Decentralization and the professionalization of teachers

Øystein Gilje, University of OsloHenning Fjørtoft, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Sølvi Lillejord, Knowledge center for EducationStavanger, 10th January, ICSEI - 2019

oystein.gilje@ils.uio.no @ogilje henning.fjortoft@ntnu.no @hennif sl@forskningsradet.no @SolviLillejord

IntroductionThe last two decades, Norwegian schools have participated in large-scale, centrally initiated and led programs for professional development for teachers. These initiatives have often had a single curricular focus, for instance reading motivation (but not reading comprehension) or assessment for learning (but not assessment OF learning).

However, now, schools and school owners are expected to initiate professional development together with universities and university colleges.

We use a large-scale reform of Assessment for Learning (2010-2017) as a case to identify what it will take for decentralized professional development to be sustainable.

Four principles in thenew model (from 2017):

Local authorities have chief responsibility for the schools’ quality development.

They will have greater freedom of action.

Competence development has to be based on researchbased knowledge.

The State’s policy instruments will be differentiated.

Research question, method and dataRQ: How can a decentralization reform support teacher professional development?

Documents on a large-scale reform (Assessment of Learning) is analysed to understand how knowledge informs the planning and implementation of a centrally led and initiated reform.What is the knowledge foundation, who are the knowledge brokers etc.. In the analyses and discussion, we use three approaches to policy implementation: (1) the cascade model, (2) the reflective practitioner approach, (3) the school-based approach to highlight findings from the narrative synthesis.

Since the Knowledge Promotion Reform (2006) to present day, the national authorities have implemented more than a dozen different programs for competence development in school (1-13).

Many teachers in Norway take part in competence-raising activities, but they spend less time on this than teachers in other countries (3.5 days a year in Norway compared to 8.5 days in OECD countries).

Competence development: Norway 2006-2018

Assessment for Learning – AfL (2010 -2017)Better assessmentpractices (2007-09)

Assessment for learning - NorwayDATA: 98 interviews with stakeholders at all levels indicate successful implementation of AfL in municipalities with dialogue and trust between the municipality level, school

leaders, teachers and students and where the program was adapted to the local

context.

FINDINGS: Despite this, the program had no effect upon students’ learning outcome,

as measured on national tests in reading, English and mathematics.

QUESTION: We therefore ask how knowledge is used to inform and guide the work on

Assessment for learning (AfL) in Norway by asking what is assessment knowledge, who are the knowledge brokers, how is knowledge presented, and by whom.

www.kunnskapssenter.no /

Hopfenbeck, T. N., Flórez Petour, M. T., & Tolo, A. (2015). Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 44-60.

Perception of knowledge in Assessment for learning (AfL) 2010-2017

What: Assessment knowledge is assumed to reside externally, in foreign experts who have assisted schools in the implementation of AfL abroad and carry this knowledge

across borders.

Who: Staff from the Directorate for Education and Training (DET) decided to learntogether with teachers and school leaders and actively engaged in the implementation.

They saw themselves as the prime implementation agents

How: A DET web-page (resource bank) was a key part of the capacity building effort,

with introductory videos by leading UK researchers. This is a linear, top-down approach to professional development. While schools are different, they are all treated the same.

www.kunnskapssenter.no /

Hopfenbeck, Tolo, Florez & El Masri (2013) Balancing trust and accountability? The Assessment for learning programme in Norway. Governing Complex Educational Systems OECD library

Model Theory of action

Cascade approach Information dissemination

Reflective practitioner Reflecting on action through tacit knowledge

School-based initiatives Practitioners collaborate to exploit the collective resources and solve situated problems

Analytical approach

Questions for discussion:

How are local competence needs identified; - who are engaged in the process of identifying the knowledge needs?- how are participants selected for participation?

Who leads the work of developing a local knowledge base; - which knowledge sources are used? - who participates in the process?

Booth, A., Sutton, A., & Papaioannou, D. (2016). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review (Second edition). Los Angeles: Sage.

Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective Sensemaking about Reading: How Teachers Mediate Reading Policy in Their Professional Communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the Gap between Standards and Achievement: The Imperative for Professional Development in Education. Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/bridging-gap-between-standards-and-achievement

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional Development and Teacher Change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in every school. New York ; London: Teachers College Press.

Hopfenbeck, T., Tolo, A., Florez, T., & El Masri, Y. (2013). Balancing trust and accountability? The Assessment for learning programme in Norway. Governing Complex Educational Systems OECD library

Hopfenbeck, T. N., Flórez Petour, M. T., & Tolo, A. (2015). Balancing tensions in educational policy reforms: Large-scale implementation of assessment for learning in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(1), 44-60.

Jonsson, A., Lundahl, C., & Holmgren, A. (2015). Evaluating a large-scale implementation of Assessment for Learning in Sweden. Assessment in education: Principles, policy & practice, 22(1), 104-121.

Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching? Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800

Leirhaug, P. E., & Annerstedt, C. (2016). Assessing with new eyes? Assessment for learning in Norwegian physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(6), 616-631.

Nortvedt, G. A., Santos, L., & Pinto, J. (2016). Assessment for learning in Norway and Portugal: The case of primary school mathematics teaching. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 23(3), 377-395 Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing Teacher Professional Learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609

Pettersson, D., Prøitz, T. S., & Forsberg, E. (2017). From role models to nations in need of advice: Norway and Sweden under the OECD’s magnifying glass. Journal of education policy, 32(6), 721-744.

Portnoi, L. M. (2016). Policy borrowing and reform in education: globalized processes and local contexts. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2009). Chain of influence from policy to practice in the New Zealand literacy strategy. Research Papers in Education, 24(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520902867077

Topping, K. (2018). Implementation fidelity and pupil achievement in book reading: variation between regions, local authorities and schools. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 620-641.

Tveit, S. (2014). Educational assessment in Norway. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(2), 221-237.