Ei-iE

Reflections by John Bangs, Senior Consultant at Education International and Honorary Research Associate at Cambridge University, on the 2nd International Summit of the Teaching Profession, New York, March 2012

There are moments when the interests of Governments and teacher unions coincide - when evidence and political will are in synergy. The decision by the Obama administration to repeat last year’s International Summiton the future of the teaching profession was the result of just such a moment. There were two good reasons why the administration believed there was an advantage in working in partnership with Education International (EI), the US teacher unions and the OECD to organise the Summit. The first was the realisation by Arne Duncan, Obama’s Education Secretary, that no country can develop a successful education system without learning from other successful countries. The second was the OECD’s evidence that to be successful, education systems need strong proactive teaching unions.

This year’s Summit took place at a time when the financial crisis is biting hard into education budgets. In view of increasing concern and even social unrest in a growing number of OECD countries the default position of the Unions attending the conference could have been to solely focus on arguments about spending. Important as those arguments were, Unions took a more sophisticated position-that discussion about what works in education systems actually enforces the campaign to protect education.

As teacher unions and the OECD consistently emphasise, what works is the establishment of effective teacher policies-policies which have been constructed in partnership with the teaching profession and their organisations. Indeed in February Obama launched the $ 5 billion dollars RESPECT programme which proposes that teacher associations and unions to ‘transform teaching in the US into a 21c profession’.  This is a remarkable turnaround from the early years of the current Administration when it took a punitive approach to education reform. The programme is also in stark contrast to a political trend in America which seeks the slashing of education budgets as in Pennsylvania and Florida, the removal of collective bargaining rights as in Wisconsin and the public shaming of teachers by using bad data and unproven methodology as in New York.

Perhaps an even more powerful testament to the impact of last year’s Summit was Arne Duncan’s revelation in his closing speech this year that he wouldn’t have managed to persuade the President to fund the RESPECT programme without the international evidence which had emerged on the importance of developing and training teachers.

This year’s Summit’s focus on leadership, 21 century skills and teacher supply and demand provided fertile ground for the professions’ voice to come through. Education International drew from its own Summit background paper which emphasised that where leadership by principals (heads) is dictatorial and disempowering the evidence is that high quality education will be fragile and innovation will be stifled. There is a much greater chance of school and system success where principals enhance the capacity of their teachers to be leaders. EI further argued that, where total autonomy is given to schools the support they receive is uncertain and it undermines the development of a highly skilled teaching profession.

These were not isolated views. When the country delegations of Union and Government members were asked to give their top priorities at the end of the Summit the most dominant commitments were to enhancing collaboration in learning and their systems’ capacity to support teachers in schools. Arguments for coherent, funded policies for teacher learning and the development of self-regulation and professional autonomy were centre stage.

Integral to the discussion this year was the need to align assessment creativity, innovation and 21 century skills. Time and again this was contrasted with the wrong drivers of reform such as high stakes, punitive evaluation.

The debate on teacher supply and demand was particularly lively. EI emphasised that successful recruitment and retention can only happen if teachers’ working conditions, pay, professional development and professional autonomy match those of other high status professions. Some countries wanted to inject merit pay into that mix. The debate will continue at next year’s Summit!

With education the subject of unparalleled expectations and financial pressures, the responsibilities faced by Unions are unparalleled. There are still parties and governments across the world which have little sympathy with the Summit’s intentions. Yet the evidence is overwhelming. Unions have to be equal partners with governments and jurisdictions if the best and most committed people are to be attracted to and kept in teaching.

NB. 23 countries attended the International Summit for the Teaching Profession this year. It took place in New York on the 14th and 15th of March. Every delegation consisted of a Minister and up to two teacher union leaders. The criteria for attendance was that each country had to be deemed to be improving or successful according to evidence from the PISA 2009 report. Those countries which attended this year were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, China, Poland, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK (England) and the US. France, Australia and Ireland were invited but didn’t attend. South Africa was a guest. The US Government with the NEA and AFT, the OECD and EI were the joint organisers. Education International’s background paper for the Summit is available here. The OECD’s background paper was released on the 14th March.