This kit is intended to set the context and act as a brief set of discussion starters from an AEU perspective. The sources given elsewhere in this paper provide a fuller discussion and give more detail for those who wish to follow it up. In particular, it is recommended that you read the ACE discussion paper completed in September 2000 entitled "Standards of Professional Practice for Accomplished Teaching in Australian Classrooms". The ACE web site provides an important resource (see http://www.austcolled.com.au/rand.php?id=106). Some relevant subject association sites are listed below.

Background

The issue of teaching standards has been a recurring issue in educational debates for a long time. In the early 1990s it manifested itself in the creation of Advanced Skills Teachers. In 1996 a National Framework for Beginning Teachers was developed by the National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning (NPQTL). There were also various moves in particular states and territories, such as the Queensland Centre for Teaching Excellence and the NSW Department's Report "Toward Identifying Professional Standards for NSW Schools" (NSW DET, 1998).

The work of the USA National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is seen as a key influence on the current debate in Australia. It has operated since the early 1990's as an Independent Board and certifies "accomplished teachers" in all school subject and age areas. It is supported by philanthropic organisations and fees of around $3000 which the applicants, who are voluntary, have to pay. Despite this, the pass rate is below 50%. Some states now offer substantial incentives to successful candidates, and some give preference in recruiting to those who have the certificate. However, to date only 4 800 (or .0015 of the total) teachers have been certified. Even if the Board achieves its target of 100 000 teachers by 2006, this will still only be .03! The article by Susan Moore Johnson in the above mentioned Unicorn reviews the current state of play in regard to the NBPTS.

A major impetus at the national level in Australia has recently come through the work of four subject associations working on three projects on teaching standards in their respective subject areas. The Australian Science Teachers (ASTA) has produced National Professional Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science . The Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) has produced a document Standards for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics in Australian Schools, and the Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE) and the Australian Literary Educators Association (ALEA) are jointly working on Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy.

The following articles give some background to their respective projects. "Science Teachers are Developing Their Own Standards" by Lawrence Ingvarson and Jane Wright (Australian Science Teachers' Journal, v.45(4), pp.27-34) gives a succinct summary of the ASTA, position. The article by Will Moroney "Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics: Professional Standards Project" outlines the Mathematic project. There is also the article on the English standards "Setting Standards: Confronting Paradox" by Brenton Doecke and Margaret Gill (AATE Journal, "English in Australia", issue 129-130 - you will need to click on Journals to locate this issue).

Each of these projects is funded by the Australian Research Council through a Strategic Partnership with Industry—Research and Training (SPIRT) grant. They involve a variety of industry partners who have contributed equal funding, but a common link is Lawrence Ingvarson who has been very active in the debate around standards for many years. He was at Monash University but has recently moved to ACER, where he will remain active in the area.

In February 2000 the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), the Australian College of Education (ACE) and the Australian Curriculum Studies Association (ACSA) jointly held a major forum entitled "Professional Teaching Standards: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities", looking at the USA Board , the work of the subject associations, and related matters. This forum established a number of working groups to take the work forward. The outcomes have included a discussion paper completed in September 2000 entitled "Standards of Professional Practice for Accomplished Teaching in Australian Classrooms". and another Forum held in Canberra on 5 and 6 April 2001. This work, including discussions on some of the issues, is outlined in Responses to the National Discussion Paper on Standards.

There have also been developments specific to particular states and territories, such as the work of the newly created Institute of Teaching in Victoria, and the introduction of Level 3 classification in WA.

The AEU Reaction

The AEU has in the past been supportive of any initiatives which it perceives will enhance the status of the teaching profession, and which provide opportunities for professional recognition and increased public support. For these reasons it was involved with the NPQTL work, was supportive of the attempt to create a Teaching Council, and continues to advocate for Teacher Registration at both national and state and territory level.

At the state and territory level it has advocated and supported proposals for teacher registration and for the creation of career structures which reward experienced teachers who remain classroom teachers. For example, most recently, the Victorian Branch has supported the creation of an Institute of Teaching proposed in the discussion paper issued by the Ministerial Advisory Body. Whilst still in its formation period, it is proposed that this include amongst its responsibilities professional advocacy, professional learning and professional standards. The recent industrial agreement also includes the adoption of beginning and experienced standards called "the Dimensions of Teaching" and the creation of a category of teachers called "Experienced Teacher with Responsibility", who are highly skilled with the ability to guide and assist other teachers and contribute to the development and implementation of school policy and programs.

The AEU nationally has been involved in the above forums and working parties, though it must be said largely in a re-active way. At the October 2000 Executive the "AEU Position on Professional Teaching Standards" was adopted. However, the 2001 Federal Conference resolved "that there be further consultation at the Branch/Associated Body level" and that the document be amended in the light of this.

This discussion kit is intended to facilitate this.

The Issues

The NPQTL work mentioned above was about beginning teacher standards, and there is a view that this is where the debate should be focussed, at least until they have been well established. However, most of the information above, including the work of the National Board in the USA, and also that of the Subject Associations, relates to advanced, accomplished or excellent teaching standards (generically referred to as advanced from here on). This implies a qualification awarded to an experienced teacher following some process of accreditation.

It should be noted that the three projects may not have exactly the same aims. All three projects have a commitment to their standards "as a reference point for professional development", but the extent to which each is directed to the certification of individual teachers could vary in the final application.

The previous Advanced Skills Teachers and indeed developments in relation to specific state and territory agreements also relate to experienced teachers. Therefore that is the focus of this kit. (Those interested in initial beginning teacher standards may wish to look at the NPQTL work on "Preparing a Profession: Report of the National Standards and Guidelines for Initial Teacher Education Project, Australian Council of Deans, Canberra, 1998).

Some argue that existing qualifications procedures are adequate guarantees of standards, and that therefore there is no need to develop further standards, and indeed that to do so ignores and possibly undermines the qualifications which teachers already possess. It can be seen as imposing on teachers, and playing into the hands of those seeking to denigrate teachers, making them susceptible to undesirable proposals such as performance pay and performance management.

On the other hand, many argue it will raise the status and counter some of the "teacher bashing". Ingvarson and Wright, in the paper cited above (p.30) suggest three main reasons for science teachers (and by extrapolation, the whole teaching profession) to pursue accomplished teaching standards,

1."...to prove its professional credentials; its capacity to provide professional leadership. A body that aspires to professional status should be able to define what it expects its members to be able to know and to do. With a set of standards, a professional body increases its legitimacy and earns the right to be taken seriously in national policy formation."

2."... to strengthen ASTA's contribution to the public and the profession through enhancing the quality of the science teaching in schools. Certification does this by providing powerful incentives for all teachers to engage in long term standards-based professional development planning."

3."... to improve the quality of professional development. Profession-defined teaching standards describe what young teachers should aim to get better at, long term. ... With teaching standards to aim for, professional development becomes much more than providing short courses to help teachers catch up with the latest change in employer policy. It becomes a long term quest for young teachers to develop their practice toward enduring educational values, such as the promotion of independent thinking and learning skills in their students."

There are strong arguments that if there are to be standards, they should be developed and owned by practising teachers themselves. This is both because a true profession is responsible for its own standards and because defining and reaching agreement on what constitutes the appropriate standards is an important professional activity in itself. As Ingvarson and Wright comment:

"One of the odd things about teaching is that it is the only profession where state governments feel they have the right to initiate and control the development of standards for professional practice." (p.28)

Professionally developed and endorsed standards would seek to change this.

However, even if it is agreed that in principle they should be developed by the profession, how this could best be done raises another series of questions.

The four subject associations have taken the initiative and invested considerable resources and effort to arrive at a point where, in the case of at least one of them, they are now ready to consider moves towards assessing individual teacher applicants. Their standards are clearly subject based, although there are doubtless common and similar elements. The AEU position as it currently stands states a preference for a core of generic standards, supplemented by subject and/or age related standards. It also supports standards being inclusive of early childhood and TAFE, not just schools.

Where should the standards be placed in relation to subject and age specific factors vis a vis subject specificity?

How do the standards developed by the subject associations relate to primary, middle school, early childhood and TAFE teachers? They are certainly being developed in a way that makes them relevant to the teaching of that subject in the primary years and could provide a 'road map' to guide professional development in the subject. Nevertheless, subject specific standards are less comprehensive of the work of primary teachers than secondary teachers, for example.

Should there be a single accrediting authority, or should each set/subject be able to award their own?

How would the appropriate authority(ies) be established? The ACE has to date taken a leading role as "an honest broker" bringing together the diverse activities. However, in the longer term, thought needs to be given to ensuring the standards are developed and owned by an appropriate teacher controlled body or bodies.

The answers to such questions will have considerable impact on how they should be developed.

Given that some subject associations are well ahead of the profession as a whole, how can a general standards movement move on from their initiative to a point where standards best serve the entire profession.?

The AEU position argues they should be voluntary and rewarded by, for instance, professional leave, higher salaries or accelerated progression, (but see the discussion on industrial implications below).

However, there will undoubtedly be those who argue for making them mandatory, and possibly for discontinuing the appointment of those who either do not seek to obtain them, or who fail to obtain them. It may be difficult to prevent them becoming a performance management tool.

There are also grey areas. For instance, if those who have them are able to access the rewards suggested, or are regarded more favourably for appointment and promotion, then the degree of voluntariness is constrained by this.

This issue is particularly difficult if teachers teaching certain subjects (such as those in areas which are currently having standards developed), are able to access the advanced standards whilst other teachers in different subjects or age ranges are not, and therefore they cannot get the extra rewards.

The question of salary and remuneration has a long and clear legal, industrial and professional heritage in Australia. The rates of teachers' remuneration and related performance issues are set in legally-enforceable industrial awards and agreements after periods of discussion and negotiation between employing authorities and elected representatives from industrial-professional organisations representing the teaching profession. This continues to be the lawful domain of teacher unions in the public and private sectors of education and one which the teaching profession across all sectors overwhelmingly supports.

In recent years, employers and teacher unions have sought to bring to these discussions proposals regarding teacher review, teacher assessment, professional standards, variations to career structures which take account of experience and skill level and related issues. Some of these suggestions have met with professional acceptance; others have been tried and have been found to be deficient; some are still subject to continuing discussions in legal-industrial jurisdictions.

The AEU welcomes all discussions that may lead to further enhancement of professional standards and it has keenly participated in the discussions at all levels over the years. It closely monitors cognate international developments in these questions and receives reports from teacher organisations across the globe.

When there exists a clear level of professional support, understanding and consensus for any proposal to enhance professional standards teacher unions will endorse those initiatives in the appropriate professional and industrial forums.

How then might any rewards based on standards which are not specific to agreements, possibly even national rather than state and territory based, fit into industrial agreements?

Is it possible and desirable to contemplate an agreement which acknowledges pay for higher standards which are set outside the agreement, and which may not be common to all teachers? There could be a variety of ways in which a teacher demonstrates they are eligible, with one such way being the possession of an accredited advanced status certificate.

The AEU position currently maintains the view that all teachers must be paid on a common scale. Therefore attempts to link advanced status to standards which only apply to teachers in some subjects and not in others would not meet this criteria. There are already suggestions in the UK, for instance, that teachers in some shortage subjects should receive different salary levels.

Similarly, it would seem undesirable to link advanced status to a version of performance pay, or to impose quotas which make the obtaining of advanced status competitive rather than criteria based.

What do you think?

If you would like to make any comments in relation to the above issues, please contact the person in your Branch or Associated Body below:

John Graham - AEU Victorian Branch
Clive Haggar - AEU ACT Branch
Julie-Ann McCullough - Queensland Teachers' Union
Lesley MacFarlane - Queensland Teachers' Union
Mike Keely - State School Teachers' Union of Western Australia
Wendy Currie - New South Wales Teachers' Federation
or Roy Martin in the Federal Office

List of web documents and sites

Australian College of Education - Standards of Professional Practice for Accomplished Teaching in Australian Classrooms (www.austcolled.com.au/dbimg/990discussionpaper.pdf)

Australian College of Education - Teacher Standards Quality anf Professionalism Project (http://www.austcolled.com.au/rand.php?id=106)

Australian College of Education - Teacher Standards, Quality and Professionalism: Towards a Nationally Agreed Framework (www.austcolled.com.au/dbimg/standardsqualityprofess.pdf)

Australian College of Education - Responses to the National Discussion Paper on Standards (www.austcolled.com.au/dbimg/310responses.pdf)

USA National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (www.nbpts.org)

Australian Science Teachers Association (ASTA) - National Professional Standards for Highly Accomplished Teachers of Science Project http://www.asta.edu.au/membership/benefits/recognition/profstds

Australian Science Teachers' Journal,"Science Teachers are Developing Their Own Standards" by Lawrence Ingvarson and Jane Wright (Australian Science Teachers' Journal, v.45(4), pp.27-34) (www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/IngvarsonWright.pdf)

Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT) - Standards for Excellence in Teaching Mathematics in Australian Schools (www.aamt.edu.au/standards/)

Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (AAMT), "Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics: Professional Standards Project" by Will Moroney, (AMT, Vol 55 No.3, 1999) (www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/Moroney.pdf)

Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE) and Australian Literary Educators Assocation (ALEA) - Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy (www.stella.org.au)

Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE) - "Setting Standards: Confronting Paradox" by Brenton Doecke and Margaret Gill (AATE Journal, "English in Australia", issue 129-130) (www.aate.org.au/) - Follow link to Journal.

Australian Education Union, AEU Position on Professional Teaching Standards, (Extract from October 2000 AEU Executive Minutes) (www.aeufederal.org.au/Debates/AEUpositionPTS.html)