Teacher Inquiry: Proactive Professionalism in the Age of Accountability
February 2, 2016
Are teachers in England becoming mere technicians whose role is to ‘deliver’ the curriculum using ‘evidence-based best practice’? Commentators such as Stephen Ball have argued strongly that this is the direction of travel (2010). I feel more optimistic about the collective agency, power and professionalism of teachers. I reckon in England they have pushed back locally on educational policy to at least mediate its worst unintended consequences on their learners. I feel that maybe the tide is beginning to turn and that teacher collaborative inquiry might gain momentum as a movement, reassert the professionalism of teachers and start to influence policy.
Since the Education Reform Act in 1988 a wave of neoliberal policy has swept through the Education system in England and then been exported widely across the world. The neoliberal agenda relies on competition within free markets, or at least within government controlled quasi markets, to incentivise school development using the key driver of parent ‘choice’. We seem to be in an ‘age of accountability’ that includes: a detailed national curriculum; high stakes inspection; over-assessment to drive results based league tables; fiddling about with school governance to shift financial dependence from local to central government; increased focus on teacher performativity; and the distortion of school assessment systems due to a focus on target-setting, prediction and flawed measures of ‘added value’.
It is important to note that there is a contradiction at the heart of neoliberalism. Despite its claims to liberalism, neoliberalism includes the use of strong central state intervention in order to control quasi markets. This contradiction is revealed for example, when David Cameron, a conservative prime minister but sounding more like an old-fashioned socialist, declared in the House of Commons that ‘we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19973419 ).
Meanwhile, in an optimistic, persistent, international but arguably fragmented movement, ‘teacher inquiry’ in various forms has been pursued as professional learning and as a way of leading change in practice. In England, Lawrence Stenhouse included a chapter entitled ‘The Teacher as Researcher’ in his classic text in 1975. Building on this foundation in North America, Cochran-Smith and Lytle developed the idea that teachers should adopt ‘inquiry as stance’ (2009). But if teacher inquiry is to become a powerful movement and push back on the neoliberal policy agenda, then it needs to be able to ask tough questions that challenge the purposes of education, that tackle social justice issues and that question ways of working in a school. But what kind of school leadership would enable collaborative teacher inquiry to adopt such a critical stance? We need school leaders who are confident, even brave. Rather than some of the managerialist approaches that seem to be so widely adopted in schools and in chains of academies, we need modern leaders who identify with teachers, gain their respect, and are confident enough to develop collective leadership (Haslam, Reicher & Platow 2014).
A good example for us to consider is the case of formative assessment. Black and Wiliam completed a research literature review showing that formative assessment had learning power, but then they made a really good call. They worked with 36 school teacher researchers pursing professional inquiry into assessment practices, and through that developed a better understanding of how formative assessment might be integrated into classroom practice (Black et al. 2003). This work informed the assessment for learning (AfL) principles (ARG 2002). Unfortunately, subsequent top-down government neoliberal policy and pressure on schools to create assessment systems that measured ‘value added’ tended to distort assessment practice right down to the classroom. In a useful study of Primary teachers, Marshall and Drummond found that some teachers were simply implementing strategies suggested by AfL but had not created the classroom culture required, whereas others demonstrated more agency, worked to develop children as self-regulated learners and did not accept limitations on their children’s capabilities (2006). I believe the history of AfL tells us that teacher collaborative inquiry needs to underpin professional learning and change in practice (Boyd, Hymer & Lockney 2015).
The question seems to be: does critical collaborative teacher inquiry offer a realistic approach that could help to rebuild professionalism and start to influence policy in England and internationally? I think that the answer is yes, but I wonder, what do you think?
References
Assessment Reform Group (ARG) (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles – research based principles to guide classroom practice. Available at: http://cdn.aaia.org.uk/content/uploads/2010/06/Assessment-for-Learning-10-principles.pdf
Ball S. (2010) The Education Debate. (2nd Ed.) Bristol: Policy Press.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C. Marshall, B. & Wiliam, D. (2003) Assessment for learning: putting it into practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Boyd, P., Hymer, B. & Lockney, K. (2015) Learning Teaching: becoming an inspirational teacher. Critical Publishing.
Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S. L. (2009) Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M. J. (2014) The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence and power. New York: Psychology Press.
Marshall, B. & Drummond, M.J. (2006) How teacher engage with Assessment for Learning: lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education. 21(2): 133-149.
Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Author
Pete Boyd
