Designing Teaching and Learning – 2H 2019

Assessment 1 – Essay on the Foundations of Teaching and Learning - Lyndal Howison (#15895338)

Debate about the nature of teaching is common in political and media discourse in relation to

Australia’s position in the global market and international education rankings, because education is

now seen as a key driver of economic standing. This essay will review the contemporary issues facing

teaching, which can be said to meet the definition of a semi-profession while displaying many of the

characteristics of a profession, and playing a profoundly important role in the lives of our young

people. The essay will examine the concepts and practices of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment,

demonstrating that the relationship between these is complex, dynamic and shaped by systemic

factors as well as the experience and dispositions of individual teachers.

International research finds that “teacher quality” is the most important factor in student learning in

the school context (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2005), so it is

unsurprisingly that teaching is regularly scrutinised and debated. At the same time, education is

becoming more complex in response to technological advances, globalisation, increased student

diversity, community expectations in relation to student wellbeing, standardised testing regimes and

the result of transparency of those tests. Schools are now expected to prepare students to compete

in the knowledge economy with higher order and critical thinking skills (OECD, 2005; Berliner, 2011).

The Melbourne Declaration tasked Australian schools with “ensuring the nation’s ongoing economic

prosperity and social cohesion” (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs [MCEETYA], 2008). It might be expected that this increased scope and complexity would have

enhanced the professional status of teaching however, in general, the opposite is true (OECD, 2005).

1
The challenges outlined above have a direct bearing on the status of teaching as a profession and

the occupation bears other striking features that have affected its status. One of the most prominent

features of the teaching workforce is the strong bias in gender. Female employees comprise 72.5%

of public school teachers across all grades and while this has remained steady over the last five

years, the longer term trend is a decline in the proportion of male teachers (NSW Department of

Education, 2018). This figure indicates the sector is experiencing significant gender segregation,

which is a key driver of the gender pay gap. Industries and occupations dominated by female

employees are on average, less well-remunerated than those dominated by males. (Commonwealth

of Australia, Senate Inquiry, 2017). It is possible that the increasing dominance of female employees

in teaching could counteract improvements in the standing of the profession but it is hoped that the

cause of gender equality will mitigate this.

Teaching faces considerable challenges to recruit and retain talented staff. The cumulative effect of

lack of professional status, moderate wages and gender bias have been found to disincentivise some

potential candidates (Mayer, 2006). This has a real or perceived effect on the types of candidates

entering teaching; the declining interest in a teaching qualification among the “highly able” has been

identified as one of the top five challenges of education in Australia (Masters, 2016). Excessive

workload, lack of support and insufficient job satisfaction, have been identified as factors that

discourage early career teachers from staying in their jobs (Australian Institute for Teaching and

School Leadership [AITSL], 2016). The “labour process” of teaching can include long hours and

“endless expectations” (Connell, 2013, p. 265). One parliamentary inquiry found that a quarter of

new teachers leave within the first five years (AITSL, 2016).

The nature of teaching employment and governance has more in common with the semi-

professions. The Australian Medical Association and the Law Society of NSW provide a useful

2
contrast; their codes of ethics and professional standards have similarities to those which govern

teaching. However, these bodies are independent of government, their standards are self-

determined, and they are free to engage advocacy in relation to their profession, sometimes in

opposition to current government policy. By contrast, the professional standards, ethical guidelines,

and accreditation arrangements for teachers are set and managed by government departments and

agencies. The NSW Teachers Code of Conduct states that teachers cannot make public statements

that could “cast doubt on your capacity to implement departmental policies and guidelines

objectively” (NSW Department of Education, 2017). Teachers rely on unions rather than professional

bodies to advocate on their behalf. To teach in an Australian school it is necessary to be employed,

whether that is by a government, or an independent or Catholic school organisation and this also

differs from professions like medicine and law, where work may be sourced independently on a fee-

for-service basis. None of this serves to diminish the value and status of teaching, which shares the

‘public good’ dimensions of its work with these other professions.

While teaching employment has much in common with semi-professions, the public standards and

governance of this occupation have an explicitly professional disposition. This is exemplified in the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (APST), a “public statement of what constitutes

teacher quality” which was compiled by various government agencies with the input of almost 6,000

practitioners (AITSL, 2011, p. 3). Issues of status are addressed in the APST through a stated intent to

assist in building the “public standing of the profession” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). This goal of the APST

aligns with the collective interest of teachers however, there has been some criticism of the

individual focus in the Standards. It has been described as overly disconnected from a “culture of

whole-school improvement”, a core element of student achievement (Nelson, 2013, p. 23). Earlier

iterations of teaching standards were criticised for failing to balance teachers’ needs for supported

3
learning and development with increased levels of accountability and regulation, leading to a

reduced level of professional status (Mayer, Mitchell, Macdonald & Bell, 2005).

Curriculum is usually described as the ‘what’ of teaching, the subject matter of learning interactions.

It works in symbiosis with the other foundations of education; pedagogy is “unquestionably

relevant” (Egan, 1978, p. 69) and in Australia, assessment is linked institutionally through ACARA. An

effective curriculum must meet broad, systemic goals such as those in the Melbourne Declaration, as

well as providing the space for teachers to engage students with very different interests,

backgrounds and capacities.

The launch of the initial elements of this country’s first national curriculum in 2010 was relatively

uncontroversial (Savage & O’Connor, 2015, p. 621), after decades of discussion. The Australian

Curriculum seeks to respond to demands for “21 st Century” thinking by integrating seven General

Capabilities across the traditional Key Learning Areas and accordingly it includes inter alia,

intercultural understanding, and critical and creative thinking. It also features three Cross-curricula

Priorities which are intended to reflect important socio-cultural issues, and consist of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia, and

Sustainability. These have been somewhat controversial and politicised and the 2014 review, which

followed a change of federal government in 2013, was partly a response to political and media

commentary calling for a “back to basics approach” to education (Adoniou, Louden & Zyngier, 2014).

Although the review made a number of recommendations, ultimately the government retained this

dimension of the Curriculum.

While the stated intentions of the Australian Curriculum included a globally competitive standard,

economies of scale, and a harmonised system across state jurisdictions (McGaw, 2015), criticisms

include concerns about the “economising” of education. The global economy may be a reductive

4
influence on learning (Lingard, 2010), although a national curriculum is “a logical and efficient scale

for the realignment of educational purposes and practices towards global concerns” (Savage &

O’Connor, 2015, p. 613).

The introduction of standardised testing in Australia appears to have influenced the curriculum; it is

suggested that subjects other than literacy and numeracy have been marginalised since NAPLAN

(Polesel, Rice & Dulfer, 2014). Curriculum narrowing describes a focus on topics contained in

standardised tests, to the detriment of other subjects, and is more acute in countries like the US,

where the consequences of unfavourable results can include career penalties and school closure.

Berliner (2011) argues that curriculum narrowing is probably “the most important lesson to be

learned by nations using high stakes testing policies to improve student achievement” (p. 289).

Curriculum narrowing has led to significant reductions in subject time allocations for social sciences,

visual art, civics and physical education in international contexts, and similar though less severe

effects have been identified in Australia (Polesel et al. 2014).

Pedagogy is central to considerations of teacher professionalism because it describes the craft of

teaching. It is the focus of much research and commentary because the effectiveness of pedagogy is

closely linked to “teacher quality”, the leading in-school determinant of education outcomes (OECD,

2015). In a discussion of professional status, Connell (2013) notes that teachers actually need two

bodies of knowledge; pedagogy and their subject matter.

Pedagogy should combine a robust theoretical framework with a discipline of teacher learning and a

supportive professional environment (Gore, 2007). The Quality Teaching Framework (QTF), widely

used in NSW, aims to meets this benchmark. The three main dimensions of the model, Intellectual

5
Quality, Quality Learning Environment and Significance, arose from extensive reviews of the

evidence base (NSW Department of Education [DoE], 2003). The model provides practical resources

that support teachers’ learning and each sub-element is explained in terms of how it “looks” in

classroom pedagogy and assessment tasks, reflecting that interrelationship. For example, ‘Deep

Understanding’ proposes that students demonstrate their learning through activities that allow them

“to explore relationships, solve problems, construct explanations and draw conclusions” (NSW DoE,

2003, p. 11)

Pedagogy can be adversely influenced by standardised testing, which is most often delivered in

formats like multiple choice for the sake of efficiency. These formats have been described as

“isolated and unconnected facts and pieces of information” (Polesel et al., 2014, p. 644) and

Australian research finds 55% of teachers agree or strongly agree that “NAPLAN narrows the range

of teaching strategies that I use”, (Polesel et al., 2014, p. 648).

This model of testing constrains sophisticated pedagogies and the professionalism of teaching

because the “political accountability” sought through NAPLAN is at odds with teachers seeking

“pedagogical accountability” from their work (Snartt, 2012, p. 51). The experience in England is “a

transfer of authority from professional teachers” as a result of the standardised testing model in

England (Lingard, 2010, p. 138).

Assessment is the process of measuring and reporting student learning, and the APST calls for a

variety of assessment methods, including informal and formal, as well as diagnostic, formative, and

summative. These strategies draw on professional teaching skills to support student learning, and

6
also require reflexivity from teachers. Ongoing informal and formal assessment informs pedagogy

and classroom strategies in turn.

Assessment exists in various forms in Australian schools and while NAPLAN is just one dimension, it

dominates current discourse. Launched in 2008, it is intended to provide comparative information

about progress in literacy and numeracy to parents, teachers and schools. It also provides a national

aggregate picture for global rankings like PISA. There has been criticism of NAPLAN’s adverse effects

on both curriculum and pedagogy, often summarised as ‘teaching to the test’. Evidence of its

adverse influence on teaching professionalism is present in international contexts; Polesel et al

(2014, p. 643) quote Hargrave’s (1994) argument that high stakes testing pushes teachers toward

the role of “technician.” It is not clear whether Australia’s standardised testing qualifies as high

stakes, and contrast is drawn with the punitive ‘stakes’ in the US, described above.

The practice of ‘teaching to the test’ necessarily reduces the time available for more labour-intensive

assessment strategies, such as that needed for project-based learning. NAPLAN’s utility as an

assessment tool for year-on-year progress is also questioned, with research finding discrepancies

termed “the calendar year effect” (Watson, Handel & Maher, 2016. Pg. 522), though it should be

noted that ACARA has not accepted these findings. For teachers, the capacity to use NAPLAN as a

diagnostic tool is limited due to the long delay in taking the test and receiving the results. Polesel et

al. (2014) find that less than half of teachers in one study believed it adequately served a diagnostic

function (p. 650).

In conclusion, teaching is a highly skilled semi-profession with a professional disposition, which is

undergoing significant changes as a result of a variety of global forces and national policy initiatives.

7
A close, dynamic interplay exists between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, and all these face

some challenges in the contemporary context. There is a fundamental contradiction arising from the

pressures on education: teacher quality is the strongest driver of academic success within schools

however, policies like standardised testing can act to diminish the role of the teacher as their

capacity to teach to the high standards agreed by government and teachers alike. Elevating the

status of teaching as a profession will likely be an ongoing project for all those who believe that it is

teachers who must “fan the flames of wonder” (de Carvalho, 2018) for children, a worthy ambition

indeed.

8
REFERENCES

Adoniou, M., Louden, B., Zyngier, D., Riddle, S. National curriculum review: experts respond. The

Conversation, October 12, 2014. Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/national-

curriculum-review-experts-respond-26913

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016). What do we know about early

career teacher attrition rates in Australia? Spotlight August 2016. Retrieved from:

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/spotlight-what-do-we-know-about-

early-career-teacher-attrition-rates-in-australia

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian Professional Standards

for Teachers. Retrieved from: https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards

Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: the case of curriculum narrowing and

the harm that follows, Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287-302. DOI:

10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151

Commonwealth of Australia, the Senate. (2017). Gender segregation in the workplace and its impact

on women's economic equality. Inquiry of the Finance and Public Administration References

Committee. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Finance_and_Public_

Administration/Gendersegregation/Report

Connell, R. (2013). Teachers. In Education, change and society (pp. 261-275). South Melbourne,

Australia: Oxford University Press

de Carvalho, D. (2018). CEO Address to WSU Masters of Teaching Students. NSW Education

Standards Authority. Retrieved from:

https://educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/about/news/news-stories/news-

stories-detail/CEO%20address%20to%20WSU%20Masters%20of%20Teaching%20students

9
Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 65-72. Retrieved from:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1179791

Lingard, B. (2010) Policy borrowing, policy learning: testing times in Australian schooling. Critical

Studies in Education, 51(2), 129-147. DOI: 10.1080/17508481003731026

Masters, G. (2016). Five challenges in Australian school education. Policy Insights, 2016(5). Australian

Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from:

https://research.acer.edu.au/policyinsights/5/

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

Mayer, D. (2006) The Changing Face of the Australian Teaching Profession: New generations and

new ways of working and learning, Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34:1, 57-71,

DOI: 10.1080/13598660500480142

McGaw, B. (2015) What Are the Benefits of a National Curriculum? YaleCampus. Published on

Youtube March 20, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPLBCd-

sKgo

Ministerial Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, (2008). Melbourne

declaration on educational goals for young Australians, Melbourne. Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational

_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Nelson, J. (2013) The Australian professional standards for teachers: Are they the best drivers?

Australian Educational Leader, 35:4, 21-23. Retrieved from:

http://www.acel.org.au/ACEL/ACELWEB/Publications/AEL/About.aspx

10
NSW Department of Education. (2003). Quality teaching in NSW public schools: Discussion paper

(2003, May). Sydney, Australia: Professional Support and Curriculum Directorate.

NSW Department of Education. (2017) Code of Conduct. (Publication No. PD/2004/0020/V02).

Retrieved from: https://education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/rights-and-

accountability/department-of-education-code-of-conduct

NSW Department of Education. (2018). Gender analysis of school teachers. (December 2018)

Retrieved from: https://data.cese.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/gender-ratio-of-nsw-

government-school-teachers/resource/734ec065-7b49-4a0c-9012-447d96fb9190?

inner_span=True

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting,

developing and retaining effective teachers, 6, Paris, France: OECD Publishing. Retrieved

from: https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf

Polesel, J., Rice, S. & Dulfer, N. (2014) The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum and pedagogy:

a teacher perspective from Australia, Journal of Education Policy, 29(5), 640-657. DOI:

10.1080/02680939.2013.865082

Savage, G. & O’Connor, K. (2015) National agendas in global times: curriculum reforms in Australia

and the USA since the 1980s. Journal of Education Policy, 30(5), 609-630. DOI:

10.1080/02680939.2014.969321

Snartt, M. (2012). Does NAPLAN tell us something about our students, or do our students tell us

something about NAPLAN? Australian Educational Leader, 34(2), 51-53. Retrieved from:

http://www.acel.org.au/ACEL/ACELWEB/Publications/AEL/About.aspx

Watson, K., Handal, B., & Maher, M. (2016). The influence of class size upon numeracy and literacy

performance. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(4), 507-527. DOI 10.1108/QAE-07-2014-

0039

11