On standards
Why the AITSL Professional Standards for Teachers might not be achieving their aim
Full disclosure: I am scarred for life by trying to shoehorn the teaching standards into a year-long action research project for the AIS Experienced Teacher by Action Research accreditation program. Out of the couple of hundred teachers who are accredited through the AIS, only a handful complete it by action research each year. Was it worth it? Yes. But would I do it again? No. Neither will anyone else, because that particular program was phased out after about five of us slogged through the last intake. It’s a bit like the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher accreditation that has come under question for being a remunerative bar not worth jumping. So please read this knowing that I carry a bitterness about the Standards, and I admit freely that my bitterness will colour this piece.
For my non-Australian readers, the AITSL Standards set the accreditation requirements for all teachers. To explain briefly, every few years a new level of accreditation is required, with optional additional qualifications offered after the compulsory ‘experienced’ level. It’s a lot of evidence collection, planning and paperwork, but just one teaching observation, conducted internally. I have found aspects of it perversely satisfying. I do think we need standards. But my aim here is to question some unhelpful ambiguities and emphases, along with some fundamental problems with the system as it is.
On emphasis
There are 37 descriptors in total, spread across Professional Knowledge, the stuff that happens outside the classroom in preparation for our time inside; Professional Practice, which is everything that happens inside the classroom and assessment; and Professional Engagement, which is basically formal and informal professional development. At a glance the balance seems reasonable, but I do think the emphasis in the descriptors reveals some issues.
Just one descriptor out of the 37 – Standard 1.2 – requires research into how students learn. Six descriptors emphasise the diversity of students and differences in the ways students learn (or the way they should be taught – a small distinction). The emphasis and weighting of this would suggest that students are more different than alike, and we know this to be untrue in most cases. Standard 1.1, loosely translated as know your students, has this covered.
There are five descriptors associated with professional learning, each of which can be easily and tokenistically documented, compared to one descriptor about engaging with research. I’m sure there is plenty of research to support whatever hobby horse a young teacher desires to ride - inquiry learning, balanced literacy, it’s all out there. These professional development descriptors in particular feel like tick-able boxes and require no ongoing engagement beyond the creation of a single piece of evidence.
Three descriptors require ICT as though it was a pedagogical end rather than a means. I’m speaking only from my own experience and that of colleagues in various systems, but I would have thought that ICT use would be a given in classrooms; its emphasis here feels a little ‘21st Century Teaching’ as though we were partying like it was 1999 not too long ago. I do feel that teaching has grown up considerably. Likewise, we have two whole descriptors that ask for teachers to just use a ‘range’ of strategies, which I guess could be anything from presenting The Tempest through interpretive dance to co-creating an exemplar paragraph. It’s the range itself that the standards require, as though the variety is more important than the merit of their use.
There is no indication as to which descriptors are weighted more heavily than others by AITSL, but the emphasis to me is implied. It seems that if anything, the overarching value-signal is catering to diversity, and I mean that in every sense. Other than this, the specifics of good teaching are not implicitly indicated through a reading of the standards.
On tokenism
The standards need to be documented by teachers for accreditation, usually with a single piece of evidence. One piece of evidence can satisfy a few descriptors and a lot of the process is documenting what we tend to do automatically every day. There is something satisfying about the deliberate recording of good work and the conscientiousness required can be kind of enjoyable. But to pretend this is actual evidence of good teaching, or that in the main the process produces better teachers, is disingenuous.
Some examples that would be comical if not true: the classroom safety descriptor can be ticked by moving a desk away from a hydrant, or placing a chair over a laptop cord so it’s no longer a trip hazard. No dangerous cord? Just bring one along to your observation, but make sure your assessor sees it! Want evidence of collegial professional development? Send your Head of Department a question by email, wait for the reply then print it!
I call this process ‘accreditation theatre.’ The administration is a massive endeavour and I think I would be ok with this if it produced actual evidence of being a good teacher. The standards don’t set a standard per-se in my opinion, possibly for fear of stating what good teaching actually is, a deeply politicised and risky move. The system itself requires only the administrative performance of being a good teacher - unless your observation is absolutely dire and I think we all have one superstar lesson in us!
So we have a combination of stick (accreditation revoked), carrot (pay we should be entitled to with improved teaching anyway), and in the end a fairly low bar to entry. And we have to pay to teach. I’d like to see a system that actually sets a clear standard and doesn’t shy away from naming qualities of good teaching. This could be a standard worth working towards.