Area 4 of the National Approach to Professional Learning:

The national Professional Learning offer and allocation of time

Final report

Submitted to Welsh Government11 October 2018

Author(s): Matthew Hutt and Susan Haywood

Views expressed in this report are those of the researcher and not necessarily those of the Welsh Government

2

1. Key Messages....................................................................................................................42. Executive Summary...........................................................................................................5

2.1 Systems overview....................................................................................................52.2 Existing research into the allocation of time........................................................52.3 Differing conceptualisations of professional learning.........................................5

3. Report..................................................................................................................................73.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................73.2 Methodology............................................................................................................7

Search for evidence from policy documents...............................................................8Search for evidence from practitioners in the countries or regions identified........8Search for evidence from academic literature.............................................................8

3.3 Findings from policy documents...........................................................................93.3.1 Allocation of time to professional learning in different school systems – standardised systems........................................................................................................93.3.2 Additional non-standardised allocation of time for professional learning.. 103.3.3 Summary.............................................................................................................103.4 Findings from the academic literature.................................................................113.4.1 Professional learning as a disposition or professional behaviour...............11

Implications for time allocation...................................................................................113.4.2 Professional learning as bespoke individualised opportunity......................12

Implications for time allocation...................................................................................133.4.3 Professional learning as collaborative endeavour.........................................13

Implications for time allocation...................................................................................143.4.4 Professional learning as network of opportunities........................................15

Implications for time allocation...................................................................................153.4.5 Professional learning as high status opportunity (but as limited resource)16

Inequitable allocation...................................................................................................16Organisational difficulties............................................................................................16Opportunities provided at the discretion of the local school authorities or the headteacher...................................................................................................................16Resources ring-fenced for specific priorities............................................................16Implications for time allocation...................................................................................17

3.5 Conclusions...........................................................................................................173.6 Bibliography...........................................................................................................20

4. Appendix...........................................................................................................................22

3

1. Key Messages

1.1 There are a number of different ways of allocating time for professional learning in operation in high-performing school systems, and these different modes are often blended together.

1.2 There is limited research evidence to support claims about how effective these different ways of allocating time might be, so there is no convincing consensus that a particular way of allocating time for professional learning is preferable.

1.3 Representations of professional learning, in official documentation and academic literature, tend to emphasise key facets (e.g. professional learning as collaboration), and these tend to imply that increased allocation of time would be beneficial. There are, therefore, frequent calls from a variety of stakeholders for more time to be made available for professional learning, but these are rarely quantified.

1.4 There is also a strand within the literature which suggests that a commitment to teacher agency, and a culture that encourages teachers to view professional learning as a continuous element of their professional behaviour, may have more impact than the simple allocation of time itself.

1.5 There is a potential tension between adopting a universal, minimal allocation of time for all practitioners, and awarding substantial allocations of time to selected practitioners.

4

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Systems overview

School systems from around the world use different methods of allocating time for professional learning for teachers. In some systems, there are structures for bringing teachers together within school, without pupils, to engage in professional learning. Other systems allocate a notional amount of non-contact time to professional learning, and in some countries, teachers are required to log the learning that takes place. Alternatively, this requirement to record a pre-defined number of professional learning hours over the course of a year may not be attached to existing workload arrangements, and may or may not be attached to conditions of professional registration and/or progression. In some countries, teachers are able to apply centrally for professional learning opportunities that come with allocations of time attached, and these may be blocked into significant periods of release from regular commitments, or may be organised as recurring, smaller allocations of time.

Alongside the different approaches outlined above, all the systems studied acknowledge the ability of individual school leaders and clusters of schools to allocate time for professional learning using their own resources. In reality, these non-systematic, localised approaches to the allocation of time to professional learning are likely to contribute as much to the total amount of time devoted to learning in any given system as the jurisdiction-wide structures described above. The practice of allocating time is, therefore, complex in theory, and uneven in terms of execution.

2.2 Existing research into the allocation of time

There are few studies that focus specifically on the impact of allocating time to professional learning. The studies that are available do attempt to evaluate different models of professional learning, but time is generally only one of a number of constituent factors. It is therefore extremely difficult to build up an evidence-based case to support any of the methods of allocating time described above.

2.3 Differing conceptualisations of professional learning

Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the differing ways in which professional learning as a concept is presented and constructed, and it is possible, using the findings from research studies that follow these differing emphases, to identify implications for the allocation of time.

2.3.1 Professional learning as a disposition or professional behaviourHere, engaging in professional learning is presented as a key aspect of what it means to be a teacher, and the process of reflecting upon, and learning about, professional practice is constructed as a continuous professional behaviour that should be internalised. This way of approaching professional learning may well benefit from increased opportunities to reflect and to learn, but its essential premise is that an openness to professional learning should become a disposition to be

5

adopted throughout a teacher's career, irrespective of whether time is allocated or not.

2.3.2 Professional learning as bespoke individualised opportunityThe emphasis in this construction of professional learning is on individual ownership of priorities and outcomes. Professional learning is most powerful, it is suggested, when individual teachers are given the agency and opportunity to pursue learning activities that they have identified as important for themselves. The allocation of time is implied here in at least two senses. First, teachers need time to be able to reflect meaningfully upon their constantly developing professional practice, in order to identify priorities and interests. Second, professional learning opportunities that have been identified on an individual basis may well require additional investments of time in ways that externally prioritised and delivered professional learning opportunities may not.

2.3.3 Professional learning as collaborative endeavourWhere the collaborative nature of powerful professional learning is emphasised, there is an implied need to provide additional allocated time, especially when collaboration takes teachers outside the school they work within. Even when collaboration is through virtual networks, which may be more time efficient, there is still a time requirement in terms of networking and engagement. Collaborative professional learning has traditionally been serviced by the non-systematic, localised allocation of time resources described in 2.1, above, and this is likely to result in an uneven distribution of the benefits of collaborative professional learning across the workforce.

2.3.4 Professional learning as network of opportunitiesIf professional learning is presented as a broad and varied network, within which the engaged (see 2.3.1) and empowered (see 2.3.2) teacher negotiates a path, there is an additional implication for the allocation of time. Without additional time, it is perhaps less likely that teachers will be able to understand, and thus make use of, the opportunities on offer. Intelligent use of any network requires the time and space to assess and internalise its possibilities.

2.3.5 Professional learning as high status opportunity (but as limited resource)Here, professional learning primarily exists as an extensively resourced opportunity, and is available through an open application process. Successful teachers benefit from significant allocations of time to pursue professional learning, and this opportunity produces the benefits described in 2.3.2, 2.3.3 and 2.3.4. An additional advantage for the system is that the allocation of the resource can be pre-determined and adjusted externally as necessary. The disadvantage is that these rich opportunities, and the allocations of time that they unlock, are only enjoyed by a minority of teachers.

6

3. Report

3.1 Introduction

This study sits within the Welsh Government’s project to establish an evidence base for its new National Approach to Professional Learning. As such, its primary aim is to analyse existing research and policy from different countries to help inform the model as it is launched and to provide a contextual backdrop for practitioners across the education sector in Wales over the coming years.

The specific point of focus for this study is the allocation of time for professional learning for teachers, examining how other successful school systems approach this issue. In turn, the study also explores the varying ways that professional learning is conceptualised and practised in different countries, using this discussion to consider implications for the allocation of time.

The underlying assumption for both this study, and others being undertaken under the National Approach to Professional Learning umbrella, is that it is reasonable to suggest that approaches to professional learning adopted in the education systems of high performing countries contribute to the success of those education systems. As such, questions regarding the allocation of time for professional learning play a key role in this assumption. Although initially it had been hoped that the study might be able to examine evidence that could link particular approaches to the allocation of time to the success of particular systems, this line of enquiry was not well resourced by existing empirical research. Instead, this study takes five different ways of thinking about professional learning, and for each, considers how the allocation of time might impact positively, or negatively, on that particular interpretation of professional learning.

The following research questions were originally identified:

1) How is time allocated to professional learning in comparable, high-performing systems?

2) How is successful professional learning for teachers currently being conceptualised and modelled? What do these models imply for the allocation of time?

3) Is there consistency between the approach to professional learning as described in policy, especially in respect of the time allocated, and the operation of this policy in the actual experiences of teachers and school leaders?

As the study progressed, the evidence base for (3) was found to be limited. The following sections, therefore, concentrate on (1) and (2).

3.2 Methodology

As noted above, the initial working hypothesis for this research was that it is reasonable to suggest that approaches to professional learning adopted in the education systems of high

7

performing countries contribute to the success of those education systems. The intention therefore was to research both the policies, which underpin the approach to professional learning adopted in those countries, and the evidence from research studies undertaken in those systems into the operation and effect of these policies in practice.

In order to answer the research questions identified above, the methodology consisted of the following strands:

An analysis of the policies relating to time allocation for professional learning adopted in countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD: Finland, Singapore, Sweden, Netherlands, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK (England, Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the USA. These countries/ territories were chosen using a blend of three discriminating factors: performance in PISA 2015; membership of the Atlantic Rim Collaboratory; availability of English-medium documentation.

A literature review of international evidence of the effectiveness of professional learning approaches in the countries/territories identified, focusing in particular on the study-time allocated for professional learning. This was to be followed by a literature review of professional learning projects in the countries/territories identified using academic search engines to identify peer reviewed research articles published within the last decade.

Exploration of the operation of policy through informal research with some practitioners in the countries or regions identified.

Search for evidence from policy documentsThe search for policy documents relating to professional learning identified policies from the following countries or regions: California, Finland, Ireland, Ontario, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden, Netherlands, and New Zealand. Although many of the countries or regions selected have public sector cultures which share similarities with the prevailing culture in Wales, some do not, and this should be borne in mind. Professional learning models may not, in practice, cross social and cultural boundaries seamlessly. The results of this search are detailed in Section 3.1 below.

Search for evidence from practitioners in the countries or regions identifiedProfessional networks were used to identify some individual practitioners in the countries or regions included within the policy and academic literature searches. These people were contacted informally by email and asked to comment on the operational aspects of their country or regional policy. Whilst not providing explicit evaluation of the policy, these contacts helped refine or qualify the researchers’ understanding of the policy documents.

Search for evidence from academic literatureAn initial scoping exercise using specialist databases (EBSCO, Emerald Insight, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, British Education Index) indicated that relatively little academic literature existed which focused on the evaluation of professional learning, let alone arrangements for the allocation of time or resources to professional learning. The search for relevant journal articles, therefore, had to be extended beyond the countries and regions listed above.

Boolean operators were used to combine a range of key words in searches. These terms included: country or region names; education; schools; teachers; professional learning;

8

professional learning policy; continuing professional development; continued professional development; in-service training, time allocation. Where appropriate, wildcards (such as Teach*) were used to maximise the scope of the searches.

Initial searches identified thirty-three journal articles which met the search criteria. These journal articles were read in order to determine whether or not they made any reference to the allocation of time to professional learning. As a result, eleven journal articles were excluded. Details of the articles which were used and the reasons for their inclusion are given in Appendix 1.

This analysis, combined with the information from policy documents and individual practitioners in some of the countries included was then coded to determine and inform the themes which are explored in this report.

3.3 Findings from policy documents

3.3.1 Allocation of time to professional learning in different school systems – standardised systems

Country/ Region

Main features of approach to the allocation of time to professional learning

California Teachers are obliged to identify, complete and log 40 hours of professional learning activity each year.

Finland Schools allocate between 1 and 5 days of dedicated professional learning time per year.

Ireland

The document Cosan: Framework for Teachers’ Learning (Ireland, 2016) sets out general expectations and responsibilities regarding the position of professional learning. Specific allocations of time for professional learning are not standardised across the country, and engagement with professional learning is a mixture of discretionary involvement in participants’ own time, and involvement through release from workload duties organised at a local level. Discretionary involvement can result in subsequent time off in lieu.

Netherlands

Arrangements differ for teachers at primary and secondary level. For teachers in primary education, there is an entitlement to spend 10% of their standard annual workload on professional learning. For teachers in secondary education, there is no fixed percentage of time, and arrangements are made between employers and employees at an individual level.

New Zealand

Arrangements differ slightly for teachers at primary and secondary levels. For both sectors, there is a notional element of time for professional learning built into general weekly non-contact allocation, although the total non-contact time differs between primary and secondary. Since the allocation for professional learning is part of a wider allocation for other professional duties (assessment, planning etc.) it is difficult to quantify

9

proportions exactly in the way other school systems are able to.

Ontario Up to 7 Professional Activity days allocated to schools each year for teachers to engage in variety of professional learning activities.

Scotland

Teachers have a statutory responsibility to complete 35 hours of professional learning in addition to their regular workload arrangements. These hours must be linked to the relevant professional standards and be agreed by the head teacher of the school. In addition, teachers currently complete 5 INSET (In-Service Education and Training) days within school over the course of the year.

Singapore Teachers must complete 100 hours of professional learning activity per year.

SwedenTeachers receive an entitlement of 104 hours of professional learning per year, through an agreement brokered between unions and the local/ regional employment boards.

3.3.2 Additional non-standardised allocation of time for professional learning.The majority of systems studied indicate that, notwithstanding the arrangements listed above, schools, clusters and districts have the capacity to allocate time to individual teachers, or groups of teachers, using their own resources, to pursue school-based or system-wide development priorities. Indeed, this variation, and its potential inequitable impact is often a cause for concern (Jensen et. al., 2014). In addition to this variation resulting from the local management of school resources, several school systems have developed central ‘packages’ of allocated time that teachers can apply for. For example, in New Zealand, teachers can apply for funded sabbaticals that allow them to pursue a wide variety of development objectives. In the Netherlands, government funded grants are available for further study (for example, to complete a PhD) and many of these have a time allocation built into them, whilst in Sweden, teachers can apply to attend full-time courses and retain 80% of their salary.

3.3.3 SummaryThe countries/ regions surveyed use the following strategies to allocate time for professional learning in a variety of combinations:

Specified days across the school year for teachers to engage in professional learning, generally with pupils absent;

Specified number of hours which the teacher is expected to fulfil, beyond their regular workload allocation;

Specified number of hours which the teacher is expected to fulfil, demarcated within their workload allocation;

10

Notional weekly allocation of hours, within a broader range of non-contact duties;

Various grants, with allocation of time included, that teachers can bid/ apply for.

In addition, most of the systems listed above develop an expression of vision and values regarding professional learning that implies that teachers will continue to allocate time to professional learning themselves, within their professional duties, above and beyond any systemic, centralised specification. These references occur frequently within the full range of documentation (see, for example, Cosan: Framework for Teachers’ Learning (Ireland, 2016)).

3.4 Findings from the academic literature

The following sections (3.4.1 to 3.4.5) summarise the ways in which professional learning is conceptualised in the academic literature and summarise the implications for time allocation in each of these themes.

3.4.1 Professional learning as a disposition or professional behaviourThe survey of research into professional learning in different jurisdictions has indicated that it is frequently constructed and presented as a preferred mode of ongoing and internalised teacher behaviour, rather than as a set of discrete and separable experiences and interventions This way of conceptualising professional learning suggests that teachers should ‘model’ lifelong learning and that it should be a ‘constant’ feature of school life (Van Thiel, 2018). It is described as a professional responsibility (Dadds, 2014), that teachers develop through the conscious cultivation of a proactive disposition towards continuous engagement with the act of learning about the craft of teaching (Bangs and MacBeath, 2012). Teachers thus engage in a state of continuous and permanent improvement of ‘personal, social and professional competences’ as they seek to develop higher levels of professional expertise (Mukan and Kravets, 2015).

These formulations of professional learning are entirely consistent with the statements and descriptors expressed in the Professional Standards for Teaching and Leadership (Wales, 2017). They are also complemented by the frequent conceptualisations of the reflective practitioner that exist in extant studies. In some instances these studies suggest that powerful professional learning is secured chiefly through significant periods of reflection and subsequent revision of professional practice (Camburn and Won Han, 2017; Darling-Hammond et. al., 2018), whilst in others the emphasis is more on the individual nature of these points of reflection (Frankham and Hiett, 2011). Other studies develop this line further by suggesting that powerful professional learning is best achieved by codifying reflective practice into teacher based research, either pursued individually (Walter, 2012), or through communities of practice (Su et. al., 2018).

11

Implications for time allocationAlthough these two formulations of Professional Learning, as lifelong disposition or as reflective practice, appear to be conceptually linked, their respective implications for the allocation of time to professional learning differ. Where there is an emphasis on reflective practice, studies frequently call for the specific allocation of additional time, within the school cycle of days, weeks and terms, for this to occur (Mukan and Kravets, 2015), although the exact extent of this suggested time is not generally quantified. These suggestions, that time for reflection should be incorporated into official teacher workload schedules, mirror recommendations in other reports to government bodies (see, for example, The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report (Campbell et. al., 2017), and, Making time for great teaching (Jensen et. al., 2014)).

However, where the emphasis is placed on teachers adopting an approach to professional learning which has, as its ultimate aim, the internalisation of professional learning as a natural and constant element of professional behaviour, the attitude to allocated time changes. Here, there are barely any calls for specified, allocated time, precisely because there is an assumption that, once this disposition has become part of the cultural landscape, and has been internalised individually by teachers, there will be no need to set aside time for it. Indeed, for some, specifically allocating time for professional learning has the opposite effect, ostensibly serving to underline that it is a discrete and separable part of teachers’ professional practice, rather than something which is fundamental and ongoing (Frankham and Hiett, 2011).

3.4.2 Professional learning as bespoke individualised opportunityThe literature on professional learning contrasts opportunities that focus on centrally-determined priorities with those that address teachers’ own professional needs and interests. In some high performing education systems including Canada, Germany, Sweden. Singapore Taiwan and the Netherlands the professional learning culture prioritises bespoke individualised learning opportunities and the literature suggests that this approach improves social and decisional capital. The consensus in the literature is that bespoke individualised provision leads to higher quality professional learning.

This involves a permanent improvement of “personal, social and professional competences” (Mukan and Kravets, 2015). A central element of this model of professional learning sees teachers as agents of change; some approaches stress the value of professional learning as contributing to the co-construction of policy beyond the teacher’s own context and even to national level. Teacher voice and agency in selecting professional learning priorities is vital as it is claimed that agency cannot be developed in short courses with teachers as ‘knowledge receivers’. This approach both requires and results in a view of professional learning for teachers as agents in self-determined and individualised professional development. As such, effective professional learning develops informed personal theories of practice (Dadds, 2014). This prioritises a learning model where teachers draw on their own experience, practice and expertise as the expert within, proactively accessing their

12

own expertise as well as that of others with whom they collaborate, including those in their existing and developing professional networks

By implication, this approach critiques professional learning as a delivery model and some of the literature is highly critical of approaches which are ostensibly focused on personalised and higher-level teacher development, but which in reality ‘deliver’ centralised top-down priorities. (Frankham and Hiatt, 2011) A reductionist model which bases professional learning on prescribed indicators may not recognise the complexity of a teacher’s professional role, knowledge and behaviours. Failing to recognise this may result in superficial engagement and learning.

Some systems have attempted to blend the potential benefits of an individualised approach with the need to concentrate on centralised professional learning themes and priorities. For example, in Singapore, where the focus is on leadership development, one highly structured approach to the development of Master Teachers adopts a range of different pedagogical approaches, including study partnerships and collaborative strategies (with university tutors and peers) to foster intensive learning engagement through “generative conversations” (Lim, 2010).

Implications for time allocationA study from the Netherlands (Louws et. al., 2017), where teachers have considerable autonomy regarding professional learning suggests that even when time is made available for Professional Learning, other factors relating to the ethos of the school such as leadership and a collaborative culture are more influential in enabling or constraining professional learning. Some studies go as far as implying that allocating specific time to professional learning ensures that this remains focused on centralised, top-down priorities and constrains teacher agency.

Time allocation, as a structural factor, has a limited part to play in whether schools enable or constrain professional learning. Other factors such as school culture need to be in alignment.

However, it is still true that effective professional learning that changes thinking, knowledge and practice requires time. Schools need a lengthy period for planning and organisational change to release teachers and school leaders for in-depth professional learning opportunities. This is particularly true of opportunities that can provide up to four weeks’ full-time study with release from the teachers other professional responsibilities. The time allocation needs to be flexible and not detract from other professional responsibilities. If administrative support and time are available, the literature suggests that professional learning is effective. If teachers have to reorganise teaching to fit in with professional learning that is problematic.

3.4.3 Professional learning as collaborative endeavourThe argument that collaboration between teachers, school leaders and associated educational professionals is important for school improvement is well rehearsed (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012). In studies that focus specifically upon professional learning, its significance is often similarly emphasised. For example, collaborative professional learning is identified as being particularly effective where professional learning itself centres upon teachers planning for new curriculum or pedagogical

13

approaches (Van Thiel, 2018). In this sense, the learning of professional learning is secured fundamentally through activities where collaborative co-construction takes place (European Commission, 2018). Collaborative professional learning confers a degree of authentic ownership for participants, which, it is suggested, is motivational, and which also improves the likelihood of the learning leading to changes in professional practice in the participants’ own contexts (Bangs and Macbeath, 2012).

Other studies develop this point further, suggesting that, by foregrounding the role of collaboration within professional learning, systems can avoid an over-reliance on professional development that is characterised by a top-down delivery model (Campbell, 2017; Subitha, 2018). Collaboration here becomes the means through which teachers’ concerns and priorities become the drivers for professional learning (Su et. al., 2018), leading some to argue that school timetables should be re-designed to enhance collaboration (Dorling-Hammond et. al., 2018).

Having established convincing links between professional collaboration and effective professional learning, some studies have gone on to focus on the specific types of collaborative networking that might have most impact (for example, between teachers and HEIs (Lim, 2010)). Other studies have developed a slightly different argument, suggesting that it is not simply that collaborative professional learning is more powerful. Rather, the quality of the collaborative culture established in any school has a direct impact on the quality of the professional learning that subsequently takes place (Cheng, 2016). Collaboration here is less a preferred mode for professional learning, and more an enabling pre-condition.

Implications for time allocationThere are a number of implications for the allocation of time for professional learning arising from this emphasis on collaboration.

First, there is the potential to specify additional time for within school collaboration. Clearly schools already have their own systems for achieving this, and some will assign more time than others. Although many studies call for more time to be devoted to this type of professional practice (for example, see Akiba (2012)), it is difficult to find modelled suggestions for system-wide specifications in this respect.

Second, there is the suggestion that collaboration between teachers from different schools is particularly powerful (Campbell, 2017). Once again, schools and clusters of schools will already have their own different approaches to this, and calls for more time to be devoted to this kind of collaborative activity tend to ask for more time in a non-quantified manner. Nevertheless, it seems likely that authentic, collaborative professional learning experiences that bring teachers together from different schools will demand more time than collaborative ventures located entirely within schools, unless they were entirely virtual collaborations. There is limited research evidence on this form of collaborative professional learning.

Third, there is the persistent suggestion, noted above, that collaborative professional learning is at its best when teachers themselves are able to organise, prioritise and self-manage their work. Although, once again, there are limited studies into the ways in which this emphasis impacts upon the allocation of time, it seems likely that the

14

self-directed nature of this type of collaborative professional learning would need additional time for teachers to organise and manage, even in a virtual mode.

15

3.4.4 Professional learning as network of opportunitiesThere is an additional formulation of professional learning which is often emphasised. Here professional learning is constructed primarily as a menu or offer of opportunities from which the teacher selects according to need and interest as his/ her career develops. This way of viewing professional learning does not conflict with the emphases explored in the preceding sections, and can complement professional learning positioned as bespoke, individualised opportunity, as collaborative endeavour or as professional behaviour. The point of interest here is the way in which teachers become knowledgeable consumers of professional learning, and the implications this has for the allocation of time.

Engaging with this network of professional learning opportunities (European Commission, 2018) can be seen as an entitlement for teachers (Bangs and Macbeath, 2012), or viewed as an expectation (Su et. al., 2018). The network can be a blend of short-term and longer-term professional learning activities, although the emphasis increasingly is on professional learning that is of ‘sustained duration’ (Darling-Hammond, 2018), engaging the teacher over a period of months or even years (Wermke, 2011; European Commission, 2018). The implication here is that the longer the duration of the professional learning activity, the higher the level of meaningful engagement by practitioners (Wermke, 2011). For some, the network should also offer professional learning experiences that are ‘job-embedded’, but not necessarily ‘school-based’, allowing teachers to broaden professional horizons by developing their expertise in different contexts (Campbell, 2017; Frankham and Hiett, 2011).

The network also becomes the structure for a learning system, within which schools as learning organisations operate. This network for the system stresses the need for professional learning at all levels (Campbell, 2017). Some systems have formalised the way in which teachers record their engagement with the network of opportunities, through the completion of portfolios (for example, in Scotland). Where this has occurred elsewhere, studies have highlighted the danger that the completion of standardised portfolios can become a job in itself, detracting from the potential impact of professional learning (Su et. al; 2018).

Implications for time allocationAs the network of professional learning opportunities develops in different school systems, teachers need to research, investigate and select the activities that are relevant to them in their context. If teachers cannot devote time to this aspect, they are less likely to be able to act as knowledgeable consumers. Once again, although there are calls for teachers to be given time in this way (Campbell, 2017), these are generally not quantified and there is no easily identifiable evidence base evaluating the success of such approaches.

In terms of accessing opportunities provided by the network, teachers require resources, including time, especially if the opportunities are job-embedded, but in different institutions (see above). Similarly, as teachers become positioned more as consumers, actively selecting their professional learning experiences from the range on offer, they will need time to assimilate and synthesize their understanding of what these varied activities and inputs mean for them in their context. Suggestions for this

16

type of time allocation tend, once again, to be broad and aspirational. For example, the European Commission calls simply for ‘frequent and dedicated time slots’ for this kind of activity (European Commission, 2018).

The extent to which some educational professionals, whose work is less closely structured around a full teaching timetable, are able to self-allocate time to these kind of activities more easily than classroom teachers has been noted (Campbell, 2017; Bangs and Macbeath, 2012). Without a systematic, universal allocation of time, it may be that, in the future, opportunities for taking advantage of the professional learning network are unevenly distributed. The research evidence base is not extensive enough, however, to substantiate this possibility.

3.4.5 Professional learning as high status opportunity (but as limited resource)There is some tension between the notion of professional learning as a limited resource and professional learning as a general professional responsibility, an expectation or requirement of all teachers. Although this general expectation is one aspect of professional learning, as addressed in other conceptualisations of professional learning in this review, the literature also includes discussion of professional learning opportunities which are limited in terms of availability. In some systems, teachers are required to apply or bid for available opportunities and the ways in which opportunities are distributed have implications for resource allocation including time. A number of further approaches or issues, each of which has different implications, are referred to in the literature. These are:

Inequitable allocationA number of studies make explicit reference to the fact that there is inequitable allocation of the opportunities available, even in countries where professional learning opportunities are considered to be of high quality (Campbell 2017). Differential uptake of opportunities are also linked to type of school (private/state schools), teachers' age, gender or location.

Organisational difficultiesIn some circumstances, even where there is an entitlement to professional learning opportunities, there are barriers to teachers’ participation due to timetable restrictions or the difficulty of finding cover for specialists (Andersson and Kopsen, 2015).

Opportunities provided at the discretion of the local school authorities or the headteacherWhere resources are devolved to the district level or the individual school, decisions on opportunities for teachers are made by local administrators or headteachers. There is some suggestion in the literature that this reduces teachers’ agency or ownership of their learning. (Bangs and MacBeath, 2012). Even in a system where teachers have an agreed substantial entitlement for professional learning (Sweden) the literature claims that "Principals control their teachers by allocating resources" (Wermke, 2011).

Resources ring-fenced for specific prioritiesSometimes, even when resources are available for teachers’ professional learning, the funding may be restricted to centrally determined priorities with only a very small element available for priorities identified by individuals. In addition, there may be

17

limits on the proportion of the funding that can be spent on particular element of the provision, such as teacher cover (Akiba, 2012; Mockler, 2015).

Implications for time allocationIf professional learning is a limited resource, the most obvious implication for time allocation links to decision-making regarding priorities: what priorities are identified, how these are identified and where the authority to identify priorities rests. In addition, it involves the extent to which resources are available to release teachers from their other professional responsibilities in order to engage in professional learning.

Where resources are limited, authorities must decide whether the system should provide a small number of extensive opportunities for professional learning or allocate relatively short periods of time more widely, across a relatively large number of teachers or even across all. This then potentially becomes an issue of equity as well as philosophical or political choice. Should professional learning opportunities be focused on maximising the potential of relatively few in the profession through the provision of resource–rich provision, which requires substantial involvement of time, as is the case in a programme such as the Master Teacher scheme in Singapore (Lim, 2010)? Alternatively, should the resources be focused on teacher quality in general, with small allocations of time, which run the risk of producing relatively little real professional development?

3.5 ConclusionsAs described in 3.1, the following questions provided the focus for this study:

1) How is time allocated to professional learning in comparable, high-performing systems?

2) How is successful professional learning for teachers currently being conceptualised and modelled? What do these models imply for the allocation of time?

The summary of evidence responding to (1), above, can be found in 3.3, and the response to (2) is explored in 3.4.

The implications for the allocation of time for professional learning, discussed in the preceding sections can be summarised in the following table (see overleaf):

18

Emphasised aspect of professional learning

Key implication for the allocation of time

3.4.1 Professional learning as a disposition or professional behaviour (A)

Allocating time away from existing professional duties may give teachers more opportunities to engage continuously in professional learning. However, demarcating non-contact time as ‘professional learning time’ may undermine the notion that teachers should always be learning and developing their practice.

3.4.2 Professional learning as bespoke individualised opportunity (B)

Allocating time for professional learning should allow teachers the space to take ownership of the shape and scope of their professional learning.

3.4.3 Professional learning as collaborative endeavour (C)

Allocating time for professional learning should enhance the possibilities for collaborative learning to take place within and between schools.

3.4.4 Professional learning as network of opportunities (D)

Allocating time for professional learning would give teachers more space to reflect upon the learning options that are available to them, to research possibilities that suit their particular needs and to share their experiences with others.

3.4.5 Professional learning as high status opportunity (but as limited resource) (E)

Time allocations are already a feature of this model of professional learning, but they would only be available to a proportion/ selection of teachers.

As indicated above, there is a generalised suggestion that the allocation of time does have a positive effect on the most beneficial types of professional learning, and thus could become a key tool in the drive to connect teachers more effectively to their learning. However, in reference to (A), it would seem sensible that any future model wishing to allocate time should emphasise that this time is intended to support a culture in which teachers incorporate learning into all areas of their professional practice. The demarcated time should not be presented as the only time for professional learning.

Any future model may wish to go further. As previously discussed, there are studies which suggest that the culture of an organisation has a greater role to play in supporting professional learning, than do structural factors, such as time (Louws et. al., 2017). An approach which emphasised establishing a cultural shift, instead of allocations of time, could thus be supported.

If time is to be provided to support professional learning for teachers, the point of focus moves to whether a smaller amount of time should be allocated to all teachers, or whether more substantial allocations of time should be awarded to some teachers through an open applications process. Both of these options are used in high-performing systems (see 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, above), and both have further implications, in terms of equity, and quality and depth of experience. These different possible future pathways, and their implications, are summarised in the diagram below:

19

To conclude, these different future pathways do not present simple choices, but may help to clarify the complexities faced by school systems in seeking to improve professional learning for teachers.

20

3.6 Bibliography

Akiba, M. (2012), ‘Professional Learning Activities in Context: A Statewide Survey of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(14).

An Chomhairle Mhuinteoireachta/ The Teaching Council, (2016), Cosan: Framework for Teachers’ Learning, Maynooth, Ireland: An Chomhairle Mhuinteoireachta.

Andersson, P. and Kopsen, S. (2015), ‘Continuing professional development of vocational teachers: participation in a Swedish national initiative’, Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(1), pp.1 – 20.

Bangs, J. and Macbeath, J. (2012), ‘Collective leadership: the role of teacher unions in encouraging teachers to take the lead in their own learning and in teacher policy’, Professional Development in Education, 38(2), pp.331 – 343.

Camburn, E. and Han, S. (2017), ‘Teachers’ Professional Learning Experiences and Their Engagement in Reflective Practice: A Replication Study’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), p.527-554.

Campbell, C. (2017), ‘Developing Teachers’ Professional Learning: Canadian Evidence and Experiences in a World of Educational Improvement’, Canadian Journal of Education, 2017, Vol.40(2).

Campbell, C., Osmond-Johnson, P., Faubert, B., Zeichner, K., & Hobbs-Johnson, A. (with Brown, S., DaCosta, P., Hales, A., Kuehn, L., Sohn, J., & Steffensen, K.). (2017). The state of educators’ professional learning in Canada: Final research report. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.

Cheng, E. (2017), ‘Managing School-Based Professional Development Activities’, International Journal of Educational Management, 31(4), pp.445 - 454.

Dadds, M. (2014), ‘Continuing Professional Development: nurturing the expert within’, Professional Development in Education, 40(1), pp.9 – 16.

Darling-Hammond et. al., (2018), How California School Districts Can Support Best Practices in Effective Teacher Professional Development, CalSTAN/ Learning Policy Institute.

European Commission, (2018), Boosting teacher quality: pathways to effective policies, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.

Frankham, J. and Hiett, S. (2011), ‘The Master’s in Teaching and Learning: expanding utilitarianism in the continuing professional development of teachers in England’, Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), pp.803 – 818.

Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (2012), Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school, London: Routledge.

21

Jensen, B. (2014), Making time for great teaching, Grattan Institute.

Lim, L. (2010), ‘Developing teachers at the pinnacle of profession: The Singapore Practice’, New Horizons in Education, 58(2), pp.121 – 127.

Louws, et. al.(2017), ‘Exploring the Relation between Teachers’ Perceptions of Workplace Conditions and Their Professional Learning Goals’, Professional Development in Education, 43(5), pp.770 – 788.

Mockler, N., (2013), ‘The slippery slope to efficiency? An Australian perspective on school/ university partnerships for teacher professional learning’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), pp.273 - 289

Mukan, N. and Kravets, S. (2015), ‘Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Public School Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development in Great Britain, Canada and the USA’, Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 5(4), pp.39 – 45.

Su et. al., (2018), ‘What influences teachers’ commitment to a lifelong professional development programme? Reflections on teachers’ perceptions’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(2), pp. 184 – 198.

Subitha, G. (2018), ‘Re-conceptualising teachers’ continuous professional development within a new paradigm of change in the Indian context: an analysis of literature and policy documents’, Professional Development in Education, 44(1), pp.76 – 91.

Van Thiel, L. (2018), ‘Professional learning design framework: supporting technology integration in Alberta’, Research in Learning Technology, 26, pp.1 – 24.

Wales, (2017), Professional standards for teaching and leadership, Cardiff: Welsh Government.

Walter, C. and Briggs, J., (2012), What professional development makes the most difference to teachers?, Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Education.

Wermke, W. (2011), ‘Continuing Professional Development in Context: Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development Culture in Germany and Sweden’, Professional Development in Education, 37(5), pp.665 – 683.

.

22

4. Appendix

Journal article Country Reason for inclusionAkiba, M. (2012), ‘Professional Learning Activities in Context: A Statewide Survey of Middle School Mathematics Teachers’, Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(14).

USA Large scale survey of teachers which includes reference to the time spent on different types of professional learning.

Andersson, P. and Kopsen, S. (2015), ‘Continuing professional development of vocational teachers: participation in a Swedish national initiative’, Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training, 7(1), pp.1-20.

Sweden Focus on vocational teachers with reference to time and opportunities.

Bangs, J. and Macbeath, J. (2012), ‘Collective leadership: the role of teacher unions in encouraging teachers to take the lead in their own learning and in teacher policy’, Professional Development in Education, 38(2), pp.331 – 343.

Not specified

Focus on sustaining CPD over time to allow for embedding into practice

Camburn, E. and Han, S. (2017), ‘Teachers’ Professional Learning Experiences and Their Engagement in Reflective Practice: A Replication Study’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), pp.527-554.

USA Focuses on how professional learning links to reflective practice. Some references to number of different types and duration of professional learning.

Campbell, C. (2017), ‘Developing Teachers’ Professional Learning: Canadian Evidence and Experiences in a World of Educational Improvement’, Canadian Journal of Education, 2017, 40(2).

Canada Summarises priorities and context of professional learning. Key references to time needed for professional learning that changes thinking, knowledge and practices.

Campbell, C. Liebermann, A. and Yashkina, A. (2016) Developing professional capital in policy and practice: Ontario’s Teacher Learning and Leadership Program, Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(3) pp 219-236

Canada Overview of the Teacher Learning and Leadership Program with reference to the cost and duration of professional learning projects

Cheng, E. (2017), ‘Managing School-Based Professional Development Activities’, International Journal of Educational Management, 31(4), pp.445-454.

Hong Kong Focuses on the role of school leaders and the importance of collaborative culture

Dadds, M. (2014), ‘Continuing Professional Development: nurturing the expert within’, Professional Development in Education, 40(1), pp.9-16.

England Focuses on the time implications of ‘teacher as technician’ approach to professional learning

Darling-Hammond et. al., (2018), How California School Districts Can Support Best Practices in Effective Teacher

California Guidance on effective professional development and reference to ‘sustained

23

Professional Development, CalSTAN/ Learning Policy Institute.

duration’ and adequate time to learn.

Frankham, J. and Hiett, S. (2011), ‘The Master’s in Teaching and Learning: expanding utilitarianism in the continuing professional development of teachers in England’, Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), pp.803 – 818.

England Critiques the elements and philosophy of the MTL and the role of the teacher and HEIs in professional learning.

Lim, L. (2010), ‘Developing teachers at the pinnacle of profession: The Singapore Practice’, New Horizons in Education, 58(2), pp.121 – 127.

Singapore Focuses on Professional Development Programme for Master teachers with references to time allocation.

Louws, et. al.(2017), ‘Exploring the Relation between Teachers’ Perceptions of Workplace Conditions and Their Professional Learning Goals’, Professional Development in Education, 43(5), pp.770 – 788.

Netherlands Study of the impact of schools' structural and cultural workplace conditions on teachers’ perceptions of professional learning

Mockler, N., (2013), ‘The slippery slope to efficiency? An Australian perspective on school/ university partnerships for teacher professional learning’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(3), pp.273 - 289

Australia Analysis of three national professional learning projects over a 15-year period,

Mukan, N. and Kravets, S. (2015), ‘Methodology of Comparative Analysis of Public School Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development in Great Britain, Canada and the USA’, Comparative Professional Pedagogy, 5(4), pp.39 – 45.

Various Overview of the methodologies adopted for comparative studies of professional learning.

Su et. al., (2018), ‘What influences teachers’ commitment to a lifelong professional development programme? Reflections on teachers’ perceptions’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 37(2), pp. 184 – 198.

Taiwan Draws on teachers’ reports on Teacher Professional Development and Evaluation (TPDE) programme. Resource supportability as a factor influencing commitment to the programme.

Subitha, G. (2018), ‘Re-conceptualising teachers’ continuous professional development within a new paradigm of change in the Indian context: an analysis of literature and policy documents’, Professional Development in Education, 44(1), pp.76 – 91.

India Argues for the need to re-conceptualize the current model of professional development of teachers.

Van Thiel, L. (2018), ‘Professional learning design framework: supporting technology integration in Alberta’, Research in Learning Technology, 26, pp.1 – 24.

Canada (Alberta)

Study of the design and development of teacher professional. Reference to professional learning supported by time and a collaborative vision.

24

Walter, C. and Briggs, J., (2012), What professional development makes the most difference to teachers?, Oxford: University of Oxford Department of Education.

Range of countries

Meta level systematic review of other studies which makes reference to professional learning being sustained over time if it is to be embedded

Wermke, W. (2011), ‘Continuing Professional Development in Context: Teachers’ Continuing Professional Development Culture in Germany and Sweden’, Professional Development in Education, 37(5), pp.665 – 683.

GermanySweden

Questionnaire survey of 418 Secondary teachers with some reference to time allocation

25