THE AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS:

PERSPECTIVES ON POLICY ENACTMENT OF THE LEAD

STANDARDS

Amanda Rose Brien

B. Nat. Res., Grad. Dip. Ed. (Secondary)

This thesis is presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Educational Leadership

The University of Western Australia

Graduate School of Education

2018

ii

THESIS DECLARATION

I, Amanda Rose Brien, certify that:

This thesis has been substantially accomplished during enrolment in the degree.

This thesis does not contain material which has been accepted for the award of any other

degree or diploma in my name, in any university or other tertiary institution.

No part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission in my name, for any other

degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval

of The University of Western Australia and where applicable, any partner institution

responsible for the joint-award of this degree.

This thesis does not contain any material previously published or written by another

person, except where due reference has been made in the text.

The work(s) are not in any way a violation or infringement of any copyright, trademark,

patent, or other rights whatsoever of any person.

The research involving human data reported in this thesis was assessed and approved by

The University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee. Approval

RA/4/1/7942

The following approvals were obtained prior to commencing the relevant work described

in this thesis:

- Approval for access to the Department for Education and Child Development sites

– DECD CS/16/00073-1.5

- Approval to conduct research in South Australian Catholic Schools – REF 201629

- Approval from the Principal at each site in which a teacher participant was

enacting the APST Lead or Highly Accomplished Standards.

The work described in this thesis was funded by an Australian Government Research

Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

This thesis does not contain work that I have published, nor work under review for

publication.

Signature

Date: 12th July 2018

iii

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to analyse the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

(APST) policy processes, with a primary focus on the Lead Standards and their enactment

by teachers in selected settings in South Australia.

The APST policy is a national initiative with the intent of improving the quality of the

teaching profession in Australia. APST policy delineates teacher quality at four stages

along a career continuum of increasing teacher professional growth: Graduate, Proficient,

Highly Accomplished and Lead. APST policy sits within a wider global agenda to

enhance teacher quality for improved student educational outcomes, especially as

measured using comparative national and international testing mechanisms. This

qualitative study provided insights into the processes of enactment at the highest level of

teacher quality along the career continuum, that of Lead teacher.

The research aim was investigated using a ‘policy trajectory’ conceptual framework

which examined policy influences, policy text production, policy practices and effects

(enactment) and the longer-term policy outcomes of the APST policy processes. Analysis

occurred across three levels: macro (national: Australia), meso (State: South Australia),

and micro (local: teachers) in schools. The research was informed by theoretical lenses

of both interpretivism and critical theory, which were employed at different stages during

the research process. A multiple case study design was used to elicit teacher perspectives

and then to link to changing power relations along the policy trajectory. Sixteen interview

participants who were Lead or Highly Accomplished teachers were purposively selected.

In addition, three interview participants were purposively selected at the meso (State:

South Australia) level. Interview and documentary data were collected and analysed

simultaneously during the research process.

iv

Meta-analysis of the findings across the three levels of the policy trajectory revealed that

power from a national level was a dominant influence on APST policy processes. The

national government clearly identified that competitive global influences were impacting

on Australian education policy agendas, especially in relation to teacher quality.

Findings for the context of policy text production revealed two dominant meta-themes of

accountability and policy borrowing. These meta-themes were evident in the APST policy

texts that governed and regulated teacher quality improvement for quality assurance. An

imbalance of power was revealed between various policy actors during the processes of

APST policy text production. Within APST Lead Standards policy specifically, teacher

quality capacity building and collective impact on student outcomes were identified as

the key emphases of teacher leadership.

Enactment of APST Lead Standards policy by teachers was enabled by school and

system-level structural and contextual features, especially school leadership. School

leadership assumed the power to create conditions to facilitate APST policy enactment,

for example, the provision of time for teachers to participate in professional conversations

and to undertake the certification process. Shifting levels of power were revealed between

policy actors at the local level as teachers enacted APST Lead Standards policy.

The most prominent effect of the enactment of APST Lead Standards policy was

increased teacher accountability for teacher quality improvement, which had an

inconclusive impact on student outcomes. Contention existed between the meso (State:

South Australia) and micro (local: teacher) levels about teacher recognition and reward.

Teachers envisioned uncertainty of teacher recognition and equity in student outcomes,

as possible longer-term effects of APST Lead Standards policy enactment.

v

Recommendations for future research include similar qualitative studies seeking the

perspectives of teachers about professional standards in different Australian States and

Territories, as well as internationally.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THESIS DECLARATION ................................................................................................ ii

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ix

CONVENTIONS .............................................................................................................. x

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND ............ 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers .................................................... 2

Design of this study ....................................................................................................... 4

Significance of this research.......................................................................................... 5

Locating the researcher ................................................................................................. 6

Background to this study: Trends in policy on teacher quality and teacher standards . 6

Thesis structure............................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER TWO: OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................ 17

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 17

Globalisation and education policy ............................................................................. 17

The changing conceptualisation of ‘policy’ ................................................................ 20

Teacher quality ............................................................................................................ 24

Teacher professional development and professional learning .................................... 27

Teacher leadership ....................................................................................................... 29

Teacher standards and APST policy ........................................................................... 31

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................... 35

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 35

Research aim ............................................................................................................... 35

Theoretical frameworks ............................................................................................... 36

Policy trajectory framework and research questions ................................................... 37

Research design ........................................................................................................... 39

Research methods ........................................................................................................ 40

vii

Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................. 50

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 50

CHAPTER FOUR: MACRO (NATIONAL: AUSTRALIAN) AND MESO (STATE:

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN) LEVEL FINDINGS .............................................................. 52

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 52

Findings: Macro (national: Australian) level .............................................................. 52

Findings: Meso (State: South Australian) level .......................................................... 60

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 66

CHAPTER FIVE: MICRO (LOCAL: TEACHER) LEVEL FINDINGS ....................... 68

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 68

Context of policy influences ........................................................................................ 68

Context of policy text production ................................................................................ 71

Context of policy practices and effects (enactment) ................................................... 76

Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER SIX: META-ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 89

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 89

Research question one: The context of policy influences ........................................... 89

Research question two: The context of policy text production ................................... 93

Research question three: The context of policy practices and effects (enactment) ..... 99

Research question four: The context of policy outcomes ......................................... 107

Developments after data collection and before thesis submission related to the APST

policies, from 2016/17 to 2018 .................................................................................. 111

Recommendations and future directions ................................................................... 112

Limitations and possible further research.................................................................. 114

Conclusion of the thesis ............................................................................................ 115

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 116

APPENDIX A: Organisation of the APST ................................................................... 146

APPENDIX B: APST Lead Standards policy ............................................................... 147

APPENDIX C: OECD Education Policy Levers .......................................................... 151

APPENDIX D: Policies targeting the teaching profession in OECD countries from 2008

to 2014 ........................................................................................................................... 152

APPENDIX E: Interview Questions ............................................................................. 153

APPENDIX F: Interview Protocol ................................................................................ 155

APPENDIX G: Participant Information and Consent ................................................... 156

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Text excerpt from the APST policy document that illustrates textual and

critical discourse analysis ..………………………………………………………….…48

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Data gathered for the four research questions at each level of the policy

trajectory …………………………...…………………………………………………..42

Table 3.2 Documentary data sources at the macro (national: Australian) and meso

(State: SA) levels…………………………………………………………………...…..43

Table 3.3 Example of thematic analysis of interview data using the Miles and

Huberman framework ……………………..…………………………………...………47

Table 4.1. Predominant themes in documents at the macro (national: Australian) level

for the contexts of the policy trajectory…………………………...……………………53

Table 4.2. Predominant themes in documentary and interview data at the meso (State:

SA) level for the contexts of the policy trajectory……………….………..……………61

Table 5.1. Predominant themes at the micro (local: teacher) level for the contexts of the

policy trajectory…………………………………………………….…………………..69

Table 6.1 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy

influences………………………………………………………………………….……90

Table 6.2 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy text

production……………………..…………………………………………………….….94

Table 6.3 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy

practices and effects …………………………………………………………...……...100

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my co-ordinating supervisor, Professor Lesley Vidovich, for her

patience, dedication and uplifting support throughout the entire research process for this

thesis. I am indebted to Lesley for her insightful, detailed and timely feedback. Lesley

empowered me and challenged my personal limitations, as I engaged in learning for my

personal growth. I am ever grateful for her understanding and willingness to work

together to overcome the challenges of mobility and distance.

I also extend much gratitude to my co-supervisor, Rachel Wicking, for her contributions

to the many drafts as this thesis evolved. Your perspectives from a different educational

background were insightful and added much value to this thesis.

I am especially grateful for the contributions of all the participants in this study. You

committed time out of an increasingly busy schedule to share your perspectives. I

acknowledge your willingness to share.

Lastly, I am thankful for the constant support from my family. To my husband, Andrew,

for your understanding and patience, for sharing this journey with me and knowing how

important it was for my personal growth. To Billy, Charlie, Matilda and Chelsea, you are

the reason that motivated me to embark on, and persist with this journey. Together, we

can accomplish the most amazing things.

This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program

(RTP) Scholarship.

x

CONVENTIONS

Spelling conventions:

This thesis has adopted the ‘English (Australian)’ spelling conventions.

Use of capitalisation for the words ‘state’ and ‘territory’:

Capital ‘S’ and capital ‘T’ are used when referring to Australian States and Territories.

Lowercase ‘s’ and ‘t’ are used in every other circumstance.

Use of capitalisation for the word ‘lead’:

Capital ‘L’ is used when referring to a Lead teacher as specified in the Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers.

Lowercase ‘l’ is used when referring to a lead teacher in general, for all other contexts.

Use of capitalisation for the word ‘standards’:

Capital ‘S’ is used when referring to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers.

Capitalisation is used for each level of career stage denoted in the Standards. That is,

Graduate Standards, Proficient Standards, Highly Accomplished Standards and Lead

Standards.

Lowercase ‘s’ is used when referring to teacher standards in general.

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority

AEUSA Australian Education Union (SA Branch)

AISSA Association of Independent Schools of South Australia

AITSL Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership

APST Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

CEASA Council of Education Associations of South Australia

CESA Catholic Education South Australia

COAG Council of Australian Governments

DECD Department for Education and Child Development

MCEETYA Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs

NBPTS National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

NSW New South Wales

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment

PD Professional development

PL Professional learning

SA South Australia

TRBSA Teachers Registration Board of South Australia

TL Teacher leadership

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

US United States

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND

Introduction

The aim of this study was to analyse the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

(APST) policy processes, with a primary focus on the Lead Standards and their enactment

by teachers in selected settings in South Australia (SA). APST policy is a national

initiative with the intent of improving the quality of the teaching profession in Australia

(Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership [AITSL], 2011). APST policy

sits within a broader global policy landscape of national initiatives to improve teacher

standards. In particular, the teacher standards agenda in the US was influential in the

development of Australia’s teacher standards. APST policy mirrors the global trends of

increased standardisation and accountability in education, with a focus on teacher quality

along a career continuum from Graduate teacher to Lead teacher. APST policy identifies

a Lead teacher as an enactor of exemplary practice in the teaching profession (AITSL,

2011, 2012a).

This chapter presents the contextual background to APST policy and APST Lead

Standards policy; the latter being the focus of this study. This chapter is organised into

six sections. The first section describes APST policy and APST Lead Standards policy.

The second section outlines the research design. The third section presents the

significance of this research in the Australian context. The fourth section states the

researcher’s positionality (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010) with regard to this research. The fifth

section establishes the policy context in which this research on APST policy is situated.

‘Global’ policy trends on teacher quality and standards are identified, with a focus on

2

teacher quality policies in countries of particular interest and relevance to Australia: the

United States (US) and England. These countries have been significant sources of

benchmarking and policy borrowing for Australia (Francis, Mills, & Lupton, 2017;

Lingard, 2010). Thereafter, developments in policy on teacher quality and teacher

standards, and significant policy antecedents in the lead up to APST policy release in

2011, are identified in Australia. State level, contemporary teacher quality policy in South

Australia is presented as it intersects with enactment of APST policy. The concluding

section of this chapter outlines the remaining chapters in this thesis.

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (also referred to as APST policy,

formerly the National Professional Standards for Teachers) was published in February

2011 as a policy initiative designed to improve the quality of Australian teachers

(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2011). APST

policy is “a public statement of what constitutes teacher quality” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2).

APST policy comprises seven Standards sorted into three overlapping areas or domains

of teaching: “Professional Knowledge, Professional Practice and Professional

Engagement” (AITSL, 2011, p. 3). Each Standard consists of a list of sub-Standards,

termed ‘focus areas’. Each focus area denotes the key elements of teacher quality

according to a teachers’ knowledge, practice and/or engagement (see Appendix A;

AITSL, 2011). There are 37 elements of teacher quality within the Standards. These

elements are termed ‘descriptors’.

The Standards are organised according to four stages of a teacher’s professional career:

Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished, and Lead. The descriptors at each career

stage denote the benchmark against which to recognise and measure increasing teacher

3

professional growth along a continuum, from Graduate to Lead teacher (AITSL, 2012a).

The highest career stages, namely Highly Accomplished and Lead teacher, are voluntary

career stages that require teachers to undertake a “rigorous” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 2) process

for certification. This study concerns itself primarily with the Standards as defined at the

Lead teacher career stage of professional growth.

APST policy defines a Lead teacher according to what a Lead teacher knows and should

be able to do (AITSL, 2011, 2012a). APST policy denotes the key features of a Lead

teacher’s professional practice as reflective, evaluative, inclusive, consistent, effective,

exemplary and innovative, as demonstrated over time (see Appendix B; AITSL, 2011).

Lead teachers are defined as those who lead colleagues, initiatives and processes, model

professional practice, and inspire and mentor colleagues to improve their own

professional practice and engagement. These features are consistent with the purpose of

the national policy for the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in

Australia (Certification), which is to “recognise and promote quality teaching” (AITSL,

2012a, p. 3) and reflective practice. The Certification policy is informed by APST Lead

Standards policy and sets a precedent for national consistency in the certification of Lead

teachers (AITSL, 2011, 2012a).

ASPT policy has been elaborated by various teacher professional associations to facilitate

use of the Standards in the different contexts in which a teacher works. For example, the

Professional Standards Elaborations for Specialist Teachers (Vision Impairment) for

children with vision impairments (South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment Inc.,

2016), EAL/D Elaborations of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers for

learners of English as an Additional Language or Dialect (Australian Council of TESOL

Associations, 2015), and Teacher of the Deaf Elaborations of the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers for use by Teachers of the Deaf in Australian educational

4

settings (National Association of Australian Teachers of the Deaf, 2016).

Design of this study

This study was informed by the theoretical lenses of both interpretivism and critical

theory which were employed at different points in the research. The interpretivist

paradigm was relevant to the initial data collection and analysis phases of this study.

Interpretivism enabled collection and analysis of teacher perspectives on the enactment

of APST Lead Standards policy, and meanings could be examined in context

(O’Donoghue, 2007). A critical approach facilitated a more comprehensive ‘bigger

picture’ analysis of relevant policy processes by questioning the power relationships

throughout the whole policy trajectory, extending between global and local levels

(Simons, Olssen, & Peters, 2009; Vidovich, 2007, 2013).

The aim of this study was translated into four research questions that were framed using

the ‘policy trajectory’ conceptual framework. Initially developed by Ball (1994) and

further developed by Vidovich (2007, 2013) for empirical application, the policy

trajectory framework in this study was differentiated into four contexts: influences; policy

text production; practices and effects (enactment); and longer-term outcomes. Each

context of the APST policy process was examined at three levels to facilitate in-depth

analysis (Vidovich, 2007, 2013): the macro or national level (Australia); the meso or State

level (South Australia); and the micro or local level (teachers). The research aim exacted

focus on the context of practices and effects, i.e. policy enactment. A qualitative multiple-

case study research design was employed to enable an in-depth analysis of teacher

perspectives on APST Lead Standards policy enactment in different settings, which in

turn informed a subsequent meta-analysis along the whole policy trajectory extending

from global to local (teacher) levels. Documents and semi-structured interviews were the

5

two main sources of data. The methodology is explicated further in Chapter Three.

Significance of this research

This study makes a contribution to research in the field in three ways. First, this study is

relevant because of the national level of significance assigned to APST policy and the

mandatory requirement for all teachers to achieve accreditation as a Proficient teacher.

This research was timely given APST policy was in its fifth year of enactment at the

commencement of data collection in 2016. The period of time from inception of APST

policy was sufficient for a cohort of teachers to either be engaged in, or have completed

the certification process as a Lead teacher.

Second, the qualitative data collected from this study provided a snapshot of teacher

perspectives on the processes of APST policy enactment at the local level, especially at

the Lead and Highly Accomplished career stages. The findings from this study identified

enablers and constraints to APST policy enactment, in particular APST Lead Standards

policy enactment by teachers in schools in SA. Constraints identified at the micro (local:

teacher) level may assist future directions of national APST policy and State-level policy

responses, and contribute to feedback mechanisms within the policy cycle. Perspectives

of the policy actors at the local level of enactment were significant in identifying gaps in

APST Lead Standards policy between policy intent and policy enactment.

Third, the findings from this study make an important contribution to initial research on

the impact of Lead teachers in Australian schools. Teacher perspectives on the impact of

their practice in SA schools addresses a gap in research, as identified in Taking the lead:

National certification of Australia’s best teachers (AITSL, 2017a). The paper identified

a ‘next step’ in APST Lead Standards policy to “undertake research to examine the impact

6

of nationally certified teachers” (AITSL, 2017a, p. 16). The findings from this study make

an initial contribution to some of the areas identified by AITSL for future research.

Locating the researcher

The researcher has an interest in policy studies, including the effects of education policy

enactment on student learning and wellbeing. The researcher was a secondary teacher in

a regional New South Wales Catholic school from 2005 to 2011, during the initial phases

of implementation of national standards for the professionalisation of teaching in New

South Wales. The researcher was an active parent participant in the governance and

fundraising dimensions of primary schools, having been a parent representative on an

Independent Public School board in Western Australia and a Catholic school board in the

Northern Territory. The researcher convened a subcommittee of a governing council in a

South Australian school at the time data collection commenced. That school did not

participate in this study. The researcher was a secondary teacher in an Independent Public

School in the Northern Territory for the remainder of the data analysis stage of this

research.

Background to this study: Trends in policy on teacher quality and teacher standards

This section, which provides the background to this study, summarises global trends in

education policy concerning teacher quality up to the point of data collection, with a focus

on recent reforms. An emphasis on teacher quality is supported by the attention APST

policy assigned to improving teacher quality, as one pathway to increase student learning

outcomes (AITSL, 2011). It is acknowledged that teacher ‘quality’ is a complex and

contested concept (Adomou, 2011). Teacher quality and teacher standards are considered

as situated here within the broader umbrella of accountability, as further explicated in

Chapter Two. Policy on teaching quality in Australia has historically been influenced by

7

international policy developments in countries including the US and England (Alderman,

2015; Dinham, 2015). For this reason, contemporary teacher quality policies in the US

and England are considered as key international comparisons to Australia, with particular

focus on teacher standards and teacher leadership policy in the US. Whilst it is

acknowledged that Finland is a country of international interest in the area of teacher

quality policy (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and

Development [OECD], 2015), teacher standards and teacher leadership policy trends in

Finland are not considered here as they are outside the scope for this study.

Global context. The ‘global’ trend towards highlighting quality in education has

resulted in a focus on standards, particularly driven by the international organisation, the

OECD (ACARA, 2011; OECD, 2013). Similarly, the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Education 2030 Agenda linked teacher

quality to standards, as well as adequate and equitable resourcing (UNESCO, 2015).

International data collected by means of various OECD initiatives, especially the

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Teaching and Learning

International Survey, and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study,

have been highly influential in determining the international focus on quality education

and on teacher quality as a determinant of student performance (OECD, 2013). The

OECD confirmed the continuing trend of internationalisation and standardisation of

education policy, policy borrowing and the increasing competitive nature of education

globally (OECD, 2013).

The OECD recognised teacher-focused policy as the most common area of education

policy reform in OECD countries between 2008 and 2014 (OECD, 2015). Some OECD

countries have implemented policy options for high quality teachers, for example, career

paths and professional development. Targeted policies to reform and improve teacher

8

quality through career progression have included teacher selection programs, incentive

and remuneration initiatives, teacher appraisal and professional development frameworks

(see Appendix C, Appendix D; OECD, 2015). Some OECD countries, including

Australia, the US and England, have implemented teacher standards as a comprehensive

strategy to improve teacher quality, whereby teachers are certified by professional bodies.

Further, some teacher standards policies recognised and offered advanced certification as

a Lead teacher. Relevant policies in the US and England are briefly outlined as key

international comparisons to Australian teacher quality policy, in the two subsections to

follow.

Policy on teacher quality and teacher standards in the US. The US made an early

commitment to teacher quality policy reform with the establishment of a National Board

for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in 1987. Opportunities for teacher

leadership were made available with the legislation of national benchmarks for student

achievement in the Common Core State Standards policy of 2009 (Amore, Hoeflich, &

Pennington, 2015). High-stakes performance-based teacher appraisal policies for the

evaluation of teacher quality ensued (Amrein-Beardsley, Pivovarova, & Geiger, 2016;

National Council on Teacher Quality, 2011, 2015). In 2011, existing US teacher standards

policies were aligned into one document titled the Teacher Leader Model Standards

which described the professional practice at all stages of a teacher’s career (Council of

Chief State School Officers, 2011; Hill, Stumbo, Paliokas, Hansen, & McWalters, 2010).

Teacher Leader Competencies were successively developed to guide teachers to cultivate

and activate national networks of new (and existing) teacher leaders (Center for Teaching

Quality, NBPTS, & National Education Association, 2014; NBPTS, 2015; Teacher

Leadership Initiative, n.d.).

9

Various additional policies for teacher leadership in the US have included the Teach to

Lead Initiative and the Teacher-Powered Schools Initiative, 2014. These initiatives

sought to expand opportunities for teacher leadership, offered a platform for sharing ideas

and gave teacher leaders the autonomy to design and operate schools (Teacher-Powered

Schools, 2015; US Department of Education, 2015). These initiatives, amongst others,

sought to guide the professional development of teacher leaders (Center for Strengthening

the Teaching Profession, 2016). Additional policies have targeted recruitment and

retention of effective teachers, for example, the Teacher Incentive Fund Program 2012

(OECD, 2015), to address identified teacher shortages in the US (Podolsky, Kini, Bishop,

& Darling-Hammond, 2016).

Policy on teacher quality and teacher standards in England. Teacher certification

in England is a shared responsibility between several national bodies (Wang, Coleman,

Coley, & Phelps, 2003). Advanced certification was first introduced in 1998 following a

report that suggested low student achievement levels could be raised by improving the

quality of teaching (Fuller, Goodwyn, Francis-Brophy, & Harding, 2010; Woodhead,

1998). The policy response was to introduce, recognise and reward Advanced Skills

Teachers by means of pay incentives, to encourage these teachers to remain in the

classroom and lead school improvement and continuing professional development of

other teachers (Training and Development Agency for Schools, 2007). In 2007, the

Advanced Skills Teacher was incorporated into the Professional Standards for teachers

policy, which describes the knowledge, skills and attributes of a teacher at each stage of

a career continuum from beginning teacher to Advanced Skills Teacher.

In 2012, the Professional Standards for Teachers were replaced by Teachers’ Standards

that sought to improve the professionalisation of teachers by setting baseline expectations

against which teacher performance was assessed (Department for Education, 2012a;

10

OECD, 2015). Concurrently, the Office for Standards in Education introduced a new

Framework for School Inspection which supported teacher professional development yet

terminated the Advanced Skills Teacher delineation (Department for Education, 2012b;

OECD, 2015).

National context in Australia. Teacher standards have been developed and

implemented in Australia as a comprehensive policy for teacher quality reform (OECD,

2015). Teacher standards have been posited as a policy instrument against which teacher

professional practice, self-reflection, career progression and performance may be guided

and measured (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth

Affairs [MCEETYA], 2003). Teacher standards have most recently been depicted in

Australia as a framework to define teacher quality (AITSL, 2011). Policy developments

in teacher quality and standards in Australia are chronologically outlined below.

The Australian Government’s first national commitment to improving the quality of

teaching in Australian schools is evidenced in the Hobart Declaration on Schooling

(Declaration), 1989 (Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood, 2012).

The Declaration observed the new “cooperative federalism” (Lingard, 2010, p. 130)

between the national government and Australian States and Territories, whereby the

States and Territories assumed power for education policy and maintained the

responsibility for implementing national education policy frameworks (Lingard, 2010;

Mills & McGregor, 2016). The Declaration warranted the establishment of the National

Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning to consider elements of a teacher’s work,

and teacher professionalism. A major outcome of the Declaration was the National

Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching, 1996; the beginning of the first wave

of teacher standards in Australia (Louden, 2000). The framework set out to articulate and

promote quality teaching based on competencies that “might be expected” (Whitty, cited

11

in MCEETYA, 2003, p. 48) of beginning teachers, though it has been criticised for

restricting teacher professional growth. Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia

subsequently developed teacher standards that recognised the elements of teacher quality

for experienced and exemplary teachers (Kleinhenz & Ingvarson, 2007; Louden, 2000).

Australia sought to further enhance teacher quality with the adoption of the Adelaide

Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the 21st Century in 1999 (Education

Council, 2014; MCEETYA, 2003). A new policy initiative, namely A National

Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching, was successively developed with

the purpose of promoting quality teaching and enabling pathways for professional growth

(MCEETYA, 2003). This initiative corresponded with Australia’s transition to standards-

based education towards the end of the 1990s, accompanied by a trend towards the

decentralisation of schooling. Accordingly, the framework proposed four stages of

teacher career progression: “Graduation; Competence; Accomplishment; and

Leadership” (MCEETYA, 2003, p. 9), as described through a teacher’s professional

knowledge, practice, values and relationships. The framework represented national

agreement on teacher quality and provided a mechanism for States, Territories and

professional teacher associations to develop or modify existing teacher standards for

national consistency.

The Commonwealth government renewed its commitment to quality teaching during

Labor’s national education reforms and the inception of the Melbourne Declaration on

Educational Goals for Young Australians in 2008 (ACARA, 2011; MCEETYA, 2003,

2008). Nationally agreed initiatives and policies targeting the quality of the teaching

profession and school leadership began with the five-year National Partnership

Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality from 2009 to 2013, the outcomes of which

were to develop, retain and reward quality teachers and school leaders (ACARA, 2011).

12

The national partnership called for the development of nationally agreed teacher

professional standards and national consistency in the certification of Highly

Accomplished and Lead teachers (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2008).

This partnership was complemented by the Australian Government Quality Teacher

Program, a funding body for continued professional development for teacher quality

(ACARA, 2011), and the National Partnership Agreement on Rewards for Great

Teachers, which allocated $60 million to States and Territories to grant one-off payments

to certified teachers (COAG, 2012). The governing body AITSL was established in 2010

to provide national leadership in “promoting excellence in the profession of teaching and

school leadership” (ACARA, 2011, p. 14). AITSL works collaboratively with Australian

State and Territory regulatory bodies to administer APST policy for mandatory

registration at the Graduate and Proficient career stages, and voluntary certification as

Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers, to ensure nationally consistent registration of

teachers (AITSL, 2014b, 2014c).

The Australian Government’s ongoing commitment to enhance teacher quality was

evidenced in two additional, interconnected national policies that aid the progression of

teachers along a career continuum. The Australian Teacher Performance and

Development Framework, 2012, is a targeted policy for teacher appraisal (AITSL,

2012b). Underpinned by APST policy, the framework aims to improve the quality of

teaching by promoting a performance and development culture in schools. The

framework supports continuous teacher assessment, feedback and performance appraisal,

and is complemented by the Australian Charter for Professional Learning of Teachers

and School Leaders, 2012, in its purpose to promote improvement throughout a teacher’s

career (OECD, 2015). The Charter seeks to develop teacher capacity across the teaching

profession (AITSL, 2012c).

13

Enactment of APST policy and voluntary national certification commenced in Australian

States and Territories in 2013, assisted by AITSL (2014d). Since enactment commenced,

284 teachers have been certified as Highly Accomplished or Lead teachers in Australia

as at March 2016, with the total number of certified teachers expected to increase to 500

during 2017 (AISTL, 2016a). At the time of data collection, Queensland, Tasmania and

Victoria did not offer voluntary certification (AITSL, 2014b). AITSL has developed a

suite of supportive resources for certification and enactment of APST policy, including

the Classroom Practice Continuum (AITSL, n.d.a), online Illustrations of Practice and

forums for discussion, the MyStandards app, and an online Teacher Self-Assessment Tool

to aid individual teacher reflection on practice (AITSL, 2013a). The Guide to the

Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in Australia, 2013 and

companion documents, namely the Certification Documentary Evidence Supplement:

Lead Teachers, 2013 and Certification Evidence Mapping Document: Lead teachers,

were developed to assist teacher understanding of certification requirements (AITSL,

2013a, 2013b, n.d.b). A national certification assessor training program has also been

developed to ensure nationally consistent certification of teachers (AITSL, 2016b),

assisted by a series of teacher workbooks (AITSL, n.d.c). The Highly Accomplished and

Lead Teacher Network was launched in March 2016 to promote and advance teacher

quality by raising the profile of certification and presenting opportunities for teacher

professional growth and collaboration (AITSL, 2016c). The network had 153 registered

members as at May, 2016 (B. Gazzara, personal communication, May 13, 2016).

State context in South Australia (SA). The Council of Education Associations

of SA (CEASA) was formed in 1994 as an initiative intended to improve the quality of

teachers by means of collaboration (CEASA, n.d.a., n.d.b.). Funded by the Department

for Education and Child Development (DECD), the Council acts as a mechanism for

14

information sharing and the formation of partnerships across a network of SA teacher and

educator associations. The Council provides opportunities for teacher professional

learning in support of its commitment to improve student learning through the

development of teachers, for improved teacher quality (CEASA, n.d.c.).

Teacher registration in SA is administered by the Teachers Registration Board of SA

(TRBSA). The Registration Board was established under the Teachers Registration and

Standards Act 2004 and the Teachers Registration and Standards Regulations 2005 (most

recent version 2016) to regulate the quality of the teaching profession in the State

(TRBSA, 2016). The Registration Board requires mandatory (full) registration of all

teachers at the Proficient stage of career development in line with APST policy and within

a set time period (TRBSA, n.d.).

The Teachers Registration Board of SA makes no mandatory requirement for certification

of SA teachers at Highly Accomplished or Lead teacher levels. Teachers may apply for

voluntary certification to their relevant employment sector (i.e. the DECD, the

Association of Independent Schools of SA [AISSA], or Catholic Education SA [CESA]).

A monetary cost may apply for application, dependent on sector. Certification is assessed

and awarded by the SA Teacher Certification Committee based on recommendations

from teacher assessment by each sector, in line with the Guide to the Certification of

Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in SA, 2013 (AISSA, n.d.a; AITSL, 2013c,

2014c, 2015b). Certification remains current for a period of five years after which the

teacher must undergo an application process for renewal (AITSL, 2012a, 2013a).

Various policy initiatives have ensued from the SA education sectors to enhance teacher

quality for teacher leadership in line with APST policy. The DECD initiated a two-year

certification trial that commenced in 2015, in which 60 teachers participated (Australian

Education Union SA [AEUSA], 2016). The initiative was offered as an alternative career

15

path to existing lead teacher classifications in SA, namely Advanced Skills Teacher, and

band A and band B leadership roles. The DECD offered salary incentives for teachers

certified as Highly Accomplished or Lead, which was to cease at the end of 2017

(Murphy, 2016). From 2017/18 the DECD was to advertise a limited number of positions

for Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers (DECD, 2017). The intent was for teachers

to apply for, and win one of these positions to achieve a salary incentive. Remuneration

incentives were offered by CESA to promote quality teaching and to encourage teachers

to achieve voluntary certification (CESA, 2014a). Under CESA’s then current enterprise

agreement, an annual allowance was paid to Lead teachers. There was no limit to the

number of Advanced Skills Teachers in SA, all of whom received a salary incentive

according to the Advanced Skills Teacher classification (AEUSA, 2016). An additional

competency-based classification was implemented by DECD at the highest level (Step 9)

along an incremental salary progression, which was granted through teacher assessment

(DECD, n.d.a).

Additional sector-specific teacher quality policies enacted in SA in 2016/17 included the

DECD Teaching for Effective Learning framework and Performance and Development

Policy, and the Continuous Improvement Framework for Catholic Schools. The purpose

of the Teaching for Effective Learning framework was to improve the quality of teaching

and learning in DECD schools through the use of a reflective guide, assisted by online

feedback tools (DECD, n.d.b). The Performance and Development Policy was designed

to build teacher professional capacity in DECD schools (DECD, 2014). The policy

focused on collaboration, shared learning and feedback for the development of a “quality

performance culture” (DECD, 2014, p. 4). The Continuous Improvement Framework was

enacted in SA Catholic schools. The framework identified teacher quality as a

characteristic of high quality schools and depicted teacher quality as reflective,

collaborative, and guided by data and evidence (CESA, 2014b). In addition, CESA and

16

AISSA facilitated various opportunities for professional learning for improved teacher

quality (AISSA, n.d.b; CESA, 2016). Teacher quality was recognised through a State-

based initiative, namely the South Australian Public Teaching Awards, for which APST

policy was specified as “the basis for criteria in judging high quality teachers” in 2012

(DECD, AISSA, & CESA, 2012, p. 9).

Thesis structure

This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter One has provided an overview of this

research and situated the research within the global and national policy contexts at the

time this research was conducted. Chapter Two reviews significant literature relating to

the conceptual themes that underpin this research. Chapter Three outlines the research

methodology. The research findings are presented in Chapters Four to Six. Chapter Four

presents the macro (national: Australian) level findings, and the findings at the meso

(State: SA) level. Chapter Five presents the findings at the micro (local: teacher) level

in particular SA schools. This chapter also presents a cross-case (horizontal) analysis

between cases. Chapter Six is a meta-analysis of the findings presented in Chapters Four

and Five, along the policy trajectory extending from macro to micro level (vertical

analysis). The findings are compared and contrasted with the relevant literature outlined

in Chapter Two, and emergent meta-themes are discussed. Relevant developments in

teacher quality policy and teacher standards in Australia are presented, from the time data

was collected in 2016/17 to the point of thesis submission in 2018. This chapter concludes

with implications of the findings for future policy directions in teacher quality policy in

Australia and SA, and considerations for further research in this field.

17

CHAPTER TWO

OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

The previous chapter contextualised the policy processes relevant to this study, both

globally and in Australia, where this study was located. This chapter presents a review of

literature pertaining to the key concepts that inform this study, all of which are strongly

inter-related and overlapping. The chapter is organised into six sections. The first section,

globalisation and education policy, conceptualises globalisation as an overarching

concept within which the key concepts sit. The impact of globalisation on education

policy and the teaching profession is outlined. The second section considers literature on

the changing conceptualisation of ‘policy’, with policy being defined as a process. The

third section conceptualises teacher quality. The terms teacher quality and quality

teaching are often used interchangeably in the literature. Research that draws links

between teacher quality and student achievement is presented. The fourth section presents

literature on teacher professional development and professional learning. The fifth

section conceptualises teacher leadership. The chapter concludes by bringing the key

concepts together as they are relevant to this research on teacher standards and APST

policy processes.

Globalisation and education policy

Globalisation refers to the notion of a ‘shared social space’ (Welch, 2013, 2018) in which

the transnational dimensions of time and space are boundless (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

This shared social space is created by the mobilisation of economic and human capital in

global networks, and comprises various spatial distributions of ‘power’ (Rizvi & Lingard,

18

2010; Seddon, Ozga, & Levin, 2013). The impact of globalisation on education is relevant

in decentralised, multi-sectoral, multi-scalar and open-source models of education (Dale

& Robertson, 2012; Silva, 2016; Trippestad, 2016).

Globalisation is associated with theories of global policy convergence and

homogenisation, as well as policy divergence. Policy convergence is often explained as

top-down policy processes that extend from global to local levels, and which are strongly

influenced by international organisations (Varia, cited in Watson, 2009). In education,

UNESCO and the OECD are frequently depicted as the exterior and most influential

organisations through which policy is ‘diffused’ to nations (Dale & Robertson, 2012;

Komatsu, 2016). Sometimes termed ‘policy borrowing’, the diffusion of policy through

the OECD in particular, has linked and shaped nations that have voluntarily adopted

various international norms espoused by the OECD (Arnove, 2007; Dale & Robertson,

2012; Komatsu, 2016).

Some literature has contended that processes of policy convergence facilitate the

homogenisation or ‘flattening’ of policy, particularly at the national level (Gorur, 2016;

Komatsu, 2016; Varia, cited in Watson, 2009). Diverse literature has argued that policy

convergence is evident in standardised education systems characterised by the neo-liberal

discourses of performativity, accountability, transparency and research-driven policy,

amongst others (Bell & Stevenson, 2006; Hogan & Thompson, 2017; Sahlberg, 2007,

2011; Trippestad, 2016). The use of research, including international testing data, is

increasingly seen as an evidence base for the policy-making processes of nations (Feniger,

2018; Whitty, 2016). Feniger (2018) cautioned that the use of international testing data

might produce the longer-term consequence of tunnel vision, and result in the

simplification of the policy ‘problem’.

19

Contrary to theories of policy convergence, where policies are ‘borrowed’ uncritically

from other jurisdictions, policy divergence espouses heterogeneity and difference (Varia,

cited in Watson, 2009). Theories of policy divergence propose that policy is not diffused

through international organisations in a linear direction; non-linear processes exist at the

level of nations and institutions as policy is interpreted (Varia, cited in Watson, 2009).

Processes of policy interpretation at the national level are influenced by a nation’s values,

resources and policy-making practices (Komatsu, 2016). These processes and practices

include learning about the experience of others with a view to making adaptations for

local conditions; that is policy learning (Adam, 2016; Gilardi, 2010; Lingard, 2010;

Steiner-Khamsi, 2016). Contestation may arise from differences between global and

national policy agendas (Komatsu, 2016). Similar processes of interpretation and

contestation exist at the level of policy enactment within institutions with their own

unique characteristics (OECD, cited in Gorur, 2016; Watson, 2009). Accordingly, some

research has asserted that policy divergence exists at the local (or institutional) level of

policy enactment (Robertson, 1995; Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006)

An economic discourse has been the focus of much literature that has discussed the effects

of globalisation on education. For example, Beresford (2000) examined the relationship

between globalisation and the economy and claimed that globalisation is driven by global

capitalist economies of the western world. Beresford highlighted an economic discourse

that is often associated with globalisation research. Other studies noted the priority

afforded by national governments to education and economic policy agendas which were

assumed to be linked (Arnove, 2007; Hogan & Thompson, 2017). Similar literature has

discussed an increased focus on enhancing a nation’s competitive position in response to

globalisation (Hogan, 2016; Sun-Keung Pang, 2016). Here, education is seen as a key

instrument of competitive advantage.

20

Some literature has contended that globalisation is evident in the increasing

commodification of teacher professionalism (Trippestad, 2016). Conceptualisations of

the ‘global teacher’ (Maguire, 2009) have highlighted accountability and performativity

discourses, where the global teacher is disciplined by data and performance expectations

and is “compliant not critical ... does rather than thinks” (Seddon et al., 2013, p. 10).

Trippestad (2016) noted the restrictive tension between autonomy and accountability for

teachers (see also Keddie, 2015). Some research has documented a negative effect of

increasing accountability and standardisation on teacher professionalism (Day &

Smethem, 2009; Gerrard & Farrell, 2014). Increased accountability and control over

teachers was questioned by Dinham (2015), who contended that research findings were

misused in Australian education policy to allocate blame to teachers for poor student

outcomes. These concerns also resonated with Lingard, Sellar and Lewis (2017). In all,

globalisation has had a marked and contested impact on education policy.

The changing conceptualisation of ‘policy’

Dale and Robertson (2012) posed a significant policy question, one of which this research

sought to answer in the context of policy enactment and the role of teacher leadership

standards:

If policy is moving … frequently over a more extended (global) space

involving national territorial borders, who, how and with what outcomes, are

education policy problems and their solutions being constructed, projected,

contested and materialised? (p. 14).

In posing this question, Dale and Robertson highlighted an important conceptual feature

of policy as it sits within a globalised society; that of mobility. The question posed by

21

Dale and Robertson above, also highlighted other features of policy: it is constructed

through a process, by participants (policy actors), and for a purpose (policy intent).

Policy as a process may be defined as a continuous and evolving cycle for change that is

shaped by the values, and in the interests of, all who are affected by it (Ball, Maguire,

Braun, & Hoskins, 2011; Bell & Stevenson, 2006; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010). Participants

in policy processes are both “receivers and agents of policy” (Ball et al., 2011, p. 625)

who mediate and contest policy through reason, that is policy text and design, and power

(Ball, 2015; Hupe & Hill, 2016). Implicit in policy production are assumptions and

knowledge about the world, as expressed in Ball’s (2015) definition of policy as

discourse. Policy may also be conceptualised as a product, being distinguished as “texts”

(Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012, p. 3) and national strategies (Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard, &

Henry, 1997; Welch, 2013). Policy as text is interpreted and translated by policy actors

during the process of policy enactment (Ball, 2015).

There is a degree of overlap in the literature between the terms policy ‘enactment’ and

‘implementation’. The term ‘enactment’ is usually used to denote more active

engagement with a policy by its ‘subjects’, and includes possibilities of significant

transformation and resistance to the original policy intent. By contrast, the term

‘implementation’ is based on an older assumption that ‘faithful’ adoption of the intent

follows policy (Ball et al., 2012; Hupe & Hill, 2016). Maguire, Braun and Ball (2015)

have defined implementation as the adoption of the legislators’ intentions in practice. It

has been suggested that governments take an interest in implementation research when

seeking evidence of, and accountability for, intended policy results (Stewart-Weeks, cited

in Colebatch, 2006).

Contrary to policy implementation, policy enactment is considered multidirectional in

nature (Heimans, 2014). Enactment is influenced by a policy actor’s experiences, context

22

and power (Ball et al., 2012; Braun, Maguire, & Ball, 2010; Spillane, 2004). Policy

enactment in education assumes that policy “rarely tell[s] you exactly what to do”

(Maguire et al., 2015, p. 486). As such, enactment involves processes of interpretation,

translation, and the recontextualisation of policy by different policy actors, and is

mediated at the level of institutions (Ball et al., 2012; Braun et al., 2010; Maguire et al.,

2015; Savage & Lewis, 2018). Posited as a problem of negotiation and strategy at the

local level, enactment involves contestation between policy actors and their agendas as

power is exerted by actors at the local level; thus making possible a policy-to-practice

gap (Komatsu, 2016; Werts & Brewer, 2015).

A number of studies have claimed that teachers are the key policy actors at the local level

as they selectively engage with policy emanating from central authorities (Robertson,

2013; Shields, cited in Komatsu, 2016). Ball et al. (2011) suggested that policy actors

may assume more than one different position when making meaning at different times

during the policy enactment process, for example, indifference or avoidance. Ball et al.

(2012) mapped eight roles of policy enactors: policy entrepreneurs and authoritative

entrepreneurs; transactors and translators; critics and refusers; and copers and defenders.

Studies on policy enactment in education, particularly in relation to teacher quality,

teacher professional development, teacher professional learning and teacher leadership,

have identified inhibitors to, and enablers of, policy enactment. School context has been

frequently referred to in the literature as an influential factor affecting policy enactment,

for all key concepts to follow (Bush & Glover, 2003; Derrington, 2016; Huggins, Klar,

Hammonds, & Buskey, 2016). Some literature has pointed to a link between school

contextual factors and effective enactment (Haiyan, Walker, & Xiaowei, 2017;

Somprach, Praswertcharoensuk, & Ngang, 2015).

23

School leadership has been identified as a significant enabling factor for successful

translation of policy to practice (Langdon & Ward, 2014; Robinson, Hohepa, & Lloyd,

2009; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Stosich, 2016). A growing body of literature has suggested

that school leadership created conditions (context) to support teachers to learn about, and

enact, policies in schools (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009). These conditions included

allocating time and resources for teachers to engage in conversations for learning about

policy, and teacher access to professional development and professional learning that was

aligned with school practices (Barman, Bolander-Laksov, & Silén, 2014; Buysse,

Winton, & Rous, 2009; Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Coogle, Rahn, Ottley, & Storie,

2016; Langdon & Ward, 2014; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Penuel,

Riel, Krause, & Frank, 2009).

Teacher collaboration and sharing of practice were identified as prominent teacher-

specific factors that enabled policy enactment (Gonzalez, Deal, & Skultety, 2016; James

& McCormick, 2009; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Little, 2002; Mockler, 2013; Odom, 2009).

Some literature acknowledged that collective participation in learning, as realised through

teacher belief in learning for self-change (James & McCormick, 2009), may improve

teacher quality if teachers are invested in self and others (Hargreaves & Fullan, cited in

Scott, 2013). Other teacher-specific factors that enabled policy enactment included staff

morale (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009), teacher commitment (Haiyan et al., 2017),

teacher belief in policy change, and willingness to ‘comply’ with regulations (Barman et

al., 2014; Maguire et al., 2015; Valli & Buese, 2007). Literature alluded to the importance

of teacher and collegial self-reflection and teacher feedback, in facilitating processes for

effective policy enactment (Attard, 2012; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005; Mockler,

2013; Penuel et al., 2007).

24

In addition, Maguire et al. (2015) suggested the level of change through policy enactment

processes is affected by the policy type and the level of policy dependency, as determined

by the stage in a teacher’s career. Studies concerned with teacher leadership suggested

that effective enactment is enabled through the capacity building of teacher leaders, and

when professional learning processes are teacher-led (Akiba & Wilkinson, 2016; Linton

& Geddes, 2013). The literature presented for this section on the changing

conceptualisation of policy has indicated different levels of power assumed by policy

actors during the cyclical policy process. In particular, the literature on policy enactment

revealed a level of power that is assumed by the policy actor at the local level as they

interpret policy, which may lead to differences between policy intention and enactment.

Teacher quality

Three interdependent perspectives on teacher quality are conceptualised in the literature,

as presented by Wang, Lin, Spalding, Klecka and Odell (2011), and elaborated below.

The first perspective defined and predicted teacher quality according to teacher

competence or teacher qualifications, or as a function of teacher knowledge, skills and

dispositions (see also Naylor & Sayed, 2014). Prior to 2009, US teacher quality policy,

in particular, was synonymous with qualifications (Gabriel, 2016). Empirical research has

examined the relationship between teacher qualifications and teacher quality, as

determined through measures of student achievement, and it is inconclusive (Wayne &

Youngs, 2003; see also Canales & Maldonado, 2018). Hollins (2011) identified what she

perceived as the essential teacher dispositions, knowledge and skills for quality teaching:

appropriate teacher practice (integrity); consistent student achievement of expected

learning outcomes (trustworthiness); a sense of professional identity; collaboration; and

engagement in self-directed professional growth. Other literature acknowledged that

quality teaching has multiple dimensions, including social and emotional support and

25

classroom organisation, and teachers may be effective in a number of these areas (Blazar

& Kraft, 2017; Gershenson, 2016; Price, 2016).

A second perspective outlined by Wang et al. (2011) conceptualised teacher quality as a

measure of teacher performance, which encompassed evaluation of practice, professional

development, and context for culturally responsive teaching. A third perspective defined

teacher quality as effectiveness based on the assumption that quality teachers are one of

the most important in-school factors that influence student learning and achievement (see

also Hattie, 2003, 2009; Pang & Wang, 2016; Thorpe, 2014). That third perspective is

both supported and refuted by a variety of research that on the one hand confirmed a link

between teacher quality and student achievement, but on the other hand questioned weak

conclusions about teacher quality from research findings (Goe & Stickler, 2008;

Goldhaber & Brewer, 2000).

Teacher quality improvement has been the focus of much literature, especially where it

is conceived as effectiveness. Research on teacher quality improvement has explored the

effects of teacher incentives and school system features on teacher quality, and on teacher

accountability, for student achievement. Some studies that have considered teacher

incentives found that quality teachers and inexperienced teachers were more likely to

support individualised incentive structures (Goldhaber, Bignell, Farley, Walch, & Cowan,

2016; Springer et al., 2009). Studies have suggested that teachers value monetary

incentives as a reward for their efforts, but not as a motivator for changing teacher

behaviour or improving student achievement (Finnigan & Gross, 2007; Marsh et al.,

2011). Limited evidence existed in the literature to affirm that teacher performance pay

incentives, such as the ‘value-added models’ implemented in parts of the US, increased

student achievement (Berry & Eckert, 2012; Marsh et al., 2011). Other research

26

questioned the use of individualised teacher incentives, given the collective effects of

teaching on student achievement (Kraft & Papay, 2014; OECD, 2009).

A recent Australian review of literature on teacher quality indicated that the school

environment, government teacher policy frameworks, and teacher professional

development were significant influences on teacher quality improvement (Naylor &

Sayed, 2014). Investigations on school context suggested that teacher collaboration, the

provision of time, and linkages with accountability policy mechanisms may improve

teacher quality (Destler, 2016; Johnson, 2009; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Lavy, 2016).

Research examining teacher quality gains indicated that improvements in teacher quality

were higher, early on in a teacher’s career (Buddin & Zamarro, 2009; Rinke, 2008;

Wiswall, 2013). One study demonstrated little evidence of improved teacher quality

extending beyond the first three years in a teacher’s career, and thus questioned the use

of increasingly restrictive certification standards to improve teacher quality (Rivkin,

Hanushek, & Kain, 2005, 2014).

An increasing body of research has indicated concerns about the influence of teacher

standards on teacher quality (Naylor & Sayed, 2014). Whilst teacher standards provide a

means through which teacher quality can be identified, some researchers have questioned

the effects of a performance-related definition of teacher quality on the professional

identity of teachers (Carter Andrews, Bartell, & Richmond, 2016; Connell, 2009;

Ingvarson & Rowe, 2008; MCEETYA, 2003). In contrast, research by Sachs (as cited in

Day & Smethem, 2009) indicated that high performing teachers had a strong self-identity

and collaborated, when measured against standards. Findings from a Swedish study

concerning teacher professionalism, indicated “power is relocated from teachers to

standardised instruments” (Nordin, 2016, p. 841). Meta-studies on quality teaching across

nations have demonstrated other ways to encourage teacher quality in addition to the use

27

of standards (Hilton, Flores, & Niklasson, 2013). Fullan (cited in Day & Smethem, 2009)

advised that schools should focus on capacity building before teacher ‘compliance’,

pointing to the importance of teacher professional learning and development in addition

to standards. The literature presented for this section on teacher quality has revealed an

increased focus on teacher quality improvement, which was linked to increased teacher

accountability for student outcomes, as influenced by globalisation.

Teacher professional development and professional learning

The concepts of teacher professional development (PD) and teacher professional learning

(PL) are intertwined in the literature. Teacher PD has previously been differentiated from

teacher PL, where PD was depicted as the vehicle through which teachers could acquire

knowledge and skills for teacher growth, through the transformational process of learning

for change (Avalos, 2011; Browne-Ferrigno, 2016; Cornish & Jenkins, 2012; Desimone,

2009). The Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School

Leaders defined teacher PL as “the formal or informal learning experiences undertaken

by teachers ... [to] improve ... individual professional practice, and a school’s collective

effectiveness, as measured by improved student learning, engagement with learning and

wellbeing” (AITSL, 2012c, p. 2). Recent conceptualisations of teacher PD and PL are

more interlinked. Both teacher PD and PL have been employed as policy tools to improve

teacher quality and student learning through change in teacher practice (Desimone, 2009;

Kisa & Correnti, 2015; Klingner, Boardman, & McMaster, 2013; OECD, 2015).

Teacher PD research has shifted in focus from the evaluation of strategies to evaluation

of the effectiveness of outcomes, parallel to research on teacher quality (Penuel et al.,

2007). Some research has identified a positive link between effective teacher PD and

student achievement (Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Miratrix, 2012; Lumpe,

28

Czerniak, Haney, & Beltyukova, 2012; Tchoshanov, 2011). However, other studies have

indicated no meaningful difference in student achievement, after PD (Dash, Magidin De

Kramer, O’Dwyer, Masters, & Russell, 2012). Teacher PD has been conceived as a

compliance tool to demonstrate competence in standards of teacher quality; although

there exists a risk of teacher learning being narrowed, if PD is expressed as a set number

of hours required for maintenance of teacher registration (Mockler, 2013).

Teacher PL is influenced by teacher values, practices and goals (James & McCormick,

2009). As such, research in this area has included tools for PL, for example, mentoring,

coaching and teacher reflection (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Huggins et al., 2016; Kim &

Silver, 2016). Some studies proposed that teacher PL may facilitate policy enactment

processes (Carter Andrews et al., 2016) to “address the research-to-practice gap” (Coogle

et al., 2016, p.1). Other studies suggested collegial dialogue and risk taking created

opportunities for teachers to make sense of policy, for teacher change (James &

McCormick, 2009; Spillane, 2004). Additional research portrayed teacher PL as identity

work, where learning supported teacher identity formation in context as it shifted at

different stages throughout a teacher’s career (Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, Tavaloki, &

Hamman, 2016; Mockler, 2013). Hollins (2011) argued for a holistic, practice-based

approach to teacher PL in schools that mirrors the practices of quality teaching and

incorporates teacher quality standards (see also Ghasemy, Hussin, & Daud, 2016).

Additional literature offered some evidence that many pre-service teachers aspired to be

lead teachers, and considered the potential implications of continuous PD for career

progression (Reeves & Lowenhaupt, 2016). This research linked to studies that

emphasised the importance of sustaining PD and PL over time (Attard, 2012; Darling-

Hammond, 2014). Another study suggested teacher PD and PL may be used to counter

teacher de-professionalisation by mediating the intensification of a teacher’s work

29

(Ballet, Kelchtermans, & Loughran, 2006). Other research highlighted the reciprocal

relationship between teacher beliefs and capacity building (Datnow & Hubbard, 2016).

The literature presented in this section on teacher PD and PL has revealed the value of

PD and PL as policy mechanisms to facilitate teacher quality improvement.

Teacher leadership

Teacher leadership (TL) is an emerging construct that is conceptualised in various ways

across a vast amount of literature (Conway, 2014; Gumus, Bellibas, Esen, & Gumus,

2018; Hairon, Goh, & Chua, 2015; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Dimmock (2011), for

example, defined TL as a social influence process (see also Bush & Glover, 2003;

Hunzicker, 2012). Other literature conceptualised TL as a framework, sometimes with

different emphases (Crowther, 2002; Harris & Muijs, cited in O’Donoghue & Clarke,

2010; Durrant, 2004). Hattie (2003) delineated TL as the attributes of an expert teacher.

Hairon and Dimmock (2012) suggested TL challenges patterns of hierarchical power

within school leadership structures, as leadership is distributed. A study by Carver (2016)

suggested teacher leaders perceived leadership as not being tied to a position or role. The

multiplicity of TL conceptualisations highlights disagreement in the literature as to one

clear definition.

Despite disagreement about the definition of TL, Hairon et al. (2015) identified five key

overlapping themes across the literature: “(1) influence in leading others, (2) leading with

others, (3) leading collegial relationships, (4) leading teacher learning and (5) leading for

teaching and learning” (p. 165). That study assigned significance to the role of teacher

leaders in supporting conversations in professional learning communities for

improvement in teacher quality, and proposed that TL consisted of three dimensions:

collegial and collaborative relations; teacher PD and PL (see previous section); and

30

change in teacher practice. Additional empirical research also recognised professional

conversation and teacher collaboration as enabling processes for TL enactment, whilst

other literature analysed the role of teacher leaders as they were empowered to influence

improvements in teacher quality by means of collective participation (Andrews & Abawi,

2017; Conway, 2014; Ellis, cited in Browne-Ferrigno, 2016; Margolis & Huggins, 2012;

Reed & Swaminathan, 2016). The literature discussed here, emphasised linkages between

TL, teacher quality, PD and PL, and the significance of PD and PL for the development

of teacher leaders and the enactment of teacher leadership.

The development of teacher leaders, or teacher leader capacity building, was given much

attention in TL literature (Dimmock, 2011). Weiner (2011) identified four ‘teacher

connectors’ to grow TL for school improvement: a shared vision; clarity of teacher leader

roles and continuous PD (see previous section); resources; and the questioning of existing

structures and autonomy. Some research identified various enablers for teacher leader

capacity building that reflected the characteristics of teacher leaders (Ellis, cited in

Browne-Ferrigno, 2016; Huggins et al., 2016). In addition, Carver (2016) argued that

identity transformation and self-perception were critical steps in teacher leader formation,

and may assist teacher leaders to overcome organisational constraints to TL enactment.

Huggins et al. (2016) further noted that capacity building may be facilitated by teacher

thinking, reflection and feedback. It is important to note that teacher leader capacity

building is a gradual process of change that school leaders have the power to enable

(Durrant, 2004).

There is sparse evidence of the effects of TL on student learning (Hairon et al., 2015).

One US study provided evidence of TL and collaboration on improved teacher quality

and student learning (Sun, Loeb, & Grissom, 2017). Similarly, case study findings from

another US study recommended collective teacher responsibility for student outcomes,

31

through the expectation for every teacher to become a lead teacher (Derrington, 2016).

Reed and Swaminathan (2016) provided evidence for a link between distributed

leadership, a concept frequently associated with TL in literature, and improved student

achievement within a professional learning community. The concepts presented in this

synthesis of literature are reflected in the current conceptualisation of teacher standards

and associated PD and PL frameworks in Australia, though there are gaps in the literature

on how these ideas fit within the overall picture of TL.

Teacher standards and APST policy

There is a limited and mixed body of research that has examined the use of teacher

standards and APST policy in Australia. For example, some studies have considered the

assessment of preservice teachers against APST Graduate Standards (Hudson, Hudson,

Weatherby-Fell, & Shipway, 2016; Phillipson, Cooper, & Phillipson, 2015). Other

literature has explored elaborations of APST policy for specialist teaching areas (Dally &

Dempsey, 2015; Henderson & Jarvis, 2016). Some literature claimed Australia applied a

developmental approach to teacher standards (Cutter-McKenzie, Clarke, & Smith, 2008;

Leonard, 2012). By contrast, Loughland and Ellis (2016) suggested Australia’s focus on

teacher quality discourse positioned teacher standards as a regulatory device. A similar

position was discussed in an article by Nelson (2013), which highlighted enforced

compliance of APST policy at the Proficient level.

Various literature has identified different benefits of APST policy. For example,

Loughland and Ellis (2016) indicated there may be potential benefits for teachers who

use the Standards as a learning scaffold or framework to guide development of their

practice along a career continuum. Loughland and Ellis further suggested APST policy is

beneficial as a shared common language, and as the means by which to promote teaching

32

as a profession. Taylor (2016) noted that teachers perceived APST policy as beneficial

when used to guide and assist teacher reflection.

Different studies have focused primarily on the limitations of APST policy. For example,

Gannon (2012) criticised the Standards for their potential homogenising effect on

teaching practice and the omission of the affective domain of teaching, which Leonard

(2012) further suggested may lead to a restricted understanding of practice. Similarly,

Taylor (2016) proposed APST policy was self-limiting in the sense that it ignored the

‘human’ aspect of teacher growth. Further criticisms include the perceived reduction of

teacher professionalism to a set of competencies (Bourke, 2011), uncertainty about the

effects of APST policy on research-based teacher practices (Leonard, 2012), and limited

references to data-informed decision-making in the APST descriptors (Nelson, 2013). In

addition, Moodie and Patrick (2017) claimed the Standards positioned Indigenous

cultures as subordinate, and identified inequity as a possible outcome of policy enactment.

A study by Taylor (2016) considered teacher perceptions of the impact of professional

standards on the teaching profession. Taylor’s study identified a policy-to-practice gap in

a NSW context, and indicated that teachers perceived APST policy as a quality assurance

mechanism rather than a strategy for quality improvement. Taylor found that teachers had

a strong personal agency in terms of power to control their professional growth, as

enabled by context.

Another study considered the development of APST policy, also in the NSW context, and

found that policy-making processes were not indicative of a top-down power relationship

due to ongoing interactions between State and federal levels of government throughout

the process (Savage & Lewis, 2018). However, the findings did suggest significant

federal government control during policy formation. Findings indicated policy enactment

at the State level was enabled by State-level consensus through a process of ongoing

33

policy translation, interaction and ‘reassemblage’ of policy, as opposed to a clear-cut

process of policy transfer from national to State level. The literature presented for teacher

standards and APST policy thus far, indicates various context-dependent themes. In light

of the limited body of literature on APST policy, it is inappropriate to draw generalised

conclusions about APST policy and its enactment. This study will add to the growing

body of literature in this field.

APST Lead Standards policy. Literature confirms a growing body of supportive

resources for TL development and practice, including APST Lead Standards policy and

accompanying certification tools developed by AITSL. However, there is little

knowledge of the outcomes of use of these Standards (see Carver, 2016). US literature

suggested lead teacher standards may be used to facilitate discussion about practice and

expand new lead teacher roles, promote and recognise leadership through differentiated

career options, develop teachers for leadership, and sustain TL over time (“Teacher leader

model”, 2012). The US Teacher Leader Model Standards emphasised the reciprocal and

supportive relationship between teacher leaders and school leadership, with shared

accountability for student outcomes (“Teacher leader model”, 2012). Thorpe (2014)

suggested TL should be at the core of the profession, given the identified rigor associated

with certification processes and the value teachers placed on such processes.

The review of literature for this study indicated no research existed up to the point of data

collection for this study, on what TL looked like in Australian schools that were enacting

APST Lead Standards policy. One study by Stern (2015) presented an analysis of APST

policy processes in general, at a point in time close to their enactment in a Western

Australian context. Findings from that study described the flow of power in a top-down

policy process, in which enactment was influenced by negotiations at the State and

institutional (school) levels. However, that study did not consider enactment of APST

34

Lead Standards policy in particular. Hence a study that aims to elicit teacher perspectives

on the enactment of TL as influenced by the APST policy initiative fills a gap in the

literature.

Conclusion

The review of relevant literature considered the key concepts that underpin this study.

What has emerged from this review is the interconnectedness of the key concepts, as they

relate to teacher quality and improvement of student learning outcomes. This was

highlighted in literature on teacher quality which identified government frameworks

(policy), school context (a dominant theme throughout the literature) and teacher PD and

PL as influences on teacher quality, and consequently on student learning and

achievement. Teacher leadership literature linked the key concepts further and suggested

the use of teacher PD and PL to continuously improve teacher quality (capacity building)

along a career continuum, to the highest level of quality, namely a Lead teacher. Teacher

standards were identified in the literature as one way to articulate teacher quality and TL,

reflective of the influence of globalisation on education policy and the teaching

profession. The limited research available on APST policy at the time of this study,

identified a gap in literature with regards to TL enactment in schools. This study will

contribute towards filling this gap. The following chapter outlines the theoretical

framework and methodology used to analyse APST policy processes, with a focus on

Lead teachers, and to elicit teacher perspectives for this study.

35

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Chapter One contextualised this research within global and national (especially

Australian) education policy settings. Chapter Two discussed the literature pertaining to

the key concepts that underpin this study. This chapter details the theoretical framework

for the research, and is sectioned into six parts. First, the research aim is stated. Second,

the theoretical foundations of interpretivism and critical theory that guided this study at

different points, are outlined. Third, the policy trajectory conceptual framework is

described, and the related research questions are presented. Fourth, a multiple case study

research design is outlined. Fifth, the section on research methods details the collection

and analysis of documents and interview data. Data was analysed using the two main

methods of Miles and Huberman’s framework for extraction of themes, followed later by

critical discourse analysis. The validity and reliability of the findings are discussed.

Lastly, the ethical considerations for this study are identified.

Research aim

The aim of this study was to analyse the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

(APST) policy processes, with a primary focus on the Lead Standards and their enactment

by teachers in selected settings in South Australia. The study was concerned with

analysing the perspectives of teachers to gain insight into the processes of translating

policy into practice (enactment), as experienced by localised policy actors in schools.

Consistent with the conceptualisation of policy analysis as a ‘trajectory’, the research aim

was investigated using four research questions that were derived from a policy trajectory

36

conceptual framework, as explicated in more detail after first outlining the theoretical

frameworks that guided the research design and methods of data collection and analysis.

Theoretical frameworks

This study was informed by both interpretivism and critical theory at different points in

the research. Interpretivism is based on the assumption that understandings are formed

through a “process of negotiation of meaning” (O’Donoghue, 2007, p. 17) in our everyday

activity. The interpretivist paradigm was relevant to the initial data collection and analysis

phases of this study as it allowed for teacher perspectives to be elicited and examined in

context as teachers constructed meaning during the process of APST Lead Standards

policy enactment (the ‘phenomenon’) (Ball et al., 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;

O’Donoghue, 2007). However, whilst the interpretivist paradigm was appropriate for

understanding ‘perspectives’, it is relatively uncritical (Crotty, 1998). A critical approach

was therefore added at a later stage of the analysis to enable a more comprehensive

overview of the whole APST policy process (with a focus on the Lead Standards), from

macro (national: Australian) to meso (State: SA) to micro (local: teacher) levels.

Critical theory investigates how power is embedded in, and shapes, an actor’s response

to policy (Coburn, 2016) based on the assumption that knowledge is influenced by values

(Habermas, cited in O’Donoghue, 2007). A critical theoretical framework facilitated a

richer analysis in this study by questioning the relationships of power along the APST

policy trajectory (Simons et al., 2009; Vidovich, 2007). Further, critical theory aided

understanding of the processes of social change by revealing apparent values in APST

policy processes (O’Donoghue, 2007; Ozga, 2000). Critical theory also sought to counter

the limitations of interpretivism, and vice versa. To investigate the relationships of power

along the policy processes, a policy trajectory framework was necessitated.

37

Policy trajectory framework and research questions

The ‘policy trajectory’ framework is used in policy analysis studies to reveal the

underpinning values, power constructs, and policy intent, as well as enactment (Ball,

1994; Rizvi & Lingard, 2010; Taylor et al., 1997; Vidovich, 2007, 2013). Various studies

have employed the policy trajectory framework in the context of Australian education

policy processes and indicated a gap between policy intent on the one hand, and policy

enactment on the other, noting inequalities in power of influence and/or social justice

issues (e.g. Ledger, Vidovich, & O’Donoghue, 2014; Paveling, 2016; Yorke, 2014).

The policy trajectory conceptual framework was initially developed by Ball (1994) who

differentiated five contexts: influences (the processes leading to policy initiation and

development); policy text production (the interactions between policy actors as policy

text is constructed); practices and effects (the processes of enactment as policy text is

interpreted and translated in context); outcomes (the impact of policy on equity and social

justice); and political strategies (the suggested actions to improve processes of enactment

and outcomes). The framework has been further developed for empirical application by

Vidovich (2007, 2013) who added levels of analysis, as explicated below. Further, the

last two contexts have been combined as ‘outcomes’ considering that both are related to

bigger picture issues of social justice and equity (see also Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

The framework was relevant to this study as it facilitated policy analysis at three levels

of the APST policy processes: the ‘macro’, ‘meso’ and ‘micro’ levels (Vidovich, 2007,

2013). In this study, ‘macro’ refers to the national level within Australia; ‘meso’ refers to

the State level, namely South Australia; and ‘micro’ refers to teachers in schools.

Advantages of using the framework in this study were three-fold. First, the framework

facilitated cyclical analysis of the APST policy processes, as informed by influences.

Thus, comparisons were enabled between policy intent at the macro (national: Australian)

38

level and policy enactment at the micro (local: teacher) level as policy was re-

contextualised. This revealed a policy-to-practice gap (Bowe, Ball, & Gold, 2017;

Vidovich, 2007). Second, comparisons between policy intent and enactment supported

identification of reasons for the adoption of ASPT Lead Standards policy by schools and

teachers, and how teachers negotiated conflicting policies (Ball et al., 2012). Third, the

framework allowed for non-structural features of APST policy text to be considered,

which also contribute to social change (Woodside-Jiron, 2004). The policy trajectory

framework was used to structure the four research questions in this study:

Research question 1

What were the wider influences that acted to initiate APST policy (in general) and

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)?

Research question 2

What were the key features of APST policy text (in general) and APST Lead

Standards policy text (specifically), and how were the texts produced?

Research question 3

How did schools and teachers enact APST Lead Standards policy in South Australian

schools and why?

Research question 4

What were the longer-term outcomes of APST policy (in general) and APST Lead

Standards policy (specifically)?

For the purposes of this study the main focus was on the third research question about

policy enactment in schools, although research questions 1, 2 and 4 were necessary to

39

enable a holistic policy analysis. Case studies were used to address the research questions

at the micro level.

Research design

The research was qualitative in nature. After analysis of relevant documentary and

interview data at the macro (national: Australian) and meso (State: SA) levels, a multiple-

case study research design was employed at the micro (local: teacher) level. A qualitative

research design was fitting for this study as it sought both depth in interpretation and

critical perspectives from participants who were experiencing ‘the phenomenon’, that is,

APST Lead Standards policy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A qualitative approach was

advantageous in this study as it enabled holistic treatment of APST policy whilst

recognising its unique character through personal interpretation and analysis of textual

data, in context (Stake, 1995).

Case studies (at the micro level of teachers in schools) were an appropriate unit of analysis

in this study as they allowed for the in-depth and holistic examination of a contemporary

phenomenon by addressing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions within the context of the

‘bounded’ system (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Punch & Oancea, 2014; Thomas & Myers,

2015; Yin, 2014). Case studies were also fitting because the phenomenon of interest is a

process from which understanding was sought for the improvement of practice (Merriam,

1988). By way of design, a multiple or comparative case study design was most

appropriate for this research as it facilitated analysis within and across contexts (Punch &

Oancea, 2014). In the research reported in this thesis, the ‘cases’ were individual teachers

who were certified as Lead or Highly Accomplished in accordance with APST policy.

40

Research methods

Participants. In keeping with the protocols for a qualitative case study design,

participants in this study were purposively selected by the researcher based on their ability

to help formulate the ‘best’ understanding of the research questions (Creswell, 2014;

Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview participants were not sought at the macro (national:

Australian) level, and only research questions 1 and 2 were relevant; documents were the

only source of data at this level.

Participants were sought for interviews at the meso (State: SA) level to enrich

documentary data. Participants were identified and screened using a criteria based,

purposive sampling strategy (Yin, 2014). The criteria for participant selection at the meso

level were: sufficient knowledge of APST Lead Standards policy; and direct participation

in any of the processes of drafting, administering, enacting or reviewing APST policy

and/or APST Lead Standards policy. Three interview participants were sought from

different South Australian government and non-government education bodies.

Criterion based, purposive sampling was also used to identify participants (the ‘cases’) at

the micro (local: teacher) level. The criteria for the selection of each case included:

sufficient knowledge of APST Lead Standards policy; and either engaged in the process

of becoming certified as a Lead teacher, or completed the process for certification

(certified) as a Lead or Highly Accomplished teacher. The rationale for these criteria was

based on the assumption that teachers who were engaged in the process of certification,

or who were certified, were enacting the Lead or Highly Accomplished Standards

policies. The initial participant pool included Lead teachers only. As data collection

progressed, the participant pool was expanded to include certified Highly Accomplished

teachers due to the limited pool of potential participants at Lead level. Highly

41

Accomplished teachers were appropriate for inclusion in this study as they identified as

the career stage preceding Lead teacher and involved the same processes for certification.

A snowball sampling strategy was initially employed for identification of teacher cases,

deemed most appropriate considering cases were scattered throughout the teacher

population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This strategy did not identify any cases. Potential

cases were identified using a press release from the Minister of Education, teacher

networks on social media, and publicly available Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher

network documents. One participant was identified by disseminating information about

the research through a State-level education body. Participants were directly contacted by

phone and/or email, with regular follow up phone calls and/or emails for non-replies and

interested potential participants. Out of 36 potential participants identified and contacted,

nine did not respond, three declined to participate, seven did not eventuate, and one did

not provide full consent for interview data to be used in this study. Finally, a total of 16

cases achieved breadth in the data. All participants were certified as a Lead or Highly

Accomplished teacher at the time of the initial interview, and were interviewed one time

only.

Data collection. Multiple sources of evidence (data) were gathered at multiple

stages during the data collection process to enable the convergence of evidence and

strengthen construct validity (Creswell, 2014; Yin, 2014). The two types of data collected

for this policy analysis study were from document and interview sources. Documents

were the primary data source at the macro (national: Australian) level, as APST policy

was a national Australian government initiative. Data was also gathered at the meso

(State: SA) level, considering education is the legal responsibility of the States, as

outlined in Chapter One. State perspectives were sought to identify the interaction

between national APST policy and State-level policy responses. Documents and

42

interview data were the primary data sources at the meso (State: SA) level. Data gathered

from documents were used to inform interview data collection at the meso (State: SA)

and micro (local: teacher) levels. Interviews were the primary data source at the micro

(local: teacher) level to elicit the perspectives of each teacher case. Table 3.1 displays the

types of data gathered for each research question along the policy trajectory.

Table 3.1 Data gathered for the four research questions at each level of the policy

trajectory.

Research Question Macro (national:

Australian) level

Meso (State:

South Australian)

level

Micro (local:

teacher) level

1: Policy influences

Documentary

data

Documentary data

and

Interview data

Interview data

2: Policy text production

3: Policy practices and

effects (enactment)

4: Policy outcomes

Documentary data. The primary document of interest to address research

questions 1 and 2 at the macro (national: Australian) level was the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers policy. A focus on APST Lead Standards policy warranted a

second main document, the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in

Australia (Certification), accompanied by the Guide to the Certification of Highly

Accomplished and Lead Teachers in Australia (Guide to Certification) and companion

documents for Lead teachers. Together, these documents presented a policy ensemble.

Additional publicly available government documents relevant to APST policy were also

considered. Publicly available documents relevant to APST policy produced by State-

level education bodies, in addition to confidential letters and documents of consultation,

43

were analysed at the meso (State: SA) level. Table 3.2 lists the documentary data sources

at the macro (national: Australian) and meso (State: SA) levels.

Table 3.2 Documentary data sources at the macro (national: Australian) and meso (State:

SA) levels.

Mac

ro (

nat

ional

: A

ust

rali

an)

level

Key documents analysed

- The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (2011)

- Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in Australia (2012)

- Guide to the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in

Australia (2013)

with companion documents

- Certification documentary evidence supplement: Lead teachers (2013)

- Certification evidence mapping document: Lead teachers (n.d.)

Supplementary documents considered (reverse chronological order)

- Recognising exemplary teachers (n.d.)

- Classroom practice continuum (n.d., updated 2018)

- National Partnership Agreement on Rewards for Great Teachers (2012)

- Draft National Professional Standards for Teachers (2010)

- National Partnership Agreement on Improving Teacher Quality (2008)

- Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (2008)

- A National Framework for Professional Standards for Teaching (2003)

Mes

o (

Sta

te:

South

Aust

rali

an)

level

Key document analysed

- Guide to the Certification of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in South

Australia (2015)

Supplementary documents considered

- Improving teacher quality: Low SES school communities South Australia:

Progress report (2012)

- South Australian school and preschool education staff enterprise agreement

(2016)

- Draft position description for Lead teacher, Department for Education and Child

Development (2017)

- Letter addressed to the Department for Education and Child Development

regarding Highly Accomplished teacher and Lead teacher classification (2017)

- Australian Education Union South Australia, Highly Accomplished/Lead

teacher forum reflections (2017)

Documents considered at the micro (local: teacher) level included school policies and

procedures that may have impacted (positively or negatively) the ability of a selected

teacher case to enact APST Lead Standards policy (research questions 3 and 4) within a

44

given school, as identified by the participant. Three publicly available documents were

identified by participants: the Classroom practice continuum, the Teaching for Effective

Learning Framework, and the Professional Standards Elaborations for Specialist

Teachers (Vision Impairment). Whilst it is noted that access to documents, and reporting

and selective bias may have influenced documentary data (Yin, 2014), it provided a

valuable source for preparing interview questions and triangulating interview data, as well

as being an important source in its own right.

Interview data. Data at the meso (State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) levels was

collected using semi-structured interviews during which the researcher made interview

notes and an audiotape recording (with participant permission), and after which the

researcher transcribed the interview as soon as possible. Semi-structured interviews were

most appropriate as they provided the best way to elicit the participants’ perspectives on

the issue, allowed for the collection of in-depth data, and could be adapted during and

between interviews to pursue the most useful data (Lambert, 2012; Mack, Woodsong,

MacQueen, Guest, & Namey, 2005). An interview protocol was used to ensure

consistency between interviews (Creswell, 2014). The interview questions and protocol

are included in Appendices E and F.

The first three interviews (one State-level participant and two teachers) were conducted

one-on-one and face-to-face. Fifteen of the remaining seventeen interviews were

conducted over the telephone, as face to face interviews were not possible or feasible due

to a change in researcher location to another State. Whilst the limitations of telephone

interviews were acknowledged (see Lechuga, 2012), they allowed flexibility in line with

the nature of teachers’ work and provided rich data for qualitative analysis (Cachia &

Millward, 2011). Telephone interviews also had the benefit of promoting disclosure of

information, due in part to the participants’ increased sense of anonymity and privacy,

45

and unobtrusive nature of researcher note-taking (Lechuga, 2012). Two participants

responded to the interview questions in writing. Whilst this was not ideal, flexibility was

required to enable participants to contribute to the study.

Interview notes enabled the researcher to document observations that could not be

recorded in an audiotape (for the first three interviews), such as non-verbal behaviour and

the interview context (Creswell, 2014; Mack et al., 2005; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The

interviewing technique involved the researcher in a process of active listening combined

with follow-up questions and probes to elicit responses. This technique provided a deep

understanding of the participants’ perspectives.

Interviews lasted for between 15 and 40 minutes. The interview questions and the key

policy document, the APST Lead Standards policy, were provided to participants during

the face to face interview, or emailed to participants prior to the telephone interview. The

document was provided to stimulate discussion for participants at the meso (State: SA)

and micro (local: teacher) levels, and was used at an individual participant’s discretion

(Lambert, 2012). In addition, the APST Highly Accomplished policy document was

provided to participants who identified as certified Highly Accomplished teachers at the

micro (local: teacher) level.

Data analysis. Data collected from multiple sources (interviews and documents)

was analysed and triangulated (Yin, 2014). Data analysis processes occurred

simultaneously with data collection processes and were ongoing throughout the study to

facilitate the development of a case study database, from which evidence for the case

study report was drawn (Merriam, 1988; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data was

analysed using three strategies/processes: the Miles and Huberman (1994) framework,

for qualitative analysis of interview data (see also Punch & Oancea, 2014); documentary

46

textual analysis; and critical discourse analysis, as outlined below. These processes

facilitated analysis between cases (cross-case analysis) and along the policy trajectory

from macro (national: Australian) to micro (local: teacher) levels.

The Miles and Huberman Framework. The Miles and Huberman (1994)

framework was an appropriate analytic tool for analysing interview data as it facilitated

the identification of relationships between phenomena and enabled meaning and

conclusions to be drawn from data (Punch & Oancea, 2014). The framework consists of

three simultaneous, continuous and interacting mechanisms, as outlined by Punch &

Oancea (2014): data reduction; data display; and drawing and verifying conclusions.

First, data was reduced into contextual themes without losing a significant amount of

information. Second, the data was organised and displayed in different and appropriate

ways to facilitate progressive analysis. Data reduction and display utilised the processes

of coding and memoing to facilitate the identification of patterns in data, and enable the

analysis to evolve from a descriptive to a conceptual level. Coding involved assigning

data to three categories: descriptive, interpretive, or pattern codes (Miles & Huberman,

1994; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Pattern codes were classed as motives,

patterns, themes, or causal links. Memoing required noting conceptual ideas during the

process of coding. Third, conclusions were made and verified through the process of

formulating propositions and integrating data (Punch & Oancea, 2014; Miles et al., 2014).

This complete process was repeated for each interview question, for each of the four

research questions. Table 3.3 on the following page is an example of how the data was

analysed, the process of which became the basis for concept formation (Neuman, 2000).

47

Table 3.3 Example of thematic analysis of interview data using the Miles and Huberman

framework.

Key data

(data reduction)

(data display) Themes

(drawing and

verifying

conclusions)

Notes

(memoing) First cycle

coding

Second cycle

coding

the standards ...

aligns itself with

Australian

curriculum ...

having a collective

understanding, of

... [the components

of] quality teachers

... and, something

for teachers to be

able to base their,

ah, professional

development on, to

be able to track

their progress, and,

then, the, lead

teacher and highly

accomplished

teacher, um,

certifications come

out of being able

to recognise

teachers, erm, erm,

progress through

the profession, um,

in a way that

ensures that our

best teachers ...

[remain] in the

classroom ... So

recognition, comes

out of a, sense of

recognition.

APST policy

- Australian

curriculum

- collective

understanding

of components

of teacher

quality

- professional

development,

track progress

APST Lead

Standards

policy

- teacher

recognition

- teacher

progress

through the

profession

- best teachers

remain in the

classroom

APST policy

- existing

policy

- national

consistency,

universality

- policy tool to

guide

professional

development

and learning

(use of APST)

- improvement

APST Lead

Standards

policy

- teacher

recognition

professionalism

along career

continuum

- TL definition,

teacher

retention

APST policy

- centralised

Australian

education

policy

discourses for

determining

teacher

quality

(improvement

)

APST Lead

Standards

policy

- discourses

for

determining

teacher

quality

(professionali

sm and

recognition)

- teacher

retention

Alignment

with

Australian

Curriculum –

link to macro

level

influences for

theme

‘existing

Australian

education

bodies and

teacher

quality

policies’

Documentary text analysis and critical discourse analysis. Documents were first

analysed on their suitability for inclusion in this study, in accordance with four criteria

suggested by Scott (as cited in Fitzgerald, 2007, p. 285): authenticity, credibility,

representativeness, and meaning. Suitable documents were analysed using documentary

text analysis, as part of critical discourse analysis.

48

Critical discourse analysis is concerned with analysing dialectical and transdisciplinary

social relations between, and within, discourse and other objects (Fairclough, 2010).

Textual analysis assists critical discourse analysis and involves linguistic analysis of texts

(events) and interdiscursive analysis of social practices. In this study, linguistic analysis

was applied to identify the main themes in documents. Grammatical features of texts,

assumptions, semantic relations between words, and the perspective from which the main

themes were presented, were noted (Fairclough, 2003). Interdiscursive analysis

considered the discourses (positions or perspectives), genres (ways of interacting) and

styles (ways of being), in texts (Fairclough, 2010). Figure 3.1 below is an example of how

textual discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis were used in this study.

Figure 3.1 Text excerpt from the APST policy document that illustrates textual and

critical discourse analysis.

Source: AITSL, 2011, p. 1

As stated [establish fact] in the National Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality

and the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians

[Influence: power discourse, government, existing policy] improving teacher

quality [Influence: TQ discourse] is considered [establish fact] an essential reform

[necessary ‘change’, implies TQ is not what is desired] as part of [implies several

reforms, not in isolation] Australia’s efforts [national consistency &

responsibility] to improve student attainment [Influence: Intent, global

competition, improvement discourse]and ensure it has a world class [Influence:

global competition] system of education. ‘The greatest resource [Influence:

economic discourse] in Australian schools is our teachers [assigns power to

teachers]. They account for the vast majority of expenditure [Influence: economic

discourse] in school education and have the greatest [significance] impact on

student learning [Influence: TQ discourse, establish rationale, causal link] far

outweighing the impact [assumption] of any other education program or policy.’

[citation: one source]

49

Critical discourse analysis was fitting for this study because of its potential to analyse the

manifestation of power and social elements in policy text, whilst allowing for a more

global and “holistic analysis” overall (Vidovich, 2013, p. 33). Analysis of discourse

facilitated sense-making of power relations (Fairclough, 2003, 2010). Critical discourse

analysis highlighted links between policy and policy enactors, and allowed texts,

discourse and social practices to be considered in context of their influences, to

investigate how power structures “influence social change” (Woodside-Jiron, 2004, p.

176) at a particular point in time.

Data quality and validity. The quality of data gathered and analysed in this

empirical study was established using the design tests for case study research design, as

outlined in Yin (2014). Construct validity was upheld by clearly defining the specific

concepts and operational measures (Yin, 2014). Validity was ensured during the data

collection and analysis phases through member checking of transcribed interview data,

triangulation of multiple sources of evidence, and the establishment of a chain of evidence

(Creswell, 2014; Lambert, 2012).

External validity was maintained by acknowledging researcher bias, piloting interview

questions on non-participating educators to minimise misinterpretation, and identifying

literature appropriate to the research questions (Creswell, 2014; Punch & Oancea, 2014;

Yin, 2014). Reliability of case study evidence was increased through the development of

a case study database and case study protocol, and by using the same researcher to

conduct all research processes (Creswell, 2014; Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014).

50

Ethical Considerations

An ethics approval to conduct this research was granted in accordance with the ethical

guidelines of The University of Western Australia. In keeping with ethics approval,

measures were taken to ensure the prevention of physical harm, psychological abuse,

stress, loss of self- esteem and legal harm (Neuman, 2000). Ethics approvals were sought

and granted from the Department for Education and Child Development, Catholic

Education SA and school principals, as required. It was a condition of this research that

no comparison was made between school sectors.

Informed participant consent was obtained by enacting the ‘principle of voluntary

consent’, whereby all participants were provided with, and recorded in writing, an

informed consent statement (Neuman, 2000; see Appendix G). Confidentiality was

maintained by withholding the details of individual participants (Neuman, 2000).

Confidentiality concerns were addressed immediately as they arose at any stage during

data collection and analysis. Privacy and anonymity was maintained by withholding

names of individual participants and assigning pseudonyms to each individual participant.

Electronic data was encrypted with passwords (Lambert, 2012). Data stored in non-

electronic form is under lock and key at the University of Western Australia. Data will be

destroyed after 7 years.

Conclusion

This chapter outlined the theoretical frameworks for this research on APST.

Interpretivism and critical theory guided this study. The research aim was investigated

using the policy trajectory conceptual framework, from which the research questions were

derived. Extraction of major themes in the data was guided by the Miles and Huberman

(1994) framework. Critical discourse analysis facilitated meta-analysis of interview and

51

documentary data, which enabled power relations and issues of social equity to be

examined in the processes of national policy construction and policy enactment in

localised settings. The validity and reliability of findings was discussed to establish their

trustworthiness. The research findings are presented in Chapters Four and Five. The

following Chapter (Four) presents the research findings at the macro (national:

Australian) and meso (State: SA) levels of the policy trajectory. The macro and meso

findings are collectively presented in one chapter, as the primary focus of this study is on

enactment as experienced by teachers in schools at the micro (local: teacher) level.

Accordingly, the micro level findings are presented separately in Chapter Five.

52

CHAPTER FOUR

MACRO (NATIONAL: AUSTRALIAN) AND MESO (STATE: SOUTH

AUSTRALIA) LEVEL FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents the findings at the macro (national: Australian) level for APST

policy (in general) and APST Lead Standards policy (specifically), collectively referred

to as the APST policies hereafter. This chapter also presents the findings at the meso

(State: SA) level for South Australian State government policies associated with the

macro (national: Australian) level APST policies. The findings are presented for the

contexts of policy influences and policy text production, with a focus on policy intent as

depicted in the policy text. Themes are presented in order of prominence in the data for

the APST policies at the macro (national: Australian) level, and associated policies at the

meso (State: SA) level. Themes were identified in documentary data sources only at the

macro (national: Australian) level, and documentary as well as interview data sources at

the meso (State: SA) level. APST Lead Standards policy is nested within ASPT policy.

Therefore, themes identified in the overarching APST policy are also relevant to APST

Lead Standards policy.

Findings: Macro (national: Australian) level

Documentary data analysed at the macro (national: Australian) level was listed in Table

3.2 (see Chapter Three). The key documents listed were considered as a policy ensemble.

In addition, two further developments in teacher quality policy were of note, namely the

Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework, 2012 and the Australian

Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders, 2012. Whilst

these documents were not the primary focus of this study, they were relevant to the

53

positioning of the APST policies and their enactment in 2017 when the data was collected.

These two documents were analysed in brief in Chapter One where the background to

this study was explicated, with attention given to the purpose and use/s of the documents

in relation to the APST policies. The predominant themes identified in documentary data

at the macro (national: Australian) level are summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. Predominant themes in documents at the macro (national: Australian) level for

the contexts of the policy trajectory.

MACRO (NATIONAL: AUSTRALIAN) LEVEL

Documentary Data

CO

NT

EX

T O

F P

OL

ICY

TR

AJE

CT

OR

Y

Poli

cy

Infl

uen

ces APST policies

‘Global’ discourses shaping teacher quality reforms.

Australia’s competitive positioning.

Poli

cy

Tex

t P

rod

uct

ion

APST policies

Teacher quality improvement.

Teacher recognition.

Quality assurance.

Input from existing bodies and policies.

Equity in student outcomes.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Quality teacher leadership.

Context of policy influences. Two predominant themes were identified in

documentary data at the macro (national: Australian) level for the context of policy

influences. The themes identified in the APST policies were ‘global’ discourses shaping

teacher quality reforms and Australia’s competitive positioning.

The first theme, ‘global’ discourses shaping teacher quality reforms, was underscored

by an improvement discourse and presented as part of reform efforts to address the second

theme, Australia’s competitive positioning. This connection was evidenced in the

54

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers policy document in which teacher quality

was established as “an essential reform ... to improve [emphasis added] student attainment

and ensure it [Australia] has a world class system of education” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). The

document sought to validate a focus on improvement in teacher quality by presenting the

link between teacher quality and student achievement as a significant, established fact.

For example, the document asserted through limited and selected “national and

international evidence that a teacher’s effectiveness has a powerful impact on students,

with broad consensus that teacher quality is the single most important in-school factor

influencing student achievement” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). The document further validated a

focus on teacher quality through an economic discourse in which it referred to teachers

as “the greatest resource in Australian schools ... They [teachers] account for the vast

majority of expenditure in school education and have the greatest impact on student

learning” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). Presented as a logical flow, teacher standards were then

positioned as a policy lever to “facilitate the improvement [emphasis added] of teacher

quality” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) which in turn “will improve educational outcomes for

students” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2) for realisation of the second theme.

Although the first theme was more prominent, documentary data situated the theme of

Australia’s competitive positioning as the primary influence that acted to initiate the

APST policies. The APST policy document recognised Australia’s ambition for a “world

class system of education” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) and posited teacher standards as a

necessary development from pre-existing education policies. For example, teacher

standards were seen as a “fundamental component of the reforms agreed to in the National

Partnership on Improving Teacher Quality and will help to realise the goals and

commitments set out in the Melbourne Declaration” (AITSL, 2011, p. 7). The APST

document reiterated that “with ... implementation, Australian education systems are well

placed to be among the best in the world” (AITSL, 2011, p. 7) and thus it suggested

55

competition for a ‘top’ position globally. Emphasis on a global competitive discourse was

also evident in references to OECD publications in the APST document (AITSL, 2011)

and further supported by a statement in the Certification document, that AITSL will

actively seek to “participate in international benchmarking studies on ... quality teaching”

(AITSL, 2012a, p. 11). The following section identifies themes at the macro (national:

Australian) level for the context of policy text production.

Context of policy text production. Six predominant themes were identified in

documentary data at the macro (national: Australian) level for the context of policy text

production. Five themes were identified in the APST policies: Teacher quality

improvement; teacher recognition; quality assurance; input from existing bodies

and policies; and equity in student outcomes. The additional theme of quality teacher

leadership was identified in APST Lead Standards policy.

The theme of teacher quality improvement was a prominent feature of the policy text

in all key documents. APST policy was depicted as a national policy tool, namely a

“framework” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2) with the intent to improve teacher quality. APST policy

revealed the intent for improved teacher quality in a statement of potential multiple use,

to “attract, develop [emphasis added], recognise and retain quality teachers” (AITSL,

2011, p. 1). The policy text depicted teacher quality as growth along a progressive and

linear career “continuum of a teacher’s developing professional expertise from

undergraduate preparation through to ... a leader in the profession” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2).

The document implied teacher quality was not uniform and could be categorised into

various levels, namely “career stages [that] represent increasing levels of professional

knowledge, practice and engagement ... a growing understanding” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 4).

APST Lead Standards policy reiterated a teacher quality improvement discourse in the

stated aim of certification “to contribute to the improvement in teacher quality by

56

increasing reflection on practice and external feedback provided to teachers on their

current practice” (AITSL, 2013a, p. 3).

Implicit in the improvement discourse was an element of learning. This was evident in

the stated purpose of APST policy to “guide ... development of teachers” (AITSL, 2011,

p. 2) and “inform the development of professional learning goals ... by which teachers

can judge the success of their learning and assist self-reflection” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2).

An improvement discourse was intertwined with a teacher recognition discourse. This

was revealed in APST policy in numerous comments to “recognise” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1)

teacher quality for the intended and assumed outcome that “Standards contribute to the

professionalisation of teaching and raise the status of the profession” (AITSL, 2011, p.

2). The APST policies posited the Standards as a “reliable” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 3) indicator

of teacher quality at each of the four career stages, described as “benchmarks to recognise

... professional growth [emphasis added]” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 4). APST Lead Standards

policy highlighted a recognition discourse in the intended purpose of certification “to

recognise and promote quality teaching” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 3) and “to identify, recognise

and/or reward ... Lead teachers” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 3). The policy assumed “certification

... enhances the professionalism of teachers, enabling them to gain recognition for the

quality of their teaching (AITSL, 2012a, p. 2).

The policy text also posited the APST policies as mechanisms to govern and regulate

teacher quality for quality assurance. The policy text governed teacher quality through

a “nationally consistent” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2) and “portable” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 4)

approach to teacher quality, whilst APST Lead Standards policy afforded local autonomy

to jurisdictions as to how teachers will be “recognised or rewarded” (AITSL, 2012a, p.

4). The text directed national mandatory teacher registration and voluntary career

progression and indicated a top-down power relationship from national to State levels.

57

For example, “Graduate Standards will underpin the accreditation of initial teacher

education programs” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2) and “Proficient Standards will ... underpin

processes for full registration as a teacher and to support the requirements of nationally

consistent teacher registration” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2). Further, “Highly Accomplished and

Lead will inform voluntary certification” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2).

The policy text regulated teacher quality by normalising quality as a set of Standards

against which teachers must “demonstrate appropriate levels of professional[ism]”

(AITSL, 2011, p. 2). APST Lead Standards policy necessitated the use of “quality

assurance mechanisms ... to achieve and maintain rigorous, valid and credible

assessments of teachers’ practice” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 11). Lead teachers in particular

must demonstrate “evidence of performance that improves teaching and learning”

(AITSL, 2012a, p. 7) and “impact [emphasis added] ... on improvement in student

outcomes and the practice of colleagues against the Standards” (AITSL, 2013a, p. 11). In

addition, the policy text reaffirmed one potential use of the Standards “as the basis for a

professional accountability model” (AITSL, 2011, p. 2).

The theme of input from existing bodies and policies was implicated in the production

of APST policy text. For example, “their [APST policy] development included a synthesis

of the descriptions of teachers’ knowledge, practice and professional engagement used by

teacher accreditation and registration authorities, employers and professional

associations” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) and an “analysis of effective, contemporary practice

by teachers throughout Australia” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). Although the policy text did not

disclose which “registration authorities, employers and professional associations”

(AITSL, 2011, p. 1) were consulted, nor the number of existing policies consulted, the

listed membership of the “National Standards Subgroup” (AITSL, 2011, p. 23) suggested

wide consultation.

58

Top-down power relationships were evident in policy text production. For example,

construction of the APST policy document commenced “under the auspices of” (AITSL,

2011, p. i) and was later “endorsed by” (AITSL, 2011, p. i) the national government body,

the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs.

A second national government body, namely the Australian Education, Early Childhood

Development and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee, undertook “significant

work” (AITSL, 2011, p. i) on APST policy, after which a third national government body

AITSL “assumed responsibility for validating and finalising” (AITSL, 2011, p. i) the

policy. The use of language gave the impression of apparent broad consultation in policy

text production and noted “an extensive validation process involving almost 6,000

teachers” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1). However, the APST policy document did not mention

teacher involvement prior to the validation process, nor were teacher associations listed

in the “National Standards Subgroup” (AITSL, 2011, p. 23) or “Expert Writing Group”

(AITSL, 2011, p. 24). The level of involvement, if any, of principals, teachers and

students in the initial phases of policy text production was unclear. Thus the level to which

the Standards were “shaped by the profession” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) was questionable. In

addition, the Certification document specified a linear reporting mechanism for quality

assurance from the certifying authority to AITSL, which in turn “will report annually to

the Ministerial Council on the implementation of nationally consistent processes for the

certification of ... Lead teachers” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 12).

The APST policies revealed the theme equity in student outcomes in the repetitive use

of terms of inclusiveness in the Descriptors, for example “all students” (AITSL, 2011, p.

14). In addition, APST Lead Standards policy specified that Lead teachers “establish

inclusive learning environments” (AITSL, 2011, p. 7). Further, the APST policy text

afforded “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students” (AITSL, 2011, p. 9) and

“students with disability” (AITSL, 2011, p. 9) individual focus areas in addition to, and

59

separate from, a focus area that identified “students with diverse linguistic, cultural ...

backgrounds” (AITSL, 2011, p. 8).

An additional theme of quality teacher leadership was apparent in APST Lead

Standards policy. The text positioned a Lead teacher at the highest level of teacher quality,

as outlined in Chapter One. A Lead teacher was defined as an “exemplary” (AITSL, 2011,

p. 7) practitioner with an “authentic teaching role” (AITSL, 2013a, p. 9). Lead teachers

“progress their careers while remaining in the classroom” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 2).

Quality teacher leadership was positioned as an extension of the theme teacher quality

improvement and was associated with a teacher capacity building discourse. First,

quality teacher leadership was assumed to develop “over time” (AITSL, 2011, p. 7); time

being a recurring feature throughout the policy text as revealed in the eligibility and

evidencing requirements for certification as a Lead teacher (AITSL, 2012a, 2013a).

Second, quality teacher leadership was defined as the “sustainable” (AITSL, 2013a, p.

15), “positive impact and improvement in student outcomes” (AITSL, 2013a, p. 11) with

the intent to “build the capacity of others” (AITSL, 2013a, p. 12) and self. A capacity

building discourse was also evident in the expectation that “certified teachers will take a

role in assessing applications” (AITSL, 2012a, p. 9) for certification. The text suggested

the allocation of power to Lead teachers in the statement that the training of certified

teachers to become assessors “will enhance professional ownership of the process”

(AITSL, 2012a, p. 11). However, the certifying authority retained the ultimate power:

“the certifying authority will endorse or decline the recommendation of ... assessors”

(AITSL, 2012a, p. 10). The following section details the findings at the meso (State: SA)

level.

60

Findings: Meso (State: South Australian) level

Documentary data and interview data were analysed at the meso (State: SA) level in South

Australia for the contexts of policy influences and policy text production. The key

document for this study, namely the APST, was a national level document. The key

document analysed at the meso (State: SA) level, namely the Guide to the Certification

of Highly Accomplished and Lead Teachers in South Australia (Guide to Certification in

SA, 2015), was a South Australian State-level response to the key documents at the

national level, listed in Table 3.2 (Chapter Three). The Guide to Certification in SA

contained text excerpts from these key national level documents, with minor word

changes and additions for the State-specific context. Consequently, the Guide to

Certification in SA is not presented in this section. Additional, relevant meso (State: SA)

level documents developed in response to macro (national: Australian) level APST

policies were listed in Table 3.2 in Chapter Three. These documents were relevant to, and

are presented for, the context of policy text production only. Findings from interview data

are presented for the contexts of policy influences and policy text production. The

predominant themes identified in documentary and interview data at the meso (State: SA)

level are summarised in Table 4.2 on the following page.

Context of policy influences. Meso (State: SA) level perspectives on national

APST policy revealed two predominant themes in interview data for the context of policy

influences. The theme nationally consistent teacher standards was identified for the

APST policies. The theme teacher retention was identified for APST Lead Standards

policy.

61

Table 4.2. Predominant themes in documentary and interview data at the meso (State:

SA) level for the contexts of the policy trajectory.

MESO (STATE: SOUTH AUSTRALIAN) LEVEL

Documentary Data Interview Data C

ON

TE

XT

OF

PO

LIC

Y T

RA

JE

CT

OR

Y

Poli

cy

Infl

uen

ces APST policies

Nationally consistent teacher standards.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Teacher retention.

Poli

cy

Tex

t P

rod

uct

ion

APST policies

Teacher quality improvement.

Quality assurance.

Power of Australian education bodies.

Policy convergence.

Teacher consultation.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Teacher recognition. Quality teacher leadership.

Teacher recognition.

Meso (State: SA) level perspectives revealed the wider influence of nationally consistent

teacher standards acting to initiate the APST policies. For example, one participant

acknowledged “having a collective understanding of quality teachers, and the

components” (S1). Other participants considered “political motivations involved in

AITSL” (S2), with this national government body being “charged with all of the teacher

quality reforms” (S3). One participant further expressed “it is clear that the Standards

are our new point of reference” (S2).

Interview data for meso (State: SA) level perspectives revealed the wider influence of

teacher retention acting to initiate APST Lead Standards policy specifically. Teacher

retention was positioned as a rationale for teacher recognition. For example, one

participant identified “Lead teacher and Highly Accomplished teacher came out of being

able to recognise teachers’ progress through the profession, in a way that ensures that

our best teachers are in the classroom and remain so” (S1). The following section

62

identifies the themes at the meso (State: SA) level for the context of policy text

production.

Context of policy text production. Relevant State-initiated policy developments

following from the national APST policies were analysed for the context of policy text

production. The predominant theme of teacher recognition was identified in

documentary data at the meso (State: SA) level in relation to the APST Lead Standards

policy.

The theme of teacher recognition was evident in the South Australian School and

Preschool Education Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016, which proposed the

implementation of Lead teacher positions within schools. The Enterprise Agreement

linked teacher recognition with a discourse of equity in student outcomes. For example,

“Lead teacher position[s] will be allocated by the Department [DECD] to defined sites

[schools] with preference being given to category 1-3 index of educational disadvantage

sites” (“South Australian School”, 2016, p. 40), where category 1 to 3 schools are located

in low socio-economic areas. The document indicated positions would be “tenured for

three years” (“South Australian School”, 2016, p. 40) and “filled through a merit selection

process” (“South Australian School”, 2016, p. 40) possibly with “restricted advertising”

(p. 40). Observations from a Highly Accomplished and Lead teacher forum held in April

2017 indicated concern about limiting the opportunity to enact APST Lead Standards

policy in schools: “the 75% focus on category 1 – 3 schools is meaning that other

categories [4 to 7] are not encouraged to promote accreditation or express an interest for

a position” (AEUSA, 2017a, p. 2). The Australian Education Union (SA Branch)

expressed concern about a position-based recognition and reward system in a letter

addressed to the DECD: “the demonstrated skills and abilities of these classifications

63

[Lead and Highly Accomplished teacher] will remain beyond any limited tenure, and

ongoing recognition is appropriate” (AEUSA, 2017b).

Meso (State: SA) level perspectives on the national APST policies revealed five

predominant themes in interview data for the context of policy text production. Four

themes were identified as characteristics of the APST policies: Teacher quality

improvement; quality assurance; power of Australian education bodies; policy

convergence; and teacher consultation. Two themes were identified as characteristics

of APST Lead Standards policy: Quality teacher leadership and teacher recognition.

Interview data for State-level perspectives on the APST policies revealed the theme of

teacher quality improvement along a career continuum. For example, one participant

understood the intent of the APST policies “to improve the quality of teaching in

Australia” (S1). This participant postulated that schools used the policies “to, develop

professional practice” (S1) and for “guiding their professional development collectively,

but also individually ... as the basis of individual professional learning plans ... and goal

setting” (S1). A second participant appreciated APST “policy inherently values classroom

practice and provides a genuine career path for educators who do not want to be leaders

from an administrative point of view” (S2). A third participant supposed “one of the main

intents ... [was] collaboration between and across sites through teacher development ...

working together towards that common goal, to increase student outcomes” (S3).

Interview data revealed a quality assurance discourse as a feature of APST policy text.

One participant considered a nationally directed performance measurement discourse of

“comparative practice and processes” (S2) whereby “National testing mechanisms …

(albeit narrow in scope) ... create a new language for professional discourse and

development” (S2). A second participant identified one intent of the APST policies to

“drive teacher performance to better the outcomes for students” (S3) as conveyed through

64

“national and local drivers” (S3). A third participant noted that “schools are required as

part of the Commonwealth agreement, and certainly part of our funding agreements, to

implement the Standards” (S1). When asked to compare the APST policies to pre-existing

teacher quality policies in general, one participant determined quality teacher leadership

as being “much more rigorous, much more benchmarked across the country ... agreed at

a national level” (S1). This data indicated a more credible process for national

consistency, underpinned by a quality assurance discourse. The same participant noted

“a range of resources accompany the Standards so it’s much richer as a document” (S1).

Interview data suggested power of Australian education bodies in the process of policy

text production. Data indicated the national government funded body AITSL had the

primary power and authority to select policy actors for involvement in the process of

policy text production. For example, two participants stated “AITSL engaged a range of

educators across the country” (S1) and “MCEETYA and AITSL consulted with” (S3). A

third participant asserted “It would be naïve to not consider the political motivations

involved in AITSL” (S2) and continued “led by John Hattie, it is clear that the Standards

are our new point of reference” (S2).

Interview data revealed policy convergence between existing State-level teacher quality

policies and the national APST policies. One participant supposed “curriculum

associations are becoming, I think, more aligned to the generic [national] teacher

Standards” (S3). The participant also indicated the APST policies were “very similar to

what BOSTES [the NSW State-level teacher accreditation body] had come up with” (S3).

A second participant affirmed “each Registration Board has its own guides of suitability

to teach. Increasingly, these reference points can be connected to the Standards” (S2). A

third participant confirmed that APST Lead Standards policy was replacing existing

State-level, sector-specific teacher quality policies. For example, Advanced Skills

65

Teacher “doesn’t have any currency ... new teachers don’t have a choice to be able to go

for that [Advanced Skills Teacher] ... certification is the way to have any sort of advanced

skills recognised” (S1).

Interview data suggested APST policy text was validated by State education sectors and

through teacher consultation. One participant maintained policy text production was a

representative consultative process: “MCEETYA and ATISL, they had a heavy

consultation with over 8000 teachers” (S3). A second participant affirmed the APST

policies “weren’t developed externally from the education sectors ... the Standards were

trialled, and teachers gave feedback” (S1). The participant suggested perceived teacher

ownership and acceptance of the APST policy processes through participation in the

validation process: “AITSL engaged a range of educators across the country ... I think

that has led to a widespread agreement that the Standards do represent quality teaching,

in most people’s eyes” (S1).

Interview data identified quality teacher leadership as a characteristic of APST Lead

Standards policy. Participants recognised teacher leadership as “the pinnacle of teacher

classification” (S2) and positioned teacher leadership at the highest level of teacher

quality. Participants defined a Lead teacher as an “expert teacher in their classroom”

(S1). One participant identified “one area of concern is the misconception that Lead

teachers are management leaders by default” (S2).

Implicit in the definition of quality teacher leadership was the concept of teacher capacity

building as an extension of the theme teacher quality improvement. Participants

perceived a Lead teacher as one who “mentors, engages and leads other educators ... they

will be leading some professional development for other educators” (S1). Lead teachers

were attributed with the task of “driving teacher development through the outcomes that

they get with their own students, but also students within the colleagues that they support”

66

(S3). Participants recognised Lead teachers “are leading all sorts of different educational

initiatives within the school” (S1). Lead teachers also “lead at a partnership, district,

State and national level” (S2).

A teacher recognition discourse was identified by participants as a characteristic of

APST Lead Standards policy. One participant associated teacher recognition with

improved student outcomes and stated “it is expected that this [teacher recognition] will

drive outcomes” (S2). A second participant linked teacher recognition with equity in

student outcomes in a State-level policy response to APST Lead Standards policy: “we’re

creating specific jobs ... [in] low SES sites, for certified teachers ... you’ll have those

expert teachers where they’re needed the most” (S3). One participant raised concern

regarding the intended construction of “position-based, role definitions of HAT / LT

classifications” (S2) and teacher recognition through monetary incentives. The

participant indicated there was “confusion about the classifications and members

[teachers] are frustrated that wage recognition for their acknowledged skills is limited by

site and tenure” (S2). The participant asserted “the focus must always be on the teaching

element and not become a pseudo leadership role on the cheap” (S2). A third participant

assigned more importance to teacher quality improvement than teacher recognition:

“certification is recognition ... but the real juice, is in actually using the Standards as a

development” (S1).

Conclusion

This chapter presented the findings at the macro (national: Australian) level and the meso

(State: SA) level with a focus on policy intent. Themes were identified in the national

APST policies and State-level policy responses for the contexts of policy influences and

67

policy text production. The following chapter (Five) presents the findings at the micro

(local: teacher) level in schools with a focus on policy practices and effects (enactment).

68

CHAPTER FIVE

MICRO (LOCAL: TEACHER) LEVEL FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter presents the findings at the micro (local: teacher) level in specific SA

schools. Interview participants were either certified Lead or Highly Accomplished

teachers who were practicing or had practiced as a certified teacher in secondary or

primary school settings in various school sectors in SA. See the methodology in Chapter

Three for a more extensive description of participants. First, the findings are presented

for the contexts of policy influences and policy text production in brief, to provide SA

teacher perspectives on the initiation of, and the intent of, the national APST policies.

Second, the findings are presented for the context of policy practices and effects

(enactment) of the national APST policies, as experienced by teachers at the micro (local:

teacher) level in SA schools. The context of policy practices and effects is the primary

focus of this chapter. Themes are presented in order of prominence in the data, as for

Chapter Four. The findings for the context of policy outcomes at the micro (local: teacher)

level are included in the Chapter Six discussion, as these findings consider the potential

longer-term effects and future directions of the APST policies. The predominant themes

identified in interview data at the micro (local: teacher) level are summarised in Table 5.1

on the following page.

Context of policy influences

Micro (local: teacher) level perspectives about influences on national APST policies were

identified in interview data. Four predominant themes were identified by teacher

participants as influences acting to initiate the APST policies: Nationally consistent

69

standards for teacher professionalism; research; ‘global’ teacher quality policies;

and uncertainty. No additional themes were identified specifically for APST Lead

Standards policy.

Table 5.1. Predominant themes at the micro (local: teacher) level for the contexts of the

policy trajectory.

MICRO (LOCAL: TEACHER) LEVEL IN SCHOOLS

Interview Data

CO

NT

EX

T O

F P

OL

ICY

TR

AJE

CT

OR

Y

Poli

cy

Infl

uen

ces

APST policies

Nationally consistent standards for teacher professionalism.

Research.

‘Global’ teacher quality policies.

Uncertainty.

Poli

cy

Tex

t P

rod

uct

ion

APST policies

Quality assurance.

Teacher quality improvement.

Input from Australian education bodies & teachers.

Uncertainty.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Quality teacher leadership.

Lead teacher’s role.

Poli

cy

Pra

ctic

es a

nd

Eff

ects

(E

nact

men

t)

APST policies

School leadership.

Opportunity to enact.

Quality assurance.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Awareness, knowledge and engagement with APST.

Certification process.

Variable impact.

Increased accountability.

Teacher recognition.

Teacher growth.

Power of colleagues.

Competing policies.

70

Interview data established nationally consistent standards for teacher professionalism

as an important influence on the initiation of the national APST policies. Numerous

participants understood APST policy was influenced by “a need for standardising a

policy for teachers across the nation” (H4). Some participants commented “my

understanding is that it [APST policy] was developed to provide consistency at a national

level, in terms of teaching standards” (L3) and to “make a national teaching standard,

for everyone to aspire to be” (L7). Other participants also considered the need to make

teachers more accountable. For example, “having standards to be accountable for, that

are consistent across the States” (H6). Another participant believed APST policy is

“targeted at creating quality teaching in schools ... to ensure that teachers are doing their

job properly ... meeting the expectations of their job” (L4). Further, “the main thing is to

try and keep those highly performing teachers in the classroom, and recognise their skills

and knowledge” (H7).

Participants considered “education research” (H4) as another prominent influence acting

to initiate the national APST policies. For example, one participant commented “‘the

heads’ [national government] said that we need to do this [improve teacher quality], and

then there was a study and the study said we need to standardise” (H8). Other participants

identified specific researchers as having an influence on APST policy. For example,

“something John Hattie did, where they said that, in order to improve our children’s

standard of education you need excellent teachers in the classroom ... and that’s what all

the research says” (H2). Likewise, “obviously Hattie has had a say in a lot of them

[APST] ... maybe Dylan Wiliam as well” (H5). Further, some participants linked research

with the influence of global competition. For example, “research is saying that we’re

[Australia] not quite getting it right, ‘cause we’re seeming to go down the ladder” (H1)

in international PISA testing. Similarly, “for sure it’s a political drive, looking at student

outcomes, where do we sit? ... globally ... in terms of student outcomes?” (L2).

71

Several participants considered a third influence of ‘global’ teacher quality policies

acting to initiate the national APST policies. These participants understood the APST

policies were “based on some success [of similar policies] overseas” (L5), for example

“models from the USA” (L9). One participant commented “in America they have their

own certification process which was looked at quite strongly when the Australian one

was developed” (L6). Another participant stated “as often happens here in Australia ...

we look internationally ... I could see government initiatives being, ‘let’s look at teacher

quality’, where do we look? We would look internationally” (L2).

Participants also acknowledged existing Australian policy. For example, “I think it

[APST] came about from government policy” (H4). Some participants identified specific

policies, for example “I guess it [APST] stems from the Melbourne Declaration” (L4).

Another participant noted “principally the APST had its origins in the work of the Hobart,

Adelaide and Melbourne Declarations on education” (L9).

Teacher uncertainty about the influences acting to initiate the national APST policies

was evident as a fourth theme for the context of policy influences. Participants professed

“I really don’t know what the Lead influences were” (L3), “I’m not very aware” (H8) and

“I’m not quite sure if there were different influences for Lead teacher” (L3). Some

participants linked the theme of uncertainty with ‘global’ influences. For example,

“probably international research” (L6) and “I’m hoping they looked at other countries”

(H5). The following section identifies themes at the micro (local: teacher) level in schools

for the context of policy text production.

Context of policy text production

Interview data about micro (local: teacher) level perspectives from teachers in schools on

the national APST policies revealed six predominant themes for the context of policy text

72

production. Four themes were identified for the APST policies: Quality assurance;

teacher quality improvement; Input from Australian education bodies and teachers;

and uncertainty. Two themes were identified specifically for APST Lead Standards

policy: Quality teacher leadership and Lead teacher’s role.

The themes of quality assurance and teacher quality improvement were identified in

interview data as characteristics of the national APST policies. Participants identified the

APST policies as “benchmarks for teachers to work towards” (H1), “guidelines for what

we should be showing at each career stage” (H7) and as a “Standard with which to judge

teacher quality and associated career stage” (L9). A participant noted:

Whilst there may be a few omissions in the full range of potential teacher practice,

the practice they [APST policies] do describe is comprehensive and achievable

for teachers in any school context to work towards. It is true that a document such

as the APST presents a model for what good teaching looks like, which has to

contain inherent bias as it will value some aspects of teaching practice that not

everyone will agree with. However, as a statement of what good teaching looks

like, I think it is fair, reasonable and accurate, and would welcome teachers of

any level of teaching experience and expertise to engage with the Standards for

the benefit of themselves and their students. (L9)

Participants understood quality assurance as the major intent of the APST policies. One

participant identified that “every jurisdiction has their own system [of teacher standards],

and I guess that’s part of what the national professional Standards is about, is to have

one set of standards ... one set of rules across the board [Australia]” (L6). Similarly,

another participant recognised “every State has their own teacher standards ... this

[APST] was a way of bringing everyone in line nationally” (L3). A third participant

specifically identified “the main intent ... to have a general standard across States and

73

Territories, and then across schools ... recognising that teachers work at varying levels

in different areas” (H2).

Participants described APST Lead Standards policy as a “much more honest and fair

assessment of teachers” (L1) compared with existing State-specific Advanced Skills

Teacher quality policy in SA. Interview data revealed school leaders had the power to

approve pre-existing State-level lead teacher policy prior to APST policy. One participant

in particular explained:

The AST [Advanced Skills Teacher, SA] standards was a pretty simple process ...

depending on who your school leaders were at the time, it was just a matter of a

signature on a piece of paper. Whereas now, you have to provide evidence and

documentation to prove that you’re capable of meeting those Standards ... it’s

more credible. (L4)

Similarly, another participant noted step nine of the SA teacher pay scale “was purely an

interview, with documentation gathered with your site principal at a local [school] level,

it wasn’t that national ... consistent approach” (L2). Likewise, “my principal just said

‘you’re an AST’, so I actually didn’t even apply for it” (L1).

Participants also understood teacher quality improvement as an intent of national APST

policy. For example, one participant stated “I think the intent is to improve teaching

practice” (L4). A second participant considered “I think the main intent of it [APST] is to

increase teacher quality, and therefore student outcomes, in all Australian schools” (H4).

Likewise, “one intent was to encourage people [teachers] to become reflective

practitioners that constantly improve their practice” (L6). Various participants stressed

the importance of collective effort for teacher quality improvement. For example, “the

major intent is to raise the standard of teaching in Australia ... to improve ... esteem our

74

excellent teachers, so that they can try and raise the standards of the rest” (L5). Similarly,

“I see it [APST] as being aimed at capacity building, rather than any punitive measure

of what a teacher can’t yet do.” (L9).

Participants recognised input from Australian education bodies and teachers in the

process of policy text production for the national APST policies. Interview data revealed

AITSL was a key national education body involved in constructing the policies. For

example, “obviously AITSL, and John Hattie has had a huge part in it ... State

governments and education bodies including universities, and education researchers, I

know have all had a part in it” (H4). Participants identified other various education

stakeholders. For example, “it’s considerable national representation, cross sector ...

we’re talking primary, secondary and tertiary, I would say, educators, people in

educational practice. So, principals ... I would say even, teaching staff” (L2). Similarly,

“I think academia itself, and teachers. So, a co-contribution to it” (L8). Another

participant suggested limited teacher input and power in the process of policy text

production: “These things just get given to you and you go ‘alright, let’s do that one now’”

(H2).

Numerous participants expressed uncertainty about how the APST policy texts were

produced. For example, one participant declared “I’m actually not familiar with any of

the people involved” (H8). A second participant admitted “I have no idea” (L3). A third

participant supposed APST policy text was developed “probably [with] ... input from

principals and teachers” (H7). Similarly, a fourth participant stated “I would not know …

I would imagine that it’s a combined sector input” (L1). Further, “it’s not broadly

advertised [how it’s been shaped]” (L2).

Participants situated quality teacher leadership as an extension of the theme teacher

quality improvement when referring to national APST Lead Standards policy. For

75

example, participants positioned a Lead teacher as “the highest quality teacher that you

can have” (L4). Participants identified teacher capacity building as a feature of quality

teacher leadership. For example, Lead teachers “lead colleagues to improve colleagues’

professional knowledge and practice ... influencing programs and policies mainly in their

site” (L2). Similarly, Lead teachers were depicted as “leading groups of teachers in their

learning, to develop new policies within the school” (H2). Participants assigned

responsibility to Lead teachers to “work with others to influence their professional

knowledge and experience” (L9) or “help others improve their practice” (L2).

Interview data also revealed an impact on student learning as a key feature of national

APST Lead Standards policy. For example, one participant confirmed “you have to

impact the students” (L5). Another participant noted that teacher leadership “benefits the

learning outcomes of the students on the site, or at other sites” (H5). A third participant

commented that Lead teachers have “a measurable, observable impact on students’

learning” (L1).

Interview data revealed “there’s been some change of understanding” (L6) in the

definition of a Lead teacher and a Lead teacher’s role. Participants understood a Lead

teacher as “a teacher that’s in the classroom that has got some really good leadership

skills” (H1). Some participants suggested that “people misconceive a Lead teacher needs

to be someone who’s in leadership” (L4). One participant emphasised “the Lead teacher

is on the floor ... leading teaching and learning at a modelling type level, as opposed to

being a leader in a leadership role” (L3). A second participant maintained “Lead teachers

are leading their colleagues in, ... not necessarily a leadership position, but they have a

role in leadership somewhere” (H8). The following section details the findings at the

micro (local: teacher) level in schools for the context of policy practices and effects

(enactment).

76

Context of policy practices and effects (enactment)

Micro (local: teacher) level perspectives in schools on national APST policy revealed

eleven main themes for the context of policy practices and effects (enactment). The most

prominant themes identified in interview data for national APST policy enactment, with

a focus on Lead Standards, were: School leadership; opportunity to enact; and quality

assurance. Eight themes were specifically identified in interview data for the enactment

of Lead Standards: Awareness, knowledge and engagement with APST; certification

process; variable impact; increased accountability; teacher recognition; teacher

growth; power of colleagues; and competing policies.

Interview data revealed that school leadership impacted on how and why schools and

teachers enacted national APST policy and APST Lead Standards policy in particular.

The majority of participants maintained that their relationship with, and support from,

their school leader/s was a key factor that enabled or constrained enactment of APST

Lead Standards policy in their school. For example, one participant affirmed “you need

supportive school leader/s to help in your initial development as a Lead teacher, to

provide opportunities for development and impact, and to support your application” (L9).

A second participant summarised general agreement amongst participants:

School leadership has a huge influence on the amount of adoption or adaptation

of the policy. I recall back in 2013 we had a whole-school staff meeting, something

was handed out, printed, here you go, here’s the Standards, where do you fit? And

then suddenly, it was never really talked about again. To me, that’s not serving

your teaching staff ... I think there’s inconsistent messages in some sites from

leadership about the importance of it. (L2)

77

A third participant also indicated that “whether or not they [school leadership] agree with

the [APST] policies, will depend on whether or not they’re being implemented effectively”

(L4).

Other participants raised more questions. For example, “does leadership resource it?

[APST Lead Standards policy] ... the support, awareness, resourcing of potential

applicants [for certification] varies from school to school” (L8). One participant claimed

“the biggest factor [that stops the adoption of APST policy] is the knowledge,

determination and vision of the principals” (L5). Another participant noted that a change

in school leadership impeded enactment of APST Lead Standards policy at their site: “all

our leadership are just acting and short-term ... when he [our last deputy] left, the

momentum [with APST] dropped off” (L1).

Participants indicated various levels of opportunity to enact the national APST policies

in their schools which was constrained or enabled by school context. For example,

participants noted “some schools aren’t using them [APST] anywhere near as much as

they should be” (L5), “it’s not used very well yet, at our school” (H1) and “from our site,

they’re not using it” (H6). Another participant conveyed the need for the APST policies

to align with existing school structural features: “every school has a busy schedule, so

they need to be able to fit it [APST] into their goals that they already have” (H3).

Some participants linked the opportunity to enact APST Lead Standards policy with

associated State-level responses to the national APST policies. For example, one

participant appreciated:

I know currently, South Australia’s State level, they’ve an initiative ... density

building, we’re [the State] wanting more high quality teaching staff scattered

around the different sites so let’s provide some opportunity for a hundred people

78

across the State to connect with mentors, to really push them through for

certification. (L2)

A second participant reflected on the level of adoption of APST Lead Standards policy in

schools and suggested adoption was constrained by a different State-level initiative,

namely the DECD trial: “different areas are being targeted for different things ... it came

out that it [the trial] was for categories 1, 2 and 3 schools ... that cuts out a whole lot of

schools” (H1). A third participant referred to the opportunity to enact APST Lead

Standards policy as “a money problem” (H2) whilst a fourth participant hypothesised, “if

we had endless buckets of money, you would be paid at a certain level ... that’s not reality”

(H6).

Opportunity to enact APST Lead Standards policy was interdependent with

understandings of the Lead teacher’s role. One participant summarised the general

sentiment of most participants:

The size of the school affects it [opportunity to become a certified teacher], the

type of school, your role in the school ... also some descriptors are really hard,

especially in Lead, for teachers in some schools to actually achieve ... especially

in schools where lots of people are employed to do those roles, and you’re just

asked to teach. (H4)

Other participants confirmed “you may not have had the opportunity as a classroom

teacher to lead a number of things” (L5) and “teachers aren’t necessarily able to lead in

certain areas ... there’s specific teachers allocated to those roles” (L4). Further, some

participants indicated that Lead teachers may not “have a Lead initiative in the school”

(L7) and “sometimes those Lead projects are often more for coordinators rather than a

full-time teacher” (H6).

79

Interview data revealed that “different schools use it [APST] in different ways for different

reasons” (L9), including for quality assurance. Various participants affirmed the

policies were used to comply with mandatory teacher registration requirements. For

example, “it’s essential for people to use it [APST policy] when they’re looking at moving

from Graduate to Proficient … they then need to provide evidence to show that they are

actually working at the Proficient career stage” (L6). Further, “at the moment, most

schools are just using them to get their teachers from Graduate to Proficient ... they use

the Standards as well to document their own professional learning, because that’s

mandatory when you’re reapplying for your teacher registration” (L4).

Other participants indicated various uses for APST Lead Standards policy which included

“as a parameter for peer observing” (L2) and for “recording their professional

development” (H8). One participant suggested schools were “keeping an inventory of

what type of professional development opportunities teachers are following, and they’re

making sure that whatever teachers do, that they can align them to the Standards ... that’s

a really basic level” (L5). Another participant postulated “now they’re actually reflecting

on their own practices, whereas before I don’t think we had clear direction, we didn’t

have particular areas that we were needing to work on ... I think it’s [APST] really

helping teachers’ performance management” (H1). Further, some participants identified

the national APST policies were “linked to performance plans” (H8) and “some [schools]

use it [APST] in performance management processes” (L9). One participant supposed

the APST policies were “not performance management linked” (L8).

Interview data revealed that enactment of APST Lead Standards policy was constrained

in schools when there was a lack of awareness, knowledge and engagement with

APST. This theme was positioned as dependent on school leadership. For example,

when asked what factors impact the adoption or adaptation of APST policy, one

80

participant stated “first of all it’s definitely the knowledge of the [certification] process,

and then the understanding of the process ... I’m saying leadership across the board”

(H1). Likewise, “I know other teachers at my site, their lack of knowledge is stopping

them from doing it [certification]” (H6). In addition, “for teachers it’d be mostly

awareness. We’re just too busy to bother with another piece of paper that’s come up ... If

I hadn’t done the certification trial I would probably still not be very aware of it [APST

Lead Standards policy]” (H8).

Participants indicated they were developing others’ knowledge and understanding of

APST Lead Standards policy at their site. For example:

For me, when I was going through certification, minimal knowledge around me,

within my site, of what APST terminology was ... there was a great deal for me of

having to train up referees, site leaders, colleagues even ... it was a constraint [to

enactment] but it was an opportunity to upskill people in my current site. (L2)

Similarly:

There was very little support for what I was doing, not because teachers or

principals didn’t want to support me, but, they just didn’t have the understanding,

of the career stages themselves, or the Standards ... I was actually educating them.

(H7)

Participants suggested the extent of APST Lead Standards policy adoption depended on

“the way it’s given and how it’s put across” (H2). One participant suggested policy

engagement was a precursor to policy adoption: “if they’re [teachers] not engaged then

you’re not gonna [sic] really get very far with them adopting the policy” (H3). Various

participants suggested that certification “has to be promoted to principals, to teachers ...

not from a top down approach” (H2) and “schools must want to do it or be forced to”

81

(L9). In addition, “if you’ve got these Standards that you can say ‘look, the whole country

is following these, and supports these’, then you might get more teacher intake and

engagement” (H3). Further, “it takes time to build up an understanding about what

certification is for it to then become a part of your embedded practice” (L6).

Most participants indicated they were “very familiar and very supportive” (L6) of the

APST policies or the process for certification. Some participants engaged with, and

increased awareness of, APST Lead Standards policy when they became involved in an

associated State-specific, system-level initiative named “the trial” (L3). For example, one

participant stated “If I hadn’t done the trial I would probably still be not very aware of it”

(H7). A second participant affirmed “the trial was about helping people get through the

accreditation [certification] process in the hope that then this trial of people becoming

accredited would spread the understanding of what Lead and HAT [Highly

Accomplished] teachers were” (L3). Contrary, a third participant indicated they were

“not familiar, nor supported, with the [APST Lead Standards] policy, within my State,

generally, because there’s no incentive, there’s no recognition, there’s no support ... at

this point in time” (H2).

Enactment of APST Lead Standards policy by teachers in schools was both constrained

and enabled by the certification process. Situated in interview data as interdependent

with school leadership, components of the certification process were identified as

primary constraints to enactment. For example, one participant highlighted the power

assumed by the principal for policy enactment: “you need to have your principals’

endorsement” (H6). A recurrent finding was that certification is “very time consuming”

(L4). A participant noted beneficial support at an institutional level: “I was given a set

number of relief days, whereas if you are not part of the trial, obviously you don’t have

that” (L3). A second frequent finding was “the cost [which] varies from sectors to sectors

82

to States” (H4). A participant shared “I probably wouldn’t have done certification if

somebody else didn’t pay for it” (H2). Third, participants indicated certification was “a

huge undertaking to gather documentation and to align it to all the Standards ... it’s a

huge amount of work placed on an already stretched teacher” (L3). Another participant

supposed “the actual assessment [for certification] is massive, which is turning lots of

people off cause the amount of work that you have to do” (H1).

Additional constraints to enactment were identified as “not having a really deep

understanding of what they [teachers] actually have to submit for certification” (L7). One

participant suggested the APST policies were “quite open to interpretation” (H6). In

contrast, a supportive participant confirmed “support networks, mentors and online

resources” (H1) enhanced enactment of APST Lead Standards policy.

Interview data revealed variable impact on teachers’ practice, colleagues’ practice and

student learning as effects of enacting the APST Lead and Highly Accomplished

Standards policies. Most participants revealed positive impact on their teaching practice

and the practice of colleagues. For example:

I think my practice has improved and my understanding of why I do stuff, and the

reasons why it is good practice ... I’m just aware of why and how I’m doing things,

then sharing that knowledge with colleagues, so I’m having an impact about the

people around me. (H4)

Similarly, “I’m not just helping myself with my goals, I’m helping the faculty, which I

think is a huge impact” (H3). A third participant reiterated how “collaborative teaching

is as an effort” (L8). Further, some participants indicated they were “invited to mentor

Early Career Teachers and to support teachers seeking HA/L [Highly

Accomplished/Lead] teacher accreditation” (L9).

83

Some participants suggested their impact on student learning was not solely attributable

to certification. For example, “I’ve started with a whole new cohort so I wouldn’t attribute

their improved learning solely on being a Lead teacher ... to, now I can say I’ve got the

certificate” (L2). Another participant commented “I know that my students get great

results. I don’t know whether that’s from the time that I became a Lead teacher or not ...

is that just who I am anyway?” (L6). A third participant linked student learning outcomes

with prior teaching practice: “I am regularly involved in whole-school evidence

assessment, which I was prior to becoming a Lead teacher” (L9).

Numerous participants indicated they hadn’t gathered evidence of improved student

learning since becoming certified, for various reasons. For example, one participant

shared “No I haven’t [documented evidence of improved student learning] because I

moved sites” (H5). Similarly:

I’ve only been certified since October. So, I’ve only really been teaching as a Lead

teacher for one term ... I haven’t had continuation of students to be able to see

whether or not my certification has actually led to improved student learning. But,

ask me in twelve months’ time and it might be different. (L4)

Further, another participant noted, “as always, I do collect data both anecdotally and

quantitatively, but I can’t qualify that [evidence of improved student learning since

becoming certified] in any way as yet” (L8). Another participant indicated “I haven’t

made any particular effort” (H8) to document evidence of improved student learning.

Three participants indicated they had collected evidence of improved student learning

since becoming certified. The first participant stated “I document evidence of improved

student learning every day ... I’ve always documented and now I, ensure I document”

(H2). A second participant affirmed “I was able to measure data over time ... some data

84

showed that I was improving the learning environment and the educational outcomes”

(L5). A third participant confirmed “I have [documented evidence of improved student

learning] ... however, that was really despite the process of accreditation [certification]”

(L3).

Increased accountability for student learning was identified as an effect of enactment of

the APST Lead and Highly Accomplished Standards policies. Interview data revealed

increased documentation and feedback as the most prominent changes to teacher practice,

influenced by these policies. For example, “data collection has been a much bigger factor

for me ... also I introduced a lot more student feedback ... student assessment of their own

learning” (L1). Some participants indicated they were “better at collecting data ... better

at analysing” (H5) and had developed “better habits around documenting my work and

retaining evidence of the work that I do” (L9) since becoming certified. One participant

stated “you have to be really much more reflective and honest about if you are having an

impact on the individual students in your care, and can you prove it?” (L5). Another

participant contemplated “I don’t think my practice has changed so much ... I just had to

go back and record what I was doing” (H7).

Some participants indicated their practice became more focused, reflective and

transparent after they became certified. For example,

It [APST Lead Standards policy] really makes you a very reflective practitioner,

because you’ve got tools to actually drive that reflection ... it’s more focused

reflection ... things like embedding classroom observations into your lessons and

seeing different ways that people do it, stimulates a lot of professional discussion

about pedagogy ... the whole thing around classroom observations is that de-

privatisation of practice which I think has been really driven through Standards.

(L6)

85

One participant was concerned that “teachers who are doing an outstanding job, will be

expected to do more to prove that they’re doing an outstanding job” (L3). Another

participant questioned the level of increased accountability for APST Lead Standards

policy enactment:

Step nine, which is the highest pay scale for teaching ... you don’t just

automatically get it when you’ve been teaching for a certain amount of years, you

do have to meet some standards. But it’s nowhere near as vigorous as the Highly

Accomplished or Lead ... I just wonder why that gap is so big? In terms of what

you need to do to prove yourself? (L3)

Various participants positioned teacher recognition as a motivator for the certification

process. One participant appreciated “it’s been great to be recognised without seeking

promotion within a school” (H4). Some participants revealed teacher recognition as the

means through which job security may be achieved. For example, “people have

approached me about it [certification] because they see it as a way to permanency” (L3).

Other participants viewed APST enactment as a way to achieve monetary recognition.

For example, “I undertook the accreditation [certification] because I was in a leadership

position and I didn’t know if I wanted to stay there. So it was a monetary decision, because

I thought if I had this [Lead teacher] accreditation I could continue to get paid a

leadership type wage without having to be out of the classroom” (L3). One participant

proposed teachers “resist actually taking it [certification] on board, and especially if

there’s no incentive at the end of it” (H7). Another participant questioned “why would I

want to go through such an intense lengthy process, when at this point in time, there’s no

sort of monetary benefits?” (H6). Yet another participant expressed “it’s [certification]

not something I even recommend to other teachers to pursue, mostly because there’s no

financial reward at the end ... there’s no real prestige in doing so” (H7).

86

Other participants referred to teacher recognition as an intrinsic reward that was achieved

when the certification process was enacted. For example, one participant indicated “once

you finally pass it up [certification], you just feel like you’re a better teacher ... you’re

more analytical ... it gives you clarity. So you know, although I’ve spent a lot of time, I’ve

gained so much” (H3).

The APST Lead Standards policy was presented as a tool to guide teacher growth.

Participants appreciated that the policy provided a focus for their own personal growth

when incorporated into individual PD and PL plans and goal setting, in addition to school

PD plans. For example, “I think a lot of schools are using it [APST] for their professional

development plans ... at our school, everyone was requested to pick two or three

[Standards] and that was their focus for the year” (H5). Another participant indicated

“some schools use it to support teacher professional development, aligning PD course

with the APST ... to help teachers self-evaluate what career stage they align with, and to

provide a concrete description of what to aim for at higher levels” (L9). Similarly, a

participant noted APST Lead Standards policy was used as “a way of discussing with

teachers their professional development, their areas of strength and areas of weakness,

so they can achieve personal growth” (L3). Likewise, “I think it [APST Lead Standards

policy] encourages authentic improvement ... it’s all about growth, and impact; that’s

their big focus, continual growth for the students as well as the teacher” (H3).

Numerous participants indicated they used APST Lead Standards policy to improve their

teacher practice and knowledge. For example, one participant stated “it’s all about the

teacher improvement” (H3). Another participant thought “the 37 descriptors are a great

way to have a look at what your needs are, where you want to go to next. So, looking

ahead at career stages” (L6). A third participant disclosed “I did the self-assessment tool.

87

I got a few reds, which I wasn’t doing, for a couple of areas. And as a teacher that bugged

me ... they were the areas I really wanted to focus on in my teaching” (L7).

Participants identified the power of colleagues and their role in the process of APST Lead

Standards policy enactment. Some participants confirmed collegial support was required

to become certified. For example, “you need to get references from colleagues” (L7) and

“you need a lot of colleague support to actually go through the application process [for

certification] and without it, you can’t be certified” (H4). Another participant affirmed

“collegial support is a great enabler” (L2) of APST Lead Standards policy enactment.

The same participant identified that “negative colleagues” (L2) constrained enactment

because of lack of awareness of APST Lead Standards policy: “a lot of people that I

worked with, there was a bit of negativity, why would you bother doing that [Lead teacher

certification]? They didn’t see great purpose, because they really hadn’t been to a

workshop” (L2).

Participants distinguished several competing policies for Lead teacher recognition that

impeded enactment of APST Lead Standards policy by teachers in schools. For example,

“alternate recognition pathways ... if the alternate methods attract salary and

certification doesn’t” (L6). Some participants noted that mandated, pre-existing teacher

frameworks constrained enactment. For example, “at this stage it’s [APST] not a

mandated policy ... in South Australia we are mandated to use TEFL … in our site [the

Standards] haven’t been pushed as much because of that reason” (H6). The same

participant also commented:

Probably because I’ve gone through the certification, had more time and depth

with the Australian Standards, I prefer the APST ... however TEFL is still sort of

mandated … we’re having to overlay TEFL with the Standards here in South

Australia, for our teaching. (H6)

88

Conclusion

This chapter presented the findings at the micro (local: teacher) level in schools for

perspectives on the national APST policies. Themes were identified in the APST policies

for the contexts of policy influences and policy text production in brief, with a focus on

the context of policy practices and effects (enactment) in schools. Predominant themes

were summarised in Table 5.1. The following chapter presents a meta-analysis along the

whole policy trajectory of the macro (national: Australian) level, meso (State: SA) level

and micro (local: teacher) level findings. In addition, Chapter Six considers micro (local:

teacher) level perspectives on the potential longer-term outcomes and future directions of

national APST policy.

89

CHAPTER SIX

META-ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter presents a meta-analysis of the APST policy trajectory across the macro

(national: Australian), meso (State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) level findings from

this study. Meta-themes are identified across the policy trajectory for the contexts of

policy influences, policy text production and policy practices and effects (enactment),

from which propositions are derived. Meta-themes are presented in order of prominence

in the data and are analysed with reference to the key literature outlined in Chapter Two.

Themes identified for the context of policy outcomes are presented at the end of this

chapter as they consider the potential longer-term effects of APST policy and APST Lead

Standards policy enactment. Relevant policy developments in the time between data

collection in 2016/17 and thesis submission in 2018 are briefly identified.

Recommendations for future directions of APST policy (in general) and APST Lead

Standards policy (specifically), are proposed, based on the findings. The chapter

concludes with suggestions for future research.

Research question one: The context of policy influences

What were the wider influences that acted to initiate APST policy (in general) and APST

Lead Standards policy (specifically)?

The dominant meta-theme of globalisation was evident for the national APST policies

across the policy trajectory for the context of policy influences, however it was less

prominent at the meso (State: SA) level. The meta-theme of national level of power was

recognised across all levels of the policy trajectory. Table 6.1 summarises the prominent

themes and meta-themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy influences.

90

Table 6.1 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy

influences.

POLICY TRAJECTORY LEVELS

MACRO

(NATIONAL:

AUSTRALIAN)

LEVEL

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

MESO (STATE: SA)

LEVEL

MICRO

(LOCAL:

TEACHER)

LEVEL

Interview

data

Chapter Five

META-

THEMES

Chapter Six

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

Interview

data

Chapter

Four

Conte

xt

of

PO

LIC

Y I

NF

LU

EN

CE

S

APST policies

‘Global’

discourses

shaping teacher

quality reforms.

Australia’s

competitive

positioning.

Nationally

consistent

teacher

standards.

Nationally

consistent

standards for

teacher

professionalism.

Research.

‘Global’ teacher

quality policies.

Uncertainty.

Globalisation.

National level

of power.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Teacher

retention.

The influence of globalisation on initiation of the APST policies was evident as research-

driven policy and standardisation, both of which have been identified in literature as

features of globalisation (Gorur, 2016; Trippestad, 2016). At the macro (national:

Australian) level, global research evidence was used to establish teacher quality as having

the greatest impact on student outcomes, consistent with conceptualisations of teacher

quality as effectiveness (Dinham, 2015; Hattie, 2003, 2009; Pang & Wang, 2016) and in

line with the “impact agenda” (Whitty, 2016, p. 1) of education research. Consequentially,

teacher quality was posited as the policy problem and national teacher standards were

presented as the policy intervention or ‘solution’, as influenced by the OECD and its

promotion of “standards-based reform” (Savage & Lewis, 2018, p. 136). Depiction of the

91

‘teacher as problem’ and the underlying assumption that improving teacher quality will

improve student outcomes, reflected both the causal nature of research-driven policy

(Kvernbekk, 2017) and policy as discourse (Ball, 2015). Positioning teacher quality as

the solution to low student achievement levels mirrored the Advanced Skills Teacher

quality policy in England, though it is now obsolete (Fuller et al., 2010; Woodhead, 1998).

Further, the concept of national teacher standards attested to the homogenising effect of

globalisation on education policy at a national level (Komatsu, 2016).

At the micro (local: teacher) level, US teacher quality policy and the Australian researcher

John Hattie were explicitly identified by teachers as key research influences on the

initiation of the APST policies. At the macro (national: Australian) level, there were

notable similarities between the national APST policies and pre-existing US teacher

standards, both of which delineated teacher professionalism along a career continuum

(AITSL, 2011; Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011; Hill et al., 2010). These

findings added to the literature that acknowledged the historical influence of US policy

on Australian education policy (Alderman, 2015; Dinham, 2015). Further, these findings

substantiated theories of policy borrowing and global education policy convergence

(Komatsu, 2016).

Research-driven policy and standardisation were linked to Australia’s drive for

competitive positioning at the macro (national: Australian) and micro (local: teacher)

levels, although the issue of Australia’s competitive positioning was more prominent at

the macro level. Australia’s aspiration to improve its global competitive position

(especially rankings in OECD’s PISA testing) aligned with literature that recognised an

international focus on the development of competitive individuals (OECD, 2015; Sun-

Keung Pang, 2016), consistent with a neoliberal ideology accompanying globalisation.

At the macro (national: Australian) level, the influence of international testing

92

mechanisms on initiation of the APST policies reverberated with literature that identified

an increased influence of international agencies on national policy making processes

(Beresford, 2000; Feniger, 2018; Komatsu, 2016).

The influence of globalisation on initiation of the APST policies was further evident in

an economic discourse identified at the macro (national: Australian) level. This finding

concurred with literature that suggested an increasing connection between a nation’s

economy, its education system and its global competitive position (Beresford, 2000;

Hogan, 2016; Hogan & Thompson, 2017). In particular, Hogan’s (2016) critical analysis

of Australia’s National Assessment Program for Literacy and Numeracy suggested that

Australia used standards as a policy option to increase both its student outcomes and its

“global economic competitiveness” (p. 94).

A national level of power was evident across the policy trajectory in three main ways.

First, AITSL was identified as the national government funded body that was responsible

for leading teacher quality reforms in Australia (AITSL, 2011). This corresponds with

other Australian literature that emphasised the federal government as a dominant

influence on APST policy initiation (Savage & Lewis, 2018; Mills & Mcgregor, 2016).

Such a powerful role for the national government is noteworthy as education remains the

legal responsibility in the States and Territories, but it does signal a significant emphasis

on ‘the national interest’ with accelerating globalisation. Second, a national level of

power was revealed at the macro (national: Australian) and micro (local: teacher) levels

in what was presented as global and national research evidence by AITSL in the APST

policy texts, and what was not (Woodside-Jiron, 2004). Third, a level of uncertainty at

the micro (local: teacher) level about the wider influences that acted to initiate the APST

policies, suggested a limited power of influence from micro level policy actors.

93

The need for teacher retention was identified as a prominent influence on APST Lead

Standards policy at the meso (State: SA) level, but not at the macro (national: Australian)

or micro (local: teacher) level. Limited focus on teacher retention at the macro (national:

Australian) level indicated it was perceived as a less significant policy ‘problem’

nationally, when compared to teacher quality. This finding was consistent with national

level Australian education policy priorities that were conveyed in the Melbourne

Declaration (MCEETYA, 2008) and OECD (2013, 2015) publications. Interestingly,

despite the influence of US teacher standards on APST Lead Standards policy

development, US policy about lead teachers was influenced by shortages in teacher

supply, amongst other influences (Podolsky et al., 2016; Teacher Leadership Exploratory

Consortium, n.d.). In contrast, Lead teacher policy in Australia was influenced by

‘inadequate’ teacher quality and concerns about Australia’s competitive position in a

global setting.

Propositions about the context of policy influences:

1. The global influences on national APST policy in Australia of evidence-based research

and international testing, are shaping teacher ‘quality’ as a competitive accountability

discourse.

2. The Australian federal government assumed the power to influence developments in

teacher quality policy across all States and Territories ‘in the national interest’.

The following section identifies meta-themes across the policy trajectory for the context

of policy text production.

Research question two: The context of policy text production

What were the key features of APST policy text (in general) and APST Lead Standards

policy text (specifically), and how were the texts produced?

Table 6.2 on the following page summarises the prominent themes and meta-themes for

the context of policy text production.

94

Table 6.2 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy text

production.

POLICY TRAJECTORY LEVELS

MACRO

(NATIONAL:

AUSTRALIAN)

LEVEL

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

MESO (STATE: SA) LEVEL

MICRO

(LOCAL:

TEACHER)

LEVEL

Interview

data

Chapter Five

META-

THEMES

Chapter Six

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

Interview

data

Chapter Four

Conte

xt

of

PO

LIC

Y T

EX

T P

RO

DU

CT

ION

APST policies

Teacher quality

improvement.

Teacher

recognition.

Quality

assurance.

Existing bodies

and policies.

Equity in student

outcomes.

Teacher

quality

improvement.

Quality

assurance.

Power of

Australian

education

bodies.

Policy

convergence.

Teacher

consultation.

Quality

assurance.

Teacher

quality

improvement.

Input from

Australian

education

bodies and

teachers.

Uncertainty.

Accountability.

Policy

borrowing.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Quality teacher

leadership.

Teacher

recognition.

Quality

teacher

leadership.

Teacher

recognition.

Quality

teacher

leadership.

Lead

teacher’s

role.

Teacher quality

capacity

building.

Impact on

student

outcomes.

The underlying meta-theme of increased teacher accountability for improved teaching

quality and student learning outcomes was revealed in the APST policy texts across the

policy trajectory, intertwined with the less prominent meta-theme of policy borrowing.

Accountability was evident in the interlinked themes of quality assurance and teacher

quality improvement that were identified at all levels of the trajectory. The meta-themes

95

of teacher quality capacity building and impact on student outcomes were evident for

APST Lead Standards policy across the policy trajectory.

Enhanced accountability has been recognised as an identifying feature of globalisation

(Gorur, 2016). At the macro (national: Australian) level, an accountability discourse was

prevalent in the APST policy texts that governed, regulated and standardised teacher

quality for quality assurance, particularly at the Graduate and Proficient career stages.

This finding added to literature that highlighted enforced compliance at the Proficient

level (Nelson, 2013) and suggested teacher standards were positioned as a regulatory

device (Loughland & Ellis, 2016). An accountability discourse was further entrenched in

the requirements for evidence in relation to voluntary certification at the Highly

Accomplished and Lead teacher career stages (AITSL, 2012a). Further, AITSL expressed

its intent to “strengthen the quality assurance measures that support national certification”

(AITSL, 2017a, p. 17). At the meso (State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) levels, quality

assurance was expressed as a uniform set of teacher standards for national consistency in

teacher quality. Teachers perceived APST Lead Standards policy as more rigorous and

credible in comparison to pre-existing State-based Advanced Skills Teacher quality

policy. Similar to the findings from this study, an analysis of teacher perspectives on

APST policy in a NSW context revealed that a quality assurance discourse dominated a

lesser discourse of teacher growth (Taylor, 2016).

Teacher quality improvement was identified as one intent of the APST policy texts across

the policy trajectory. Depicted as improvement along a career continuum of increasing

professional growth, the APST policy texts were analogous with US teacher standards in

their assumption that teacher quality develops over time (AITSL, 2011; Hill et al. 2010;

Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). The improvement discourse necessitated

teacher professional development and professional learning, both of which were

96

recognised in literature as policy tools for improving teacher quality (Desimone, 2009;

Kisa & Correnti, 2015; OECD, 2015). Although APST policy was recognised as a

framework to guide professional growth, PD and PL mechanisms for teacher quality

improvement were not explicitly identified at any level of the policy trajectory for APST

policy in general. In contrast, PL mechanisms were identified at the macro (national:

Australian) and micro (local: teacher) levels for ASPT Lead Standards policy, as

discussed in the section on the context of policy practices and effects (enactment).

Teacher quality improvement was intertwined with a teacher recognition discourse at the

macro (national: Australian) level. However, teacher recognition was not identified by

teachers as a prominent feature of APST policy texts at the micro (local: teacher) level.

Representations of accountability at the macro (national: Australian) level corresponded

with conceptualisations of the ‘global’ teacher as one who is “compliant” (Seddon et al.,

2013, p. 10). Implicit in the theme of accountability was a top-down power of influence

and bottom-up reporting requirements, as discussed in Chapter Four. The APST policy

texts required teachers to be accountable “upwards” (Vidovich, 2018, p. 2) to State

registration authorities and ultimately to AITSL at the national level, for quality and

equity in student outcomes. This form of accountability was revealed in the requirement

of teachers to “prove” (Vidovich, 2018, p. 3) accomplishment of the Standards at a

particular career stage. Upward accountability was consistent with the influence of global

corporations on APST policy and the role of national governments in regulating standards

for quality improvement and equity (UNESCO, 2015).

Policy borrowing from other jurisdictions was evident at all levels of the policy

trajectory. At the macro (national: Australian) level, APST policy texts were linked to

pre-existing, national and State-level Australian education policies including the

Melbourne Declaration (AITSL, 2011). Benefits of linking new policies with established

97

policy texts have been identified in the literature, and include increased policy acceptance

through minimised “resistance” (Woodside-Jiron, 2004, p. 180) at the level of policy

enactment. Savage and Lewis (2018) argued APST policy text production was strongly

influenced by NSW teacher standards, as echoed in the meso (State: SA) level findings

from this study. Policy borrowing was further evident in the convergence of lead teacher

policy at the meso (State: SA) level, where existing teacher quality policies in SA were

being replaced with national APST Lead Standards policy.

The theme of policy borrowing highlighted an imbalance of power between various

policy actors in the process of APST policy text production. AITSL was recognised as

the key policy actor at all levels of the policy trajectory, as discussed in Chapters Four

and Five. Similarly, Savage and Lewis (2018) contended AITSL was positioned as the

“expert” (p. 136) in teacher quality policy development, and thus suggested the exercise

of national power in APST policy text production. At the meso (State: SA) level, one

participant noted the requirement of State-level education bodies to implement the APST

policies as part of their funding arrangements with the federal government. This finding

supported literature that suggested the federal government used financial incentives to

encourage State-level “compliance” (Mills & McGregor, 2016, p. 115) with national

education policy directives. At the micro (local: teacher) level, participants acknowledged

input from Australian education bodies and teachers, however they also expressed

uncertainty as to how the policy texts were produced. This finding leads to questioning

the level of involvement of teachers, contrary to macro (national: Australian) level

findings that suggested “almost 6000 teachers” (AITSL, 2011, p. 1) were involved in the

validation process (see also Pegg, McPhan, & Lynch, 2010).

Teacher quality capacity building was depicted as a key feature of APST Lead

Standards policy text production and was interlinked with teacher quality improvement

98

at all levels of the policy trajectory. At the macro (national: Australian) level, Lead

teachers were depicted as classroom teachers who develop the professional practice of

self and others through collaboration, modelling, engagement in research, the sharing of

information and mentoring of colleagues (AITSL, 2011, 2012a). This representation of a

Lead teacher corresponded with conceptualisations of TL as both a social influence

process (Dimmock, 2011; Hunzicker, 2012) and a PL mechanism (Hairon et al., 2015).

Once again, this depiction of a Lead teacher mirrored England’s Advanced Skills

Teacher, who was assigned the role of leading the continuous professional development

of other teachers (Training & Development Agency for Schools, 2007). Similarly, meso

(State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) level perspectives also revealed a teacher quality

capacity building discourse linked to the processes of PD and PL. APST Lead Standards

policy focused on capacity building for teacher compliance, contrary to advice from

Fullan (cited in Day & Smethem, 2009) that capacity building should occur before teacher

compliance. Teacher quality capacity building was further acknowledged in the potential

for Lead teachers to become assessors for certification which, it was assumed, would

enhance professional ownership of the certification process (AITSL, 2012a).

Impact on student outcomes was depicted as a key part of the policy text in documents

for APST Lead Standards policy across the policy trajectory, although this meta-theme

was less prominent at the meso (State: SA) level. At the macro (national: Australian) level

in the policy text, impact on student outcomes was linked to equity in student outcomes.

The APST Lead Standards policy text revealed positive and sustainable impact on, and

collective responsibility for, student outcomes (AITSL, 2013a). The notion of collective

responsibility was highlighted at the micro (local: teacher) level in particular, whereby

teachers identified a flow-on effect from the Lead teacher, to the students of colleagues.

Collective responsibility for student outcomes was also observed in a US study on teacher

leadership (Derrington, 2016). Further, Konstantopoulos and Chung (2011) alluded to the

99

positive effect of cumulative exposure of students to quality teachers, on student

outcomes. However, data from this study on APST was unable to confirm or refute this

claim.

Propositions about the context of policy text production:

3. National (Australian) APST policy governs and regulates teacher quality improvement

for quality assurance.

4. Within APST Lead Standards policy, teacher leadership serves as an accountability

policy mechanism to improve teacher quality for increased collective impact of teachers

on student outcomes.

The following section identifies meta-themes across the policy trajectory for the context

of policy practices and effects (enactment).

Research question three: The context of policy practices and effects (enactment)

How did schools and teachers enact APST Lead Standards policy in South Australian

schools and why?

At the time of data collection, little research had been undertaken on Lead teacher policy

enactment in the context of Australian schools. Hence, these findings make a significant

contribution to the literature. Meta-themes identified for APST Lead Standards policy

enactment by teachers in SA schools were interrelated, overlapping, and spanned across

the themes identified at the micro (local: teacher) level for the context of policy practices

and effects. The meta-themes are presented in Table 6.3 on the following page.

The predominant meta-theme of school and system-level structural and contextual

features was particularly manifest at the micro (local: teacher) level for the context of

policy practices and effects. School leadership was identified as the most prominent

influence on APST Lead Standards policy enactment, whereby school leaders assumed

100

Table 6.3 Prominent themes across the policy trajectory for the context of policy practices

and effects.

POLICY TRAJECTORY LEVELS

MACRO

(NATIONAL:

AUSTRALIA)

LEVEL

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

MESO (STATE: SA)

LEVEL

MICRO

(LOCAL:

TEACHER)

LEVEL

Interview

data

Chapter Five

META-THEMES

Chapter Six

Documentary

data

Chapter Four

Interview

data

Chapter

Four

Conte

xt

of

PO

LIC

Y P

RA

CT

ICE

S A

ND

EF

FE

CT

S (

EN

AC

TM

EN

T)

APST policies APST Lead

Standards policy

(specifically)

School

leadership.

Opportunity to

enact.

Quality

assurance.

School and

system-level

structural and

contextual

features.

Shifting levels of

power.

Policy

acceptance.

Accountability.

Impact.

Appropriate

teacher

recognition.

APST Lead Standards policy (specifically)

Awareness,

knowledge and

engagement

with APST.

Certification

process.

Variable impact.

Increased

accountability.

Teacher

recognition.

Teacher growth.

Power of

colleagues.

Competing

policies.

the power to create opportunities and conditions to enable teachers to enact the APST

policies in their school. This finding underscores literature that identified school

leadership as an enabler of, or constraint on, effective policy enactment (Durrant, 2004;

101

Langdon & Ward, 2014; Robinson et al., 2009; Ross & Bruce, 2007; Stosich, 2016). This

finding also made an original contribution to teacher leadership literature by providing

empirical evidence for theoretical suppositions about the effects of school leadership on

TL enactment.

The provision of time was emphasised as a crucial condition for effective APST Lead

Standards policy enactment. Teachers required time to make sense of the policy as well

as time to undertake the certification process. These findings further reinforced literature

that identified the need for school leadership to allocate time to teachers, amongst other

types of supportive resources, to facilitate the process of policy learning for policy

enactment (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Langdon & Ward, 2014; Paveling, 2016;

Penuel et al., 2009).

The provision of time enabled professional conversations at the micro (local: teacher)

level. Positioned as a PL tool, professional conversations increased the awareness,

knowledge and engagement with APST by teachers and school leaders. This finding

supported suggestions that professional dialogue between policy actors facilitated

processes for sense-making, as the actors ‘re/dis/assembled’ (Savage & Lewis, 2018)

APST Lead Standards policy for enactment (Barman et al., 2014; Conway, 2014; Huggins

et al., 2016; James & McCormick, 2009; UNESCO, 2015). In this study, professional

conversations sought to increase policy acceptance by teachers in schools. Teachers

alluded to the role of school leadership in creating time for whole-staff discussions about

APST policy in general, including the use of APST policy as a tool for PD and

professional growth. Likewise, Loughland and Ellis (2016) also considered use of the

Standards as a learning scaffold. Further, teachers acknowledged the benefit of using

APST Lead Standards policy as a tool to reflect on their practice. A similar finding was

observed by Taylor (2016; see also Attard, 2012; Penuel et al., 2007).

102

Teachers acknowledged the role of the State in providing opportunities for schools and

teachers to increase their awareness, knowledge and engagement with APST Lead

Standards policy. For example, the Department for Education and Child Development

implemented an initiative that provided schools and teachers with time and monetary

supports to participate in professional conversations as part of the certification process.

Some teachers confirmed that participation in the initiative referred to as the ‘trial’

increased their awareness, knowledge and engagement with APST Lead Standards policy

during the certification process. However, teachers were divided on whether they had

continued engagement with the policy after certification, regardless of whether they

participated in the trial. These findings supplemented other studies that attested to the

significant role of, and power of, the State as a mediator of the process for policy

enactment (Ball et al., 2012; Hupe & Hill, 2016; Stern, 2015). In addition, this study

highlighted the need for ongoing support for policy enactment after a Lead teacher has

accomplished the certification process.

The interplay between policy actors in response to school and system-level structural and

contextual features depicted shifting levels of power during the process of APST Lead

Standards policy enactment. Power shifts were revealed at the micro (local: teacher) level

between the teacher and school leader/s, teacher and colleague/s and teacher and

assessor/s, and they were most prominent in the certification process. In the first instance,

teachers assumed the power to initiate processes for APST Lead Standards policy

enactment in addition to autonomy about how they enacted the policy. Autonomy was

apparent in how and why teachers chose to enact specific parts of the policy, and how

teachers adopted the policy into their area of specialisation within their school context.

This further exemplified literature that suggested policy divergence is present at the local

level of enactment, which is dependent on context (Dally & Dempsey, 2015; Essén &

Sauder, 2017; Henderson & Jarvis, 2016; Steiner-Khamsi & Stolpe, 2006; Watson, 2009).

103

Teachers were empowered to effect change processes by leading the learning of, and for,

colleagues as discussed by various researchers (Akiba & Wilkinson, 2016; Browne-

Ferrigno, 2016; Hairon et al., 2015; O’Donoghue & Clarke, 2010). Teachers indicated

they engaged in collaborative practices and shared expertise as they led initiatives,

mentored and/or assessed colleagues. These findings elaborated on literature that

identified collective participation, collegiality and collaboration as enablers of TL

capacity building (Ellis, cited in Browne-Ferrigno, 2016; Gonzalez et al., 2016; Hairon et

al., 2015; Lavy, 2016; Reed & Swaminathan, 2016; Sun et al., 2016).

A shift in power was implied during the assessment phase of the certification process.

The Certification (AITSL, 2012a) document at the macro (national: Australian) level

necessitated teacher reliance on the support of the school leader and colleagues, thus

relocating power to the school leader and colleagues during the assessment phase for

certification. At this point in time, assessors acquired the power to qualify a teacher’s

suitability to become certified. Interestingly, certifying authorities held the ultimate

power over the certification process. However, this power was not enacted until the end

of the process, at which time the certifying authority approved or declined an application

for a teacher to be able to ‘officially’ practice as Lead teacher (AITSL 2012a, 2013c).

These findings highlighted the various roles that policy actors assume whilst making

sense of policy during the process of enactment (Ball et al., 2011, 2012). In this study,

teachers assumed the role of learner, facilitator of learning (mentor), and assessor of

learning.

Shifting levels of power were also apparent across the micro (local: teacher) and meso

(State: SA) levels between the teacher and State-level education bodies. State-level

education bodies assumed the power to mediate policy enactment, as previously

discussed. This conception of power was most prominent in the theme of appropriate

104

teacher recognition. Although the text depicted centralised policy for quality assurance,

States and Territories were given autonomy in how they recognised and rewarded

certified teachers (AITSL, 2011, 2012a), in a possible demonstration of co-operative

federalism (Lingard, 2010), albeit that this autonomy was over the details of enactment

rather than the ‘bigger picture’ thrust of the policy. At the meso (State: SA) level, one

participant expressed concern for consistent and ongoing teacher recognition and reward.

This concern revealed a possible disparity between recommendations for the allocation

of education resources from a global level (OECD, 2015), and the actual allocation of

resources by the federal government and the State. A State-level participant confirmed

that this disparity arose from national budgetary allocations and constraints.

At the micro (local: teacher) level, teachers expressed discontent with a State-level

initiative in which Lead and Highly Accomplished teacher positions were being created

in specific schools that were identified as low socio-economic status. The allocation of

positions to schools of identified need corresponded with literature that recommended

dispersing high quality teachers between schools to improve teacher quality (Goldhaber

et al., 2016). Teachers expressed disappointment at the imminent discontinuation of

reward incentives and were uncertain about the impact of newly created Lead teacher

positions for the ongoing recognition of certified teachers who were not selected to a

position.

Goldhaber et al. (2016) also found that teachers wanted to be rewarded for their efforts.

Findings from this study actually contrasted with literature that suggested teachers were

more motivated by wanting to improve student outcomes than by monetary incentives

(Marsh et al., 2011). However, one teacher placed more value in the process of

certification itself, and less value in teacher recognition and reward. This finding

supplemented Gabriel’s (2016) position that the focus of teacher quality improvement

105

should be on the learning process. Accordingly, a policy-to-practice gap was revealed

between the policy as it was intended at the macro (national: Australian) level and how

the policy was enacted by teachers at the micro (local: teacher) level, as a result of the

unintentional facilitation of inequities in teacher recognition and reward at the meso

(State: SA) level.

Despite the existent power at the macro (national: Australian) level, not all Australian

States and Territories offered national certification (AITSL, 2017a). This highlighted the

potential for disparities in the uptake of APST Lead Standards policy by the States, and

the consequential flow-on effects to schools and teachers for policy enactment and policy

acceptance at the micro (local: teacher) level. This also reinforced the power of the States

to mediate policy enactment. The level of policy acceptance by teachers was also affected

by components of the certification process, in particular the large amount of time and

work required to compile documentary evidence, and the cost to undertake the process.

These findings may be factored into national and State-level education bodies not meeting

their targets for numbers of certified teachers.

In addition, findings at the meso (State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) levels indicated a

lack of clarify in the definition of a Lead teacher’s role. Weiner (2011) expressed a similar

concern. State-level participants and teachers both maintained that there was

misconception at the local level of policy enactment that APST Lead Standards policy

was for teachers who held leadership positions in schools. This apparent lack of clarity in

the definition of a Lead teacher was consistent with understandings of TL and was

identified as an impediment to policy acceptance for policy enactment in some literature

(Nelson, 2013; Carver, 2016).

The theme of increased accountability was more prominent than the theme of varied

impact. Teachers revealed they were collecting more evidence of teacher practice as a

106

result of enacting APST Lead Standards policy. Whilst increased accountability was not

the stated intent of the policy, it is interesting to note the similarities between the

presence of this underlying theme for the contexts of policy text production and policy

enactment. Some teachers perceived the certification process as “a ‘tick-the-box’

exercise” (AITSL, 2017a, p. 10), contrary to its stated purpose at the macro (national:

Australian) level. This raises the question of balance between the gathering of evidence

for accountability, and enactment of the policy for improved teacher quality and student

outcomes.

The APST policies inherently assumed that if teachers were held accountable to the

Standards, both teacher quality and student outcomes would be improved. Data from this

study neither confirmed nor refuted an increased level of impact on student outcomes.

However, teachers mostly identified positive impact on their teaching practice, in

particular their increased use of feedback and reflection. In this respect, claims of

improved teacher quality were substantiated when APST Lead Standards policy was

used as an accountability mechanism (Johnson, 2009; Destler, 2016; Kraft & Papay,

2014).

The certification process required teachers to collect evidence of impact of their teaching

practice on both student outcomes and colleagues’ practices. However, numerous

teachers indicated they had not collected evidence of student learning outcomes since

they completed the certification process. Some teachers noted they had not had enough

time to determine whether certification had resulted in improved student outcomes.

Other teachers indicated they had not had a consistent cohort of students to collect

continuous data, to determine the level of impact. These findings highlighted disparity

between the policy intent for improved student outcomes through increased teacher

accountability, and the effects of policy enactment. Several questions were raised. First,

107

what is the capacity of APST Lead Standards policy to effect continuous change in

teacher practice when used as an accountability tool for teacher quality? Second, what

is the expected time period between certification as a Lead teacher before positive

impacts on student outcomes are expected to be observed, and how are these outcomes

to be measured?

Propositions about the context of policy practices and effects (enactment):

5. APST Lead Standards policy enactment is facilitated by context-specific conditions

which school leadership has the power to enable. The provision of time and professional

conversations enable teachers to make sense of policy, as part of policy enactment in

schools.

6. Shifting levels of power between local and State-level policy actors, influence the level

of APST Lead Standards policy acceptance by schools and teachers during processes of

policy enactment. Policy enactment occurs as a result of negotiation and contestation at

the levels of the State and the school.

7. Increased teacher accountability and teacher quality improvement has a variable, and

mostly indeterminant impact on student outcomes, as an effect of enacting APST Lead

Standards policy.

The following section identifies the themes for the context of policy outcomes.

Research question four: The context of policy outcomes

What were the longer-term outcomes of APST policy (in general) and APST Lead

Standards policy (specifically)?

Findings for the context of policy outcomes were not presented in Chapters Four and

Five, however they are presented here as some participants offered thoughtful insights

about the potential future impact of national APST policy. It is important to note these

findings about outcomes are tentative, and unlike research questions 1 to 3, they are not

based on direct observation or experience, but participants’ projections into the future.

Several quotes about outcomes are included in this section. Two predominant themes

were identified for the context of policy outcomes at the micro (local: teacher) level:

108

Uncertainty of teacher recognition and equity in student outcomes. These themes are

discussed with regard to the other contexts of the policy trajectory framework, and with

reference to literature.

Uncertainty of teacher recognition was identified as an issue for continued enactment

of APST Lead (and Highly Accomplished) Standards policy in the future. Teachers

expressed concern about the longevity of APST Lead Standards policy enactment in SA

schools, with regard to the contestation that was identified across the policy trajectory for

teacher recognition. For example:

There’ll become jobs that you can apply for ... a number of positions around the

State in selected schools ... what is the point of doing the certification in South

Australia if you’re not going to get the recognition for what you’ve done? It’s

going to impact on the longevity of certification in the State ... because once those

jobs are filled, they’re filled. (H5)

Teachers reiterated a ‘disconnect’ between micro (local: teacher) level interpretations of

APST Lead Standards policy, the intent of the policy, and implications for policy

enactment due to the mediating effects of the State:

The idea for the HAT [Highly Accomplished] teacher and the Lead teacher were

to be in a classroom, and be a support in a school, not get onto the kind of

leadership merry-go-round ... of every three years having to apply for a position.

(H1)

Teachers anticipated negative effects on policy acceptance at the micro (local: teacher)

level, as an unintended consequence of removing teacher reward at the meso (State: SA)

level. For example, one participant supposed that without “monetary benefit, there won’t

be the uptake” (H6). Teachers also acknowledged the potential for limiting Lead teacher

109

numbers within the State as a result of budgetary constraints. However, a State-level

participant indicated there was no intention to limit the numbers of teachers who can

become certified. One teacher commented:

Teachers should be rewarded for having obtained HA [Highly Accomplished] and

Lead Standards. But at the same time, it could be a sector constraint … in terms

of they limit the amount of teachers that can apply for HA and Lead. (L8)

An interesting finding that arose at several points during this research concerned the

Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher network. It was acknowledged at the micro

(local: teacher) level that many teachers who were not certified were enacting APST Lead

or Highly Accomplished Standards policies. These teachers did not have the privilege of

access to the restricted and ‘exclusive’ network, despite their ability to positively

contribute to the teaching profession. Thus, one might question what the underlying intent

of the ‘exclusive’ network was, and wonder about the effect on equity within the teaching

profession. It has been asserted that policy makers consider the longer-term effects of

implementation at all levels of the policy trajectory (Derrington & Campbell, 2018); a

caution that should also be observed by State-level bodies, school leaders and teachers.

Teachers expressed varied perspectives about the longer-term equity in student

outcomes as APST Lead Standards policy was enacted in SA schools. At the macro

(national: Australian) level, equity in student outcomes was presented as the ‘driver’ for

policy initiation, although other themes were more prominent. Some teachers indicated

equity would be increased for all students in the longer-term. For example:

I think it creates greater equity … in the past there’s been a focus on making sure

that students with special needs … or Indigenous students are catered for, but I

110

think the policy ensures that teachers fully understand the learning needs of every

student in their class, not just those considered special needs. (L4)

Teachers suggested equity in student outcomes and equity in teacher recognition may be

facilitated through the future development of national and State-level policies concerned

with the employment of Lead teachers in schools:

It [APST Lead Standards policy] has the potential to really improve the

equitability in student learning outcomes … if there was a State-wide or a national

policy about a number of Lead or Highly Accomplished teachers that needed to

be in schools … I just can’t see how, at the moment, it’s making any difference,

because there doesn’t seem to be any clear policies or guidelines around

employing Lead teachers. So, I don’t know that it is equitable … but I do think

that it’s got potential. (L3)

Teachers identified that APST Lead Standards policy was only part of the solution to

achieving equity in student outcomes in the longer-term:

The Lead teacher/Highly Accomplished trial … were really focusing on sites with

an index of educational disadvantage … To me that’s not equitable … many of us

would know that, even a great teacher in one of those kind of schools, it’s not so

much the content it may be the behaviour … is the policy the answer? It’s only

part of it I think. (L2)

In comparing data across the meso (State: SA) and micro (local: teacher) levels, one

might question whether the policy inherently assumed a teacher was working at Lead or

Highly Accomplished level prior to applying for certification. If this assumption holds

true, uncertainty exists regarding the effects of the State-level ‘trial’ initiative. If teachers

were already operating in low socio-economic schools before they were certified, what

111

will be the longer-term effects on colleagues and students, of these teachers becoming

certified? One teacher acknowledged that the effects will not be noticed in the short-

term:

The accreditation of Highly Accomplished and Lead teachers may not

necessarily increase learning outcomes for the students taught by staff now

accredited (they needed to already be doing good work to get accredited)

however the flow-on effects for staff around the accredited person are more likely

to show a longer-term benefit as they see examples of good practice from

someone able to share it. (L9)

Proposition about the context of policy outcomes:

8. The enactment of APST Lead Standards policy has the potential to improve teacher

quality and equity in student outcomes if there are consistent guidelines about employing,

recognising and rewarding Lead teachers in schools.

Developments after data collection and before thesis submission related to the APST

policies, from 2016/17 to 2018

Various national documents concerned with the APST policies and teacher quality were

released by AITSL during 2017. A paper titled Taking the Lead: National certification of

Australia’s best teachers was released in March 2017 with the purpose “to present a

vision and strategies for strengthening national teacher certification” (AITSL, 2017a, p.

1). Priorities for future work were identified in the publication Increasing our Impact:

AITSL Strategic Plan 2017 – 2020, and included “strengthening the profession and

establishing its status as a high quality provider of critical services in a modern society

and economy” (AITSL, n.d.d, p. 7).

112

During 2017, AITSL added to a suite of supportive tools and resources that were

developed to assist teachers understand the APST policies, and collect documentation for

evidence of improved teacher quality. The newly developed resources include the

‘Spotlight’ series for sharing evidence-based research with the teaching profession

(AITSL, 2017b); the MyInduction mobile app to support Graduate teachers; updates to

the MyStandards app and the Teacher Self-Assessment Tool to assist collaboration in

schools and aid teacher reflection; and an updated version of the classroom practice

continuum (AITSL, 2018). Further, AITSL added a range of videos to their YouTube

channel during 2018, of which focused on teacher feedback for teacher quality.

At the time of data collection, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria did not offer voluntary

certification. These States still did not offer voluntary certification at the time this thesis

was completed. In the publication titled Taking the lead: National certification of

Australia’s best teachers, AITSL indicated it would “work with non-certifying

jurisdictions to implement national teacher certification” (AITSL, 2017a, p. 16). Within

South Australia, the State-level Department for Education and Child Development

advertised ‘positions’ for certified Lead and Highly Accomplished teachers at the end of

2017, for commencement in 2018. The positions were advertised for a 3-year tenure

within selected SA schools. The national and State-level developments in teacher quality

mentioned here, emphasise Australia’s continued focus on strengthening teacher quality

policy to achieve an outcome of improved teacher quality and equity in student outcomes,

in response to the influence of globalisation and international competition.

Recommendations and future directions

Findings from this study highlighted recommendations and future directions for national

APST policy. First, the findings called for a ‘clearer’, unambiguous definition of a Lead

113

teacher so as to reduce misconception and misinterpretation of the purpose and work of a

Lead teacher in schools. Second, the findings identified the certification process for Lead

and Highly Accomplished teachers, and the APST policy descriptors themselves, as areas

for review. Third, inconsistencies in teacher recognition between States and Territories,

especially in relation to monetary reward, require investigations into a national approach

to teacher recognition. Fourth, the power assumed by school leadership and State-level

education bodies as mediators of policy enactment, indicated that processes to increase

policy awareness, and understanding should also be targeted at school leaders and State-

level bodies, in addition to the teachers themselves. Lastly, the research findings raised

the question of what would be the expectation for teachers in the future, in regards to

progression along the career continuum from Graduate teacher to Lead teacher?

Recommendations for future policy directions in South Australia are made in response to

concerns about the longevity of APST Lead Standards policy, as influenced by State-level

processes for teacher recognition. First, findings highlighted the need for increased

awareness, understanding and ‘value’ of APST Lead Standards policy by schools and

teachers, thus the recommendation for increased supports (especially time for

professional conversations) within schools. Second, findings pointed to conflicting

policies as an impediment for policy enactment, thus calling for flexibility in State-level

policy responses (and flexibility in pre-existing policies) to allow for adaptation and

feedback as APST Lead Standards policy evolves. For example, a concern about the

intrinsic value of teacher recognition may be partly addressed by renaming State-specific

Lead and Highly Accomplished teacher positions to reflect the purpose of the position,

as opposed to the Lead or Highly Accomplished teacher status.

114

Limitations and possible further research

This research was delimited to perspectives of certified Lead and Highly Accomplished

teachers in SA schools. Insights from teachers who had undertaken the certification

process but who were unsuccessful in achieving certification as a Lead or Highly

Accomplished teacher, in addition to insights from Principals, would likely add to the

data on APST Lead Standards policy enactment. Research that includes classroom

observation of Lead teacher practice before and after certification, as well as student work

samples and student perspectives, may assist in delineating the level of impact of teacher

practice on student outcomes, and may further add to the findings.

Whilst perspectives were gathered from teachers in primary and secondary schools across

sectors and from a variety of contexts, this research is limited to the schooling contexts

within the State of SA and cannot be generalised to the schooling contexts of other

Australian States and Territories. Similar data gathered from other States and Territories

may assist between-State comparisons and the identification of State-specific policies and

practices that assist enactment of APST Lead Standards policy in Australian schools.

Perspectives of teachers in early childhood settings would add to the findings from this

research.

It would be of interest to investigate further, how the APST policies were presented to

teachers in SA schools. It would also be of interest to investigate the role of the Lead

teacher as a facilitator of learning, to establish whether a certified Lead teacher was

positioned as a PL tool as they enacted APST Lead Standards policy.

115

Conclusion of the thesis

This study aimed to analyse APST policy processes, with a focus on the Lead Standards

and their enactment by teachers in selected settings in South Australia. The policy

trajectory analysis employed for this study enabled the identification of power

relationships in APST policy enactment.

The findings highlighted the shifting levels of power across the policy trajectory at

different times during the APST policy processes. The power assumed by both State-level

education bodies and school leadership, as mediators of policy enactment, played a

crucial role as to whether APST Lead Standards policy was enacted by teachers as it was

intended.

116

REFERENCES

Adam, C. (2016). Simulating policy diffusion through learning: Reducing the risk of

false positive conclusions. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28(3), 497-519.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629815581461

Adomou, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of the effects of standards-based reform on

curriculum, instructional practices, and the quality of student learning: Keeping

the debate alive! (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (890142452).

Akiba, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2016). Adopting an international innovation for teacher

professional development: State and district approaches to lesson study in Florida.

Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 74–93.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115593603

Alderman, L. (2015). Illuminative evaluation as a method applied to Australian

government policy borrowing and implementation in higher education. Evaluation

Journal of Australasia, 15(1), 4-14.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X1501500102

Amore, A., Hoeflich, N. M., & Pennington, K. (2015). Teacher leadership: The

pathway to common core success. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-

12/reports/2015/04/28/111762/teacher-leadership/

Amrein-Beardsley, A., Pivovarova, M., & Geiger, T. J. (2016). Value-added models:

What the experts say. Phi Delta Kappan, 98(2), 35-40.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716671904

Andrews, D., & Abawi, L. (2017). Three-dimensional pedagogy: A new

professionalism in educational contexts. Improving Schools, 20(1), 76-94.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216652025

Arnove, R. F. (2007). Introduction: Reframing comparative education: The dialectic of

the global and the local. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative

education: The dialectic of the global and the local (pp. 1-27). Plymouth, UK:

Rowman & Littlefield.

117

Association of Independent Schools of South Australia. (n.d.a). SA teacher certification:

National certification of SA Independent Schools teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.ais.sa.edu.au/teacher-certification

Association of Independent Schools of South Australia. (n.d.b). Events. Retrieved from

http://www.ais.sa.edu.au/events

Attard, K. (2012). Public reflection within learning communities: An incessant type of

professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 199-

211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.643397

Australian Council of TESOL Associations. (2015). EAL/D Elaborations of the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: For use when working with

learners of English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D). Retrieved

from http://www.tesol.org.au/files/files/531_60238_EALD_elaborations-

Full_Version_Complete.pdf

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2011). National Report

on Schooling in Australia 2011. Retrieved from

http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Report_on_Schooling_in_Au

stralia_2011.pdf.

Australian Education Union South Australia. (2016). Issues: HATs and leads explained.

Retrieved from http://www.aeusa.asn.au/600406_33_80577445.html

Australian Education Union South Australia. (2017a, April 27). Re: HAT/LT forum

reflections [Forum comments].

Australian Education Union South Australia. (2017b, March 30). Re: Highly

Accomplished teacher and Lead teacher classification [Letter].

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). Australian

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/apst-

resources/australian_professional_standard_for_teachers_final080b774d46ab632d

8aa7ff0000cdfa8c.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012a). Certification of

highly accomplished and lead teachers in Australia. Retrieved from

118

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/certification_of_highly_accomplished_and_lead_teachers_-

_principles_and_processes_-_april_2012_file.pdf?sfvrsn=43eeec3c_0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012b). Australian teacher

performance and development framework. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/australian_teacher_performance_and_development_framework_august_20

12.pdf?sfvrsn=e7c2ec3c_0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2012c). Australian charter

for the professional learning of teachers and school leaders. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/australian_charter_for_the_professional_learning_of_teachers_and_school

_leaders

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2013a). Guide to the

certification of highly accomplished and lead teachers in Australia. Retrieved

from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/guide-to-cert_online.pdf?sfvrsn=95e9ec3c_0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2013b). Certification

documentary evidence supplement: Lead teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-

library/documentary-evidence-supplement-lead-current-updated-6-april-

2016.pdf?sfvrsn=c6edec3c_0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2013c). Guide to the

certification of highly accomplished and lead teachers in South Australia.

Retrieved from

https://online.cesa.catholic.edu.au/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-

22225/AITSL+Guide+to+Certification+-+SA+and+CESA+Specific.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014a). Evaluation of the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/research-and-evaluation/evaluation-of-the-

standards/evaluation/overview

119

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014b). Registration:

Nationally consistent registration of teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/registration/nationally-consistent-registration-of-teachers

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014c). Certification:

Certifying authorities. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/certification/certifying-authorities

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2014d). Certification

background. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/certification/about-

certification/certification-background

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2015a). Evaluation of the

implementation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Interim

report 2, 2014 key findings. Retrieved from

https://education.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1401211/apst-

interim-report-2014-key-findings.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2015b). Guide to the

certification of highly accomplished and lead teachers in South Australia.

Retrieved from

http://www.ais.sa.edu.au/__files/f/169288/AITSL%20Guide%20to%20Certificati

on%20-%20AISSA%20Edition.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016a, March 11). Summit

launches network of nationally certified teachers to promote expertise [Press

release]. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/media-news-

room-resources/media-release-halt-v5-20160304.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016b). The benefits of

becoming an assessor for national certification. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/tools-resources/resource/the-benefits-of-becoming-an-

assessor-for-national-certification

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2016c). Highly accomplished

and lead teacher network. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/understand-certification-and-halt-status/highly-

accomplished-and-lead-teacher-network

120

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017a). Taking the lead:

National certification of Australia’s best teachers. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/aitsl-

taking-the-lead-national-certification.pdf?sfvrsn=65e2ec3c_0

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2017b). Annual report 2016-

2017. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-

document-library/annual-report-2017_final_annual-

report_interactive.pdf?sfvrsn=3f7beb3c_6

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2018). Classroom practice

continuum. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/teach-

documents/classroom-practice-continuum-revised-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=9344f63c_4

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (n.d.a). Classroom practice

continuum. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-

document-library/classrooom_practice_continuum

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (n.d.b). Certification evidence

mapping document: Lead teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.ais.sa.edu.au/__files/f/154609/Lead%20Certification%20Evidence%2

0Mapping%20Document.pdf

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (n.d.c). Recognising

Exemplary Teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-

source/default-document-

library/recognising_exemplary_teachers_extended.pdf?sfvrsn=2

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (n.d.d). Increasing our impact:

AITSL strategic plan 2017-2020. Retrieved from

https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/aitsl-

strategic-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=4e30e93c_2

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education

over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10-20.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education policy: A critical and post structural approach. London:

Routledge.

121

Ball, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of

policy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(3),

306-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1015279

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments

in secondary schools. New York: Routledge.

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy

work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32 (4),

625-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565

Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G., & Loughran, J. (2006). Beyond intensification towards a

scholarship of practice: Analysing changes in teachers' work lives. Teachers and

Teaching, 12(2), 209-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500467415

Barman, L., Bolander-Laksov, K., & Silén, C. (2014). Policy enacted: Teachers'

approaches to an outcome-based framework for course design. Teaching in

Higher Education, 19(7), 735-746.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.934346

Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact.

London: Routledge.

Beresford, Q. (2000). Governments, markets and globalisation: Australian public policy

in context. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Berry, B., & Eckert, J. (2012). Creating teacher incentives for school excellence and

equity. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/creating-teacher-

incentives.

Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes

and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (31)1, 146-170.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260

Bourke, T. (2011). Teacher professional standards: Mirage or miracle cure - an

archaeology of professionalism in education. (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland

University of Technology, QLD). Retrieved from

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/51051/1/Theresa_Bourke_Thesis.pdf

122

Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (2017). Reforming education and changing schools:

Case studies in policy sociology. Retrieved from Proquest Ebook Central.

Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary

school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education

Policy, 25 (4), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680931003698544

Browne-Ferrigno, T. (2016). Developing and empowering leaders for collective school

leadership: Introduction to special issue. Journal of Research on Leadership

Education, 11(2), 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658820

Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in

urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(2), 103-15.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.05.001

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence: Summary

report. Retrieved from

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4904/1/download%3Fid%3D17370%26filename%3Dschool-

leadership-concepts-evidence-summary.pdf

Buysse, V., Winton, P. J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition of

professional development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early Childhood

Special Education, 28, 235-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408328173

Cachia, M., & Millward, L. (2011). The telephone medium and semi-structured

interviews: A complementary fit. Qualitative Research in Organizations and

Management, 6(3), 265-277.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1108/17465641111188420

Canales, A., & Maldonado, L. (2018). Teacher quality and student achievement in

Chile: Linking teachers’ contribution and observable characteristics. International

Journal of Educational Development, 60, 33–50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.009

Carter Andrews, D. J., Bartell, T., & Richmond, G. (2016). Teaching in dehumanizing

times: The professionalization imperative. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3),

170-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116640480

123

Carver, C, L. (2016). Transforming identities: The transition from teacher to leader

during teacher leader preparation. Journal of Research on Leadership Education,

11(2), 158-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658635

Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher induction:

Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23(2), 295-328.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904807310036

Catholic Education South Australia. (2014a). Professional standards: National

standards for teachers and principals. Retrieved from

http://www.cesa.catholic.edu.au/working-with-us/professional-standards

Catholic Education South Australia. (2014b). Continuous improvement framework for

catholic schools. Retrieved from https://cif.cesa.catholic.edu.au/wp-

content/uploads/2015/04/CESA-CIF-FINAL-28-FEB1.pdf

Catholic Education South Australia. (2016). Professional development. Retrieved from

http://www.cesa.catholic.edu.au/working-with-us/professional-development

Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession. (2016). Teacher leadership skills

framework. Retrieved from http://cstp-wa.org/teacher-leadership/teacher-

leadership-skills-framework/

Center for Teaching Quality, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, &

National Education Association. (2014). The teacher leadership competencies.

Retrieved from

http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/teacher_leadership_competencies_final.pd

f

Coburn, C. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate

can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(3),

465-475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847

Colebatch, H. K. (Ed.). (2006). Beyond the policy cycle: The policy process in

Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Connell, R. (2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of

teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education, 50(3), 213-

229. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480902998421

124

Conway, J. M. (2014). Re-forming leadership at a whole-school level: Teacher leaders

and their principal invoking reaction within and beyond their school. Journal of

Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29(2), 32-46. Retrieved from

Informit Humanities & Social Sciences Collection.

Coogle, C., Rahn, N., Ottley, J., & Storie, S. (2016). Ecoaching across routines to

enhance teachers’ use of modeling. Teacher Education and Special Education,

39(4), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406415621959

Cornish L., & Jenkins K. A. (2012). Encouraging teacher development through

embedded reflective practice in assessment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education, 40(2), 159-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.669825

Council of Australian Governments. (2008). National partnership agreement on

improving teacher quality. Retrieved from

http://www2.curtin.edu.au/research/jcipp/local/docs/National_Partnership_Agree

ment_on_Improving_Teacher_Quality.pdf

Council of Australian Governments. (2012). National partnership agreement on

rewards for great teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/education/national-

partnership/past/rewards_for_great_teachers_NP.pdf

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and

Support Consortium (InTASC) model core teaching standards: A resource for

state dialogue. Retrieved from

http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2011/InTASC_Model_Core_Teaching_Standar

ds_2011.pdf

Council of Education Associations of South Australia. (n.d.a). What we do. Retrieved

from http://www.ceasa.asn.au/about-us/what-we-do/

Council of Education Associations of South Australia. (n.d.b). Strategic plan 2015-

2018. Retrieved from http://www.ceasa.asn.au/about-us/what-we-do/strategic-

plan-2/

Council of Education Associations of South Australia. (n.d.c). Professional learning.

Retrieved from http://www.ceasa.asn.au/training-workshops-and-courses/

125

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the

research process. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Crowther, F. (2002). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances

school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Clarke, B., & Smith, P. (2008). A discussion paper: The

development of professional teacher standards in environmental education.

Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 24, 3-10.

Dale, R., & Robertson, S.L. (2012). Toward a critical grammar of education policy

movements. Retrieved from

https://susanleerobertson.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/2012-dale-robertson-

policy-movement.pdf

Dally, K. A., & Dempsey, I. (2015). Content validation of statements describing the

essential work of Australian special education teachers. Australian Journal of

Teacher Education, 40(2), 112-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n2.8

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). What we can learn from Finland's successful school

reform. NEA Today. Retrieved from

https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/library/publications/543

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). What can PISA tell us about U.S. education policy? New

England Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 1-14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Dash, S., Magidin De Kramer, R., O’Dwyer, L., Masters, J., & Russell, M. (2012).

Impact of online professional development on teacher quality and student

achievement in fifth grade mathematics. Journal of Research on Technology in

Education, 45(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782595

Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven

decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of

Educational Change, 17(1), 7-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2

126

Day, C. & Smethem, L. (2009). The effects of reform: Have teachers really lost their

sense of professionalism? Journal of Educational Change, 10, 141-157.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9110-5

Department for Education and Child Development, Association of Independent Schools

of SA, & Catholic Education South Australia. (2012). Improving Teacher Quality

Low SES School Communities South Australia Progress Report 2012. Retrieved

from https://docs.education.gov.au/documents/sa-progress-report-2012

Department for Education and Child Development. (2014). Performance and

development policy. Retrieved from

https://www.decd.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/performance-and-development-

policy.pdf?v=1459213959

Department for Education and Child Development. (2017). Draft position description

for lead teacher.

Department for Education and Child Development. (n.d.a). Teacher salary

reclassification. Retrieved from https://www.decd.sa.gov.au/working-

decd/working-teacher/teacher-initiatives/teacher-salary-reclassification

Department for Education and Childhood Development. (n.d.b). Teaching for effective

learning. Retrieved from https://www.decd.sa.gov.au/teaching/teaching-effective-

learning

Department for Education. (2012a). Teachers’ standards: Guidance for school leaders,

school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/301

107/Teachers__Standards.pdf

Department for Education. (2012b). Teacher appraisal and capability: A model policy

for schools. Retrieved from

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/282

598/Teacher_appraisal_and_capability.pdf

Derrington, M. L. (2016). Implementing teacher evaluation: Lattice of leadership.

Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(2), 181-199.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658689

127

Derrington, M., & Campbell, J. (2018). High-stakes teacher evaluation policy:

US principals’ perspectives and variations in practice. Teachers and Teaching,

24(3), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1421164

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3),

181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

Destler, K. N. (2016). Creating a performance culture: Incentives, climate, and

organizational change. American Review of Public Administration, 46(2), 201-

225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014545381

Dimmock, C. (2011). Leadership, capacity building and school improvement concepts,

themes and impact. Retrieved from Ebook Central.

Dinham, S. (2015). The worst of both worlds: How the U.S. and U.K. are influencing

education in Australia. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(49).

http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1865

Durrant, J. (2004). Teachers leading change: Frameworks and key ingredients for school

improvement. Leading and Managing, 10(2), 10-29. Retrieved from Informit.

Education Council. (2014). The Adelaide declaration on national goals for schooling in

the twenty-first century. Retrieved from

http://www.scseec.edu.au/archive/Publications/Publications-archive/The-

Adelaide-Declaration.aspx

Essén, A., & Sauder, M. (2017). The evolution of weak standards: The case of the

Swedish rheumatology quality registry. Sociology of Health & Illness, 39(4), 513–

531. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12507

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.

London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language.

Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Feniger, Y. (2018). Evidence-based decision making or a tunnel vision effect? TIMSS,

problem definition and policy change in Israeli mathematics education. Critical

128

Studies in Education. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2018.1448877

Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence

teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American

Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 594-629.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306767

Francis, B., Mills, M., & Lupton, R. (2017). Towards social justice in education:

Contradictions and dilemmas. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 414-431.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1276218

Fuller, C., Goodwyn, A., Francis-Brophy, E., & Harding, R. (2010). Advanced skills

teachers: Summary report. Retrieved from

http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/6995/1/CF-

AG_Advanced_Skills_Teachers_Final_Report.pdf

Gabriel, R. (2016). The evolution of quality teaching and four questions for change. Phi

Delta Kappan, 97(8), 50-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721716647020

Gannon, S. (2012). Changing lives and standardising teachers: The possibilities and

limits of professional standards. English teaching: Practice and critique, 11(3),

59-77. Retrieved from

https://edlinked.soe.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2012v11n3art4.pdf

Gerrard, J., & Farrell, L. (2014). Remaking the professional teacher: Authority and

curriculum reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(5), 634-655.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.854410

Gershenson, S. (2016). Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student

achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 11(2), 125-149.

https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00180

Ghasemy, M., Hussin, S., & Daud, M. A. K. M. (2016). Academic leadership capability

framework: A comparison of its compatibility and applicability in Australia, New

Zealand, and Malaysia. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(2), 217-233.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9425-x

129

Gilardi, F. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American

Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 650-666. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/stable/27821944

Goe, L., & Stickler, L. M. (2008). Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the

most of recent research. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520769.pdf

Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school

teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 22(2), 129–45. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737022002129

Goldhaber, D., Bignell, W., Farley, A., Walch, J., & Cowan, J. (2016). Who chooses

incentivized pay structures? Exploring the link between performance and

preferences for compensation reform in the teacher labor market. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 245-271.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715615233

Gonzalez, G., Deal, J. T., & Skultety, L. (2016). Facilitating teacher learning when

using different representations of practice. Journal of Teacher Education, (67)5,

447-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116669573

Gorur, R. (2016). Seeing like PISA: A cautionary tale about the performativity of

international assessments. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 598-

616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116658299

Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., & Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of

studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014.

Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, (46)1, 25-48.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296

Hairon S., & Dimmock C. (2012). Singapore schools and professional learning

communities: Teacher professional development and school leadership in an

Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review, 64(4), 405-424.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.625111

Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in

professional learning community contexts: Towards a better understanding of the

130

phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163-182.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992776

Haiyan, Q., Walker, A., & Xiaowei, Y. (2017). Building and leading a learning culture

among teachers: A case study of a Shanghai primary school. Educational

Management, Administration and Leadership, 45(1), 101-122.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215623785

Hattie, J. (2003, October). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence?

Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us

ACER Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2003/4/

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. London: Routledge.

Heimans, S. (2014). Education policy enactment research: Disrupting continuities.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 307-316.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2013.832566

Heller, J., Daehler, K., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. (2012). Differential

effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and

student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 49(3), 333–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21004

Henderson, L., & Jarvis, J. (2016). The gifted dimension of the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers: Implications for professional learning. Australian Journal

of Teacher Education, 41(8), 60-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n8.4

Hill, D., Stumbo, C., Paliokas, K., Hansen, D., & McWalters, P. (2010). State policy

implications of the model core teaching standards (InTASC draft discussion

document). Retrieved from www.ccsso.org/intasc

Hilton, G., Flores, M., & Niklasson, L. (2013). Teacher quality, professionalism and

professional development: Findings from a European project. Teacher

Development, 17(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2013.800743

Hogan, A. (2016). NAPLAN and the role of edu-business: New governance, new

privatisations and new partnerships in Australian education policy. Australian

131

Educational Researcher, 43(1), 93-110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0162-

z

Hogan, A., & Thompson, G. (2017). Commercialization in education. Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from

http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/a

crefore-9780190264093-e-180

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher preparation for quality teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 62(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409415

Hudson, S. M., Hudson, P., Weatherby-Fell, N. L., & Shipway, B. (2016). Graduate

standards for teachers: Final-year preservice teachers potentially identify the gaps.

Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(9), 135-151.

https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n9.8

Huggins, K. S., Klar, H. W., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Supporting

leadership development: An examination of high school principals’ efforts to

develop leaders’ personal capacities. Journal of Research on Leadership

Education, 11(2), 200-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658636

Hunzicker, J. (2012). Professional development and job-embedded collaboration: How

teachers learn to exercise leadership. Professional Development in Education,

38(2), 267–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.657870

Hupe, P. L., & Hill, M. J. (2016). And the rest is implementation: Comparing

approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond great expectations. Public

Policy and Administration, 31(2), 103–121.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715598828

Ingvarson, L. & Rowe, K. (2008). Conceptualising and evaluating teacher quality:

Substantive and methodological issues. Australian Journal of Education, 52(1), 5-

35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000494410805200102

Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of

professional development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student

outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10). Retrieved

from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n10/

132

James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and

Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25(7),

973-982. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.023

Johnson, S. M. (2009). How best to add value? Striking a balance between the

individual and the organization in school reform. Retrieved from

http://www.epi.org/publication/ bp249/

Keddie, (2015). School autonomy, accountability and collaboration: A critical review.

Journal of Educational Administration and History, 47(1), 1-17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2015.974146

Kim Y., & Silver E. R. (2016). Provoking reflective thinking in post observation

conversations. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(3), 203-219.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116637120

Kisa, C., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice

schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development

associated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy

Analysis, 37(4), 437-457. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714557519

Kleinhenz, E., & Ingvarson, L. (2007). Standards for teaching: Theoretical

underpinnings and applications. Retrieved from

http://research.acer.edu.au/teaching_standards/1

Klingner, J., Boardman, A., & Mcmaster, K. (2013). What does it take to scale up and

sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79(2), 195–211.

https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900205

Komatsu, T. (2016). Are educational governance reforms in a post-conflict society

conforming to global standards? Examining the application of education

convergence theory in an internationally supervised and politicized context.

Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(3), 267-281.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916662366

Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung, V. (2011). The persistence of teacher effects in

elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 361-386.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210382888

133

Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote

teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476-500.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496

Kvernbekk, T. (2017). Evidence-based educational practice. Oxford Research

Encyclopedia of Education. Retrieved from

http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/a

crefore-9780190264093-e-187

Lambert, M. (2012). A beginner’s guide to doing your education research project.

London: Sage.

Langdon, F. J., & Ward, L. (2014). Educative mentoring: From policy to practice.

Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29(1), 28-40. Retrieved

from Informit Humanities & Social Sciences Collection.

Lavy, V. (2016). What makes an effective teacher? Quasi-experimental evidence.

CESifo Economic Studies, 62(1), 88-125. https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifv001

Lechuga, V. M. (2012). Exploring culture from a distance: The utility of telephone

interviews in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 25(3), 251-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.529853

Ledger, S., Vidovich, L., & O’Donoghue, T. (2014). Global to local curriculum policy

processes: The enactment of the international baccalaureate in remote

international schools. Retrieved from Ebook Central.

Leonard, S. N. (2012). Professional conversations: Mentor teachers’ theories-in-use

using the Australian national professional standards for teachers. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 37(12), 46-62.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n12.7

Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian

schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–147.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17508481003731026

134

Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Lewis, S. (2017). Accountabilities in schools and school

systems. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.74

Linton, J., & Geddes, C. (2013). Growing technology leaders. Learning & Leading with

Technology, 41(1), 12-15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up

problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 18, 917–946. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00052-5

Louden, W. (2000). Standards for standards: The development of Australian

professional standards for teaching. Australian Journal of Education, 44(2), 118-

134. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494410004400203

Loughland, T., & Ellis, N. (2016). A common language? The use of teaching standards

in the assessment of professional experience: Teacher education students’

perceptions. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(7), 56-69.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n7.4

Lumpe, A., Czerniak, C., Haney, J., & Beltyukova, S. (2012). Beliefs about teaching

science: The relationship between elementary teachers’ participation in

professional development and student achievement. International Journal of

Science Education, 34(2), 153-166.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.551222

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative

research methods: A data collector’s field guide. North Carolina, USA: Family

Health International. Retrieved from

https://www.fhi360.org/resource/qualitative-research-methods-data-collectors-

field-guide

Maguire, M. (2009). Towards a sociology of the global teacher. In M. W. Apple, S. J.

Ball & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The routledge international handbook of the

sociology of education (pp. 58-68). Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Ball, S. (2015). Where you stand depends on where you sit:

The social construction of policy enactments in the (English) secondary school.

135

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(4), 485-499.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.977022

Mahmoudi-Gahrouei, V., Tavakoli, M., & Hamman, D. (2016). Understanding what is

possible across a career: Professional identity development beyond transition to

teaching. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17(4), 581–597.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9457-2

Margolis, J., & Huggins, K. S. (2012). Distributed but undefined: New teacher leader

roles to change schools. Journal of School Leadership, 22(5), 953-981. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Marsh, J., Springer, M. G., McCaffrey, D. F., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., . . .

Peng, X. (2011). A big apple for educators: New York city’s experiment with

schoolwide performance bonuses: final evaluation report. Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1114.html

Merriam, S. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach (1st ed.).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). Retrieved from EBSCOhost eBooks.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Inc.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A

methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Mills, M., & McGregor, G. (2016). Learning not borrowing from the Queensland

education system: Lessons on curricular, pedagogical and assessment reform.

Curriculum Journal, 27(1), 113-133.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2016.1147969

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2003). A

national framework for professional standards for teaching. Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/national_framework_file.pdf

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved

136

from http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_th

e_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf

Mockler, N. (2013). Teacher professional learning in a neoliberal age: Audit,

professionalism and identity. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(10),

35-47.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n10.8

Moodie, N., & Patrick, R. (2017). Settler grammars and the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(5), 439-

454. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2017.1331202

Murphy, J. (2016). EA16 – Where are we up to? AEU Journal SA, 48(7), 4.

National Association of Australian Teachers of the Deaf. (2016). Teacher of the Deaf

Elaborations of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved

from

http://naatd.com.au/NAATD_Teacher%20of%20the%20Deaf%20Elaborations_V

2.pdf

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2015). Board certification: A

vehicle for transforming teaching. Retrieved from

http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/Policy/policyoverview_final.pdf

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). State of the states: Trends and early

lessons on teacher evaluation and effectiveness policies. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/nctq_stateOfTheStates.pdf

National Council on Teacher Quality. (2015). State of the states 2015: Evaluating

teaching, leading and learning: Executive summary. Retrieved from

http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Executive_Summary

Naylor, R., & Sayed, Y. (2014). Teacher quality: Evidence review. Retrieved from

https://dfat.gov.au/aid/how-we-measure-performance/ode/Documents/evidence-

review-teacher-quality.pdf

Nelson, J. (2013). The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Are they the best

drivers? Australian Educational Leader, 35(4), 21-23. Retrieved from

https://search.informit.com.au/fullText;res=AEIPT;dn=201847

137

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(4th ed.). Boston Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.

Nordin, A. (2016). Teacher professionalism beyond numbers: A communicative

orientation. Policy Futures in Education, 14(6), 830-845.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316656507

O’Donoghue, T., & Clarke, S. (2010). Leading learning: Process, themes and issues in

international contexts. London: Routledge.

Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence based practice, implementation

science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,

29(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121408329171

O'Donoghue, T. (2007). Planning your qualitative research project: An introduction to

interpretive research in education. London: Routledge.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Exploring the use of

incentives to influence the quality and distribution of teachers. In Evaluating and

Rewarding the Quality of Teachers: International Practices (pp. 121-149). Paris:

OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264034358-7-en

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2013). Education policy

outlook: Australia. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/australia

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Education policy

outlook 2015: Making reforms happen. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/education/education-policy-outlook-2015_9789264225442-en

Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain.

Buckingham: Open University Press.

Pang, N. S-K., & Wang, T. (2016). Professional learning communities: Research and

practices across six educational systems in the Asia-Pacific region. Asia Pacific

Journal of Education, 36(2), 193-201.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1148848

Paveling, B. J. (2016). Senior school physical education curriculum policy reforms in

an Australian context: A focus on Western Australia 2005 to 2015 (Doctoral

138

dissertation, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.4225/23/59b7656784d5a

Pegg, J., McPhan, G., & Lynch, T. (2010). Involving the profession in validating

national professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.une.edu.au/simerr/national_survey/Validating.pdf

Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. (2007). What makes

professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum

implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221

Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional

interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers

College Record, 111(1), 124-163. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org

Phillipson, S. N., Cooper, D. G., & Phillipson, S. (2015). Flip, feedback and fly: Using

LOOP to enhance the professional experience of initial teacher education.

Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 115-131.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.7

Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the Teacher

Shortage: How to Attract and Retain Excellent Educators. Retrieved from

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-

files/Solving_Teacher_Shortage_Attract_Retain_Educators_REPORT.pdf

Price, H. E. (2016). Assessing U.S. public school quality: The advantages of combining

internal “consumer ratings” with external NCLB ratings. Educational Policy,

30(3), 403–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814551273

Punch, K., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education (2nd

ed.). London: SAGE.

Reed, L. C., & Swaminathan, R. (2016). An urban school leader’s approach to school

improvement: Toward contextually responsive leadership. Urban Education,

51(9), 1096-1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914553675

139

Reeves, T. D., & Lowenhaupt, R. J. (2016). Teachers as leaders: Pre-service teachers’

aspirations and motivations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 176-187.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.011

Rinke, C. R. (2008). Understanding teachers’ careers: Linking professional life to

professional path. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 1-13.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.10.001

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic

achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-

0262.2005.00584.x

Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2014). Corrigendum to “teachers, schools

and academic achievement”. Econometrica, 82(4), 1543.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12211

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.

Robertson, J. (2013). Learning leadership. Leading and Managing, 19(2), 54–69.

Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M.

Featherstone, S. Lash & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25-44).

Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd C. (2009). School leadership and student

outcomes: Identifying what works and why: Best evidence synthesis iteration.

Retrieved from

http://www.curee.co.uk/files/publication/1260453707/Robinson%20Summary%2

0Extended%20Version.pdf

Ross, J. A., & Bruce, C. D. (2007). Teacher self-assessment: A mechanism for

facilitating professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(2), 146-

159. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.035

Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish

approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147-171.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930601158919

140

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational

change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

Savage, G., & Lewis, S. (2018). The phantom national? Assembling national teaching

standards in Australia’s federal system. Journal of Education Policy, 33(1), 118–

142. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1080/02680939.2017.1325518

Scott, W. (2013). Education reform for social justice: A review of professional capital:

Transforming teaching in every school. The New Educator, 9(4), 361-364.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1080/1547688X.2013.841509

Seddon, T., Ozga, J., & Levin, J. S. (2013). Global transitions and teacher

professionalism. In T. Seddon & J. Levin (Eds.), World yearbook of education

2013: Educators, professionalism and politics: Global transitions, national

spaces and professional projects (pp. 3-24). Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook

Central.

Silva, F. M. F. R. (2016). The construction of knowledge and teachers’ professional

identities in the context of globalization. American Journal of Educational

Research, 4(10), 741-748. Retrieved from

http://pubs.sciepub.com/education/4/10/6/index.html#

Simons, M., Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2009). Re-reading education policies. In M.

Simons, M. Olssen & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A

handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (Vol. 32, pp. 1-95).

Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Somprach, K., Prasertcharoensuk, T., & Ngang, T. K. (2015). The impact of

organizational culture on teacher learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioural

Sciences, 186, 1038-1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.020

South Australian school and preschool education staff enterprise agreement. (2016).

Retrieved from

https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/school_and_preschool_edu

cation_staff_enterprise_agreement_2016.pdf

South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment Inc. (Ed.). (2016). Professional

standards elaborations for specialist teachers (vision impairment): Career stages.

141

(2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.spevi.net/wp-

content/uploads/2016/08/SPEVI-Prof-Stds-Elaborations-2nd-Ed-Web.pdf

Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education

policy. Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Springer, M. G., Lewis, J. L., Podgursky, M. J., Ehlert, M. W., Gronberg, T. J.,

Hamilton, L., . . . Peng, A., (2009). Texas educator excellence grant (TEEG)

program: Year three evaluation report. Retrieved from

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/performanceincentives/files/2012/10/200908_SpringerE

tAl_TEEG_Year31.pdf

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood. (2012). The Hobart

declaration on schooling (1989). Retrieved from

http://www.educationcouncil.edu.au/EC-Publications/EC-Publications-

archive/EC-The-Hobart-Declaration-on-Schooling-1989.aspx

Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). New Directions in Policy Borrowing Research. Asia Pacific

Education Review, 17(3), 381–390. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1007/s12564-016-9442-9

Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import local encounters with

global forces in Mongolia (1st ed.). Retrieved from Ebook Central.

Stern, V. (2015). Australian professional standards for teachers: Policy in action?

(Master’s thesis, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA).

Stosich, E. L. (2016). Building teacher and school capacity to teach to ambitious

standards in high-poverty schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 43-53.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.010

Sun, M., Loeb, S., & Grissom, J. A. (2017). Building teacher teams: Evidence of

positive spillovers from more effective colleagues. Educational Evaluation and

Policy Analysis, 39(1), 104-125. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716665698

Sun-Keung Pang, N. (2016). How higher education systems in Asia-Pacific respond to

the challenges posed by globalization. In M. Geo-JaJa & S. Majhanovich (Eds.),

142

Effects of globalization on education systems and development: Debates and

issues (pp. 100-113). Retrieved from Ebook Central.

Taylor, A. J. (2016). Teachers' experience of professional standards for teachers: A

case study of the enactment of teaching standards in a high performing school

system (Doctoral dissertation, Australian Catholic University). Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a9cc680b0bc3

Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Education policy and the politics

of change. London: Routledge.

Tchoshanov, M. A. (2011). Relationship between teacher knowledge of concepts and

connections, teaching practice, and student achievement in middle grades

mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 76(2), 141-164.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010-9269-y

Teacher leader model standards: The vision. (2012). Retrieved from

http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org/the_vision

Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium. (n.d.). Teacher leader model standards:

Teacher leadership exploratory consortium. Retrieved from

http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org/downloads/TLS_Brochure.pdf

Teacher Leadership Initiative. (n.d.). Vision and mission. Retrieved from

http://www.teacherleadershipinitiative.org/about/vision-mission/

Teacher-Powered Schools. (2015). About the initiative. Retrieved from

http://www.teacherpowered.org/about/initiative

Teachers Registration Board of South Australia. (2016). About us. Retrieved from

http://www.trb.sa.edu.au/about-us

Teachers Registration Board of South Australia. (n.d.). Gaining (full) registration [Fact

sheet]. Retrieved from

http://www.trb.sa.edu.au/sites/default/files/PdfDocuments/Info-Sheet-Gaining-

Full-Registration.pdf

Thomas, G., & Myers, K. (2015). The anatomy of the case study. Retrieved from SAGE

Research Methods Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473920156

143

Thorpe, R. (2014). Sustaining the teaching profession. New England Journal of Public

Policy, 26(1), 1-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Training and Development Agency for Schools. (2007). Professional standards for

teachers: Advanced skills teacher. Retrieved from

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Advanced%20Skills%20teacher%20standards.pdf

Trippestad, T. A. (2016). The glocal teacher: the paradox agency of teaching in a

glocalised world. Policy Futures in Education, 14(1), 9-23.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210315612643

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2015). Education

2030: Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of

sustainable development goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education

and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002456/245656e.pdf

United States Department of Education. (2015). Teach to lead [Fact sheet]. Retrieved

from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-teach-lead

Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes

accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859

Vidovich, L. (2007). Removing policy from its pedestal: Some theoretical framings and

practical possibilities. Educational Review, 59(3), 285-298.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910701427231

Vidovich, L. (2013). Policy research in higher education: Theories and methods for

globalising times. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher

education research (pp. 21-39). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing.

Vidovich, L. (2018). Institutional accountability in higher education. In P. Teixeira & J.

Shin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and

Institutions. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1

Wang, A. H., Coleman, A. B., Coley, R. J., & Phelps, R. P. (2003). Preparing teachers

around the world: Policy information report. Retrieved from

http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/prepteach.pdf

144

Wang, J., Lin, E., Spalding, E., Klecka, C. L., & Odell, S. J. (2011). Quality teaching

and teacher education: A kaleidoscope of notions. Journal of Teacher Education,

62(4), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111409551

Watson, P. (2009). Regional themes and global means in supra-national higher

education policy. Higher Education, 58(3), 419-438.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9203-3

Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement

gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089

Weiner, J. M. (2011). Finding common ground: Teacher leaders and principals speak

out about teacher leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 21(1), 7-41. Retrieved

from EBSCOhost.

Welch, A. (2013). Making education policy. In R. Connell, A. Welch, M. Vickers, D.

Foley, N. Bagnall, H. Proctor, … A. Campbell (Eds.), Education, change and

society [3rd ed.] (pp. 186-212). Victoria, Australia: Oxford University Press.

Welch, A. (2018). Making education policy. In A. Welch, R. Connell, N. Mockler, A.

Sriprakash, H. Proctor, D. Hayes, … S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Education,

change and society [4th ed.] (pp. 263-304). Victoria, Australia: Oxford University

Press.

Werts, A. B., & Brewer, C. A. (2015). Reframing the study of policy implementation:

Lived experience as politics. Educational Policy, 29(1), 206-229.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559247

Whitty, G. (2016). Research and policy in education: Evidence, ideology and impact.

Retrieved from ProQuest Ebook Central.

Wiswall, M. (2013). The dynamics of teacher quality. Journal of Public Economics,

100, 61–78.

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.01.006

Woodhead, C. (1998). The annual report of Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools:

Standards and quality in education 1996/97. Retrieved from

145

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-report-standards-and-quality-

in-education-1996-to-1997

Woodside-Jiron, H. (2004). Language, power, and participation: Using critical

discourse analysis to make sense of policy. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to

critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 173-205). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erblaum Associates.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,

California: Sage.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings

from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-

316. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uwa.edu.au/stable/3516026

Yorke, J. (2014). Accountability and quality policies relating to learning standards, and

their implications for assessment in higher education (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA). Retrieved from https://research-

repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/accountability-and-quality-policies-

relating-to-learning-standard

146

APPENDIX A: Organisation of the APST

Source: AITSL (2011, p. 3)

147

APPENDIX B: APST Lead Standards policy

148

149

150

Source: AITSL (2011, pp. 8-19)

151

APPENDIX C: OECD Education Policy Levers

Source: OECD (2015, p.30)

152

APPENDIX D: Policies targeting the teaching profession in OECD countries

from 2008 to 2014

Source: OECD (2015, p. 89)

153

APPENDIX E: Interview Questions

1. Can you provide a snapshot of your teaching experience?

2. How and when did you become aware of the APST* policy and the ‘Lead teacher’#

(or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

3. What do you think were the major influences on the origins of Australian APST

policy? Do you think there were any other/different influences on the ‘Lead teacher’

(or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

4. Who have been the key people involved in constructing the APST policy and the

‘Lead teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

5. How do the policies compare with any existing and/or alternative teacher policies?

6. What do you consider is the main intent of the APST policy, and how the policy goes

about conveying its message to schools and teachers?

7. What do you understand by the term ‘Lead teacher’, from the ‘Lead teacher’ policy?

(or how is it different to ‘Highly Accomplished’)

8. What is your understanding of how and why, schools and teachers use the APST

policy and the ‘Lead teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

9. To what extent do you feel familiar with, and supportive of the ‘Lead teacher’ (or

‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

10. What factors enable or constrain a teacher to become certified as a Lead (or Highly

Accomplished) teacher?

11. What factors impact the adoption or adaptation of the APST policy and the ‘Lead

teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy, in schools? by teachers? at the state

level?

12. Can you share details of changes to your practice, knowledge, or engagement, if any,

influenced by the ‘Lead teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

i.e. What do you do differently or in addition to a teacher who is not a ‘Lead teacher’,

if anything? What are the benefits & disadvantages of being a Lead teacher? etc.

13. Have you documented any evidence of improved student learning from the time you

were certified as a Lead (or Highly Accomplished) teacher?

14. What mechanisms, if any, are you aware of to monitor and/or evaluate the APST

policy and the ‘Lead teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’) policy?

15. What, if any, are the longer-term benefits and consequences, intended or unintended,

of the APST policy and the ‘Lead teacher’ (or ‘Highly Accomplished’), in schools?

for teachers? for students? at a state level?

154

16. Can you share your thoughts about the APST policy and the ‘Lead teacher’ (or

‘Highly Accomplished’) policy, in relation to the quality and equity of student

learning outcomes?

17. How do you see the policies being developed and used in the future?

18. What, if anything, would you change about the policies?

* APST = Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

# ‘Lead teacher’ policy = The APST Lead Standards

‘Highly Accomplished’ policy = The APST Highly Accomplished Standards

155

APPENDIX F: Interview Protocol

Introductions.

Prior to commencement of interview, give participant a paper copy of ‘participant information

letter’, ‘participant consent form’ and APST Lead and/or Highly Accomplished policy (face-to-

face interview). Read aloud to participant. OR email information to participant at least one day

prior to interview (phone interview).

Participant signs consent form (face-to-face interview; one copy for interviewer, one copy for

participant). OR participant signs consent form and emails to me (phone interview), ideally

prior to interview.

Make notes on surrounding environment in which interview is taking place (face-to-face

interview).

Sound check on digital voice recorder.

Notify participant of the following:

Thank you for participating in this research. I acknowledge and appreciate the time you

are giving to participate in this interview.

The interview consists of 18 questions (15 questions for State-level participants) about

the APST policy in general, and the APST Lead Standards policy specifically. There is

no limit to the length of your response to each question.

I will be impartial during the interview, and the research process. I will take notes

during the interview. If, at any time, you wish to pause, or share information that you do

not wish to be recorded, please indicate this to the interviewer (myself).

Confidentiality and anonymity will be maintained as outlined in the information

participant letter, and the participant consent form.

The interview will be recorded.

During the interview, I will ask questions about the APST policy, and the APST lead

teacher policy. Please note:

APST is the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers

APST policy refers to the policy in general

APST Lead teacher policy refers to the APST Lead Standards

All questions invite you to comment on the APST Lead Standards policy.

Start digital voice recorder.

Read interview questions aloud, starting with question 1.

At conclusion of interview, ask participant:

Is there anything else you would like to add/comment on?

End of interview.Stop digital voice recorder.

Thank participant for their participation in this research.

Ask participant if they would like a copy of their interview transcript.

156

APPENDIX G: Participant Information and Consent

Professor Lesley Vidovich

The Graduate School of Education

The University of Western Australia

M428, 35 Stirling Highway

Crawley, WA 6009

Phone: +61 8 6488 2274

Email: lesley.vidovich@uwa.edu.au

Web: http://www.gse.uwa.edu.au

CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION LETTER

Dear Lead / Highly Accomplished Teacher,

Research Project Title:

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Policy perspectives of school teachers on

the enactment of the ‘lead teacher’ standards.

You are invited to take part in the Master of Educational Leadership (MEdL) research study

named above. I am writing to introduce Masters student Amanda Brien and her research at

the Graduate School of Education, at the University of Western Australia. I am Amanda’s

coordinating supervisor. Amanda’s research aims to analyse the Australian Professional

Standards for Teachers policy processes, with a focus on the ‘lead teacher’ standards and their

enactment by teachers in selected settings in South Australia. She plans to approach all

teachers who are certified as a lead teacher in schools, or who are engaged in the process of

becoming certified as a lead teacher. She also plans to approach all teachers who are certified

as a highly accomplished teacher in schools. Amanda would invite teachers who are enacting

the lead teacher, or highly accomplished teacher standards in these schools, to take part in the

research project.

What does participation in the research study involve?

Each participant would take part in one semi-structured interview of approximately 30-40

minutes. Teachers who are engaged in the process of becoming certified as a lead teacher will

be invited to participate in a second interview after they become certified. The interviews will

be conducted at a time and place suitable for the participant.

To what extent is participation voluntary, and what are the implications of withdrawing

that participation?

Participation in this research study is entirely voluntary. If any teacher decides to participate

and then later changes their mind, they are able to withdraw their participation at any time

during the data collection phase. There will be no consequences relating to any decision by an

individual regarding participation. Participation or non participation in the study will not affect

the participants’ relationship with the researcher or The University of Western Australia.

157

What will happen to the information collected, and is privacy and confidentiality assured?

Information that identifies anyone will be removed from the data collected. Participants and

their school will be assigned pseudonyms in the reporting of the data. The identity of the

participants and their school will not be disclosed at any time, except in circumstances where

the researcher is legally required to disclose that information. The data will be stored securely

in a locked cabinet and/or in de-identified and password protected computer files. The data

will be stored for a period of 7 years, after which it will be destroyed in a secure manner. This

will be achieved by deletion of all audio and computer files and shredding of all paper records.

Is this research approved? Who do I contact if I wish to discuss the study further?

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in

accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering

participation in this research study, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or

issues with the student researcher at any time in the first instance (email:

amanda.brien@research.uwa.edu.au) and/or with the student’s supervisor (email:

lesley.vidovich@uwa.edu.au).

How do I indicate my willingness to be involved?

If you have had all questions about the study answered to your satisfaction, and are willing to

participate, please complete the Participant Consent Form on the following page. All

research participants are entitled to retain a copy of the Participant Information Form and

Participant Consent Form relating to this research study.

Your participation in this study does not prejudice any right to compensation, which you may

have under statute or common law.

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western Australia,

in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering

participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or

issues with the researchers at any time.

In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues

or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the

Human Research Ethics Office at The University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or

by emailing to humanethics@uwa.edu.au

All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form

and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project.

Yours sincerely

Professor Lesley Vidovich

Professor Lesley Vidovich

158

The Graduate School of Education

The University of Western Australia

M428, 35 Stirling Highway

Crawley, WA 6009

Phone: +61 8 6488 2274

Email: lesley.vidovich@uwa.edu.au

Web: http://www.gse.uwa.edu.au

CRICOS Provider Code: 00126G

PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM

Research Project Title:

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers: Policy perspectives of school teachers on

the enactment of the ‘lead teacher’ standards.

I, __________ ___________________________ , have read the information provided

(name of participant)

and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in

this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time without reason and without prejudice. I

consent to having the audio interviews recorded.

I understand that all information provided is treated as strictly confidential and will not be

released by the investigator. The only exception to this principle of confidentiality is if a court

subpoenas documentation. I have been advised as to what data are being collected, what the

purpose is, and what will be done with the data upon completion of the research.

I agree that the research data gathered for the study may be published provided my name or

other identifying information is not used.

Approval to conduct this research has been provided by The University of Western Australia,

in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering

participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or

issues with the researchers at any time.

In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues

or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the

Human Research Ethics Office at The University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or

by emailing to humanethics@uwa.edu.au

All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form

and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project.

Your Signature: _____________________ __ Date: ___________

(signature of participant)