Rebecca, this is a thoughtful article, but, under the title about the status of the profession you seem to have missed the elephant in the room - that practically every other career which calls itself a 'profession' has a body of learning which underpins it which is taught to trainees and which is widely shared.
Think midwives and engineers. They get a textbook for 101 classes which is, more or less, the same whichever country you are in, certainly wherever you are in the country. You do not get engineers from one college being taught whatever that college team think and something different at another college. You do not get medical CPD organised so that anyone can offer anything they like.
If the same standards that apply in teaching were used in medicine or engineering, people would die, or bridges would fall down. In education, all you get are low-achieving students and exhausted teachers, so there is no incentive to professionalise.
At the heart of the other professions is a theory or model of how that area works. Midwives are taught how babies develop, what can go wrong in the birthing process etc. Engineers are taught about structures etc. This is needed for teaching. Teachers need to understand the learning process. What are memories? How are they formed? What makes them long-term? What is working memory and how is it limited? These are the fundamental, basics, but they are not taught. Other professions have processes, based on their shared, tested model, of how to deal with rouge ideas and charlatans. The teaching profession, devoid of any secure foundation, is prey not only to 'fad of the year', but can easily be pushed around by SLT or the latest minister.
With no expert body to guide them, politicians simply choose the 'experts' who agree with them. (I was told this by an ex-UK Education Minister)
There is, however, massive resistance to applying the evidence. None of the training establishments seem interested. The current powerful people do not want teachers to know 'what works' as it would reduce their power to tell staff (or schools for the minister) what to do.
This is where 'professionalization needs to start.
We are making progress on this in Australia, starting with initial teacher education, which will eventually be expected to filter through. Hopefully we keep up the momentum in this space.
As someone working in professional learning, I agree with you. Just motivating teachers to engage in ongoing learning is tough, let alone a consensus.
I’m in the process of (re) starting a project along the lines of my comment: to try to create a consensus among a range of educationalists who want a more evidence-based approach to teaching.
I appreciate your insights on this issue. One thing I’m curious about within your context — you noted that teachers can choose what materials they use and how they create their curriculum. Is decision-making about use of curriculum materials entirely at the teacher’s discretion?
Yes. I would say about 5-10% of schools have some kind of leadership decision made on this, which is usually beneficial and saves workload but even out of that group there would be some variance between teachers. We have a syllabus but it’s quite content-light.
As a newcomer to teaching after many years in another profession, I’m surprised that the requests for time-in-lieu for planning and camps haven’t yet led to a consequential erosion of holidays.
Many parents struggle to sympathise with arguments about the stresses of teaching and the need for 11 weeks of holidays, especially when they face their own challenges in various trades and professions. It seems risky to push for more precise time tracking when the generous allocation of paid non-term time could prompt bureaucrats to scrutinise teachers’ total working hours in comparison to the wider workforce.
Teachers are often likened to nurses and police officers in terms of public service, but neither profession enjoys such obvious extended periods of leave. Like Rebecca, I likewise caution teachers and the unions to think about possible downsides of requesting hour by hour acquittal, as it risks inviting comparisons that may undermine the profession's current benefits and professional autonomy.
I also think large language models (LLMs) like AI tools present significant opportunities for productivity gains, which many teachers are already leveraging. And all it takes is a basic subscription to one of the major platforms, as much of the functionality offered by edtech simply repackages these models with customised interfaces.
The point about resources is such a strong one. There are millions of teachers out there and we surely cover all possible ways to teach every subject and every skill - and yet we keep creating our own, which takes buckets of time.
Why? I don't know - I do it, every teacher I know does it. Perhaps because a lot of resources out there are fixed and uneditable, yet every cohort differs from the last one and needs a modified approach. Could schemes of work come complete but with room for modifications?
What you say about technology not doing us enough favours is, I think, an excellent reflection of social attitudes to teaching these days. Just not enough status.
Rebecca, this is a thoughtful article, but, under the title about the status of the profession you seem to have missed the elephant in the room - that practically every other career which calls itself a 'profession' has a body of learning which underpins it which is taught to trainees and which is widely shared.
Think midwives and engineers. They get a textbook for 101 classes which is, more or less, the same whichever country you are in, certainly wherever you are in the country. You do not get engineers from one college being taught whatever that college team think and something different at another college. You do not get medical CPD organised so that anyone can offer anything they like.
If the same standards that apply in teaching were used in medicine or engineering, people would die, or bridges would fall down. In education, all you get are low-achieving students and exhausted teachers, so there is no incentive to professionalise.
At the heart of the other professions is a theory or model of how that area works. Midwives are taught how babies develop, what can go wrong in the birthing process etc. Engineers are taught about structures etc. This is needed for teaching. Teachers need to understand the learning process. What are memories? How are they formed? What makes them long-term? What is working memory and how is it limited? These are the fundamental, basics, but they are not taught. Other professions have processes, based on their shared, tested model, of how to deal with rouge ideas and charlatans. The teaching profession, devoid of any secure foundation, is prey not only to 'fad of the year', but can easily be pushed around by SLT or the latest minister.
With no expert body to guide them, politicians simply choose the 'experts' who agree with them. (I was told this by an ex-UK Education Minister)
There is, however, massive resistance to applying the evidence. None of the training establishments seem interested. The current powerful people do not want teachers to know 'what works' as it would reduce their power to tell staff (or schools for the minister) what to do.
This is where 'professionalization needs to start.
Hi Mike,
We are making progress on this in Australia, starting with initial teacher education, which will eventually be expected to filter through. Hopefully we keep up the momentum in this space.
As someone working in professional learning, I agree with you. Just motivating teachers to engage in ongoing learning is tough, let alone a consensus.
That’s very positive, Rebecca.
I’m in the process of (re) starting a project along the lines of my comment: to try to create a consensus among a range of educationalists who want a more evidence-based approach to teaching.
Can we add you to the list?
Mike
You can see some of my earlier work here. https://ebtn.org.uk/
Yes please do!
Great. Please send an email address to mike@ebtn.org.uk
I appreciate your insights on this issue. One thing I’m curious about within your context — you noted that teachers can choose what materials they use and how they create their curriculum. Is decision-making about use of curriculum materials entirely at the teacher’s discretion?
Yes. I would say about 5-10% of schools have some kind of leadership decision made on this, which is usually beneficial and saves workload but even out of that group there would be some variance between teachers. We have a syllabus but it’s quite content-light.
As a newcomer to teaching after many years in another profession, I’m surprised that the requests for time-in-lieu for planning and camps haven’t yet led to a consequential erosion of holidays.
Many parents struggle to sympathise with arguments about the stresses of teaching and the need for 11 weeks of holidays, especially when they face their own challenges in various trades and professions. It seems risky to push for more precise time tracking when the generous allocation of paid non-term time could prompt bureaucrats to scrutinise teachers’ total working hours in comparison to the wider workforce.
Teachers are often likened to nurses and police officers in terms of public service, but neither profession enjoys such obvious extended periods of leave. Like Rebecca, I likewise caution teachers and the unions to think about possible downsides of requesting hour by hour acquittal, as it risks inviting comparisons that may undermine the profession's current benefits and professional autonomy.
I also think large language models (LLMs) like AI tools present significant opportunities for productivity gains, which many teachers are already leveraging. And all it takes is a basic subscription to one of the major platforms, as much of the functionality offered by edtech simply repackages these models with customised interfaces.
Well stated, thank you.
Career changers have a unique perspective on this. We can be tin-eared as a profession and it doesn't serve us.
The point about resources is such a strong one. There are millions of teachers out there and we surely cover all possible ways to teach every subject and every skill - and yet we keep creating our own, which takes buckets of time.
Why? I don't know - I do it, every teacher I know does it. Perhaps because a lot of resources out there are fixed and uneditable, yet every cohort differs from the last one and needs a modified approach. Could schemes of work come complete but with room for modifications?
What you say about technology not doing us enough favours is, I think, an excellent reflection of social attitudes to teaching these days. Just not enough status.