Certification of Teachers: Tensions in a New Signature Reform¹

The distinction between professional responsibility and accountability

In the regimes of “responsibility” and “accountability” we identify different logics and implications, and we see in them certain tendencies and tensions (Solbrekke & Englund, 2011). We argue that the notion of professional responsibility relates to a conception of the moral and social ideas of classical professionalism (Durkheim, 1957/2001), in which the meaning of community and solidarity is related to a conception of the “public” with a sense of shared experience and a commitment to communicating the meaning of that experience with and to others (Dewey, 1927/1988). Professional accountability, on the other hand, as it has been elaborated in closer conjunction with the New Public Management movement, is related to ideas more closely associated with individualism, flexibility, competition and efficiency (Svensson, 2008). The two concepts therefore conventionally carry different meanings, grounded in different sets of relations, different organizational structures and different degrees of professional autonomy and space for professional judgment, with consequences for professionals’ relationships of responsibility to their respective counterparts, such as students in the case of teachers (see Solbrekke & Englund, 2011, for further elaboration).

We consider that the distinctions between “responsibility” and “accountability” help us to identify the different logics embedded in the new reform. The two concepts are also useful in understanding the current tensions between being professionally responsible and being held accountable. Within the frame of New Public Management, “being held accountable” assumes that teacher education will improve if results are monitored against politically predefined and universally applicable standards (Englund & Solbrekke, 2011; Green, 2011; Solbrekke & Englund, 2011).

However, the development and functioning of strategies deployed by the “accountability movement” seem to emphasize practices that ignore the complexity of professional responsibility. An important function of the system of accountability is to reduce the ambiguity of professional practice. According to this logic, the necessary means are to oblige professionals to adhere to, and be accountable against, prescriptive policy standards of quality and to make their judgments and work transparent to the public (Green, 2011; Hoyle & Wallace, 2009).

Below, we present the different logics of, and the distinction between, professional “responsibility” and “accountability”, summarized in a table adapted from our earlier work (Solbrekke & Englund 2011, p. 855). Although this representation gives the appearance of concepts being either/or and static, they should be understood as evolved and evolving, fluid and fluctuating in different systems of logic that are reconfigured over time.

Table 1*

The logics and implications of professional responsibility and accountability

* Adapted from (Solbrekke & Englund 2011, p. 855).

If the proposed distinction is persuasive, professional responsibility in teaching presupposes that teachers are given the opportunity to act responsibly for their students, by allowing them time and space for moral action and “room” in which professional discretion may be exercised. This is a premise for professionalism. A teacher must be able to listen to and have the capacity to see the needs of his or her student—though within a broader perspective, in a balance between individual and collective needs and concerns, and between internal responsibilities and external accountability claims. Such a notion of professional responsibility relies on mutual trust and respect between the one who has taken responsibility for the other (the professional agent) and the one who is being taken responsibility for (the student).

“Responsibility” in this sense relies on trust in the professional agent being qualified and willing to handle dilemmas and having the freedom to deliberate on alternative courses of action (Sugrue & Solbrekke, 2011). He or she is expected to be able to justify his or her decisions in the specific setting from a professional point of view, based in science as well as experience-based knowledge, and in moral reasoning (Green, 2011). However, the actions taken cannot always be predicted and their “outcomes” are not always measurable in terms of clear and predefined descriptors or indicators. Exercising such a responsibility is linked to a profession’s autonomy, because professionals are trusted, yet also committed, to act in the interests of others, this being at the core of professional work (Solbrekke, 2007; Sullivan, 2005). “Responsibility” implies proactive action, which the professional initiates and voluntarily takes responsibility for in accordance with the commitments embedded in the purpose of his or her profession. Within this pattern, professionals are entrusted with space to use their professional discretion in deciding what is “best” for their client and for society.

“Accountability,” on the other hand, implies quite different notions. It relates to concepts like accounting, and to legal, economic and organizational actions (Solbrekke & Englund, 2011; Svensson & Karlsson, 2008). It is bound to a contractual obligation, and emphasizes the duty to answer for your actions to others or to society. In such a relationship, the professional agent’s actions are to be controlled by evaluating them against predefined measures. Consequently, the practices of “accountability” are oriented towards control rather than trust. “Good services” are guaranteed by means of measuring and “accounting” instruments, rather than by relying on professional discretion. In other words, “accountability” is about reactive action: reporting on actions and results. The rationale underlying accountability in this sense is that “mechanisms” are of necessity based on clear descriptors and a simplified, “transparent” language, and are easily understood by all users of professional services. This is a logic based on the belief that clear points of reference will ensure and enhance the quality of work and hence of the service to the public as customers (Green, 2011).

The logic of accountability

One way of interpreting the signature reform is to see it as a strengthening of the accountability logic. As argued above, it originally moved the main authority to sign from a professional level, that of pre-service teacher education, to the political and bureaucratic level. The new signature practice is defined within the framework of current governance, and by predetermined indicators, which, as argued earlier, are characteristics of the accountability logic. The regulations for the new practice formulated by the National Agency for Education contain clear provisions on how the probationary year is to be planned and implemented (SKOLFS 2011:37, §1). They include descriptions of what each new teacher has to accomplish in order to be registered as a teacher. An obvious goal is to introduce new teachers to as many professional tasks as possible in the probationary year (a full year of teaching). All new teachers are to try out “different teaching methods, parent-teacher-student interviews, assessment and documentation, and in certain instances develop individual development plans, in which assessment must be included” (authors’ translation, §8). Principals are given the responsibility to comply with these predefined directions, as they must thoroughly document how the teacher has accomplished the tasks defined by the National Agency for Education; in what ways, and to what extent, the aim has been fulfilled (§11).

The process of assessment of new teachers which all principals are obliged to carry out is defined in precise detail. For example, they are instructed to follow a specific procedure: (1) Observe the teacher in action on at least three different occasions; (2) Assess the teacher’s ability to teach and evaluate the progression of his or her development; (3) Document the observations made and follow up the assessment; (4) Ensure that the mentor, who has been appointed by the principal, documents his or her observations of, and conversations with, the teacher; (5) Ensure that the teacher documents his or her work. (6) On the basis of the various documentation, and after consultation with the mentor, report on the teacher’s teaching abilities as sufficient or not sufficient (§16). This report is then, under the current procedure, to be sent to the National Agency for Education, which reaches the final decision on whether or not the teacher is to be granted registration.

What all these prescriptions make clear is that detailed directives were introduced which the principal had to comply with. In accordance with this, the principal has to respond in a reactive manner to the requirements of an external audit—a reasoning and practice typical of the accountability logic

The logic of responsibility

On the other hand, the description of competencies highlighted in the regulations may perhaps offer scope for an interpretation in line with the logic of professional responsibility—thus encouraging professionalism. They are expressed under the headings of four “communication areas” in the “competence profile” for a teacher: “The encounter with the student” (§17), “Leadership” (§18), “Cooperation” (§19) and “Responsibility for learning and professional development” (§24) (authors’ translation). In the elaboration of these dimensions, expressed in 23 sub-descriptions, we find values such as “communicate with the student about the knowledge the student will be given the opportunity to develop” (§17, 3), “involve the student in planning and develop the student’s capacity to learn, individually as well as in collaboration with others” (§17, 4) and “seek to develop a good relationship with students that is characterized by mutual respect and an attitude of trust” (§18, 4) (authors’ translation). In addition, the regulations underline the need to collaborate with other professions when necessary, requiring teachers to “respect the competence of both colleagues and other professions, their duties and responsibilities in day-to-day work…” (§19, 5, authors’ translation). Finally, the competence profile emphasizes the teacher’s responsibility for continuous learning and for “judg[ing] the effectiveness of teaching strategies and adapt[ing] teaching accordingly” (§24, 2, authors’ translation). Such dimensions and examples fit in well with the logic of responsibility, which emphasizes a moral and social rationale based in a professional mandate. They also indicate that professional practice is typically proactive, and that the domains of responsibility must be negotiated within the frame of the professional mandate—a responsibility that is based in the autonomy of the profession, and thus also inescapable. These areas require pedagogical insight and a moral attitude that is characteristic of the moral base of teacher professionalism (Sockett, 1993).

In the tension between the two logics

What is evident from our analysis is that the signature reform can be traced to both of the logics described above. The content of the competence profile corresponds to a large extent to the logic of professional responsibility as embedded in professionalism, while the process of assessing and documenting new teachers’ competencies is framed by the logic of accountability. Thus, it may be argued that those responsible for carrying out the reform are located in the field of tension between the two logics.

In the reform described, principals were given a crucial role in the process of signing off new teachers. This placed them as professional agents in a challenging tension between the two logics. On the one hand, the competence profile coheres with the social relational competence traditionally emphasized by principals as the core of the teaching profession (Fransson, 2012b). This allows principals to use their professional judgment to evaluate new teachers in the light of the moral base of professionalism (Sockett, 1993) and the responsibilities negotiated within the profession. This is a practice that is in line with the logic of professional responsibility and professionalism. On the other hand, the assessment and documentation process that principals are obliged to carry out is, in its current form, framed by the accountability logic. Through regulations developed by the National Agency for Education, principals were given detailed prescriptions regarding what new teachers were to be assessed on, and how often. The documentation described above is, in itself, a major point of conformity with reporting requirements typical of the logic of accountability (Green, 2011). Furthermore, the provisions of §13: “assess the teacher on at least three occasions,” and §14: “all the points in the competence profile are to be assessed no later than the final assessment occasion” (authors’ translation), demonstrate how the process is standardized and predefined by other agents (stakeholders) than the professional. Additionally, in §3 it is underlined that the principal “is not allowed to delegate responsibility for the tasks defined in these regulations to any other person” (authors’ translation). Taken together, all these directives suggest practices that conflict with and challenge the logic of responsibility.

Knowing that assessment of new teachers, carried out in a professionally responsible way, is time-consuming, and that principals may have more than one new teacher on their staff at the same time, we anticipate that the space for professional judgment typical of professional responsibility may be limited within the signature reform. There is no indication in the regulations that principals are to be provided with any new resources to undertake all the assessment and documentation of new teachers’ competencies. While it is impossible to predict how principals will meet these requirements, we envisage a possible scenario in which they will be seriously challenged in an already pressured work situation (Fransson, 2012b). Thus, the quantity of detailed requirements embedded in the reform may push principals into more instrumental practices, such as “ticking off” all the 23 different competencies, rather than using approaches based on their professional discretion in their evaluation of teachers.

Moreover, given that the new system required principals to report their evaluations to the National Agency for Education in a language comprehensible to both bureaucrats and politicians, there was also a risk of their describing only what was measurable and easily made explicit – and thus leaving out the more implicit and tacit knowledge and skills that cannot easily be described. There was a danger, therefore, that the reform could lead to instrumental performativity and loyalty to the accountability logic, at the expense of professionally responsible performance (Solbrekke & Sugrue, 2014). Borrowing from Green (2011), we are tempted to argue that there is a risk of hitting the targets defined by the logic of accountability, but missing the point of professional responsibility and professionalism.

However, it must be recognized that, as indicated above, possible modifications have been signaled in the new legislative proposal from 17 December 2013, although as yet there has been no clarification of the role and status which the competence profile will have under the new provisions. What we do know is that the National Agency for Education is to develop new directives, which means that the state authorities still hold the crucial power to define the competence profile.