Ei-iE

EI General Secretary, Fred van Leeuwen, addresses the Third International Summit on the Teaching Profession (ISTP) 2013

Now more than ever we need a vision, a shared vision on the future of the teaching profession. In many of our countries, there is a danger that education will slip down the agenda as the fiscal crisis continues to bite. We know that downgrading of education from its triple A status, to use a financial term, would be devastating and could lead us into other crises from which we may well not be able to escape.

All the evidence, from the OECD, our very own education rating agency, clearly demonstrates that when countries invest in high yield, high quality education for all, they realize the pivotal turning point for achieving social cohesion, economic success and the well-being of future generations. In the context of cutbacks, austerity measures, or zero growth policies, we are concerned about the impact on quality education. We know from the evidence that the most valuable resource for any successful education system is a high quality teaching profession which is committed to making a positive difference.

By that I do not just mean attracting the  brightest. We want a teaching profession comprised of individuals committed to making a difference to the lives of children and young people.

It is unlikely that any teacher joins our profession to just see marginal progress measured in student outcomes but rather they feel a calling to help students to learn as best captured in the powerful Delors report, “Learning, a treasure within”, to know, to do, to live together and to be. The dominant question for this Summit is how to build reliable, transparent and fair systems that ensure that the people entrusted with our most valuable resource - children and young people - can help them to develop to their fullest potential. What are the conditions that enable teachers to be enthusiastic, confident and at the top of their game? Those conditions hinge on many things but one if them is the confidence teachers have in knowing how well they are doing in their teaching. Professionals do not improve their knowledge and experience in isolation.

Growth and improvement come through honest interaction. Receiving and giving honest feedback. Collaborating on acquiring new knowledge and skills. Learning from each other. These are the hallmarks of a high-status, self-confident, self-starting profession in control of its quality and destiny. The question of teacher appraisal is at the core of the debate about the future of our profession. Is appraisal done to, done with, or down by teachers? And of course the outcome of appraisal are important. Should they be imposed on teachers or should teachers be able to choose the support and professional learning that arises from appraisal?

These questions are answered positively by governments understanding that teacher unions are not only the professional voice of teachers, but can also provide for their professional needs. Appraisal, if not acted upon to improve practice, signifies little, and means less.

This is why feedback, openly received and acted upon is so fundamental in going forward. I would argue that the 21st century demands 21st century feedback mechanisms that are unquestionably clear in their purpose of improvement of learning. Ben Levin challenged us: Will teacher unions accept responsibility for securing a knowledge base for professional practice? And will they support professional learning? The answer to the first question is a clear ‘yes’.

Many unions do already. But I give a qualified ‘yes’ to the second question because there are governments which do not believe that teacher unions have the ability to provide quality professional development for their members in the widest sense. These governments are wrong. The evidence is against them. And I would go further. I believe teacher unions should be a the center of determining teacher standards. You only have to look at the impact of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the US to know that this is the case.

I also know that in the Netherlands the same partnership approach has been taken, as has been in Australia, Ireland and Scotland. The alternative to this approach is suspicious, hostile teachers unable to rely on their own judgements and certainly not trusted or respected by their governments. Hardly a recipe for quality teaching and self-confident innovation. In some cases authorities’ use of accountability as a top-down measure to name and shame has lead to tragic consequences. Public humiliation, either of schools or of the people who work and study in them does not build the esteem that is key to high-performing systems. We are here in the company of the world’s best-performing education systems. What we build together today will have an impact far beyond the OECD. As a result of these dialogues and showing what is possible, Education International has been approached by the African Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of American States to help them build similar processes for sustainable dialogue on the teaching profession. We have a responsibility to the world to show that it is not just desirable, but it is feasible as well. Ministers and unions present here have the opportunity to agree on a framework for teacher appraisal and development which will not only enhance our own education systems but provide a model of successful partnership for other countries.