The Alberta Teachers’ Association

An example of formative assessment in action, students at Molde Upper Secondary School in Norway vote for their chosen answer to a math problem. —Photo by John Scammell

A new imperative of educational change

In 1969, Amitai Etzioni described teaching as a “semi-profession” (p. viii) with only limited control over working conditions by its practitioners. For Etzioni, teachers could not be defined as professionals because they lacked discretion over many aspects of their work, relied primarily on outsiders for increasing their knowledge base, and were unable to close ranks to create a unified guild. Educators were not like lawyers, doctors or engineers. They were like social workers or nurses.

What has happened in the decades since Etzioni’s categorization of teaching as a semi-profession? Evidence is accumulating to show that, when educational systems are characterized by public investment rather than privatization and the de-skilling of teachers, student learning benefits (Adamson, Åstrand and Darling-Hammond 2016; Hargreaves and Shirley 2009, 2012; Sahlberg 2015). Contrary to a research-informed approach, however, policies in many countries in recent years have focused on what Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan (2012) describe as a “business capital” approach, in which teaching is seen as “emotionally demanding but technically simple,” ultimately “requiring only moderate intellectual ability” (p. 14).

With business capital, teachers’ semi-professionalism is not an unintended consequence of ill-conceived policy, but rather an intentional design of teachers’ work. One recent assessment of Bridge International, a for-profit company now expanding in Africa and Asia, exemplifies business capital in action.

“Bridge is able to offer a cost-effective product in some of the poorest communities in the world by emphasizing a lean business model,” the authors write (Materie and McArdle 2016, p. 1). “Through standardization and automation, Bridge has streamlined their operations and has largely removed ‘teachers’ and ‘administrators’ from the education process all together.” “Teachers” in the Bridge Academy read scripted instructions aloud from their tablet devices, and do so verbatim.

The Bridge Academy is an extreme version of a business capital view of education that is spreading rapidly into many of the world’s education systems (Abrams 2016; Verger, Lubienski and Steiner-Khamsi 2016). Business capital can be seen in market-driven incentives to expand charter schools in the United States and academies in England (Adamson and Darling-Hammond 2016; Shirley 2016). It can also be seen in online educational alternatives and for-profit teacher preparation programs, with the support and investment of corporate foundations (Darling-Hammond and Adamson 2016).

The business capital model of change has not gone unchallenged. In the U.S., the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has supplanted the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, with greater flexibility given to states and encouragement provided to assess different forms of student engagement and well-being. In Chile, a student-led movement for greater equity and a shift to public investment has overturned features of over 40 years of market-oriented reforms (Bellei and Cabalin 2013). Sweden’s experiments with a uniquely Nordic endorsement of business capital have been called to an abrupt halt after that nation’s plunging results on the Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (Åstrand 2016; OECD 2015). The business capital model that has surged for so many years is being called to account and found wanting on the very metrics that its advocates most ardently espoused.

The Professional Capital Imperative

The problem of habitual prescription from government to teachers is not regional but global in scope. Roughly one third of teachers in the most recent Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) indicated that they do not select the curricula that they teach, and one in five does not choose the assessments (OECD 2014). In the global south, an alliance between the for-profit education sector is supplanting public education systems with business capital practices that leave teachers with little decision-making power over their working conditions (Macpherson, Robertson and Walford 2014; Verger, Fontdevila and Zancajo 2016).

When teachers lose control of key components of their professional judgment, they experience “alienated teaching” (Shirley and MacDonald 2016, p. 3). This is what happens when teachers adapt their pedagogies, curricula and assessments to the dictates of higher authorities, even when teachers know they are eroding their best professional judgment. Research (Stone-Johnson 2016) has documented that, once alienated teaching becomes a default pedagogy in schools, it impacts everyone, even school counselors, who just like teachers, are pressed into bureaucratic compliance.

Yet how should teachers’ professionalism be understood? The framework developed by Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) in Professional Capital, disaggregated educators’ professionalism into three components:

The human capital, or economic value, of individual talent

The social capital, or relational trust, that builds collaborative capacity amongst colleagues and

The decisional capital, or the ability of individuals to make good judgments when faced with incomplete or conflicting evidence

These three components of professional capital co-exist with one another in different combinations. The literature (DuFour and DuFour 2008; DuFour et al. 2016; Stoll et al. 2006) on professional learning communities, for example, views social capital as the greatest asset for improved student results. Approaches that focus more on improving teachers’ academic content knowledge are premised upon a human capital strategy, and those that prioritize teachers’ autonomous judgment build their professional capital first and foremost.

The Global Imperative of Educational Change

Increasingly there is consensus among researchers about the power of educators’ professionalism to uplift student learning (Schleicher 2016). But this research base is disconnected from what is happening in many schools and their systems. Increasingly, we find that business capital models are imported into schools, which leads to grumbling among teachers who lose control of their working conditions. What is underestimated by many is the global scope of this transformation. This is because we educators justifiably are preoccupied with the students we see in front of us every day. We log long hours, forgetting that once there was a labour movement that battled for a 40-hour work week. We become insular.

This insularity bestows blessings upon educators. If we can keep up our stamina, we get to know our students well and their families also. We become nested in our communities. This gives our lives meaning and purpose.

But there is a dangerous side to this insularity. It means that we are caught unaware when change models are imported into our schools. It means that we don’t have an organized response when new technologies or curricula arrive with little introduction or support, but with high expectations for our use of them.

This in turn means that if a new professional imperative is to replace an older prescriptive one, we need to scout out what is going on in other schools and systems. We need to appreciate what we’ve achieved at home in high-achieving provinces like Alberta or states like Massachusetts, but also be honest about our shortcomings. We also have to be discriminating, making a point not to get too excited about systems in places like Shanghai that have great test score results but rank at rock bottom in terms of human rights.

Furthermore, we should not try to learn everything on our own, but with teams of other educators, preferably not through one-off for-profit groups but rather through our professional associations that will stand by our side through thick and thin.

It is for these reasons that I’ve chosen to work closely with colleagues at the Alberta Teachers’ Association over the past six years as they have led the creation of two international partnerships, first with Finland, then with Norway.

These two Nordic nations rank at the top of international surveys on child well-being, environmental sustainability and overall quality of life. The Finnish case is well known, having been superbly described by Pasi Sahlberg in his best-selling books (2011, 2015). But Norway also merits careful study. Like Alberta, Norway has vast natural resources, which have been a boon in many ways, but have also led to limited economic diversification. When the Union of Educators Norway expressed interest in launching a partnership with Canada focused on mathematics instruction, and the Ontario Teachers Federation and the Ontario Ministry of Education wanted to join in with the ATA, the Norway-Canada or NORCAN partnership was formed.

This partnership enables teachers, principals and students from school districts in Alberta, Ontario and Norway to visit one another’s schools, to learn about how mathematics is taught, and to develop tools on an online platform. It is unusual among international partnerships, which almost always include adults only, and leave the students at home. But including students as a design principle, first in Finland, and now in Norway, provides assets to all.

This is because, when students accompany educators on trips to jurisdictions such as Ontario and Norway, they notice things that educators overlook. Students pay attention not only to the ways that their peers elsewhere attack mathematics problems, for example, but also are sensitive to aspects of a school’s culture, such as how students interact with one another and with their teachers. They have a heightened awareness of whether students feel comfortable asking questions, and they can see ways in which students use technology to supplement learning in one school while using it in a distracting way in another.

When students are given opportunities to explain what things they like or dislike about a discipline such as mathematics, as has occurred in NORCAN exchanges, they aren’t only gaining opportunities to learn new ways to solve problems, they are also learning that their educators care about them as part of a united profession. Visiting schools in Ontario in May with NORCAN colleagues from Alberta and Norway, I was impressed by how vocal and self-assured the students at one school were. This spoke volumes about the civic education the students were receiving. But I also noticed how appreciative the students were of opportunities to reflect on their learning.

In the end, it won’t be enough for schools and systems to be on the receiving end of prescriptive mandates from on high. To be economically competitive and environmentally sustainable, societies will need to prepare citizens to take on the challenges of our time: eliminating poverty, creating prosperity and distributing it equally. This can only be done by professionals operating at peak capacity. This is why our educators must be knowledgeable, enjoy strong peer networks and have the autonomy to make good decisions. This is why partnerships like NORCAN are indispensable to break through insularity to learn from colleagues from abroad. This is why we must embrace a new professional imperative of educational change.

References

Abrams, S. 2016. Education and the Commercial Mindset. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Adamson, F., B. Åstrand and L. Darling-Hammond, eds. 2016. Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Outcomes. New York: Routledge.

Adamson, F., and L. Darling-Hammond. 2016. “The critical choice in American public education: privatization or public investment?” In Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Outcomes, eds F. Adamson, B. Åstrand and L. Darling-Hammond, 131–168. New York: Routledge.

Åstrand, B. 2016. “From citizens into consumers: The transformation of democratic ideals into school markets in Sweden.” In Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Outcomes, eds F. Adamson, B. Åstrand and L. Darling-Hammond, 73–109. New York: Routledge.

Bellei, C., and C. Cabalin. 2013. “Chilean student movements: Sustained struggle to transform a market-oriented educational system.” Current Issues in Comparative Education 15(2): 108–123.

Darling-Hammond, L., and F. Adamson. 2016. “Privatization and public investment: Is the invisible hand a magic wand?” In Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Outcomes, eds F. Adamson, B. Åstrand and L. Darling-Hammond, 194–225. New York: Routledge.

DuFour, R., and B. DuFour. 2008. Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work: New Insights for Improving Schools. Indianapolis: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., B. DuFour, R. Eaker, T. Many and M. Manos. 2016. Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. 3rd ed. Indianapolis: Solution Tree.

Etzioni, A. 1969. The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers. New York: Free Press.

Hargreaves, A., and M. Fullan. 2012. Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A., and D. Shirley. 2009. The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

———. 2012. The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for Educational Excellence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Macpherson, I., S. Robertson and G. Walford. 2014. Education, Privatization, and Social Justice: Case Studies from Africa, South Asia, and South East Asia. Oxford: Symposium.

Materie, J., and P. McArdle. 2016. “Bridging education and efficiency: A review of Bridge International Academy’s cultural adaptation and IT that are profitably providing education to some of the world’s poorest families.” http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ssen/IDSC6050/Case1/Group1_index.html (accessed August 24, 2016).

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2014. TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris: OECD.

———. 2015. Improving Schools in Sweden: An OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD.

Sahlberg, P. 2011. Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

———. 2015. Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Schleicher, A. 2016. Teaching Excellence through Professional Learning and Policy Reform: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD.

Shirley, D. 2016. The New Imperatives of Educational Change: Achievement with Integrity. New York: Routledge.

Shirley, D., and E. MacDonald. 2016. The Mindful Teacher. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace and S. Thomas. 2006. “Professional learning communities:  A review of the literature.”  Journal of Educational Change 7(4), 221–258.

Stone-Johnson, C. 2016. “Intensification and isolation: Alienated teaching and collaborative professional relationships in the accountability context.” Journal of Educational Change 17(1): 29–50.

Verger, A., C. Fontdevila and A. Zancajo. 2016. The Privatization of Education: A Political Economy of Global Education Reform. New York: Teachers College Press.

Verger, A., C. Lubienski and G. Steiner-Khamsi. 2016. World Yearbook of Education:  The Global Education Industry. New York:  Routledge.

Dennis Shirley is professor of education at the Lynch School of Education at Boston College. Parts of this article are taken from his new book entitled The New Imperatives of Educational Change: Achievement with Integrity.