teachers for tomorrow's schools

SUMMARY

Schools are being asked to play a key role in helping OECD societies adapt tosocial and economic change; they will not be able to meet such challengesunless teachers are at the centre of the process. This chapter argues thatattempts to transform teaching and learning must not neglect the teachersthemselves, whose expertise, motivation and organisation needs to be broughtto bear in support of change, rather than being neglected or, worse still,regarded as an obstacle.

The transformation of teaching is no easy task, given the size and diversity ofthe teaching force. Few generalisations can be made across all countries. Schoolteachers compose from 2 to 4 per cent of OECD workforces. The majorityare women, at the primary level, in most countries, but this varies acrosscountries, and in secondary schools there are many men – who for examplecompose three-quarters of upper secondary German and Japanese teachers.Lower secondary teacher salaries vary from 0.8 time average national incomeper head to 2.9 times. A high proportion of teachers are in their 50s – this toovaries widely, from 40 per cent in Sweden to 13 per cent in Austria.

Both younger and older teachers need to be involved in a renewal of skills andattitudes to create schools appropriate for the challenges ahead. Increasingly,professional development is being interpreted to mean more than upgradingthe skills of individual teachers, with great stress put on learning that createslasting improvements in the practices of schools. There are signs that there isstill far too little investment in such development, although by its nature it canbe hard to measure.

Professional development must be seen in conjunction with fundamentalchanges in the organisation and methods of schools. Some schools and classeshave been transformed by practices such as team teaching, the imaginative useof technology and opening up teaching and learning more to families,communities, public organisations and private entities. There is not yet clearevidence that these are general practices, and indeed they remain patchy. Farfrom such developments representing alternatives that diminish the role ofthe teacher, they demand still greater professional skills.

Without change, there is a danger that technological and other developmentswill make schools and teachers seem increasingly irrelevant, especially to youngpeople. Teacher professionalism should not obstruct change but be redefinedto become part of it. The professionalism of the 21st century must includeexpertise, openness, use of technology and the capacity to adapt and collaboratecontinuously within schools and networks that are learning organisations.

CHAPTER 2

TEACHERSFOR TOMORROW’S

SCHOOLS

26TEACHERS FOR TOMORROW’S SCHOOLS

1. INTRODUCTION

Schools are being charged with a growing range ofresponsibilities. Their role is seen as central inhelping societies adapt to profound social,economic and cultural changes. Their capacity tofulfill these expectations, however, dependscrucially on their own ability to manage change,and in particular on whether teachers are able todevelop positive and effective strategies to meetthe needs of tomorrow’s schools.

This chapter considers the role of teachers in thetransformation of schools, drawing on a range ofrecent OECD research and data on teacherstoday.1 It starts, in Section 2, by emphasising theneed to put teachers at the centre of strategiesfor lifelong learning, which will require majorendeavours among large and diverse teachingforces. Section 3 looks at the characteristics oftoday’s teachers, showing that even though thepicture of an aged profession is an unduesimplification, there is clearly a need for renewalof teacher knowledge and skills. As Section 4 setsout, professional development is most successfulwhen it goes beyond the updating of knowledge,and aims to be the motor of educational innova-tion. Teacher involvement is a necessary, but nota sufficient condition for successful reform.Schools as organisations, and school systems,need to decide whether they are willing toconsider radical changes to traditional structures.Section␣ 5 explores the degree to which educationsystems are accepting a range of practices thatdepart from single teachers in classrooms,adopting conventional teaching methods.Fundamental change should not undermineteacher professionalism, but rather transform it.Section 6 concludes by discussing the role of theprofessional teacher in the changed environmentof 21st century schools.

2. REFORM AND LIFELONG LEARNING –BRINGING TEACHERS BACK INTO THEPICTURE

A plethora of recent educational reforms acrossOECD countries (see eg. OECD, 1996a; Eurydice,1996) has aimed to improve educational out-comes for young people. Central to the desiredoutcomes has been the objective, in theory atleast, of making school education the foundation

of lifelong learning. Schools are expected todevelop an initial set of skills, motivation and cul-ture that will serve on a lifetime basis – for alland not just the well-educated. This marks asignificant change from a model that saw schooleducation as a more self-contained process, andchallenges education systems to consider moredirectly their impact on mature citizens’ abilityto continue learning and to adapt to life’schallenges. But while the lifelong learning modelmay be accepted in principle, it is less clear inpractice whether new expectations and aims havecreated a shared understanding of what it meansfor initial schooling to build the foundation ofskills, motivation and culture that will serve allover their lifetimes.

How far schools are able to transform to becomeoriented towards lifelong learning will hinge to alarge extent on the contribution of teachers. Thequality of learning depends directly on theteacher in the classroom, and indirectly on thekey part that teachers play in the organisation ofschools and school systems. New curricula orassessment policies, or investment in newinformation and communication technologies,will only produce significant change if they areunderstood and applied by teachers.

One danger with debate on school improvementand reform is that the focus on what should occurin schools – such as high quality teaching andlearning – can neglect the human beings whomust make these things happen. A focus on“learning” is necessary, especially in emphasis-ing outcomes of education for students, but risksplaying down the importance of the teacher byregarding him or her as just one of many influ-ences. Even a focus on “teaching” can overlookthe importance of the expertise, motivation andorganisation of the staff who carry it out. Thedelivery of good teaching by a particular corps ofprofessionals needs to be recognised as centralto learning outcomes.

1. The chapter has been developed as part of the CERI projecton “Schooling for Tomorrow”. It remains the case, as empha-sised in the 1990 OECD study The Teacher Today, that teachers inother settings, especially vocational education and training, butalso higher and adult education, tend to be much neglected(compared with such matters as curricula, accreditation, studentsupport, etc.).


This centrality of teachers is not always properlyrecognised, especially at the political level whenthe case is made for reform. A worldwide reviewof reform proposals (Villegas-Reimars andReimers, 1996; see also UNESCO, 1998) describesthe teacher as the “missing voice in educationalreform”:

“...[in] calls for reform and in the options whichare brought forth to change schools, thereis surprisingly little attention to the role ofteachers. Some of the proposals for changeadvocate ‘teacher-proof’ innovations, whichcan sustain the impetus for change in spiteof the teachers. In some other cases,teachers are absent from the discourse aboutchange. In yet other cases, the role of teach-ers is not central to the proposals forchange.” (p. 469)

In recognising the importance of teachers inimplementing reform, it is not enough to regardteacher policy as a personnel issue. While pay,work conditions and qualifications matter acutelyto teachers and influence quality by making theprofession more or less attractive, teacherscannot be regarded as mere foot-soldiers imple-menting orders from above. They are at the heartof the process. Successful reform does not takeplace “despite” teachers, but rather ensures thattheir contribution is maximised.

3. MANY TEACHERS, DIVERSE PROFILES

Efforts to involve teachers in educational changeneed to be directed at an extremely large and byno means homogeneous group of people. Thecharacteristics of teachers have to be taken intoaccount when developing policies affecting in-service training, professional development andthe conditions in which teachers operate, all ofwhich can help equip schools to respond to newchallenges.

It is difficult to generalise about the profile ofteachers, especially internationally, sincepatterns vary from one country to another.Figure␣ 2.1 shows, for a number of teacher char-acteristics, the distribution of country experi-ences. The precise numbers are given in thedata appendix; these summary graphs suffice

to show the range of teacher characteristics bycountry. The present picture confirms the find-ings of a 1990 review,2 which warned againstexcessive generalisation about teachers andteaching. In particular, the idea that teachernumbers were in decline, that teaching wasmainly feminised and that teaching was an age-ing profession were found to be simplificationsor exaggerations.

Today, as can be seen in Part A of Figure 2.1,school teachers do indeed constitute a substan-tial percentage of the total employed labourforce, but this proportion varies greatly fromunder 2 to over 4 per cent. The size of theteaching force is a key factor in relation to anumber of policy issues, including those offinancial resources, since compensation toteachers accounts on average for about two-thirds of current expenditure on primary andsecondary education in OECD countries. Thecost of education reform is also bound to be in-fluenced by the need to introduce change amonga very large number of teachers. Moreover, inconsidering the size of the education sector itshould be borne in mind that the 3␣ per centaverage covers neither personnel outside theschool sector nor non-teaching staff within it.Including these categories, an average of over5 per cent of the employed population is engagedin education (in countries for which such dataare available), making it one of the largest single“industrial” sectors.

Figure 2.1 confirms, secondly, a finding of the 1990review that the level of “feminisation” of teachingvaries greatly both by country and by level ofeducation within countries. While many teachersare women, and they dominate the profession inpre-primary and primary schools – in somecountries (such as Italy), overwhelmingly so – atsecondary level the sexes are in fairly evenbalance, and in some cases women are theminority. For upper secondary teachers, along-side a small number of countries where women

2. OECD(1990). Certain developments relating to teachershave been subject to OECD analysis over the interveningperiod (eg. OECD,1996b and 1997b). Comparable data remainlimited, though in some areas, such as age of teachers,improvements are imminent.


represent over half of the full-time teachingforces (Italy and Hungary), are those countrieswith reported data where the balance is eithervery even (New Zealand, Spain, Austria, UnitedStates) or where men well out-number women.In Japan, Germany and Korea, only a quarter ofteachers at this level are women.3

A third type of teacher characteristic, about whichthe OECD has been gathering an increasing rangeof data through the INES project (on InternationalIndicators of Education Systems), is the condi-tions under which they are employed. Figure 2.1reports that experienced teachers’ averagesalaries vary between 0.8 and 2.9 times averageGDP per capita. Other data (OECD, 1996a and1997b) show for example that:

• Student-teacher ratios vary, in primary schools,from 1:24 in Ireland, to 1:10 in Italy. Actualclass sizes reported by fourth-grade mathe-matics teachers show that the most frequentrange is 21-30 pupils. The exceptions are:Norway, where the majority are in classes of20 or below; Ireland, New Zealand and Japan,where 31-40 is the most common size, and

Figure 2.1National variations in selected teacher characteristics, 1995

The profile of teachercharacteristics variesgreatly from onecountry to another.

Highest country value

OECD country mean

Lowest country value

A. Teachers in primary andsecondary education as a% of the total labour force(18 countries)

B. Percentage of women among teaching staff

In primary and lower secondary (17 countries)

In upper secondary(15 countries)

C. Ratio of experienced teachers’ salary in lowersecondary education to GDP per capita(19 countries)

D. Percentage of younger and older teachersin primary and secondary education (13 countries)

How many areunder 30 years-old

How many are50 years-old and over

Sources: OECD Education Database and Eurydice (1997).

Korea2.9

CzechRepublic

0.8

OECD1.5

Iceland21.1%

OECD11.7%

Denmark3.1%

Sweden39.6%

OECD24.7%

Austria12.6%

Hungary4.2%

OECD2.9%

Korea1.7%

Hungary,Italy84%

OECD65%

Turkey43%

Hungary,Italy55%

OECD42%

Japan24%

Data for Figure 2.1: page 77.

3. The OECD data refer to full-time teachers only, hence somemodification might be expected by including part-timers. Insome countries, this is not significant: countries with sizeablenumbers of part-time teachers tend to be either, such asGermany and the Netherlands, with relatively low rates offeminisation to start with, or else are the Scandanavianexamples (Denmark and Sweden), where men as well aswomen work part-time in teaching (Eurydice, 1997, p.113). Atthe same time, norms of what constitutes “part-time” alsovary significantly.


Korea, where over two thirds of students arein classes with over 40 children.

• The amount of time spent working inside andoutside classrooms has been estimated at thelower-secondary level. Swedish teachers arecontracted to spend 576␣ hours per yearsupplying instruction; in the Netherlands andthe United States, teachers spend more than900␣ hours in class. On top of this, survey datashow that in any one week, mathematicsteachers spend an average of between 10 and17␣ hours on preparation, marking and otherout-of-school activities.

• The role of the principal is interpreted verydifferently from one country to another. Theposition of the principal in the school has animportant effect on the teacher’s job, in termsof how he or she relates to management.Wide variations in school size means thatthe average number of teachers managedby a principal ranges, at primary level, fromjust eight in Norway to 100 in Portugal. Moreo-ver, Portuguese principals spend two-thirds oftheir time teaching, whereas Norwegian onesspend three-quarters on non-teaching activity.In some countries such as Belgium and Italy,principals are primarily managers who spendlittle or no time teaching.

International indicators have yet to reveal anysystematic relationship between teachingconditions and student achievement. This doesnot mean that such factors do not influenceachievement, but rather that the relationshipsare complex, and can only be fully understoodin terms of interactions at the national, sub-national and local levels. No single variable canbe seen as the “key” that unlocks enhancededucational attainment. In general, therefore,the characteristics of teachers and their workingconditions across OECD countries can helpinform policies towards teachers, but only intandem with knowledge about the particulari-ties of each country. This is particularly true ofthe most frequently-cited generalisation aboutteachers: the “ageing” phenomenon.

EU data (Eurydice, 1997) show that in the majorityof European region countries the age profile ofteachers is skewed towards the older half of their

age range. But patterns vary greatly, as shown inPart D of Figure 2.1: the representation of theover-50s varies within Europe from 39.6␣ per centof the teacher population in Sweden to 12.6␣ percent in Austria; the under-30s vary in proportionfrom 21.1␣ per cent in Iceland to 3.1␣ per cent inDenmark. Within the older half of the populationthere is an important distinction between an over-representation of 40-50 year-olds, which existsin most countries, and a large number of over-50s, which is particularly marked in Germany,Italy, Sweden and Norway. The former caseprimarily raises issues of in-service training; thelatter of replacing a large retiring cohort. Theageing phenomenon is especially marked insecondary compared with primary education: inthe former, well over a quarter of teachers in theEU are aged 50 years and above (28␣ per cent),and over two-thirds are 40 or over.

The exact distribution of teacher ages needs tobe understood in relation to a number of possiblecausal factors, including rates of early departures,inflow of young teachers, inflow of mid-careerjoiners or “returners” and outflows of experiencedteachers into non-teaching posts or out ofeducation altogether. But countries’ underlyingconcern is related in large part to whether supply(and, in particular, supply of good teachers) can bemaintained in the event of large numbers of olderteachers reaching retirement age and leavingschools. The above figures do little to allay thisconcern, especially as regards secondary educa-tion. Yet it would be misleading to regard thisissue merely as a crisis of recruitment. The“renewal” of teacher competence needs to beconsidered across the age-range. For teachingforces with large numbers aged in their forties,the issue is how to adapt to the attitudes andtechnologies of the 21st century. More broadly,there is an issue in societies with ageingpopulations about how to support and takeadvantage of maturity and professional experi-ence, and to use them to foster greater stability.

4. THE ROLE OF TEACHERPROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The key role of training during teachers’ service,beyond the initial preparation phase, has cometo be widely acknowledged. The age profiles cited


above indicate that in most OECD countries themajority of teachers serving in 1998 are likely tohave received their initial training before 1980.But this is not the only, nor even the main reasonwhy continuing training and development is ahigh priority – the more compelling reasons applyequally to younger as to older staff.

In particular, the speed of reform and scale of theexpectations for schooling continue to increase,placing new responsibilities on all teachers, andwith it the requirement for on-going professionallearning. As in other high-skill professionaloccupations, the pace of change means thatcontinual updating of knowledge and skills isrequired. Relatedly, recognition of and opportu-nities for training are important means ofenhancing professional status, which does notdepend only on tangible benefits such as salarylevels.4 The need for updating is most obviousfor those who come into teaching from otherbackgrounds or after a period out of the profes-sion, and hence it is also an important aspect ofenhancing the flexibility of the teaching force inOECD countries; but in fact it applies to allteachers. Equally, in line with other high-skillorganisations, the role of professional learningis a key ingredient of the dynamism of schools.

Recognising the force of all these arguments, arecent CERI review of developments in eightcountries5 (OECD, 1998) adopts the concept of“professional development” to signify a broaderset of activities than “in-service education andtraining” (INSET). Organised education andtraining activities constitute only one, albeit vital,form of professional development. In thoseschools that have become learning organisations,much development takes place informally withand through colleagues, in many forms. Policystrategies therefore need to look more widelythan sending teachers on courses.

The CERI review mentioned above is critical ofmuch of the professional development that inpractice takes place, while noting some shift fromindividual career-oriented training towards wholeschool developmental activities:

“There is, of course, no shortage of in-servicetraining in many of the Member countriesof the OECD. There is also some evidence of

an emerging paradigm shift from individualto whole school development, driven partlyby decentralisation and by increasedresponsibility on schools to decide theirown needs. However, much of what passesfor professional development is fragmentedand fleeting. All too often it is not focusedsufficiently and is too ‘top-down’ to giveteachers any real sense of ownership. It israrely seen as a continuing enterprise forteachers and it is only occasionally trulydevelopmental.” (op. cit., p. 17)

There are many examples of professional learn-ing that is innovative and effective (see Box 2.1).But the finding in the eight countries studied, thattoo little in-service professional learning byteachers is experienced as a continuing develop-mental activity linked to broader strategies, putsa question-mark over the future of school reform.Efforts could well be jeopardised by under-investment in the human skills and resourcesmost central to the success of the learningenterprises of schools – those of the teachers.

This analysis is supported by European data fromthe earlier 1990s (Eurydice, 1995) showing howfew resources out of the total education budgetare spent on in-service training. In none of theEuropean countries supplying data was theINSET share higher than 2 per cent – in Norwayit stood at around this level – and in some casesit is a small fraction of 1 per cent.

These visible training costs are useful in suggest-ing that investment in serving staff does not yetenjoy high political priority. But figures onspending on formal courses need to be regardedwith caution. Countries that succeed in integrat-ing professional learning into the day-to-day lifeof schools will face lower visible costs in termsof course fees and substitution of teachers absent

4. As underscored by the joint ILO/UNESCO experts on thestatus of teachers: “Whilst improved salaries, better physicalfacilities and lower class ratios have important impacts, thecritical features required to raise the image and self-esteemof teachers in the immediate future include more relevantprofessional training for individual teachers and improvedworking conditions and work organisation in schools” (ILO/UNESCO, 1997, p. 10).

5. Germany, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzer-land, United Kingdom, United States.


BOX 2.1 PROFESSIONAL LEARNING OF TEACHERS

Work experience for teachers in private companies in Japan

Keidanren, the Japanese employers’ association, has produced an Action Agenda for Reform in Edu-cation and Corporate Conduct that is highly critical of the lack of individuality and creativity inJapanese education and society. A central feature is teacher development: “If we are to facilitate thedevelopment of creative children it is essential that we first enhance the creativity of their teachers”. With thisaim in mind, Keidanren has expanded a programme, run jointly with the Japan Teacher Union,to give teachers experience in industry. Over 60 companies give three-day placements to over500 teachers during the summer holidays.

Evaluation by the teachers and companies has produced positive responses, although bothsides report a “culture shock”, and many teachers ask to repeat the experience. Teachers andprincipals see the benefits as a broadening of teacher perspectives, and an increase in confi-dence in communication with parents and students. The teachers were particularly impressedby the focus on individual needs in company training systems and by the attention to custom-ers’ particular requirements. In retrospect, several were critical of aspects of their initial teachertraining which they found by contrast too abstract and top-down.

Local District 2, New York City, United States

This school district is one of the few to create a concerted strategy for using professional devel-opment of teachers to bring about system-wide changes in instruction. A strong, determinedsuperintendent appointed in 1987 created a common ethos among teachers and administra-tors, based around a set of organising principles for systemic change and a set of specificactivities or models of staff development.

Professional development is based mainly in the classroom, on the principle that changes ininstruction occur only when teachers receive more or less continuous supervision and supportfocused on the practical details of what it means to teach effectively. One feature is a system of“visiting teachers” with particular learning priorities spending time participating in the class-room of a designated “Resident” teacher. The district also invests in professional developmentconsultants who work intensively with individuals and groups of teachers to tackle specifiedinstructional problems. Peer networking and off-site training also play a role, but summerprogrammes without follow-up during the school year are not considered helpful.

Source: OECD (1998).

for study. So other evidence, including on theways in which teachers spend their time withinschools, needs to be considered.6

As well as seeking to ensure that professionaldevelopment is oriented to lasting improvementsin the work of teachers and schools, policy makersneed to consider how to balance potentially com-peting requirements of teacher learning. Someargue that constant reform diverts too manyscarce resources into learning about new require-ments or curricula rather than improving profes-

sional practice or raising teacher quality.7 Mustthere be trade-offs between updating teachers to

6. For example some estimates suggest that professionaldevelopment for teachers in Japan amounts to the equivalentof 8␣ per cent of the school year; a very large share of this timeis devoted to on-site, collaborative development activities(Wagner, 1994).

7. “The bulk of INSET provision relates to priorities setnationally and keeps teachers updated about recent reforms,in particular in the curriculum. This has hindered personaldevelopment and the continuing development of teachingpractices and strategies” (NCE, 1993, p. 219).


realise reform, providing education and training forindividuals’ career development, and facilitatinglearning activities organised among colleagues inindividual schools or networks of schools? Thesethree important objectives can potentially becomplementary rather than mutually exclusive.Individual career enhancement, for instance, mightbe realised through the acquisition of skills relatingto national reforms and through participation inschool-level developmental policies. The New Yorkdistrict case example suggests such integratedstrategies are possible, with in-service educationand training providing a key element within abroader pursuit of improvement that seeks toinvolve all “players”.

So the professional development of teachers willonly be effective if it builds on classroom andschool practices, which in turn relate closely toorganisational and pedagogical strategies.Training is not a linear process of “toppingteachers up” to meet their new responsibilities.Expectations relating to in-service training canbe at once excessively ambitious and too limited:it is expecting too much of training by itself toenact genuine school improvement; it is expect-ing too little to use it for limited objectives thatare not embedded in larger, dynamic changestrategies. It is therefore important in anydiscussion of teacher roles to consider widerorganisational changes that may be needed tocreate settings in which teacher development canbe effective.

5. BREAKING THE CLASSROOM MOULD?

The common image of a teacher remains that ofthe individual professional in a classroom, teach-ing to her students. More flexible modes of schoollearning and open structures have often beenadvocated as the way ahead, necessarily withimplications for the work, competences, and prac-tice of teachers. To what extent are schools andschool systems willing to break the traditionalclassroom mould?

There are numerous individual examples ofinnovative practice and active forms of teachingand learning (as reported in the OECD/Japanseminar held in Hiroshima in 1997, entitled“Schooling for Tomorrow”; see also OECD, 1994 andStern and Huber, 1997). However, many educational

reforms may not foster more innovative practice;they can even inhibit it. Despite widespreaddecentralisation, and the removal of formalregulation from the centre, attempts to enforcereform with student assessment, accountabilitymechanisms, and the monitoring of standardsmay also remove incentives for some schools andteachers to innovate by pioneering new practiceswith uncertain outcomes.8

While the present state of data gives an unclearpicture of the extent of change in classroommodels, it is useful to identify ways in whichvariations are emerging. Three areas are ofparticular interest: the extent to which teachingtakes place among collaborative teams rather thanisolated individuals; the involvement in classroomsof adults other than teachers; and the degree towhich information and communications technol-ogy have transformed classroom practice.

Team teaching

The prevalence of the single-teacher classroomsituation is in some cases modified through theadoption of more complex, collaborative mod-els of work by teachers in teams. Some cautionis needed over the label “team teaching”, whichcan mean anything from better communicationamong teachers of children in a year-group to thepresence of multiple teachers in individual class-rooms. Box 2.2 outlines examples of relevant ex-periences, at national and school levels so faridentified by the OECD. For some schools, andindeed systems, forms of team teaching are nownormal practice, and the examples presented aredrawn from across the different levels of school-ing. However, it is hard at this stage to gaugeoverall penetration of such practice, which couldbe a subject of future investigation.

More complex, collaborative models of teachingand the organisation of learning are in generalmore demanding professionally and call on awider range of skills and competences than sim-pler models. With such demands, the room for

8. As expressed by Darling-Hammond (1997): “The concernsof the teachers in our study are precisely those that currentreforms are seeking to address, yet many policies unwittinglyset up greater prescriptions, which actually undermine thegoals they seek” (p. 94).


BOX 2.2 NATIONAL AND SCHOOL EXAMPLES OF TEAM TEACHING

• New arrangements were introduced in Italy in 1990 as part of a large-scale reform process inprimary schools: classes grouped together in twos or threes and taught by two or more teachers.The new system of teaching breaks the traditional “one teacher/one class” approach. In thecurrent school year – 1997-1998 – the majority of pupils (85 per cent) are taught within this newframework.

Normally, a group of three teachers instruct pupils in two classes of the same age, althoughdifferent age-groups may sometimes be combined in the same class, with teachers sharingresponsibility for class work. Primary teachers no longer work as generalists. Subjects aregrouped into three broad areas of learning: linguistic-expressive, scientific-logical-mathemati-cal and historical-geographical-social. To assure consistency in teaching, teachers are expectedto plan together: there are co-operative planning arrangements and a regular weekly time isscheduled for this purpose.

• In Viborg Amtsgymnasium Upper Secondary School, Denmark, tutorial teams of 3-4 teachers of oneclass cooperate in a particularly close network. The other teachers of the class are informedcontinuously about special matters pertinent to the class, individual students, pedagogicalinnovations, etc. These teachers are members of tutorial teams in other classes. All teachersare as a rule members of two tutorial teams in the school and more informally associated withthe other classes they teach.

• At Utase Elementary School, Japan, teaching is not necessarily conducted on the basis of thesingle class unit of 30-40 pupils, but normally by means of team teaching combining two classestogether. Team teaching makes it easier to adapt various teaching methods such as wholeclass teaching, individualized study, group learning, etc. to meet varied abilities, progress,needs and preferences of the pupils.

• At Arnestad School, Norway, a 1997 reform reorganised the school day and school year, anddecentralised decisions about the timetable. So classes have lessons of varying length andbreaks at different points of time during the day. The school year is divided into six terms, eachwith a teaching plan emphasizing different themes or subjects. The Norwegian school curricu-lum requires teachers to work in teams. At Arnestad a teacher team shares responsibility forthe teaching and the follow-up work of pupils in parallel grades.

Source: OECD/Japan seminar held in Hiroshima, November 1997, entitled “Schooling forTomorrow”.

professional frustration can grow when theseskills and competences are not exercised; at thesame time, the potential for enhanced satisfac-tion and the removal of individual isolation canbear substantial results. To share the organisa-tion and task of teaching is a more natural stepwhen there is already extensive discussion andplanning among teachers concerning otheraspects of school life. In-service and initialtraining play a vital part in preparing teachersfor these roles, as do professional development

and wider support. If these are not provided ororganised, more complex arrangements riskfoundering. They may also be opposed byassumptions about the teacher as individualsubject expert. Yet, as the Italian exampleshows, team-teaching, at least at the primarylevel, may be consistent with more subjectspecialisation rather than less. How well thisholds at the secondary level, especially wheretraditions of academic specialisation are strong,is another matter.


Involvement of other adults in the classroom

A different set of issues are raised by anothersource of modification of the single-teacher inthe classroom model: the introduction of parentsand other adults into teaching situations. Arecent CERI study examined the role of parentsin schools (OECD, 1997a), and found that whilethere are numerous positive examples relatingto consultative governance and active parentalinvolvement in homework schemes, there is farless evidence of such involvement in school-based teaching and learning. Where it does occur,it is much more at the primary than secondarylevels, and involves mainly mothers. It takes placeas part of particular programmes to address dis-advantage or to bridge school/communitydivides, and more generally in reading schemes.Such initiatives tend to complement rather thantransform mainstream practice.

The issues raised are complex. On the one hand,the involvement of outsiders can open up theotherwise rigid mould of classroom practice. Thismay take place “from the inside” by accessingparental and other community resources as supportin classrooms, or “from the outside” through com-munity-initiated programmes in which learning isnot primarily managed by teachers as such. Thebenefits realised by students participating in suchinitiatives require further evaluation.

But how far should such outside involvementlead to a redefinition of who can take on therole of teacher? There may well be value inpromoting alternative routes into teaching. Onthe other hand, there is the important risk thatthe professionalism necessary for high qualityteaching and learning will be undermined.Opening up classrooms could encourage theview, notwithstanding extensive contraryevidence, that teaching requires no specialisedknowledge and training –␣ the “bright personmyth” (Darling-Hammond, 1997, p. 309; andHolmes Group, 1986). U.S. research suggeststhat “not only is teacher quality the single mostimportant determinant of student performance,but low-income and minority students are leastlikely to receive instruction from well-qualified,highly effective teachers” (Darling-Hammondand Falk, 1997, p. 192). Key educational andequity principles are at issue.

So it is crucial to stress that opening up class-rooms and teaching is not an alternative toprofessionalism, and should imply no sacrificein quality (although “quality” may be defined inbroad ways, based on teacher competence andenquiring abilities rather than just qualificationsand knowledge). The CERI report on parents(OECD, 1997a) argues that well-planned initiativescan enhance teaching and learning resources andneed not lead to de-professionalisation. No singlemodel of outside involvement can be prescribedor avoided. Rather there is a need to identifyconditions that promote teacher professionalismand the imperative of quality teaching alongsideflexible arrangements that engage both studentsand the community. In so doing, equity questionsneed to be taken seriously: how far do innovativepractices, involving a mix of more and less tradi-tional teaching and learning resources, typify thehigh-income, affluent schools, risking simply towiden existing social divides?

ICT and new learning models

Perhaps the most commonly-cited factor heraldingfundamental change in the structure andorganisation of schooling, with profoundimplications for the teacher, is the spreadingimpact of information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) on learning. The last fullmeeting of OECD Education Ministers in 1996identified as a priority the need to analyse“schooling for tomorrow (…) in particular in thelight of new technologies and advances inpedagogy” (OECD, 1996a, p. 24). How importantare these developments for the question “who isthe teacher?” What role do teachers have – is theirimportance being diminished by the fact thatlearning can take place and information accessedin many new ways outside the classroom andaway from the direction of the teacher?

As shown in Figure 2.2, the number of computersin schools varies greatly among OECD coun-tries. More important, however, is the fact thatmany countries are investing heavily to equipschools with computers, Internet connections,software and multi-media. Any static survey isalmost instantly out of date: even from one yearto another the ratio of students to computersoften falls sharply. In the United States, forexample, there are wide internal variations,


from fewer than six students per computer inFlorida and Wyoming, to 16 in Louisiana andabout 10 nationally in 1995-96 (Coley, 1997,pp.␣ 10-13). Such ratios do not of course tellwhether equipment is up-to-date, relevant orwell-used. So the same US report estimated thatthere was only one multi-media computers withCD-Rom capacity for every 25 students.

More fundamental than hardware investment isthe manner in which computers are used and thedifference this can and does make to the teach-ing and learning experience. There are manyclaims made regarding teaching and learningmethods that exploit information and commu-nication technologies in schools, yet surprisinglylittle firm evidence and evaluation is available tosupport high expectations. Moreover, too littleis known about the consequences of computer

use in education. The lack of good, relevanteducational software and multi-media is itselfa disincentive for use, since teachers, parents andothers hesitate to buy software which is of ques-tionable quality, or which does not correspondto the taught curriculum. This in turn inhibits thedevelopment of a market for high qualityeducational software and multi-media, creatinga vicious circle.9

But it does seem clear that the essential profes-sional support for teachers in making best use ofnew technologies remains under-developed andunder-resourced. The OECD 1997 Information

95949493 95b92 96949493a 93b92a 96a 96b9494

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

Figure 2.2Computers in schools

By the mid-1990s, an average ofbetween eight and 50 studentshad to share each computer indifferent countries.

a. Primary and lower secondary schools.b. Upper secondary schools.Source: OECD (1997d).

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Can

ada

Nor

way

Den

mar

k

Net

herl

ands

Fran

ce

Swed

en

Finl

and

Japa

n

Port

ugal

Average number of students per computer

Year

Data for Figure 2.2: page 77.

9. Such questions are now being analysed in a new projecton “New Developments in Educational Software and Multi-media” as part of the CERI work on “Schooling for Tomorrow.”


Technology Outlook summarised evidence frompolicy reports and research across a range ofcountries to conclude:

“Successful deployment and use of ICTs in theclassroom still largely depends on highlymotivated, pioneering principals and teachers.Although the lack of appropriate teachertraining and experience was identified at thebeginning of the decade as a major problemfor effective use of IT in education, most policydiscussions and technology initiatives in thearea of IT and education have tended to focuson hardware and software acquisition andstudents’ access to technology (...). Computerliteracy is still generally low among educators:the majority lack the necessary training, somelack an appreciation of ICTs and their class-room potential.” (OECD, 1997d, p. 135)

It is not just a matter of developing appropriateknowledge and skill but of changing attitudes.The teacher is commonly identified as much asa barrier as a key medium, too often defensiveand ill-equipped compared with students comfort-able with computer applications. One danger isthat ICTs are seen as replacing rather than aidinggood teaching. IEA (International Associationfor the Evaluation of Educational Achievement)studies (Plomp et al., 1997) have described notonly resistance but the predominantly traditionaluse of ICT in the classroom as a substitute forconventional pedagogic approaches. The largemajority of Swedish school principals, surveyedin 1995, believed the impact of ICTs on studentsto be significant in relation to such matters asability to work independently, solve problems,and prepare for working life; fewer than halfthought they would have any significant impacton teaching (cited in OECD, 1997c, p. 121). Stillmore clearcut, a 1996 survey of English second-ary school heads of subject departments foundthat, in most subjects, very few believed thatICT was exercising a “substantial” impact onteaching and learning in their schools anddepartments (although about half thought thatit had “some” impact).

A pessimistic scenario might be that technologicalgulfs too large to be bridged have been createdand with far-reaching implications for the relevanceof school curricula. The much greater access by the

young to complex technologies, whether throughnetworking, electronic games, or multi-media, has,on this view, created wide cognitive and culturalrifts between children and teachers. Others aremore sanguine and see this as part of the peren-nial differences between generations, and betweenthe worlds of the school and peer culture, that neednot give rise to alarm, nor undermine the funda-mental aims of education.

Whichever scenario turns out to be the moreaccurate, a key conclusion to underline is that, farfrom ICT representing an alternative to the teacher,its imaginative use is highly demanding of teachersand staff. This is illustrated by case observationsreported to the Hiroshima OECD/Japan seminar on“Schooling for Tomorrow”, two of which are referredto in Box 2.3. To facilitate active learning is not thesame as handing over professional expertise tohardware and software. Rather than diminishingthe role of the teacher, ICTs have the potential toenhance it, making possible a more diversecurriculum and a more demanding repertoire forteacher skills and organisation.

6. THE TEACHING PROFESSIONAL INTHE SCHOOL OF TOMORROW

The future role of teachers depends not just onthe specifics of how instruction is organised, buton the future position of the school itself. Will itremain a key social institution, or is it set todecline?

Arguments positing a declining role for schoolsand teachers today and tomorrow prominentlyinclude the following inter-related sets ofobservations:

• The growth of alternative sources of infor-mation and knowledge means the rapiddecline of the monopoly of schools overinformation and knowledge. The burgeon-ing of new forms of influence, via media,peer and youth cultures, it is argued,further reduces the impact of what schoolshave to offer.

• Globalisation – economic, political and cultural– is said by some to render obsolete thelocally-based, culturally-bounded institutioncalled “school” (and with it the “teacher”).


• Even within schools, the greater individualisa-tion of modes of learning – flexible, demand-driven – might be seen as displacing cumber-some, supply-dominated models. This heraldsthe corresponding decline of teachers, furthersignalled by the growth of alternative sourcesof learning, including through ICT and throughhuman resources other than teachers.

But must these influences weaken schools andteachers? Not necessarily. It would be a great over-simplification to regard schools as being exclusivelyabout the transmission of knowledge and concludethat this task can now simply be transferred tocomputers. Schools have always had wider roles,including social functions, which are now likely tobecome more rather than less important. With theweakening of institutions such as the family andthe local community, for example, the socialisationof young people becomes simultaneously moreimportant and more difficult: some would like tosee the school as a social linchpin of otherwisefragmented, individualised societies (Carnoy and

Castells, 1997). Similarly, they may provide a locallocus in a confusingly globalised world. It wouldalso be wrong to exaggerate the degree to whichschools in the past have had a monopoly ofknowledge: families, churches, and communitieshave always played a role, if anything more stronglybefore than now; broadcasting has been influen-tial for over half a century.

In some respects, therefore, the assumed tasksof the school have been extended, perhapsunrealistically, rather than superceded. Whetherschools can start to meet these expectations willdepend to a high degree on their ability to developa central position in society, as more “open” organi-sations serving a wide range of interests andclientele.

There is thus no inevitability about a weakeningrole for schools in the light of some of the majorchanges taking place that impact on them, andthey may on the contrary lead to a reinvigoratedand still stronger institution. These same trendscould well, however, be creating tensions that are

BOX 2.3 DEMANDING ROLES FOR TEACHERS WITH ICT USE

“A major lesson learned in this context is that the introduction of the ‘study house’* should beextremely well prepared. The teaching methods used in the model require further considera-tion. There is a strong need for the further development of methods that are appropriate forthis new educational concept. This goes particularly for the use of information and communi-cation technologies, including the Internet.”

Carolus College, Netherlands

“The innovations at Monkseaton are based on the premise that schools must become learningorganizations that will equip students to live and learn in an information society (…). Part ofthis is the rigorous evaluation of improvements in student attitudes and achievement. To dothis, Monkseaton is creating a new learning environment that combines the best of traditionalteaching and learning with:

– Lifelong learning skills and attitudes;

– Appropriate technology, especially communications and information technologies;

– Access to the new learning environment in school and at home;

– Partnerships with industry, the community, and students themselves.”

Monkseaton Community High School, England

* A model of independent learning being introduced in some schools in the Netherlands through national policy.


extremely hard to accommodate within existingsystems. Which way it turns out is cruciallydependent on what teachers do collectively, andhow they are permitted to develop their schools,separately and across systems. It also dependson whether they can define a new type of profes-sionalism that is central, rather than supplemen-tary, to the ways in which learning takes place.

This new professionalism will need to draw fromboth old and new models of what it means to bea good teacher. Most importantly it will require:

• Expertise. This traditional characteristic ofthe good teacher will not be the onlyattribute needed, but its importance shouldnot therefore be under-estimated. It hasbeen demonstrated that a good teacherneeds to be an important source of knowl-edge and understanding. However, the wayin which teachers themselves access knowl-edge needs to change: there should be lessreliance on initial training and more oncontinuous updating.

• Pedagogical know-how also continues to beessential, but again in a changing context. Ina framework of lifelong learning, teachers haveto become competent at transmitting a rangeof high-level skills including motivation tolearn, creativity and co-operation, rather thanplacing too high a premium on informationrecall or performance in tests.

• Understanding of technology is a new keyfeature of teacher professionalism. Most im-portant is an understanding of its pedagogi-cal potential, and an ability to integrate itinto teaching strategies rather than leavingstudents to learn from self-containedprogrammes as a separate process.

• Organisational competence and collaboration.Teacher professionalism can no longer be seensimply as an individualised competence, butrather must incorporate the ability to functionas part of a “learning organisation”. The abil-ity and willingness to learn from and to teachother teachers is perhaps the most importantaspect of this attribute.

• Flexibility is an attribute of teacher profes-sionalism which perhaps conflicts most

directly with traditional notions. Teachershave to accept that professional require-ments may change several times in thecourse of their careers, and not interpret pro-fessionalism as an excuse to resist change.

• Mobility is desirable for some if not all teach-ers: the capacity and willingness to move inand out of other careers and experiences thatwill enrich their abilities as teachers.

• Openness is another skill for many teachers tolearn: being able to work with parents andother non-teachers in ways that complementrather than subvert other aspects of the teach-er’s professional role is perhaps the most chal-lenging way in which notions of professional-ism can be adapted.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In short, this new type of professionalism challengesteachers to function in learning organisations com-mitted to laying the foundations of lifelong learn-ing. The above list of characteristics is not a “static”description of who can be recognised as a profes-sional teacher, but a set of attributes that need tobe developed in a continued learning process.

So it is not just inputs, in terms of numbers andqualifications of teachers, nor outcomes in termsof measurable student achievement, that makegood schools. Giving attention to the processes ofteaching and learning brings human and profes-sional endeavours to the fore. A focus on processmay appear inward-looking, but can potentiallyraise challenging and uncomfortable questionsabout what happens in many schools. Classroomdoors will be opened to scrutiny, rather than lettingteachers “get on with” a business that only theyknow best. An intense attention to process maywell expose precisely how prevalent “industrial”input-output models of the learning processremain in some schools in OECD countries, andbring pressure for improvement.

The new teacher professionalism will be highlydemanding, supplementing traditional require-ments with new ones. It remains to be seen howfar the relevant stakeholders – including govern-ments, parents, the general public and teachersthemselves – are ready to invest in and embracesuch professionalism.


References␣

CARNOY, M. and CASTELLS, M. (1997), “Sustainable flexibility: A prospective study on work, family and society in the informationage”, Free Document, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD, Paris.

COLEY, R.J. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in US Schools, ETS, Princeton.

DARLING-HAMMOND, L. (1997), The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

DARLING-HAMMOND, L. and FALK, B. (1997), “Using standards and assessments to support student learning”, Phi DeltaKappan, November.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT – DfEE (1997), “Survey of information technology use in schools1996”, Statistical Bulletin, No. 3/97, UK Stationery Office, Norwich, March.

EURYDICE (1995), In-service Training of Teachers in the European Union and the EFTA/EEA Countries, EC, Brussels.

EURYDICE (1996), A Decade of Reforms at Compulsory Education Level in the European Union (1984-94), EC, Brussels.

EURYDICE (1997), Key Data on Education in the European Union, EC, Luxembourg.

HOLMES GROUP (1986), Tomorrow’s Teachers: A Report of the Holmes Group, East Lansing, MI.

ILO/UNESCO (1997), Joint ILO/UNESCO Committee of Experts on the Application of the Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers,Special Fourth Session, Paris, September.

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR EDUCATION – NCE (1993), Learning to Succeed: A Radical Look at Education Today and a Strategy forthe Future, Report of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Heinemann, London.

OECD (1990), The Teacher Today: Tasks, Conditions, Policies, Paris.

OECD (1994), Quality in Teaching, Paris.

OECD (1995), Public Expectations of the Final Stage of Compulsory Education, Paris.

OECD (1996a), Lifelong Learning for All, Paris.

OECD (1996b), Education at a Glance: Analysis, Chapter 4 “Teachers Pay and Conditions”, Paris.

OECD (1997a), Parents as Partners in Schooling, “What Works in Innovation in Education” series, Paris.

OECD (1997b), Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 1997, Chapters B “Financial and human resources invested in educa-tion” and D “The learning environment and the organisation of schools”, Paris.

OECD (1997c), “Demand for Internet-based services: Education, business services and entertainment”, Free document, DSTI/ICCP/IE(97)9, Paris.

OECD (1997d), Information Technology Outlook 1997, Chapter 8 “ICT as a tool for lifelong learning”, Paris.

OECD (1998), Staying Ahead: In-service Training and Teacher Professional Development, “What Works in Innovation in Education” series, Paris.

PLOMP, T., BRUMMELHUIS, A. T. and PELGRUM, W.J. (1997), “New approaches for teaching, learning and using informationand communication technologies in education”, Prospects, Vol. XXVII, No. 3.

STERN, D. and HUBER, G.L. (Eds.) ( 1997), Active Learning for Students and Teachers: Reports from Eight Countries, OECD and PeterLang, Frankfurt am Main.

UNESCO (1998), World Education Report 1998 – Teachers and Teaching in a Changing World, Paris.

VILLEGAS-REIMARS, E. and REIMERS, F. (1996), “Where are the missing 60 million teachers? The missing voice in educationalreforms around the world”, Prospects, Vol. XXVI, No. 3.

WAGNER, A. (1994), “The economics of teacher education”, in Tuijnman, A. and Postlethwaite, N. (Eds), The InternationalEncyclopaedia of Education, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

teachers for tomorrow's schools

Documents