Literature Review

The Construction of The “Good” Teacher According to Standards

In most countries, the label of a good teacher is mainly defined by certain standards by the relevant bodies. For instance, according to Connell (2009), in Australia, the most basic definition of a good teacher is defined through the standards documents of the registration bodies. Such structure limits the perception of a good teacher to specific qualities, yet the presentation of a good educator can be vast and diversified. The standards framework encourages a free market with minimal government intervention, which promotes distrust in teachers' sense of judgment (Connell, 2009). The teacher's actions are disintegrated into particular examinable competencies and accomplishments. A managerial language is used to define the frameworks, which promotes a personalized aspect of the teacher that is considered controversial in the public education sector. Therefore, an attempt to implement the vague frameworks in the teacher's practice and education programs will diminish the practice.

          Contemporary education policies seek to regulate and evaluate the quality of teaching by distributing professional levels and elevated scrutiny of the educators' work and progress. Despite the establishment of standard frameworks, the teachers' experiences at work are contradicted and filled with challenges, tension, and fragility (Salton, Riddle & Baguley, 2022). The involvement of the teacher's agency and sovereignty must be considered in developing the standard frameworks. Therefore, establishing strategies and frameworks that support and improve the quality of teaching is prioritized instead of reducing the intricacy of teaching to a standardized aspect of the measure.

 The question of what teaching is all about arouses different responses depending on the political or cultural inclination of a given country and the people’s values. However, despite the variety in the description of teaching, the proponents adhere to the perspective that achievement of educational purpose is determined by the quality of teaching and teachers (Day, 2019). The government has defined the quality of teaching through certain in-service frameworks that have been incorporated over the years. The quality is judged based on the teachers' competencies and the extent to which these standards are met or surpassed (Day, 2019). The measure of the achievement or lack thereof is used to represent the meaning of teaching and the quality of education. Therefore, a good teacher is portrayed as one that experiences a linear career progression and enhancement of expertise based on the standard frameworks.

The standards developed for the definition of quality teaching may be biased and uncomprehensive regarding the definition of a good teacher. Teachers' agency and the qualities concerning the heart of being a good teacher were repeatedly expressed as missing from the Standards (Adoniou & Gallagher, 2017). Furthermore, the frameworks are considered for prioritizing the managerial agendas instead of focusing on the teachers' welfare. This has diminished the concept of teachers to what they ought to do. Thus, narrow perception is quantified and assessed to determine a good and bad teacher. Therefore, the system of frameworks is considered bureaucratic since the teachers are directed on what and what not to do.

Teacher as Technician

 Pre-service teachers are viewed with conflicting perspectives regarding their professional and technician inclinations. The professional teacher benefits from every opportunity as a learning source. In contrast, the technician teacher acquires effective teaching competencies, requires guidance, adheres to standards, and focuses on implementation rather than thinking (Sarı & Yolcu, 2017). The technician approach bides the teaching profession to specific regulated standards filled with procedures to be followed in a classroom setup. The Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has been altered in particular ways due to the enhancement of the diffuse crisis in child care (Osgood, 2009). The nursery workers have been transformed into professional workers; however, the introduction of the professional status among the nursery workers has drawn attention where arguments of evidence-based policies have aroused issues. Osgood (2009) warns that an approach to professionalism grounded in standards such as qualifications carries the danger of narrowing professionalism to ‘a tick-box culture of performativity that obscures more opaque aspects of professionalism. Therefore, alternative approaches to constructing professionalism should be considered within the ECEC practice.

Resistance is applied in most teaching staff's normalization of professional development. Technical training of teachers concerning aspects such as occupational health and safety is considered imperative. Therefore, the professional enhancement of these teachers requires planning and employment of opportunities that provoke and expand their thinking capabilities and beliefs (Fenech, Sumsion, & Shepherd, 2010). The teachers practice resistance to the outlined technical practices as a way of establishing their freedom. The freedom enables them to think while deconstructing and reconstructing the issues and practices. With regard to social justice agencies, teachers may be viewed as technicians who apply schooling rules and regulations without critical understanding or questioning (Pantić, 2017). Moreover, according to Villegas & Lucas (2002), teachers are perceived as agents of change who see schools as possible avenues for enhancing social equality. Therefore, the presence of standardized technical practices is deemed to hinder the expertise and competence of teachers, and teachers should be liberated from them, giving them the freedom to stretch out their capabilities.

An inclination toward professionalism is seen in several research studies. For instance, according to a study by Ryan et al. (2022), a higher priority was laid on establishing teachers as critically reflective practitioners rather than technicians. The results reported that the theory was in the top five most important priorities for 44% of respondents, while 16% stated it as the number one priority. This shows that teachers value professionalism instead of following standard frameworks. Ryan and Bourke (2013) state that this perspective reinforces the claim in recent research that professional standards for teachers, such as those in operation in the UK and Australia are overly reliant on technical competencies, ignoring attributes in the effective domain (Clarke & Moore, 2013). Thus, the need to empower professionalism among teachers is deemed to increase.

Teacher Professional Development

Teachers need to advance their professional approach in approaching their duties. According to Sachs (2003b), there is a danger that teachers accepting the challenge of using a standards framework as a source of professional learning become complacent in their exploitation and the intensification of their work. The forms of professional development and learning associated with the professional standards are likely to be oriented toward the managerial or organizational aspects of professionalism, unlike occupational and democratic (Mockler, 2022). The matter of consideration that can be investigated in such a case is at what significance occupational professionalism is allowed compared to organizational professionalism. As a form of professionalism, middle leadership must be prioritized regarding its significance in the teaching industry. The role of middle leadership must be clarified through clear policies, defined titles, expectations, and levels of support (Lipscombe et al., 2020). The professional growth of teachers is hindered by standards that undermine collaborative environments, promote fatigue, and reduce options for teachers’ professional investments (Hargreaves, 2003). Therefore, a balanced approach to the teaching sector must be maintained given the variety of variables considered in ensuring the professional execution of activities.

 Policymakers claim that the setting of standards enables teachers to acquire professional development. However, the performance measurement guidelines negatively impact the teachers' confidence since the evidence is required to confirm the fulfillment of the standards (Mayer et al. 2005). People in positions of power mainly support contemporary standards of learning. Therefore, school teachers and leaders are urged to resist the standards and promote practices that encourage professionalism (Mockler, 2022). The standard frameworks fail to establish the role of an effective teacher; hence, such standards should not be used in the professional regulation of teachers (Adoniou & Gallagher, 2017). According to Barry et al. (2020), the Australian Professional Standards of Teachers (APST) are beneficial in articulating what teachers are required to know or do; however, it did not allow for professional growth and change for teachers. Enhanced trust is required between the evaluator and the teacher during the evaluation process. Feedback must also be provided promptly and regularly and have depth (Barry et al., 2020). Therefore, through trust, the success of the evaluation process can be achieved, and teachers can use it as evidence for fulfilling the standards.

          The perception of standard frameworks as a guarantor of quality education is overrated. The standards serve as inhibitors of professional progression among teachers. The necessity to prove adherence to these guidelines among teachers calls for evidence that may be difficult to establish. This minimizes their morale and confidence in the workplace. The evidence may rely on the evaluation procedures, which require establishing trust between the teacher and the evaluator. Furthermore, regular, timely, and in-depth feedback is critical for the success of the evaluation procedure. Teachers who follow the guidelines blindly are deemed technicians, whereas those who question the standards and think critically before delivering their services are considered professional. Resistance against the guidelines is advocated among teachers and leaders in order to experience professional growth. Teachers should be ready to structure their personal goals and practices that encourage professionalism. Moreover, the establishment of clear roles of middle leadership is encouraged to promote the approach of the teaching sector professionally.

References

Adoniou, M., & Gallagher, M. (2017). Professional standards for teachers—what are they good for? Oxford Review of Education, 43(1), 109-126. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2016.1243522

Barry, D., Pendergast, D., & Main, K. (2020). Teacher perspectives on the use of the Australian professional standards for teachers as part of their evaluation process. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(8), 1-22. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol45/iss8/1

Clarke, M., & Moore, A. (2013). Professional standards, teacher identities, and an ethics of singularity. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 487-500. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.819070

Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-229. DOI: 10.1080/17508480902998421

Day, C. (2019). What is teaching about? Professionalism and the limitations of standards and competencies. European Journal of Education, 54(3), 315-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12348

Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Shepherd, W. (2010). Promoting early childhood teacher professionalism in the Australian context: The place of resistance. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 11(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.1.89

Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6:2, 151-182, DOI: 10.1080/713698714

Lipscombe, K., Grice, C., Tindall-Ford, S., & De-Nobile, J. (2020). Middle leading in Australian schools: professional standards, positions, and professional development. School Leadership & Management, 40(5), 406-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1731685

Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., MacDonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers: A case study of professional learning. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 159-179. DOI: 10.1080/13598660500121977

Mockler, N. (2022). Teacher professional learning under audit: Reconfiguring practice in an age of standards. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1720779

Osgood, J. (2009). Childcare workforce reform in England and ‘the early years professional’: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 24(6), 733-751. DOI:10.1080/02680930903244557

Pantić, N. (2017). An exploratory study of teacher agency for social justice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 219-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.04.008        

Ryan, M., & Bourke, T. (2013). The teacher as reflexive professional: Making visible the excluded discourse in teacher standards. Discourse: Studies in The Cultural Politics of Education, 34(3), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.717193

Ryan, M., Rowan, L., Lunn Brownlee, J., Bourke, T., L’Estrange, L., Walker, S., & Churchward, P. (2022). Teacher education and Teaching for diversity: A call to action. Teaching Education, 33(2), 194-213. DOI: 10.1080/10476210.2020.1844178

Sachs, J. (2003b). Teacher professional standards: controlling or developing Teaching? Teachers and Teaching, 9(2), 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309373

Salton, Y., Riddle, S., & Baguley, M. (2022). The ‘good teacher’ in an era of professional standards: policy frameworks and lived realities. Teachers and Teaching, 28(1), 51-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.2017274

Sarı, M., & Yolcu, E. (2017). Views of pre-service teachers on profession: technician or professional? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(1). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mediha-Sari/publication/312507410_The_Views_Of_Turkish_Pre-service_Teachers_On_Profession_Technician_Or_Professional/links/58e2bbc492851c1b9d6a05b7/The-Views-Of-Turkish-Pre-service-Teachers-On-Profession-Technician-Or-Professional.pdf

 Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of teacher education, 53(1), 20-32. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.618.3136&rep=rep1&type=pdf