1

The Masters Level Teaching Profession: Enhancing or Managing

Professionalism? Dr Chris Wilkins, University of Leicester European Conference on Educational Research, Vienna, Austria 28-30 September 2009

Introduction

This study is set against the backdrop of the fundamental reforms in the regulation

and enforcement of professional standards for teachers in England over the past

decade. Following the introduction of national standards for the award of qualified

teacher status (QTS) in England in 1998 (DfEE 1998), these were extended

assessment beyond the assessment of subject knowledge and teaching competence to

encompass broader ‘professional values and practice’ in 2002 (TDA 2002),

culminating in 2007 with Professional Standards for Teachers(TDA 2007), which

extend the assessment framework beyond entry to the profession by requiring teachers

at key career thresholds to demonstrate their continued development of professional

skills, knowledge and understanding and to “broaden and deepen their professional

attributes” (TDA 2007, 2). At the same time, the government’s Children’s Plan

announced its intention to introduce a requirement that all teachers gain a Masters

level qualification (MTL1). This paper reports on a small-scale study of newly-

qualified primary school teachers and primary headteachers, exploring their responses

to the potential impact of this proposal on teacher identity and professional practice.

These perceptions are examined in the context of increasingly rigorous regulatory

framework of teacher’s work over the past two decades, particularly the growth of a

‘performance management’ culture. Previous studies (Sachs 2003, Day et al 2006,

Troman et al 2007) reveal the impact of the intensification of external regulation of

teachers’ performance on their professional identity, and since the MTL is expressly

justified as being an effective means of raising teacher quality (DCFS 2007), it is

possible to argue that it will also act as an addition to the performative management

apparatus.

1 This has subsequently become designated by the government as a Masters in Teaching and Learning

(MTL), and so ‘MTL’ has been adopted as a short-hand both for the government initiative and any

actual programmes in development.

2

Whilst this is an extremely small-scale study, it does come at a timely point,

particularly because it focuses on the particular impact on developing professional

identity of a new generation of teachers, whose primary educational experience has

been in the ‘performative schools’ of the 1990s, and provides some tentative evidence

of an emerging ‘generational divide’ in teacher professional identity.

Teacher professionalism

The ‘classical’ model of professionalism, as described by Goodson & Hargreaves

(1996), focuses on such characteristics as self-regulation, autonomy in practice and an

ethos of a shared commitment to continually developing knowledge and practice;

given the ambivalent position of teaching it has frequently been viewed as a ‘quasi-

profession’ (Etzioni 1969). Beck argues that teaching has long been a ‘fragmented’

profession, weakened by historical factors such as its leadership model inherited from

the fee-paying school sector and teachers’ allegiance to competing pedagogic

ideologies (2008: 120). In fact, in public and political discourse in England teaching

has long been treated as a profession (Whitty 2002), whilst for scholars the issue has

increasingly become not to define teacher professionalism, rather to position it as a

socially constructed and contested concept (Ozga & Lawn 1981; Helsby 1995).

A frequently cited characteristic of teaching is that of a commitment to ‘the public

good’, echoing Talcott Parsons’ view of a profession as a blend of altruism and

intellectual engagement (1937, 366). This notion of teaching as a vocation still

resonates strongly in studies of teacher motivation/identity (e.g. Scott et al 1999;

Carrington et al 2000; Leaton Gray 2006). Troman et al (2007) and Galton &

MacBeath (2008) have found that the satisfaction teachers gained from their

interactions with pupils remains central to their ongoing professional commitment.

These findings suggest that Lortie’s seminal conceptualisation of ‘psychic rewards’

(1975) is still pertinent, despite the increasing growth of performative policies and

practices, through the more overt intervention of state agencies in the regulation of

teachers’ work (and through the advance of ‘marketisation’ in schooling).

3

The emergence of the performative agenda in schooling in England and Wales

Prime Minister James Callaghan’s speech at Ruskin College in 1976 marked a turning

point in UK schooling, opening up ‘the secret garden’ of the profession to public

debate, and governmental scrutiny and regulation. The next two decades saw the

election of a neo-liberal Conservative government that sought to wrest control of

schooling from what it saw as a complacent, elitist profession favouring doctrinaire

egalitarianism over pupil attainment (aided by a vociferous ideological campaign by

radical right-wing academics and lobbyists (Hillgate Group 1986; O’Keefe 1986)). A

National Curriculum as established in 1998, together with a plethora of initiatives

revolutionising the work of teachers and the ways in which their work is managed and

regulated. This ‘techno-bureaucratic managerialism’ (Apple 2000) has been

increasingly reinforced by a parallel strand of ‘marketisation’, bringing to bear the

‘rewards and sanctions’ features of the competitive market to schools admissions and

funding.

The phenomenon of performativity in schooling has been extensively discussed

elsewhere (Ball 2000; Gerwitz & Ball 2000; Mahony & Hextall 2000; Brehony 2005;

Webb & Vuillamy 2006), with three strands of policy and practice particularly

relevant. Firstly, performative systems are characterised by an ‘audit culture’ in

which a multiplicity of targets are set by which teachers’ and schools’ work is

measured (primarily by quantitative data). Whilst advocates for educational

accountability argue for its effectiveness (Tooley 1993), critics argue that the audit

culture, in which externally imposed, quantitatively determined targets led to an

ultimately damaging risk-averse, target-chasing culture where traditional notions of

context-specific practice emerging through professional dialogue are suppressed

(Seddon 1997). As Ball (2003) notes, the requirements of performativity result in

“inauthentic practice and relationships…[where]…Teachers are no longer encouraged

to have a rationale for practice…what is important is what works” (87).

Secondly, an inspection model is deployed with far-reaching powers to discipline

‘underperforming’ professionals. The Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted),

4

established in 1992 to replace the relatively benign and collegial monitoring regime of

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (HMI), was seen by many in its early years to go beyond

its brief to be a conscious ‘policy driver’ (Lee & Fitz 1997) with a clear political

agenda (Webb et al 1998). Others portrayed it as a deliberately antagonistic assault

on the notion of the autonomous profession (Maw 1998), which, by presuming that

the National Curriculum provides a ‘complete canon of knowledge’ (Leaton Gray

2006, 32), undermines a core characteristic of ‘classical professionalism’, the control

of the body of knowledge.

More recent developments in the inspection methodology, focusing on schools’ self-

evaluation rather than direct inspection of schools and teachers, whilst being

portrayed as enhancing professional judgement/autonomy, actually reinforce the

external control by overlaying the external regulatory system with a self-surveillance

regime, where instead of schools demonstrating the quality of their work in a triennial

inspection visit, they now are under the constant gaze of the inspectorate, as school

managers act as ‘the ever-present inspector within’ (Troman 1997). Where schools’

financial security and teachers’ professional reputations are dependent on their

popularity with prospective parents relative to nearby schools, a less than enthusiastic

Ofsted report and/or a poor showing in league tables of examination

results/attainment data can have devastating results. This virtually guarantees

compliance with governmental agenda, with professional judgement undermined by a

culture of ‘coercive compliance’ (Graham 1999).

Thirdly, performative systems use market levers in parallel with the outcomes of

auditing and inspection to increase the impact of disciplinary sanctions. Market

levers are crucial to the neo-liberal model of governance, and these have been

introduced into schools in England and Wales through a series of measures

introducing ‘parental choice’ into school admission processes (Ball et al. 1994;

Gewitz et al. 1995). In effect, parents have became ‘consumers’, encouraged by

government to use the outward manifestations of performativity (schools’ Ofsted

reports and ‘attainment league tables’) to inform their choice. By making the funding

regime much more responsive to admissions at individual school level, whilst

simultaneously turning parents/carers into consumers free to shop around for a

5

preferred ‘service provider’, schools have been forced into a high stakes marketised

environment in which increasing ‘market share’ has become ever more important.

The performative teacher?

There has been a wealth of ethnographic/interpretive studies of school cultures and

teacher work/identities, seeking empirical evidence of how teachers see themselves as

professionals during this period of revolutionary regulatory and management changes

(Pollard 1985; Goodson & Hargreaves 1996; Bottery & Wright 2000; Furlong et al

2000; Woods & Jeffrey 2002; Goodson 2003; Day et al 2006). Many view identity

through the lens of modernity (Giddens 1991; Beck 1992), exploring Bauman’s

notion of ‘fractured/contested identity’, arguing that social identities are complex and

fluid, with individuals adopting multiple identities in different aspects of their lives

(Bauman 2004).

Studies of teachers’ professional identity have produced widely differing

interpretations. For some, the changes in managerial culture (from ‘hierarchical’ to

‘distributive’) have revealed the potential for ‘professional empowerment’ through

school improvement led not by top-down initiatives but by collegial professionalism

(Gronn 2000; Hargreaves 2002, Coles & Southworth 2005). However, this view of

teacher professionalism in the performative era is outweighed by the significant body

of literature taking a less optimistic view, focusing on the erosion of autonomy and

exploring the notion of a technicist model of ‘incorporated professionalism’ (Barton

et al. 1994; Goodson & Hargreaves 1996; Troman 1996; Day et al 2006). From this

perspective, the justifiable political and public pressure for accountability has led to

concern that teachers have become increasingly de-professionalized and compliant in

their delivery of state-imposed initiatives, be they curriculum ‘innovations’, new

forms of school management or standardised testing programmes.

A third strand of literature has emerged in the last decade looking beyond this

dichotomous interpretation of the rise of performativity, arguing that the managerial

discourse of incorporated professionalism can be effectively challenged by a

6

professional ‘democratic discourse’ (Sachs 2003, 134-135) Sachs and others (Furlong

2000; Whitty 2002; Avis 2005) explore the potential for a resistant or ‘transformative'

profession able to balance the needs of public accountability with professional

autonomy. Sachs' aspirational model of the ‘activist identity’, countering/subverting

the forces of managerialism through collegialism and collectivism has been

particularly influential in this third way; she sets out what is effectively a manifesto

for transformative professionalism, a ‘call to action’ to “…harness the various

intellectual, social and political resources” of teachers to “frame future agendas for

schooling and education” (154).

Whilst the professional identity of teachers has been relatively widely studied, studies

of the process by which teacher identities develop, of the transition from student

teacher to a fully-fledged professional, are less common. Whilst this paper focuses

on data relating specifically to the MTL proposal, it draws upon a wider study

reporting on the views of a small sample of teachers in their first year of teaching on

their developing sense of professional identity in the context of the changing

regulatory framework, with the wider findings reported elsewhere (Wilkins 2008).

The findings are explored with reference to the literature relating to teacher identity,

with a particular apposite time to look at this process, not only because of the

performative agenda outlined above, but because we are now seeing a generation of

newcomers to the profession who (given that most people enter the profession in their

early to mid-twenties), are increasingly likely to be themselves the product of the

performative school era.

A 24 year-old at the time of this study would probably have started school as a five

year-old at the time of the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1989. They

may well have experienced their first Ofsted inspection at the age of 8 or 9, and spent

12 years at the heart of a school system undergoing profound and ongoing reform.

Some teachers, of course, enter the profession later in life, and so for some time there

will be a flow of entrants with experience of ‘pre-performative’ schooling, but these

will become an increasingly rare sight. The response of these new teachers to the

7

2007 reforms of the assessment of teachers’ professionalism is therefore worthy of

study, and although no cohort effect can be judged without a much larger scale study,

including experienced teachers, provide some indication of possible trends

developing.

The assessment of teachers: Professional Standards for Teachers

The Professional Standards for Teachers (TDA 2007), replacing and extending the

Standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), set out expectations in relation to

professional attributes, knowledge/understanding and skills at each of the following

five career stages:

QTS (entry to the profession);

Core (the first year of teaching;

Post-threshold (transfer to an upper pay scale, normally after five years

teaching);

Excellent teacher (defined by ability to improve school effectiveness);

Advanced skills teacher (required to contribute to school improvement in

schools additional to their own).

Of these, QTS and Core are minimum requirements, Post-threshold a ‘normal

progression’ for most, whilst the final two stages are advancement only for

particularly skilled teachers.

Whilst the Professional Standards for Teachers content raises a number of interesting

issues, of most significance is its establishment of a career-long process of assessing

professionalism. Previous frameworks assessed professional competence at the point

of entry with a complementary set of Induction Standards to determine whether they

had successfully negotiated the ‘rite of passage’, their first year of teaching. Beyond

this, assessment of competence was restricted to performance management

determining either promotion or to rectify unsatisfactory/incompetent teaching.

Professional Standards for Teachers not only sets regular career ‘assessment points’

at which teachers are expected to have ‘gone beyond’ the level achieved at entry, but

encroach into more complex aspects of professionalism. It is the attempt to quantify

(and assess against) indicators of ‘professional attributes’ that appears likely to impact

most directly on notions of professional identity; it attempts to define not simply what

a teacher does, but what/who a teacher is, to provide a framework for assessing not

8

just their skills, competency, knowledge, but their values and attitudes. This echoes

Helsby’s (1995) distinction between ‘being professional’ and ‘being a professional’ (a

distinction that emerged as significant during this study).

The performative agenda is apparent in Professional Standards for Teachers, with

teachers at every stage of their career now expected to demonstrate (and provide

evidence) that they “…have a creative and constructively critical approach towards

innovation” and are prepared to “…adapt their practice where benefits and

improvements are identified” (TDA 2007). Accompanying guidance refers to

“improving their effectiveness through critically evaluated ideas and approaches” and

to “sharing and adapting effective practice.” This begs some very obvious questions;

whose critical evaluation?; what is meant by ‘effective practice’? There is no

acknowledgement of the contested nature of evidence-based professional knowledge

and practice, leaving this susceptible to the well-documented normalizing impact of

performative policies on practice (Ball 1993; Ingersoll 2003). In the performative

management culture, such subjectivity provides the means for ensuring compliance,

where teacher competence is demonstrated by willingness to adopt the premise and

practice of government initiatives.

As such, the introduction of Professional Standards for Teachers marks a significant

extension of the performativity agenda, and so forms a crucial backdrop to this study,

which focuses on the perceptions of a new generation of teachers who, in most cases,

entered formal schooling during the late 1980s, the time of the introduction of a

National Curriculum in England. As graduates of not only of a highly performative

school system, but of higher education and initial teacher education systems

increasingly developing similar characteristics, they might be seen as amongst the

first generation of comprehensively performatized professionals with a

consequentially distinctive perspective on the management of teachers’ work and who

may be developing a distinctive new teacher identity.

The Masters Level Profession

The introduction of a requirement for all teachers to possess a Masters degree

qualification comes half a century after it become a graduate level profession, with

9

similar arguments presented about the effect of raising academic entry levels on

teacher quality. However, whilst the move to graduate-level entry came at a time of

relative teacher autonomy (Wilkins & Wood, 2009) the move to a postgraduate-entry

profession comes after two decades of intensification of the centralised regulation of

the teachers’ work.

This centralising trend is exemplified by the tightening control exerted by government

agencies in the development phase following the Children’s Plan. The Plan itself

simply proposed that new teachers would be given the opportunity to “study for a

Masters-level qualification through a focus on continued professional development”

(DCSF 2007); whilst this is an ambiguous proposal, early indications from

government suggested that that might involve a great deal of flexibility, including

teachers working towards existing Masters in Education qualifications, or in some

cases subject-based Masters. However, when in 2008 the Training and Development

Agency (TDA), the government body responsible for teacher training and

professional development, took control of the initiative, it became clear that a new

qualification, a “Masters in Teaching and Learning” (MTL), was envisaged. As the

development stage continues, it has become increasingly clear that central

government is intent on micro-management of this qualification; the National

Framework for MTL is highly prescriptive, setting out not just non-negotiable

principles (‘predominately school-based’, ‘‘practice-based’, ‘personalised’), but

detailed prescription at the level of module content. In its desire for ‘consistency’,

despite the fact that MTL will still need to be validated and awarded by universities,

the TDA has effectively created a government Masters-level qualification, intended to

deliver government objectives. Furthermore, whilst there is no direct evidence to

suggest that MTL will be directly used as a performance management indicator, the

timing of its introduction, so soon after the introduction of career-long Professional

Standards for Teachers, could be seen as significant. Furthermore, speculation about

how MTL will be linked to the assessment of teachers’ performance has been

increased by suggestions that the Professional Standards might be revised in future to

‘harmonise’ them with the national framework for postgraduate qualifications.

Together with the expressed intention for teachers to complete an MTL within the

first five years of teaching, a target date coinciding with assessment against ‘post-

10

threshold’ Professional Standards for Teachers, suspicion about the true intent behind

these initiatives is not confined to hardened conspiracy theorists.

The MTL development has therefore created a possible paradox in terms of the

implications for professional status of teachers. Whilst the raising of the academic

entry standard of the profession might be seen as enhancing status, the level of

prescription, together with the potential for its use as a career progression benchmark,

can be viewed as a constraint on teacher autonomy and locates it firmly in the

performative arena.

Whilst the raising of teachers’ status and increasing the academic quality of graduates

coming into the profession has cited by the government in support of the introduction

of MTL, but much more focus is placed upon research evidence purporting to show

that it will have a significant impact on the quality of teaching and therefore on pupil

attainment, stating unambiguously that “The single most important factor in

delivering our aspirations for children is a world class workforce “ (DCSF 2007). The

government’s own inspectorate had already produced evidence suggesting teachers

working towards Masters degrees impacted positively on quality (Ofsted 2004),

although this evidence appeared to remain ‘below the radar’ until the publication of

the McKinsey Report, an international survey comparing ‘top-performing school

systems’, as defined by the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment

(PISA) (McKinsey 2007), Interestingly, the assertion might be seen as a distortion of

the key findings of the Report, which, whilst highlighting the significance of teacher

quality and of the role of in-service training/education in increasing the effectiveness

of teachers, did not argue that higher level degree qualifications were significant in

increasing teacher quality in themselves. Government ministers have routinely

justified the MTL proposal by citing the McKinsey Report as claiming that Finland’s

high attainment levels were due to teachers all possessing a Masters degree. In fact, it

simply notes that this is an entry level requirement, before going on to discuss the

many more significant factors contributing to the success of Finnish schools. For that

matter, as the McKinsey Report acknowledges, the comparison with a country with a

population of approximately one-tenth of the UK and a dramatically different

demographic profile and history/culture of schooling is one that requires great

caution.

11

The timing of the Children’s Plan was in some ways fortuitous for this study, which

had been devised in order to explore the impact of introduction in September 2007 of

Professional Standards for Teachers. Although the proposal still had a relatively low

profile amongst teachers, the timing meant that it was added to the initial interview

schedule, and revealed some further insights into the teachers’ approach to

professional development, and into their perceptions of their own professional

identity.

Methodology

This study initially focused on graduates of a Primary PGCE (one year postgraduate

initial teacher education programme) based at an English university working in their

first teaching post. Of 74 graduating in July 2007 and known to be working in

teaching posts; 21 initially agreed to take part in the study (eventually reduced to 18).

The first interviews were carried out in May/June 2008, as subjects approached the

end of their first year of teaching, with some follow-up discussions to clarify issues

arising during analysis taking place in September/October 2008. 14 were interviewed

at their place of work and 4 by telephone. All those taking part were given a clear

statement of the scope and purposes of the study and an explicit assurance of

confidentiality. Subjects were also informed of their right to withdraw from the study

at any stage (including up to the point of publication of any outcomes).

The interviews followed a semi-structured format, with interview themes determined

partly by reference to key issues derived from reading of key literature relating to

professional identity and partly by ‘insider perceptions’ of working with student

teachers and newly-qualified teachers of the common preoccupations during

professional induction (see table 1); these were intended to draw out the teachers’

own perceptions of their growing professional identity, and the key incidents

impacting on these. These findings are reported elsewhere (Wilkins 2008), but this

paper concentrates on analysis of additional data gathered during these interviews in

the parts of the interview relating to the teachers’ perceptions of the possible impact

of the introduction of the requirement for a Masters level qualification for the

12

profession. A significant minority of teachers were not aware of this proposal in the

Children’s Plan, and so minimal details of the proposal were given by the interviewer

(along the lines of “the government is proposing that all teachers should be expected

to work towards a fully-funded Masters qualification, probably within their first 5

years in the profession”) to enable their initial perceptions to be explored.

Table 1. Initial schedule for semi-structured interviews

Perceptions of being a teacher (reflections on changes in

perspective since beginning training)

Transition from student to teacher (‘critical turning points’)

Job satisfaction – positive rewards of teaching

Constraints on job satisfaction/frustrations and least rewarding

aspects of teaching/anxieties

Control over working practises

(autonomy/freedom/accountability)

Managing the induction process/awareness of new Standards

Career planning (future aspirations)

New developments in teaching (CPD, Masters level

qualifications

The most common view about the MTL proposal was a strong feeling that their own

response to being offered a Masters level programme would be significantly affected

by the degree of enthusiasm from their head teachers. As a result of this, a number of

follow-up interviews were carried out with primary school head teachers to

supplement the data drawn from teachers.

The sampling of the head teachers was by necessity ‘opportunistic’; arising from

existing professional relationships between the participants and the researchers. Nine

were interviewed during June/July 2009; four of these being head teachers for

teachers participating in the initial phase of this study, with the others all currently

employing at least one teacher in their first two years of teaching.

Quite lengthy, discursive responses were encouraged to some questions, and in many

cases questions were restated in a number of different ways so as to elicit a more

detailed understanding of the interviewees’ thoughts; this also led to pursuing

particular questions in a dialogic way to deepen understanding. This flexible

approach (perhaps stretching the boundaries of ‘semi-structured’ to their limits) meant

13

that interviews varied significantly in length, with the shortest lasting around 45

minutes, the longest close to two hours.

Building robustness into both the collection and the analysis of interview data

presented a number of challenges. Firstly, the difficulty of researcher

voice/objectivity should be acknowledged; the researcher had taught on the PGCE

programme from which the teachers had graduated, and clearly the existence of

previous professional relationship (exacerbated by power/status differential), could

have had a significant impact. Despite the researcher’s best endeavours to reassure

interviewees, including providing background information about the purpose of the

study, it was clear from the early coding of data that some responses about the

experience of the PGCE were to an extent influenced by this relationship. This aspect

of the data, therefore, has not been largely discounted in any direct conclusions, and

primarily used to corroborate interpretations of data relating to experiences in the first

teaching post. Later interviews concentrated on post-qualification experiences, only

returning to discuss the PGCE experience when raised directly by the teachers.

The grounded theory approach meant that, as suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1998),

the process of coding data began as early as possible, and continued during the

interviews to enable codes to be revised where necessary, with a repeated return to

early interviews to test out emerging patterns. Once all interviews were completed

the coded data was then re-analysed to identify emerging themes.

In this methodological approach, data analysis is intertwined with data collection,

with the researcher constantly refining both the interpretations of the coding and the

direction of data collection, as emerging concepts are ‘tested’ by adapting the

approach taken in interviews. This iterative process not only allows, but directly

encourages, explicit ‘interventions’ in the data gathering process by the researcher, to

seek clarification of ambiguous emerging concepts and uncover new understandings.

In this case, as is particularly helpful in increasing the robustness of ‘single

researcher’ analysis, at several points during the data collection and analysis process,

a number of the teachers were contacted and asked to clarify particular points, and to

comment on interpretations of the original interviews.

14

Findings emerging from interviews

Job satisfaction: ‘psychic rewards’ v career development?

Without exception the teachers expressed a high level of satisfaction in their work,

primarily in the form of ‘psychic rewards’(Lortie 1975; Troman 2007), through their

relationships with pupils and the impact of their teaching on pupils’ intellectual and

emotional development. However, as the teachers approached the end of their first

year of teaching, personal career development goals began to take on more

significance; as they felt more confident about their teaching performance, and they

were close to successfully completing formal induction processes, they began to look

to the future.

It’s more about me now. I used to think teaching was what you can do for kids

but now I think about myself developing…where my career’s going. (TN)

I’ve definitely become more focused, looking forward more. I used to be really

idealistic about teaching, but…now I realise that actually I just have to think

about where I am going, career-wise, what I need to do to get on. (TG)

Some felt uncomfortable about expressing these longer-term goals, and all were very

clear that they did not want career progression at the expense of ‘losing touch with the

classroom’, articulating the potential conflict between the psychic rewards of teachers

and the more explicit rewards of career development in the performative profession.

This ambivalence suggests that despite being, as noted earlier, the ‘performative

generation’, vocational commitment is still strong and dissonance between motivation

and reality is still apparent.

As noted in the report of the wider findings, the notion of a distinction between ‘doing

teaching’ and ‘being a teacher’ recurred throughout the interviews, with a clear sense

of a separation between the ‘craft skills’ of the professional and the professional

persona;

15

A couple of times parents came in, they called me Mr…………, the first time it

felt strange, but after that, I started to feel that this label fits now. I feel

comfortable being a teacher…at first I was busy doing teaching, but that’s

different from being a teacher. (TJ)

This notion recalls the Helsby’s distinction between ‘being professional’ and ‘being a

professional’(1995). However, although Professional Standards for Teachers, by

explicitly separating out professional attributes as distinct from professional skills,

knowledge and understanding, would appear to acknowledge the importance of being

a teacher, these teachers tended to feel ambivalent:

I remember when we were doing the PGCE, and tutors kept saying how

important it was to get evidence for the Professional Values Standards...but

frankly it ever really felt like it was a priority for my mentors, or since, with

my Induction mentor. I tend to think if you are getting the basics right, getting

the outcomes from the kids, the rest sort of comes naturally (TA)

“t’s all pretty functional...nobody here cares about values. It just comes down

to results, results, results. I think we’re missing something important, but it’s

not a debate that gets much of an airing...not here anyway. (TD)

What MTL means for teachers

The initial teacher interviews were carried out in May/June 2008, some six months

after the Children’s Plan set out the ‘Masters for teachers’ proposal. However,

although the TDA was consulting with ‘stakeholders’ such as universities and schools

at this time, knowledge of the proposal was patchy in the sample (and the schools in

which they worked), mainly restricted to information gathered from media sources or

teacher union bulletins. 12 teachers recalled some discussion of the topic with

colleagues, but these were mostly through informal discussions in staffroom. Only

one of the teachers had discussed the proposal in a formal context (during a meeting

with their induction mentor in school); none recalled any mention by their head

teachers).

16

Despite the low profile, the teachers were broadly positive about the proposal, seeing

working towards a Masters degree as having a beneficial impact on their career

development. A number of different reasons were given; several commented that it

would have an positive effect on the status of teachers in wider society, and that this

would make their relationships with other professional easier (although several

suggested that unless salaries were significantly increased, this raised status was

unlikely to be noticeable.

When asked to explore their responses further, those initially positive about MTL

were revealed to have markedly different motivations. For some it was an

opportunity to obtain funding to take a qualification they had already considered

undertaking, but for others it appeared to be simply an acceptance that it would

probably be presented as a fait accompli’

XXX referred to the fact that many teacher education programmes in the UK now

carry Masters level credits (typically 60 credits, one-third of a Masters degree); it was

a sensitive issue for many of these teachers who had qualified in the year before the

programme they had completed had been revalidated to carry these credits:

I’d take it up like a shot…I’ve always intended to do a Masters at some point,

but, if I’m going to be funded I’d certainly do it now! (TJ)

Of course I’d do it, because we’ll have to…I’m not going to want to be left

behind. I already worry about these new PGCE students with their 60

credits…are they going to leapfrog me next year because they’ve already

started their Masters? (TA)

Despite the broadly positive views about working towards a Masters degree, once the

teachers were questioned about the impact MTL might have on their teaching, the

overwhelming response is more mixed, with a significant degree of scepticism

emerging. Where positive benefits were identified, these were predominantly in the

domain of personal professional development than in impact on practice (see table 2).

Whilst the issue of ‘reflective practice’ was offered by three of the teachers as a

positive aspect, this was expressed in very general terms.

17

A better teacher? I’m not sure it would. I’d like to think so, that it would make

me more critical in what I do. Depends on the course, I suppose. (TO)

One teacher actually commented that she felt it was “what she thought was

expected”; when asked to explain this, she suggested that ‘reflective practice’ was

…one of those buzz words we all talk about and are supposed to be doing...but

nobody actually ever says what it’s actually supposed to be. (TM)

As can be seen from table 2, which clusters the number of positive and negative

responses around four aspects of professionalism and practice, the most noticeable

patterns emerging appear to be a difference in the level of support in principle for the

notion that professional development, and concerns about the practicalities (most

commonly, a feeling that the first year of teaching was too early to begin studying for

a Masters degree). For some teachers there was a sense of exasperation that the MTL

proposal was just one more additional, and possibly unrealistic, demand at a time of

intense pressure;

I’m not unwilling...in fact, I’ve always thought that I’d like to get a Masters at

some point...but, not now. If you’d told me in September I’d got to start a

Masters right away, I’d have resigned on the spot. This year has been the

toughest year of my life...and this is a great school, the support has been fabulous,

but...it would have been impossible for me to cope with extra study on top of

everything else. (TG)

It feels like, ‘what next?’ I think I’ve worked incredibly hard to get here, and I’m

still progressing…but sometimes you just have to take stock and consolidate. The

government can’t seem to understand that. I’m a good teacher and getting better,

but even this doesn’t feel like it’s good enough. I’ve got to get better, faster, or I

get left behind (TD)

Table 2: Teacher responses to MTL

18

Positive Negative

Professional/personal

development

Improve reflective skills/qualities (3) Timing (1st year of teaching too early) (4)

Self-improvement important aspect of professionalism (2) Disconnection with practice (3)

Will take funding away from other CPD (1)

Career Advancement Improved promotion prospects/career stepping stone (3) Will not be seen by employers as being as important being

‘a good teacher’ (2)

May lead to higher salaries (2)

Professional

status/image

More respect from other professionals (3) Divided profession (3)

More respect from parents (2) May be seen as ‘lower quality’ Masters (2)

More respect from media (1) Teachers seen as ‘elitist’ by parents (1)

Improve quality of recruits to profession (1)

Impact on learning

and teaching

More reflection makes for better teaching (2) Loss of experienced ‘non-academic teachers (7)

Incorporating ‘best practice’ from current research (1) Additional workload (4)

Divert resources away from classroom (1)

There were other practical concerns for teachers, particularly about how the funding

would work, and an ambivalence about what it would do for teacher status in wider

society, but the most striking feature was the clear scepticism about the impact this

would have on teacher quality (and, by extension, pupil attainment); there were more

negative comments than positive, with the most common response being a worry that

many good (or excellent) teachers would be driven out of the profession if they were

required to study for a Masters. Interestingly, many of the teachers expressed this in a

similar way, by referring to a particular colleague (usually significantly older, more

experienced colleagues); typical was the response of C;

What happens to [colleague x]? Everyone here knows she’s the best teacher in

the school…tell her to do a Masters and she’d retire on the spot. It’s crazy. (TC)

This possible negative impact was also identified by a number of head teachers, who

also made reference to specific teachers to illustrate their concern. The concern did

not appear to be diminished even when being reminded that all the government’s

stated intention was for all teachers to possess a Masters, there were no plans for it to

be compulsory. As one head teacher put it

I’m afraid I’ve too much experience of being told what is optional and what is

not. In my experience when Ofsted or DCSF tell you something is ‘optional’,

what they mean is, you’d better do it...or else! (HB)

19

The head teacher views

When reporting the head teacher views, it is important to recall that these interviews

took place around a year after the teacher interviews. In the context of the

development timeline of MTL, this is a significant gap, since during this year more

detail had emerged about the funding of the proposal, and the visibility of the

proposal had been increased by coverage in various education media. However,

although the timescale for the introduction of MTL into primary schools was still

uncertain, it was known that this would not happen until September 2010 at the

earliest. So, although head teachers were more aware of the proposal, it was still a

relatively ‘abstract’ one.

Given this additional exposure to the MTL proposal, together with the greater

involvement/awareness of policy developments that would naturally be expected of

head teachers, it is not surprising that they were much more assertive in their

perceptions than the new teachers, with very few ‘neutral’ views expressed.

However, it is clear that broadly similar perceptions emerge from both groups (see

table 3). As with the new teachers, the head teachers were broadly positive in

principle, and when identifying particular positive impacts, were much more

forthcoming; 6 out of the 9 head teachers interviewed mentioned improved reflective

practice as a positive impact, with several giving specific examples of the

contributions this would make to their schools, such as making staff more responsive

to new ideas, and therefore making ‘change management’ an easier task.

Table 3: Head teacher responses to MTL

Positive Negative

Professional/personal

development

Improve reflective skills/qualities (6) Timing (1st year of teaching too early) (9)

Self-improvement important aspect of professionalism (4) Will take funding away from other CPD (3)

More experienced teachers may feel patronised (3)

Career Advancement Improved promotion prospects/career stepping stone (3) May lead to higher salaries – negative impact on overall

workforce (3)

Good way of motivating ambitious teachers (3)

Professional

status/image

More respect from other professionals (4) Divided profession (6)

More respect from parents (4)

Improve quality of recruits to profession (2)

20

Impact on learning

and teaching

More reflection makes for better teaching (6) Additional workload (8)

Incorporating ‘best practice’ from current research (3) Loss of experienced ‘non-academic’ teachers (4)

Easier to bring in new initiatives (2) Divert resources away from classroom (3)

As already noted above, head teachers expressed significant concern about the danger

of driving some highly skilled, experienced teachers away from the profession. More

seriously, they were extremely hostile when some of the practicalities of the proposal.

Every single head teacher interviewed felt that the first year of teaching was the

wrong time to introduce such a qualification; all that differed was the degree of

vehemence in expressing this.

Ludicrous! There’s absolutely no way I want my NQTs starting a Masters. I

know that next year NQTs will already have started their Masters, but they need

time to consolidate in the NQT year. It’s an incredible learning curve, and you

watch them grow so much. Putting this on them could be the tipping point that

finishes some off (HB)

I’ve had some really top quality NQTs in the last couple of years, from the

PGCE…they still need that year, though. It’s a big step up from being an

outstanding student to being, not even an outstanding teacher, just getting through

the year. I think it would broadly be good for the profession, but the timing is

completely off. Three, four years in, I can see would be right, but if they push it

too quickly it will backfire (HG)

The head teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the new generation of

teachers, typified by one who said “they just get better and better...every year”, and

they were also extremely protective of them. The willingness of newer teachers to

respond positively to change, to be personally and professionally ambitious, was

commented upon by almost all, and although references to any ‘generational divide’

were generally implicit rather than explicit, some observations suggested the heads

were aware of this.

I’ve got a good balance here now...we’ve had a big turnover in the last few years,

and I think probably half the staff have been in teaching less than five years. I

think this makes for a better team. I know that I can put an idea on the table, and

if I present it properly, explain why it’s there, they’ll go with it. I don’t always get

21

that, even from some of my senior management team. The younger teachers are,

well...they’re younger, fresher. They’ve still got that buzz about them. I think I

can see them all going for this Masters, and it will be good for the profession (HC)

I think...[MTL]...will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for some older

teachers. They’ve been through so much, I think they’ll take it as the time to go.

It would be a shame, but it’s inevitable” (HB)

Discussion

Whilst the performative culture continues to encroach into all aspects of the work of

teachers and the management of schools, debate regarding its impact on teachers’

professional identity will continue. This exploration of the developing

professionalism of a small group of new teachers, perhaps inevitably because of its

small scale and scope (and its timing, taking place at a point when the teachers were

mostly speculating on the possible impact of policy developments rather than

responding to direct impact), provides more questions than answers. However, some

interesting themes do emerge that are worthy of further study.

A recurring theme of government initiatives in teacher development has been a desire

to build a trajectory from initial teacher training that ensures teachers are continually

developing, with an increased emphasis on formally recognised qualifications as well

as more regular performance management benchmarks; no teacher must be left

‘standing still’ (Beck 2008). The introduction for performance related pay (e.g.

through the ‘threshold assessment’), the new career-long Professional Standards, and

the proposed requirement to complete a Masters degree within five years of entry to

the profession are explicitly intended to ensure that there are no ‘flat periods’, that

teachers are constantly striving to meet new benchmarks of professional competence

and attributes. However, whilst this might be portrayed as a significant shift in the

regulation of teachers’ work, for this new generation of teacher, entirely educated in

the intensively performative school culture initially established through the English

National Curriculum established it may be that this intensively performative culture

is the norm, and the intensive accountability demands of senior and middle managers

22

are generally viewed with equanimity (often seen as being key factor in improving

professional practice).

The separation between professional practice and professional values was evident for

these teachers. Training to teach was seen to be ineffective preparation for ‘being a

teacher’ as opposed to ‘doing teaching’, yet without exception the teachers (after less

than one year of teaching) were clear that they had established themselves and coming

to terms with being a professional. This was despite a tendency to draw out the

differences between their notions of professionalism and those of more experienced

colleagues. Whilst not overtly critical of these colleagues, there was evidence of an

emerging divide, particularly in response to the performative features of teachers’

work; the generally sanguine response of this cohort is in marked contrast to the views

reported elsewhere from the profession as a whole. What this study cannot do, of

course, it draw conclusions over whether this will be a long-lasting cohort effect. In

effect, the question to be posed next is whether these teachers will become the

‘techno-bureaucratic managers’ of the classroom suggested by Barton et al ( 1994)

and Ball (2000) or whether in time they will be drawn towards the established, more

resistant, professional culture, the ‘activist professional’ described by Sachs (2003)

and Avis (2005).

Another theme emerging from this study was an ambivalence regarding longer term

career aspirations. These teachers were almost all very aware of the emphasis on

continuing advancement, that ‘standing still’ in the profession was not an option, and

most were already thinking about the possible direction they would like to take (at

least in the medium term, for the next five years or so). However, despite their

generally positive approach to the managerial culture of teaching, they displayed

considerable uncertainty about entering into management themselves, even those who

described themselves as ‘conventionally ambitious’. They were extremely reluctant

to even consider the possibility of taking on jobs that would take them away from the

classroom, seeing this in some cases as a ‘betrayal’ of their motivation for teaching.

This study is clearly limited in scope and scale, and also, perhaps, in its timing, in that

the integration of Professional Standards into teachers’ performance management,

and the introduction of the new Masters level requirement for teachers, had not fully

23

penetrated the consciousness of the profession at the time of the interviews. It does,

however, provide some indications of the need for ongoing and wider-ranging

research into the further inroads of performativity into teachers’ work. In particular, it

highlights a need to investigate further the responses of established teachers in the

light of their increased exposure to career-long assessment against standardised

benchmarks, and in particular the responses of the profession as a whole to the

requirement for teachers to hold a Masters degree. This proposal, should it actually

translate into practice, could prove to have an even more significant impact on

professional culture than Professional Standards. The question of a possible

generational divide in the teaching profession will become even more pertinent at this

time, given that current indications are that the immense cost to the government of

funding Masters programmes for teachers will mean that firstly, this funding will be

directly primarily towards early career teachers, and secondly, that this will be made

possible by redirecting current funding away from professional development for all

teachers. The implications for this could be explosive if it creates a two-tier

profession in which accelerates the qualification status of a new generation of teachers

at the expense of their senior colleagues.

References

Apple, M. 2000. Can Critical Pedagogies Interrupt Rightist Policies? Educational

Theory, 50, no 2, 229-254

Avis, J. 2005. Beyond Performativity: Reflections on Activist Professionalism and the

Labour Process in Further Education. Journal of Education Policy, no 2, 209-222.

Ball, S.J. 1993. ‘Culture, Cost and Control: Self-Management and Entrepreneurial

schooling in England and Wales’ in Smyth, J. (Ed). A Socially Critical View of the

Self-Managing School. Falmer: The Falmer Press.

Ball, S., R, Bowe & S, Gewirtz. 1994. ‘Market forces and parental choice’ In S.

Tomlinson (Ed.), Educational reform and its consequences. London: IPPR/Rivers

Oram Press.

Ball, S. 2000. Performativities and Fabrications in the Education Economy: towards

the Performative Society. Australian Educational Researcher, 17 no 3, 1-24

Ball, S.J. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity Journal of

Education Policy, 18, no. 2, 215-228.

24

Barton, L., E. Barrett, G. Whitty, S. Miles, & J. Furlong. 1994. Teacher Education and

Teacher Professionalism in England: some emerging issues British Journal of

Sociology of Education, 15, no 4, 529-543

Bauman, Z. 2004. Identity. Cambridge: Polity.

Beck, J. 2008. Governmental professionalism: re-professionalising or de-

professionalising teachers in England? British Journal of Educational Studies, 56, no

2, 119-143

Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

Bottery, M. & N. Wright. 2000. The Life and Work of Teachers: international

perspectives in changing times. London: Falmer.

Brehony, K. 2005, Primary schooling under New Labour; the irresolvable

contradiction between excellence and enjoyment. Oxford Review of Education, 31, no

1, 29-46

Carrington, B., A. Bonnett, A. Nayak, A. Skelton, F. Smith, R. Tomlin, G. Short & J.

Demaine. 2000. The Recruitment of New Teachers from Minority Ethnic Groups.

International Studies in Sociology of Education 10, no 1, 3-22

Coles, MJ. & G, Southworth. 2005. Developing leadership: creating the schools of

tomorrow, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Day, C., A. Kington, G. Stobart & P. Sammons. 2006. The personal and professional

selves of teachers: stable and unstable identities. British Journal of Educational

Research, 32, no 4, 601-616

DfEE. 1998. Teaching: High Status, High Standards (Circular 4/98). London:

HMSO.

DCFS. 2007. The Children’s Plan: building brighter futures. London: TSO.

Etzioni, A. 1969. The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses,

Social Workers. Free Press: New York.

Furlong, J, L. Barton, S. Miles, C. Whiting & G. Whitty. 2000. Teacher Education in

Transition: Reforming Professionalism. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Galton, M. & J, MacBeath. 2008. Teachers under Pressure. London: NUT/Sage.

Gewitz, S., S.J, Ball & R, Bowe. 1995. Markets, Choice and Equity in Education.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gerwitz, S & S, Ball. 2000. From ‘welfarism’ to ‘new managerialism’: shifting

discourses of school leadership in the education market place Discourse 21 no 3: 253-

267

25

Giddens, A., 1991. Modernity and self-identity: self and society in the last modern

age. Cambridge: Polity.

Goodson, I. 2003. Professional Knowledge, Professional Lives: studies in education

and changes. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Goodson, I & A. Hargreaves., eds. 1996. Teachers' Professional Lives. London:

Falmer Press.

Graham, J. 1999. Improvement through Inspection? Quality Assessment and the Role

of Ofsted in the Regulation of Teacher Education in England. Asia-Pacific Journal of

Teacher Education and Development, 2, no 2, 29-42.

Gronn, P. 2000. Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership.

Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 28, no 3, 317-338.

Hargreaves, A. 2000. Four ages of professionalism and professional learning.

Teachers and Teaching: history and practice, 6, no 2, 151-182

Hargreaves, A. (2002) ‘Professional Learning Communities and Performance

Training Cults: The Emerging Apartheid of School Improvement’, in A. Harris, C.

Day, M. Hadfield, D. Hopkins, A. Hargreaves and Chapman, C. (eds) Effective

Leadership for School Improvement. London: Routledge.

Harrison, J. 2007. The Assessment of ITT Standard One, "Professional Values and

Practice": Measuring Performance, or What? Journal of Education for Teaching:

International Research and Pedagogy, 3, 323-340.

Helsby, G. 1995. Teachers’ Construction of Professionalism in England in the 1990s.

Journal of Education for Teaching: International research and Pedagogy, 21, no 3,

317-332.

Hill, D. 2001. State Theory and the Neo-Liberal Reconstruction of Schooling and

Teacher Education: a structuralist neo-Marxist critique of postmodernist, quasi-

postmodernist, and culturalist neo-Marxist theory. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 2, no 1, 135-155.

Hillgate Group (1986) Whose Schools?- A Radical Manifesto. London: The Hillgate

Group.

Ingersoll, R. 2003. Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in

America’s schools, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Leaton Gray, S. 2006. Teachers under Siege. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Lee, J. & J. Fitz. 1997. HMI and Ofsted evolution or revolution in school inspection.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 45, no 1, 39-52.

Lortie, R. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

26

McKinsey Report 2007 How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on

top McKinsey & Co

Mahony, P. & I. Hestall. 2000 Reconstructing Teaching: standards, performance and

accountability. London: Routledge Falmer.

Maw, J. 1998. An inspector speaks: the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief

Inspector of Schools. Curriculum Journal, 9, 2, 145-152.

Menter, I., E. Brisard. & I. Smith. 2006. Making Teachers in Britain: Professional

knowledge for initial teacher education in England and Scotland. Educational

Philosophy and Theory, 38, no 2, 269-286.

O'Keefe, D. (1986) The Wayward Curriculum: A Cause for Parents’ Concern.

London: Social Affairs Unit.

Ofsted 2004 The Logical Chain: continuing professional development in effective

schools London: Ofsted.

Ozga, J. & M. Lawn. 1981. Teachers, Professionalism, and Class: A Study of

Organized Teachers. Lewes: Falmer Press.

Parsons, T. 1937. Remarks on Education and the Professions. International Journal of

Ethics, 47, no 3, 365-369.

Pollard, A. 1985. The Social World of the Primary School. London: Taylor &

Francis.

Reynolds, M. 1999. Standards and Professional Practice: The TTA and Initial Teacher

Training. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47, no 3, 247-260.

Sachs, J. 2003. The Activist Professional. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Scott, C., S. Cox. & S. Dinham. 1999. The Occupational Motivation, Satisfaction and

Health of English School Teachers, Educational Psychology, 19, no 3, 287-308

Seddon, T. (1997). Education: Deprofessionalised? Or reregulated, reorganised and

reauthorized Australian Journal of Education, 41, no 3, 228-246.

Strauss, AL. & Corbin JM. 1998 Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London: Sage.

TDA. 2002. Qualifying to Teach. London: TDA.

TDA. 2007. Professional Standards for Teachers. London: TDA.

Tooley, J. 1993. A Market-led Alternative for the Curriculum: breaking the code.

London: Institute of Education.

27

Troman, G. 1996. The Rise of the New Professionals? The Restructuring of Primary

Teachers' Work and Professionalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education 4,

473-87.

Troman, G. 1997. Self-Management and School Inspection: Complementary Forms of

Surveillance and Control in the Primary School. Oxford Review of Education, 23, no

3, 345-364

Troman, G., B. Jeffrey & A. Raggi. 2007. Creativity and Performativity Policies in

Primary School Cultures. Journal of Education Policy, 22, no 5, 549-572.

Webb, R., G. Vulliamy, K. Häkkinen & S. Hämäläinen. 1998. External Inspection or

School Self-evaluation: A Comparative Analysis of Policy and Practice in England

and Finland British Educational Research Journal, 24, no 5, 539-556

Webb, R & G. Vulliamy. 2006. The Impact of New Labour's Education Policy on

Teachers and Teaching at Key Stage 2. FORUM: for promoting 3-19 comprehensive

education, 2,145-158.

Whitty, G. 2002. Making Sense of Education Policy. London: Sage.

Wilkins, C. 2008. Performativity and the professional identity of early career primary

school teachers (paper given at European Conference of Educational Research:

Gothenburg, Sweden)

Wilkins C & Wood, P. 2009 ITE in the Panopticon, Journal of Education for

Teaching: International research and pedagogy, 35:3 pp 283-297

Winter, C. 2000. The State Steers by Remote Control: Standardising Teacher

Education. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2, 153-175.

Woods, P & B. Jeffrey. 2002. The reconstruction of primary teachers. British Journal

of Sociology of Education, 23, no 1, 89-106.