tenure). These cases illustrate that the local contexts and existing policies or systems that characterize the teaching profession influence how teachers are assessed and what incentives are given to teachers in these teacher reforms that aim to improve teacher quality. These chapters’ detailed descriptions and analyses of the teacher reforms in 10 countries revealed the complex and dynamic nature of teacher reforms influenced by both global and local contexts. This book is a first attempt to systematically unpack the characteristics of teacher reforms around the world. While it contributed new perspectives that can benefit scholarly and policy discussions on teacher reforms, it raised more questions than answers. This leads to the final section on summary and future research agendas.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDAS This book was guided by the three research questions I raised in the introduction chapter: (1) What are the characteristics of large-scale teacher reforms that led to success or challenge in implementation? (2) How did these teacher reforms influence teachers (e.g., teacher supply and distribution, teacher beliefs, teacher quality and effectiveness)? and (3) What global similarities and differences can we observe in the development,

288

CONCLUSION

implementation, and outcomes of teacher reforms? An analysis of the data and information presented in these 10 chapters addressed these questions. For the first question, I identified three broad themes that seem to influence the implementations and outcomes of teacher reforms: (1) involvement of and coordination among key stakeholders in decision-making and implementation processes, (2) clarity and coherence in policy design, and (3) capacity for implementing the reform. A different nature of key stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making and implementation processes seems to have led to a different outcome reported in these chapters. The key stakeholders’ involvement and coordination among them also allowed them to develop a clear and coherent policy design that is supported by all those who are involved, and allocate resources and time necessary for identifying and developing the capacity of implementers to carry out the reform. These data confirmed that the three factors: policy design, policy actors, and organizational contexts influence one another to shape the three C’s of implementation: commitment, coherence, and capacity as illustrated in the conceptual model of reform development, implementation, and outcome in global context presented in the introduction chapter. However, I also found some evidence that the capacity of implementers supported by organizational contexts (i.e., resources, structures, network, and culture/norm) can bring out potentially positive results even if the policy design and assumption were not initially supported by teachers as in the case of Japan. This indicates a possibility that not all the factors presented in the conceptual model are equally important or one factor could compensate for the deficiency of another factor. More empirical evidence from various parts of the world is needed to confirm this hypothesis. For the second question on influences of teacher reforms on teachers, the data are rather limited either because few countries collected systematic data so far to evaluate the effectiveness of their teacher reforms, or because it is still too early to examine the impacts of new reforms. Therefore, the authors of most of these chapters relied on existing empirical literature, policy document analysis, or small-scale regional case studies or surveys. Only three chapters used national or state-level data; Malawi and Mexico chapters used national or state data to examine the level of equity or disproportionality in the distribution of teachers, and the U.S chapter analyzed a statewide survey of teachers to examine local implementations of teacher evaluation. While the outcome of a teacher reform seems to be positive based on the available evidence in South Korea, Japan, and Mexico

Conclusion

289

and somewhat mixed or negative in France, Georgia, and Malawi, it is important to note the varied and limited nature of these outcome data. More studies are needed to systematically examine the outcomes along the three dimensions: (1) short-term vs. long-term, (2) local vs. system-wide, and (3) scalability and sustainability. For the last questions on global similarities and differences in teacher reforms, I observed a similarity in how teacher accountability supported by neoliberal perspectives influenced many countries to design a teacher reform with a focus on ‘‘improving teacher quality’’ rather than ‘‘supporting teachers’ work.’’ However, I also observed major differences in the reform design, implementation, and potential outcomes. The design of the teacher reform in each country was influenced by the local contexts and existing policies or systems that characterize the various aspects of the teaching profession such as teacher oversupply and shortage, teacher salary structure (amount and increase over time), centralized or decentralized teacher education and hiring system, and a definition of teacher quality. Because of the major differences in these aspects, the specific design and implementation process of the teacher reform varied across the countries, so did the potential outcomes on teachers and students. These new insights and perspectives can be important topics for scholarly and policy discussions, yet more future studies are needed to uncover the complex and dynamic nature of teacher reforms. First, more empirical studies are needed on how specifically global and local contexts interact with each other to influence the development, implementation, and outcomes of teacher reforms. For example, how did two culturally similar countries – South Korea and Japan, both of which suffer from similar student problems with school bullying and uncontrollable classrooms (classroom collapse) and have historically developed similar policies supporting the teaching profession – decide to choose two different teacher reform topics; teacher evaluation vs. certification renewal tied to professional development? Is this difference actually subtle or significant? Also, how is the BRAC’s initiative to recruit and hire para-teachers from local communities influenced by the directions of larger donor agencies such as UNESCO, World Bank, and USAID? Second, more investigation into the role and importance of coherence in reform implementation is necessary. Because these chapters focused on one major teacher reform in each country, we do not know what other teacher reforms or educational reforms coexist. The degree to which these coexisting reforms support each other to achieve a common goal would influence the implementation, yet we also know that there are multiple conflicting reforms

290

CONCLUSION

and initiatives that overload schools and teachers in many countries. In addition, coherence between the reform goals and teachers’ beliefs about excellent teachers or the society’s expectation on the teaching profession needs to be further investigated. South Korea’s case illustrated that this coherence can be achieved by involving major key stakeholders in the decision-making process and engaging them in reflective and deliberate processes to contribute to development of the reform design and implementation procedure. Future empirical studies can compare the countries that succeeded in achieving coherence with the countries that are struggling, and identify what may explain the difference. Third, we need more data on the impacts of teacher reforms on teachers and students. A common goal of many teacher reforms is to improve teacher quality. In order to measure a broad and ambiguous concept as teacher quality, its definition needs to be first clarified. As there are multiple aspects in the responsibilities of the teaching profession that teachers need to fulfil, these aspects need to be identified and appropriate methods to measure each aspect need to be developed. This would necessarily involve both large-scale quantitative data and detailed qualitative data based on interviews and observations to maximize the quality of data to capture the complex nature of teachers’ work. Since the definition of teacher quality varies across the countries, different data collection methods may be necessary for measuring various aspects of the teaching profession. The data collection needs to be longitudinal in order to assess both short-term and long-term impacts of the teacher reform on teachers and students. Comprehensive and longitudinal data collections would also allow the researchers to examine scalability and sustainability of a teacher reform, which could lead to a long-lasting change the country hopes to see in the teaching profession. Finally, a partnership among policymakers, district and school administrators, teacher leaders, and researchers on developing, implementing, and researching teacher reforms would significantly benefit the advancement of knowledge that guides the direction of teacher reforms. In many countries, researchers serve only a limited advisory role in the development phase of teacher reforms, and there is a major gap between what research shows and how a teacher reform is developed and implemented. Likewise, the professional knowledge of teachers is often ignored in the development of teacher reforms. Technical nature of academic research makes the communication of research findings to policymakers administrators, and teachers difficult, and teacher reforms are often influenced by nontechnical popular reports that are not based on rigorous research findings. When a partnership

Conclusion

291

among policymakers, teacher leaders, and researchers is developed, the important link among policy, practice, and research will be strengthened and it will become possible to develop a teacher reform that is guided by research and professional knowledge. Such reform would be supported by teachers and the general public when key stakeholders are involved in the decisionmaking process informed by updated research and professional knowledge. Then, an establishment of a system that continuously develops and supports the teaching profession, instead of a system that only holds teachers accountable, may become possible. Motoko Akiba Editor

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Motoko Akiba is an Associate Professor of Education Policy in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at Florida State University. Dr. Akiba received her B.A. from the University of Tsukuba, Japan, and a dual-title Ph.D. in Educational Theory & Policy and Comparative & International Education from Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park. Her research focuses on teacher policy and reform topics, such as professional development, compensation and performance-related pay, and multicultural teacher education. She is an author of the book, Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context (Teachers College Press, 2009). Her published journal articles appear in Educational Researcher, American Educational Research Journal, Education Policy, and Comparative Education Review, and Compare among others. Dr. Akiba is serving as an Associate Editor of Educational Researcher from 2012 to 2015. She is also a recipient of the NSF Early Career Award Grant, NAEP secondary analysis grant, and AERA dissertation and research grants. Arif Anwar has been involved in International Development issues since 2004, starting with BRAC’s Education Program in Bangladesh, where he headed the Monitoring and Research Units, MIS Unit, and Communications Unit. While at BRAC, Arif Anwar also led BRAC’s Public Affairs and Communications department. His research interests include international nonformal primary education and technology for development (ICT4D). He is currently a 5th year Ph.D. student at OISE at the University of Toronto. Amita Chudgar is an Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at Michigan State University’s College of Education. She is trained in Economics (Mumbai University), Development Studies (University of Cambridge) and Economics of Education (Stanford University). Her work has been published in several leading education journals including American Educational Research Journal and Comparative Education Review. Her long-term interests as a scholar focus on ensuring that children and adults in resource-constrained environments have equal access to high-quality learning opportunities irrespective of their backgrounds. She is currently 293

294

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

co-leading a cross-national study to understand patterns of teacher distribution, especially focusing on the teachers of marginalized children. Joseph DeStefano is a senior education specialist with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International. He has over 30 years of experience providing technical assistance and support on a variety of education policy reforms to urban school districts in the United States and to ministries of education throughout the developing world. Mr. DeStefano has also been involved in research on community-based approaches to education, teacher supply and demand, the impact of opportunity to learn on school effectiveness, and early grade reading. Lawrence Ingvarson is a Principal Research Fellow at the Australian Council for Educational Research. Before his present part-time position, he was the Research Director for the Teaching and Learning Program at ACER. His major research interests include teacher education and professional development, teaching standards and the assessment of teacher performance, and performance-related pay for teachers. He recently co-directed, in collaboration with a team from Michigan State University, the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study (TEDS-M), an international study of teacher education in 17 countries. Other recent projects include the development of professional standards frameworks in Australia, Chile, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Recent books include Assessing teachers for professional certification: The first decade of the national board for professional teaching standards. The book brings together the research and development work conducted on teaching standards and performance assessments by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the USA since its inception in 1987. Mir Nazmul Islam is a Master’s of Public Service candidate at the University of Waterloo, Canada, and a graduate of the universities of Oslo and Dhaka. He has worked for several international development organizations, including BRAC and Save the Children Australia. His research interests include international development, education in emergency situations, and comparative education. Nam-Hwa Kang is an associate professor at Korea National University of Education in Chungwon, Korea. Before returning to South Korea in 2012, she was an assistant professor at University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and an associate professor at Oregon State University. Her research areas include

About the Authors

295

teacher development in science education and international comparative studies in teacher education. Her research foci include teachers’ learning about student understanding of science and international comparisons of teacher development programs. She believes each nation-state can learn from each other when they share their educational system, philosophy, and other relevant information. She has published research papers in Educational Researcher, Science Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, and School Science and Mathematics. Magda Nutsa Kobakhidze is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include teacher professional development policy, private supplementary tutoring in a crossnational perspective, as well as large-scale international assessments. Nutsa has extensive working experience with the Ministry of Education of Georgia, international organizations, and educational institutions. Prior to joining the University of Hong Kong in 2012, Nutsa served as a National Research Coordinator of the international study PIRLS in Georgia. She is the author and co-author of book chapters and articles on various topics on education policy and practice in Georgia and beyond. She holds a Master’s degree in International Education Policy from International Educational Development Program at Teachers College, Columbia University. Gerald K. LeTendre, Professor of Education and International Affairs, is head of the Educational Policy Studies Department at the Pennsylvania State University and editor of American Journal of Education. Dr. LeTendre received his B.A. from Harvard University and completed his graduate work at Stanford University where he received his Master’s (sociology) and Ph.D. (education). Dr. LeTendre has published on a broad range of topics in educational policy and comparative/international education. His books include National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and Current and Future Institutional Trends in Mass Schooling (with David Baker, Stanford University Press) and Learning to be Adolescent: Growing Up in U.S. and Japanese Middle Schools (Yale University Press). His current research focuses on global trends in teacher work roles and work norms. Guodong Liang is research specialist at the Community Training and Assistance Center in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. He received his Ph.D. in educational policy studies from the University of Missouri in 2011. He also holds a Master’s degree in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics from the

296

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

University of Science and Technology of China, and has worked as a program officer at the International Exchange Office of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. His research interests focus on education policy, teacher compensation and incentive pay, teacher development and evaluation, comparative and international education, and social justice. His work has been published in such journals as Journal of School Leadership, International Journal of Educational Research, and Journal of School Public Relations. Thomas F. Luschei is an associate professor in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University. He holds master’s degrees from the University of Texas at Austin (public affairs) and Stanford University (economics) and a Ph.D. in international comparative education from Stanford University. His research uses an international and comparative perspective to study the impact and availability of educational resources – particularly high-quality teachers – among economically disadvantaged children. His recent research has appeared in the American Journal of Education, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Comparative Education Review, International Journal of Educational Development, and Teachers College Record. Marina Sacilotto-Vasylenko received her Ph.D. in Educational Sciences in 2007. She is a research fellow at the Research Centre for Education and Training ‘‘CREF’’ at the University Paris Ouest Nanterre La Defence. Her research focuses on comparative analysis of policy and practice of teacher education and continuing professional development. She is a member of the board of the Teacher Education Policies in Europe association. She previously worked on education projects in Ukraine and Canada.