The OECD program TALIS Tore SORENSEN and Framing, … · 2015-10-26 · TALIS 2013 from outside the...

CENTRE FOR GLOBALISATION

EDUCATION & SOCIAL FUTURES

Tore SORENSEN & Susan L. ROBERTSON

The OECD program TALIS and Framing, Measuring

and Selling Quality Teacher™

On-Line Papers – Copyright This online paper may be cited or briefly quoted in line with the usual academic conventions, and for personal use. However, this paper must not be published elsewhere (such as mailing lists, bulletin boards etc.) without the author’s explicit permission, or be used for commercial purposes or gain in any way.

Please cite: Sorensen, T.B. and Robertson S.L. (forthcoming), The OECD program TALIS and Framing, Measuring and Selling Quality Teacher™ in M. Akiba & G.K. LeTendre (eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy. Routledge. Published by the Centre for Globalisation, Education & Social Futures, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1JA, UK. Available: ed-gesf.com/publications/

University of Bristol, UK

Centre for Globalisation Education & Social Futures

Page 1

AbstractThis paper examines the pivotal role of the Organisation for Economic Cooperationand Development’s (OECD) in orchestrating the framing of the problem of ‘teacherquality’ for global competitiveness, and the ongoing politicalwork of theOECD andallied institutions in promoting this brand of Quality Teacher™ through its TeachingandLearningInternationalAssessment(TALIS).Weexplorethewiderpoliticsatworkand the implications of TALIS as a political construct, process, and global governingtool and show a dual dynamic at work involving the formation of institutions andprocessesataglobalscale,toframe,measureandsellaparticularbrandofteacher;onewhoisflexible,privilegesconstructivismasapedagogicalapproach,andwhouses‘evidence ‘to make teaching and learning decisions. Taken together, the OECD’sactivitiesinframing,measuringandsellingtheQualityTeacher™-whilstlegitimatedascreating the new professional teacher – paradoxically challenges teacher authority,relocates the governing of teachers to the global scale, and sells a slimmed downversionofpossibilitiesregardingteacherquality.

The teaching profession has been the subject of international political debates for decades,

thoughuntilmorerecently,thiswaslargelyaroundtheconditionsofworkinsub/nationalsettingsand

in relation to those agencies that might ensure teacher professionalism (ILO & UNESCO, 1966;

Papadopoulos, 1994). Over the past ten years, however, this has changed and teachers have been

placed under the ‘quality’ spotlight over the nature of their knowledge-base, their pedagogical

practices,andwhetherornottheyaddvaluetotheirstudents’learning(Caena,2014;Connell,2009;

International Taskforce on Teachers forEducationFor All, 2014; MacBeath, 2012; Robertson, 2012;

World Bank, 2012). These developments amount to a reframing of teachers’ work for global

competitiveness, driven by a dual denationalizing dynamic in education governance (Robertson &

Sorensen,forthcoming;seealsoSassen,2003).

The argument put by international agencies like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), a key institution engaged in promoting economic growth amongst the

developedeconomies,isthatteacherscan,andshould,playaroleindevelopingtherequisite‘human

capital’ (readstudents) for theglobalknowledgeeconomybut that thecurrentorganisationof their


Page 2

workmitigatesagainstthis.Theyarguethatweneedtobetterunderstandwhatcountsasa ‘quality

teacher’, what country profiles look like regarding teacher quality, and what strategies might be

deployedtomovethecountryintherightdirection(Schleicher,2015).

The OECD have developed and implemented a Teaching and Learning International Survey

(TALIS)asakeyresponsetothispolicyissue.TheTALISprogramfocusesonteachers’workandschool

leadership and represents some of themost ambitious efforts so far to generate knowledge about

teachers.TALIS followsa fiveyearcycleandhasbeenconductedtwice,with24and34countriesor

subnationalpoliticalentitiestakingpartin2008and2013,respectively.

Drawing on empirical research (document analysis and qualitative interviewswith personnel

fromOECD,theEuropeanCommission’sDirectorateGeneralforEducationandCulture,andEducation

International,theglobalteachers’unionbasedinBrussels,Belgium),weexplorethewiderpoliticsat

workandtheimplicationsoftheTALISprogramasapoliticalconstruct,process,andglobalgoverning

tool. In this respect, we focus on the support given to TALIS by two powerful global agencies; the

EuropeanCommission,ontheonehand,andEducationInternational,ontheother.

We show a dual dynamic atwork involving the formation of institutions and processes at a

global scale, to frame,measureandsellaparticularbrandof teacher;onewho is flexible,privileges

constructivism as a pedagogical approach, and who uses ‘evidence’ tomake teaching and learning

decisions. Our use of the trademark symbol in Quality Teacher™ hence indicates that we are

particularly interestedintheongoingpoliticalworkoftheOECDinbrandingand‘selling’thisspecific

notionofteacherquality.Weconcludebypointingtoasetofparadoxesthatareemergingaroundthe

globalgoverningofQualityTeacher™;despiteinsistingontheneedforanewprofessional–theOECD

recastsunderstandingsof teacherprofessionalism in itsown terms, it relocates thedeterminantsof

governing to the global scale, and sells a slimmed down version of possibilities regarding teacher

quality.

TheTALISProgramandItsFramings

TALIS can be viewed as part of the OECD’s family of indicator-based data-sets which also

includesforexampletheProgramforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA)andtheProgramforthe

InternationalAssessmentofAdultCompetencies(PIAAC).InthewakeoflaunchingthePISAprogram,

theOECDin2002begantodrawattentiontowhattheyclaimedwereconcernsovertheeffectiveness


Page 3

of teachers, arguing that there was a need to review trends across OECD member and associate

countries so as to identify policy options for attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers

(OECD2005).Onegoal tobepursuedby theOECD from thiswas thedevelopmentof indicatorson

teachers and teaching thatmight parallel that of students. In combination thehopewas that these

complexsetsofglobalindicatorscoulddriveeducationalpolicy-makingglobally.

TheTALISprograminvolvestwoquestionnaires,tobefilledinbyteachersandprincipals.The

primarysamplegrouparethoseworkinginISCEDlevel2schools,yetparticipatingcountriesorregions

havealsobeengiventhe‘internationaloptions’toincludeISCEDlevels1and3.i24countriesorregions

tookpartinthefirstroundofTALIS,34inthesecondround.TheEuropeanUnioniswell-represented,

with16and19memberstatesor regionstakingpart in thetworounds, respectively.Participants in

TALIS2013fromoutsidetheEuropeanUnioninclude,forexample,AbuDhabi(UnitedArabEmirates),

Alberta(Canada),Brazil,RepublicofKorea,Malaysia,Mexico,andUSA.LikePISA,TALIShassucceeded

inattractingnon-OECDmembersasparticipants.Tennon-OECDmembersthustookpartinTALIS2013.

ThemainobjectiveofTALISisstatedasfollows:

The overall objective of TALIS is to provide robust international indicators and policy-relevant analysis on teachers and teaching in a timely and cost-effectivemanner. Theseindicatorshelpcountriesreviewanddeveloppoliciesintheireffortstopromoteconditionsfor high-quality teaching and learning. Cross-country analyses provide the opportunity tocomparecountriesfacingsimilarchallengestolearnaboutdifferentpolicyapproachesandtheir impacton the learningenvironment in schools (OECD,2014a,p.27;nearly identicalwithOECD,2009,p.19).

Table 1 provides a schematic overview of the scope andmain policy themes for the first two

roundsofTALIS.Thetable indicates fourgeneral featuresofTALIS: (a)Thesurveyhasbecomemore

expansiveinitsfocusonteachers,andrelativelylesssoforschoolprincipals,indicatedbythenumber

of indicesand items; (b)TALISaspires tobewide-ranging in its coverageofkey issues in relation to

teachers’labor;(c)Thereisalargedegreeofcontinuityinthecoverageofpolicythemes;and(d)The

EuropeanUnionhashadastrongvoiceintheselectionofthesethemes.

Yet,thesegeneralfeatureswouldappeartoraiseasmanyquestionsastheyanswerwithregard

to the institutional arrangements for TALIS, the processes through which the survey has been

designed,and thephrasingofquestions. In the remainingpartof this section,weput theargument

forwardthatOECDinframing,measuringandsellingtheQualityTeacher™throughtheTALISprogram


Page 4

relies on a specific assumption concerning the nature of evidence by which the ‘subjective’ survey

responsesof teachers are framedas subordinate to the ‘objective’ dataon studentperformanceas

assessedbyPISA.Moreover,weshowthattheindicesanditemsintheTALISquestionnairessuggest

thatTALISinvolvesabiastowardsconstructivistpedagogyandflexibilizationofteachers’work.Thus,

despitetheaspirationsattachedtotheprogram,TALISisnotaswide-rangingasthepolicythemesand

numberofindicesanditemsmightsuggest.

Theframingofevidence

OECD work on the teaching profession complies with the organization’s endorsement of

evidence-basedpolicyandtheassociatedcodificationandtransmissionofknowledge,centredonthe

identification of ‘best practices’which it in turnmeasures and uses as the basis of its brokerage of

knowledge (seeOECD 1996; 2007).TeachersMatter (OECD, 2005, p. 14) thus calls for realizing the

idealof“transformingteachingintoaknowledge-richprofession”;theTALIS2008report(OECD,2009,

p.3)openswiththeassertionthat;“educationisstillfarfrombeingaknowledgeindustryinthesense

that its own practices are not yet being transformed by knowledge about the efficacy of those

practices”;andthemainTALIS2013report(OECD,2014a)refersconstantlyto“evidence”.

Yet,theverycodificationsofknowledgeor‘evidence’constructedintheTALISmeasuringtools

arepresentedasambiguousduetotheirsubjectivenature:

TALIS results are based on self-reports from teachers and school leaders and thereforerepresent their opinions, perceptions, beliefs and accounts of their activities. This ispowerful informationbecause it provides insight intohow teachersperceive the learningenvironmentsinwhichtheywork,whatmotivatesteachersandhowpoliciesthatareputinplace are carried out in practice. But, as with any self-reported data, this information issubjectiveandthereforediffersfromobjectivelycollecteddata.(OECD,2014a,p.29)

In understanding the OECD’s embrace of evidence-based policy, we note the continuous efforts to

forge links between TALIS and PISA (OECD, 2012). In this light, TALIS appears to serve the higher

purposeofstudentperformance,asassessedbyPISA,withthemoresubjectivedataofteachers’self-

reportsbecomingsubordinatedtotheobjectivedataofstudentperformance. It isthussymptomatic

that the very first paragraphs in the TALIS 2013 main report refer to PISA rather than TALIS itself

(OECD,2014a,p.3).

Thepreferenceforconstructivistpedagogy


Page 5

TALIS’s conclusions on teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning and their reported

classroompracticesstandoutasremarkablyvague(OECD,2009,chapter4;OECD,2014a,chapter6;

Rinne & Ozga, 2013). This might be due to the unhelpful juxtaposition of ‘constructivist’ beliefs

(“characterisedby a viewof the teacher as the facilitator of learningwithmore autonomygiven to

students”)and‘directtransmission’views(seeing“theteacherastheinstructor,providinginformation

anddemonstratingsolutions”)(OECD,2009,p.269;OECD,2014a,p.217).

Yet,OECD’spedagogicalprojectisclearlyanchoredbyconstructivism;acentraltenetofwhich

isthatrealitydoesnotexistindependentofthesubjectswhoseekit.Inotherwords,thereisnoother

independent, pre-existing world (Olssen, 1996). This bias towards constructivist pedagogy is

epitomised by the reduction of indices in TALIS 2013 to merely include an index on constructivist

beliefs tocapture teachers’beliefsabout teachingand learning (OECD2014a,p.217; compareOECD

2009,p.269).

Flexibleemployment

The OECD claims that TALIS gives ‘voice’ to teachers. However, TALIS might contribute to

teachers losing their collective voice over time. We should note that the employment status of

teachers continues to vary across the globe. In Europe, for instance, teachers can be distinguished

either as civil servants, career civil servants, or employees with contractual status, depending on

nationalorsub-nationalarrangements(EuropeanCommission&EACEA/Eurydice,2013,p.50).Overall,

OECD claims that the TALIS program in its overall design acknowledges institutional differences and

helps to identify cross-culturally valid and comparable information about theworking conditions of

teachersandthelearningenvironmentinschools(OECD,2014a,p.26).

We are thus faced with a contradiction: the OECD claims that TALIS acknowledges that

education systems are bound to reflect societal and cultural contexts, yet policy recommendations

reflect that differences in institutional arrangements are to be overruled in the maximisation of

‘studentperformance’,asconceivedandreframedbyOECD.Initsdiscussiononcollectivebargaining,

theTeachersMatterreportrepresentsthecontradiction:

…contrasting findings reinforce thebasicpoint that collectivebargainingagreements, likeanyothermechanismfordeterminingschoolresourcelevelsandtheiruses,ultimatelyneedtobeassessedintermsoftheirimpactonstudentoutcomes.(OECD,2005,p.146)


Page 6

However,despitethemixedresearchevidencethesamereportcalledfor“usingmoreflexibletermsof

employment”(OECD,2005,p.162)asapolicypriorityandnon-tenureinteachers’employmentstatus.

Teachers Matter provided the groundwork for the TALIS program, and teacher evaluation,

feedbackandsalarydifferentiationremainprominentissuesinthesurvey.Againstthisbackground,it

appears likeomissionbydesignthatthemainOECDreportsfromTALIS2008andTALIS2013donot

addresswhat various national or subnational differences in employment statusmightmean for the

institutionalarrangementsconcerningtheseissues.

TALISisamajorresearchexercise.Yet,thepointsmadeaboveshowsthattheprogramunderthe

veneer of alleged objectivity is also a political construction, reflecting the negotiation of policy

preferencesbytheOECDandtherangeoforganizationsandauthoritiesinvolvedintheprogramme.

TheTALISEnsemble:theOrchestratorsandLegitimatorsofQualityTeacherTM

This section focuses on the orchestrators and legitimators of Quality TeacherTM - the OECD, the

European Commission, the global teacher union Educational International, and private sector policy

actors in the TALIS program. These organizations have been selected because highlighting their

involvementinthesurveyhelpstoexplaintheframing,measuringandsellingoftheQualityTeacherTM

andalsoprovidestheopportunitytoadoptamoredetachedyetcriticalperspectiveonthestrategies

oftheseorganizations.

However,firstweshouldoutlinethebasicinstitutionalarrangementsoftheTALISprogram.We

have conceived of the range of organisations and bodies involved in the conception, design, and

implementation of the TALIS program as the ‘TALIS ensemble’ (see Robertson & Dale, 2015, for

theoreticalconsiderationson‘educationensembles’).Itwouldgobeyondthelimitsofthischapterto

explore in detail the internal relations and emergent properties of the TALIS ensemble as a social

formation,butthefollowinggroupsaresomeofitsmainconstituents:

• TheOECDTALISSecretariathastheoverallresponsibilityformanagingtheprogram.

• Inprinciple,TALISisfinancedthroughgovernmentauthorities,typicallytheeducationministries,of

participatingpoliticalentities.However,theEuropeanCommissionisactuallythemainsinglefunder

sinceithassubsidizedparticipatingEUMemberStateswith75percentoftheirfees.


Page 7

• Within the OECD, there are five representative bodies engaging with TALIS. These bodies are

composed of senior officials or experts appointed by national governments of OECD member

countriesornon-members.

• The international TALIS Consortium is responsible for coordination and management of

implementation at the international level. The appointed contractor for TALIS 2013 was the

InternationalAssociationfortheEvaluationofEducationalAchievement(IEA),withStatisticsCanada

asasubcontractoroftheIEA.

• Finally, National Project Managers and National Data Managers in National TALIS Centres

implementedTALISinparticipatingpoliticalentities(OECD2014a,p.29;OECD,2015).

OECDandtheEuropeanCommission:MainFramersofQualityTeacherTM

In taking the TALIS program forward, the roles of the OECD and the European Commission’s (EC)

DirectorateGeneralforEducationandCulture(DGEAC)cannotbeoverestimated.Personnelfromthe

OECDaswellasDGEACinterviewedforthisstudywerekeentoemphasisethattheirorganizationsare

first of all - bottom-up - intergovernmental fora for cooperation. Yet, it is clear that the two

organizationsthemselvesarepowerfulstrategicpolicyactorscapableofshapingpolicyagendas,and

thatthisisreflectedinthepoliticalmandatesgiventothembytheirmemberstates.Accordingly,they

areatleasttosomeextent“expectedtolead”,inthewordsofanOECDsenioranalystweinterviewed,

inthenegotiationsinwhichdecisionsareinprincipletakenbyconsensus.

However close their partnership in TALIS and collaboration on education policy in general

(European Commission, 2012), OECD and DG EAC have had distinctive roles in the program and

followed different strategies. Thus, with its reputation as a premier ‘think-tank’ for the richest

countries around the globe and the world’s premier supplier of educational statistics (Henry, Rizvi,

Lingard, & Taylor 2001; Lawn & Grek, 2012; Mahon & McBride, 2008; Meyer & Benavot, 2013;

Woodward,2009),theOECDistheonesinglemasterframerofthesurvey.Meanwhile,theEuropean

Commission andDGEACmight beunderstood as themost important ally of theOECD, yetwith its

distinctpolicypreferences.

TheOECDisthemasterframerofQualityTeacherTMintheTALISensemblesincethesurveywas

originallyconceivedwithintheOECDandtheorganizationhoststhemainactivitiesrelatedtoitsdesign


Page 8

and development. Within the OECD, the TALIS Board of Participating Countries (the TALIS Board)

standsoutasthemostimportantbodyformultilateraldecision-makingonTALIS.Majorissueswerefor

the first two roundsofTALIS tobenegotiatedalso in theOECDEducationPolicyCommittee,and in

somecases theOECDCouncil.But it is in theTALISBoard thatdecisionsarebeingmadeconcerning

policy objectives for the survey, and where the standards for data collection and reporting are

established.TheTALISBoardisthusattheverycoreoftheTALISensemble.

TheTALISBoardwasformallycreatedonJanuary1st2007andwillbeabolishedonDecember

31st2015(OECD,2015). Itsgeneral features intermsofresponsibilitiesandconstituentswerestable

for the 2008 and 2013 rounds of TALIS. From the next round, TALIS 2018, the program is to be

‘upgraded’ in the OECD institutional hierarchy by becoming a so-called Part II program – thereby

enjoyingasimilarstatusasPISA.Amongstotherthings,thisnewstatusis likelytoentailmorestable

long-termcommitmenttoparticipationandfundingfromcountriesfortheoverallTALISprogram,and

thattheTALISBoardwillenjoyfurtherindependenceinitsdecision-making.

TheTALISBoardconsistsofgovernmentrepresentativesfromeachparticipatingpoliticalentity

andfromanumberoforganizations.TheEuropeanCommission(EC)isrepresentedbypolicyofficers

from Directorate General for Education and Culture (DG EAC), and UNESCO has the status as a

permanentobserver.Moreover,theBusinessandIndustryAdvisoryCommittee(BIAC)andtheTrade

UnionAdvisoryCommitteetotheOECD(TUAC,theOECDformalmechanismforsocialdialoguewith

tradeunions)haveparticipatedinthenegotiations(OECD,2009,pp.303-305;OECD,2015;OECD2014,

pp.434-436;interviewswithOECDanalyst,DGEACpolicyofficers,andEIrepresentatives).

AsthecoordinatingorganizationofTALIS,OECDoverseestheworkintheTALISBoardandisthe

mainsupplierofmeetingmaterials.Moreover, theOECD isobviously interested in further raising its

profile by getting countries, both OECD members and non-members, on board. TALIS is hence

complementedbyotherOECDactivities.PISAhasthusinparticularcastitsshadowonTALIS,withthe

OECDcontinuouslyexploringpotential‘synergies’betweenthetwoprogramsandencouragedmostly

reluctantparticipantcountriestosignupforaso-calledTALIS-PISAlinkinTALIS2013(interviewswith

OECD analyst and EI senior official; OECD, 2012). The link entails that TALIS sample populations in

participantcountriesarealignedwiththoseofPISA.EightcountriesincorporatedtheTALIS-PISAlink:

Australia,Finland,Latvia,Mexico,Portugal,Romania,SingaporeandSpain(OECD,2014a,p.27).


Page 9

TALISisalsoframedbyotherOECDactivitiesonteachers.Mostnotableofthesearetheannual

International Summits on the TeachingProfession. The first of these summitswas convened inNew

York in2011bytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation,theOECD,andEI.iiThe initiativeforthe

summitweretakeninthewakeofTALIS2008,andtheOECD’sDeputyDirectorofEducation,Andreas

Schleicher,wasengagedtowritethebackgroundreportfortheSummit(OECD,2011)aswellasplay

theself-styledroleofframeroftheagenda.

ThisleadsustooneofthemostintriguingaspectsoftheTALISprogrammethatconcernsthe

ambiguous position that the programme puts the teaching profession in. Teachers are thus

simultaneouslyrecognizedasakeyworkforceandcriticizedfornot livinguptotheirresponsibilities.

On theonehand, theOECDhas - since theTeachersMatter report -emphasised the importanceof

involving the teaching profession in policy (OECD, 2005, pp. 15, 214), and argues it seeks to give

“teachers and school leaders around the world a voice to speak about their experiences” (OECD,

2014a,p.3).Thisclearlymarksadeparture fromneoliberalderisiondiscourses (Robertson,2013,p.

78).Yetontheother,teachers´exclusionfromdebatescontinues,withtheOECDconfidentithasthe

answers;most recently theOECDSecretary-General,AngelGurría, asserted that “TALIS2013 results

showthatweneedtoputteachersonapathtosuccessimmediately”(OECD,2014a,p.3).

Since the OECD’s foundation in 1961, the OECD has tried to inform and influence policy by

targeting decision-makers, government officials, and civil society organisations (Mundy, 2007). It is

thereforeremarkablethattheOECDinthewakeofTALIS2013soughttotargetteachersandschool

leadersdirectlybypublishingATeacher’sGuide(OECD2014b).OECDpublicationsdirectlyaddressing

teachersareveryrare,andthenonlyintimesofaperceivedthreattosecurity,forinstanceduringthe

ColdWarandspaceraceclimateof themid-1960s,whichsawthepublicationofanOECDTeacher’s

GuidetoPhysics(OECD,1965;seealsoTröhler2013).

Branded as “a global “selfie” by teachers” (OECD, 2014b, p.7), the 28 pages-guide presents

recommendationsas tohowTALISdatacanbeusedby teachersandschool leaders tohavegreater

impact in classrooms. According to anOECD analystwe interviewed, the guide is part of a broader

OECDstrategytoreachouttoteachersandschoolleadersdirectly,acknowledgingthatthemainTALIS

reportsare likelynottobereadbyeitherteachersorschool leaders.RaisingawarenessaboutTALIS

andOECDactivitiesmoregenerallyismeanttoachieve‘buy-in’fromschoolprofessionals,andincrease

thesupportfromtheminfutureroundsofTALIS.


Page 10

While currently only available in three languages, (English, French and Spanish), the guide

showsthattheOECD,asaglobalactor, isalsoreachingdeepintolocalmicro-spacesandinsodoing

by-passes nationally-located governments and teacher unions. This trend is further indicatedby the

recent launch of OECD Test for Schools, based on PISA and targeting schools “interested in

international benchmarking” to “provide school-levelresults forbenchmarkingandschool-

improvementpurposes”(OECD,2014c).

Concerning the EC and DG EAC, TALIS is one of the first projects where they have worked

closelytogetherwiththeOECDinthefieldofeducation.TheEC,andmorespecificallyDGEAC,played

a pivotal role in the initial stages of TALIS, particularly in getting the program off the ground. This

shouldbeunderstoodwithinthecontextoftheEULisbonStrategy2000-2010inwhicheducationand

training was given a new prominent role for “making Europe the most competitive and dynamic

knowledge-based economy in the world”(Council of the European Union, 2000). Building on

discussions in working groups of national experts set up by DG EAC, European Council Conclusions

agreedbymemberstates’ministersofeducation in2005and2007 (Councilof theEuropeanUnion,

2005,2007)gavetheEuropeanCommissionandDGEACmandatestopursuecooperationwithOECD

onTALIS,andtoencourageMemberStatestotakeparttohelpcoverdataneedsinthemonitoringof

progress towards the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The 2007 Council Conclusions had also

providedDGEACwiththemandatetosubsidizememberstatesfortheirparticipationinTALIS.

TheECandDGEAC,inaccordancewiththemandategivenbytheconclusionsoftheEuropean

CouncilofMinisters,thusenteredtheTALISprogramwithdistinctpolicypriorities.Duringthefirsttwo

roundsofTALIS,theoverridingprioritywasteachers’professionaldevelopment,andDGEACpursued

thisrathersuccessfullysinceprofessionaldevelopmenthasbeencoveredinbothroundsofTALIS,and

EU member states have made up the bulk of participants in the TALIS program, undoubtedly

encouraged by DG EACs offer to subsidize them with 75% of the TALIS participation fees. The

distinctivepolicypreferencesoftheECandDGEACarealsoreflectedinthefactthattheypreparedor

commissionedtheirownreportswithaEuropeanfocusonTALIS(Scheerens,2010;DirectorateGeneral

forEducationandCulture,2014).

AseniorofficialweinterviewedinDGEACpointedoutthatbeforeeachmeeting intheTALIS

Board,DGEACwouldhostcoordinationmeetings for theEUmembercountries takingpart inTALIS.

Giventhat itonlyenjoyedobserverstatus intheTALISBoard, itwas imperativeforDGEACthatthe


Page 11

participatingEUmemberstateswouldcarrytheECagendaforwardattheTALISBoardmeetings,andit

hadbeenmadecleartomemberstatesthattheirparticipationinitwouldonlybesubsidizedbytheEC

if theymanaged to get teachers’ professional development included in the survey. Yet, this senior

officialalsonotedthatOECDembracedtheECinterestinTALISandsoughttoaccommodateTALISas

muchaspossibletotheobjectivesoftheEC.Thiscloseworkingpartnershipwasalsoreflectedinthe

factthattheinitialresultsfromTALIS2008werelaunchedintheECBerlaymontbuildinginBrusselsin

July2009;theOECDisheadquarteredinParis.

While the internationalorganizationsOECDandEC in theirownwayshave carried theTALIS

programforward,theinstitutionalarrangementsofTALISarealsodesignedtoenablestateauthorities

toextendtheirhorizonof influencewellbeyondtheirown jurisdiction.Decision-making intheTALIS

Boardthusformallyhappensonthebasisofvotesfromparticipatingcountries.Moreover, it isthose

participatingcountriesthathavesignedupforaTALISroundatanearlystagewhoareinvitedtoselect

policythemesandindicatorsthroughapriority-ratingexercise.ForTALIS2013,therewere20potential

themesand94indicators.Thepriority-ratingexercisesaremeanttoprovideafocusedsurveythat is

reflectiveofpolicyprioritiesinparticipatingpoliticalentities(OECD,2013,pp.9-13).

Finally,whiletheOECDasanorganizationhasastronginterestintighteningthelinksbetween

TALISandPISA,participatingcountrieshavesincethelaunchofTALIStendedtoinsistontreatingthem

as separate programs with distinctive identities on political as well as methodological grounds

(interviewswithOECDanalystandDGEACseniorofficial).Inthislight,wemightseeitasindicativeof

thecapacityoftheOECDtoachieve‘buy-in’fromgovernmentsforitsmoreexperimentalprojectsthat,

despitethegeneralscepticism,eightcountriessignedupfortheTALIS-PISAlinkinTALIS2013.

EducationInternational:LegitimatingQualityTeacherTM

As theprimaryorganisationworking for teachers’ interests inTALIS,Education International (EI)has

been provided a broadmandate to negotiate on behalf of its affiliatemember organisations in the

TALIS Board. EI has taken part in TALIS Boardmeetings since they were initiated in 2006 and was

granted permanent observer status in 2009. Attaining this status, EI has been consulted on draft

chaptersandenjoyedenhancedopportunitiesforsubmittingcommentsandideas.


Page 12

ItshouldbenotedthatEIaffiliatesfinanceanddecidepolicyprioritiesforEIandTUACactivities

(see also Carter, Stevenson, & Passy, 2010). The TUAC representatives participating at TALIS Board

meetingsreportedtoasub-groupofEIaffiliatememberorganisationsthatwassetupbyEIthrough

theTUACEducation, Training andEmploymentPolicyWorkingGroup.Accordingly, EI affiliateswere

encouragedtomobilisesupportforTALISamongsttheirmembers(EducationInternational,2012).

StafffromEI,OECDandDGEACallcharacterizedtheircooperationinTALISasconstructiveand

well-functioning.However,EIengagementinOECDwasinitiallydrivenbydisagreements.Accordingto

aseniorofficialinEI,thereportTeachersMatter(OECD2005)promptedEItoreactduetosomeofthe

OECD’spolicyrecommendations.Inparticular,theissueofperformance-basedpayforteachersstood

outasa‘redline’nottobecrossedforEIanditsaffiliates.EIthussoughttobecomeengagedinthe

TALISBoard to try to influence the constructionof knowledge generated in theprogram, andmore

generally to contest the evidence presented by increasingly powerful actors such as OECD, the EC,

Pearson Education and McKinsey & Company (Education International, 2012; see also Education

International,2007).

We might say that EI sees TALIS as an essentially political construction through which the

prioritisationofcertainpolicythemes,indicators,andphrasingofquestions,isboundtocontainabias

towards particular notions of education, society and the role and working conditions of teachers.

Accordingly,afocalpointforEIintheTALISBoardsofarhasbeenthephrasingofTALISquestionnaire

items.

However,inassessingtheimpactofEI’sengagementonthedirectionofTALIS,itisimperative

to point out that OECD and EI staff emphasize that the influence of teacher unions has remained

limited.TheformalmandatetotheOECDcomesfrommembergovernments,andtheroleforEIasa

permanent observer in the TALIS Board can therefore not be compared to that of governments,

formally and informally. It is thus illustrative that EI do not take part in the TALIS priority-ranking

exercise of policy themes and indicators.Moreover, TUAC representatives are excluded from taking

partinsomeofthediscussionsintheTALISBoard.

In other words, the global teacher union EI has very limited opportunities in framing and

shapingthedirectionofTALIS;ratherithaseitheractedto,orbeenusedbytheOECD,legitimateand

this ‘sell’ theOECD’sQualityTeacherTMproduct.At thesametime,with itsengagementEIapproves

the surveyasa relevantmeasuring instrumentandencourages itsaffiliatememberorganizations to


Page 13

supportit.Inshort,EIofferscrucialassistanceinsellingtheprogramandpromotingabrandofQuality

TeacherTMnotofitsownmaking.TheTALISprogramdependsontheresponseratesofteachersandit

remains an open questionwhether these rates could bemet if EI and teacher unions advised their

membersnottotakepartinthesurvey.

This raises a question as to the mechanisms through which the teaching profession is

represented in TALIS, and the reframing of the vertical relationship between EI and its member

affiliates. By winding in, and advancing an evolving engagement of EI in the two rounds of TALIS

throughTUAC (theOECD formalmechanism for socialdialoguewith tradeunions), theOECD isalso

reorientingEI towardtheagendasthatarebeingadvanced in thisnewglobalpolicyspace,andthus

arguablyfurtherawayfromthoseoftheEImemberaffiliates.

Indeed,ininterviewsEIstaffpointoutthattheyareawareoftheriskofbecomingentangledin

theOECD’sdistinctiveversionofevidence-basedpolicyandtheassociatedriskofde-politicizationof

teachers’work. InthewordsofanEIseniorofficial,theorganisationseesitasageneraldangerthat

“evidencehijackssocialdialogue”andundermines thedevelopmentof institutionalarrangement for

collectivebargaining.

We see that the TALIS ensemble is constituted by complex dynamics proceeding from the

assumption that common issuesandhencealso solutions canbe identifiedwith regard to teachers’

workattheglobalscale.Thisalsoappliestoprofessionalautonomy,andthewayteachersareableto

put their ideas forward and exercise control over theirwork. The global teacher union EI has been

givenamandateby itsaffiliatestoengageinTALIS,yettheorganizationisvulnerabletothecritique

alsodirected towards theOECDandEU,namely thatofdemocraticdeficits in termsof representing

thediverseinterestsoftheirmembers.EIisattemptingtomakeitsvoiceheardontheglobalscale,but

theverticalstructurethatshouldenableEItoconsultmemberaffiliatesaspartoftheongoingworkof

TALISappears justasambiguousandopaqueas thosebetween for instance theECandEUmember

countries.

EnterprisesandFoundations:SellingtheOECD’sQualityTeacherTM

Private sector enterprises and foundations do not appear to have been verymuch involved in the

framingofTALIS.TheformalmechanismforconsultationwithprivatesectorinterestsintheOECD,the


Page 14

Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), has reportedly kept a low profile at TALIS Board

meetings,accordingtopersonnelfromOECD,DGEAC,andEI.

SomeoftheNationalTALISCentresimplementingthesurveyhaveincludedprivatecompanies,

andatleastinthecaseofEnglandinTALIS2013,theNationalProjectManager,employedbyaprivate

edu-tech firm, used the possibility (offered in all participating political entities) to propose extra

questionsfortheEnglishsurvey,andthesewereapprovedbythenationalSteeringGroup.However,in

termsoftheoverallframingandmeasurementofTALISandQualityTeacherTM,suchinfluencewould

appeartobemarginal.

Moreimportantly,privatesectororganizationsareveryactiveinprofilingandsellingTALISby

using data, interpreting and discussing results. This is immediately visible in the thoroughly

coordinated series of events surrounding the launchof TALIS results. Like in the caseof their other

products,OECDclearlyaspirestoturntheselaunchesinto‘worldevents’(Sobe,2013;Stichweh,2013).

Thus,theTALIS2013resultswasfirstofficiallypresentedinTokyoon25June2014atanOECD

InformalMeetingofMinistersofEducation(theDGEACDirectorGeneralalsotookpart).Onthesame

date,thegloballivewebinar“EducationFastForward10:BetterTeachingforBetterLearning”hosted

byedu-techfirmPrometheanPlanet,connectedstudios inAtlanta,Boston,London,Paris,Tokyoand

elsewhere to form a debate between what was labeled ‘global education experts’, remarkably

dominated by consultancies and foundations based in North America or England; such as Bill &

MelindaGatesFoundation,TSLEducation(nowTESGlobal), InnovationUnit,andPromethean.OECD

andUNESCOwerealsorepresented,alongwithrenownedglobalacademics,suchasProfessorMichael

Fullan and Professor Pasi Sahlberg. In terms of national governments, only the US Department of

Educationwasrepresented.Finally,JohnBangs,TUACChair,tookpartasthevoiceofteacherunions

(EducationFastForward,2014).

Inthissense,privateconsultanciesandcorporatephilanthropistsmainlyappeartooperate in

the periphery of the TALIS ensemble. Within the context of the TALIS program, their business

entrepreneurship,innovationandprofitmakingarebasedondisseminationandinterpretation(hence

potentiallyre-framingTALIS)ofdatageneratedundertheauspicesoftheOECD.

We should note that private sector actors have very different profiles in terms of policy

preferences,strategies,capacitiesandhorizonsofaction(Ball,2012;Robertson&Verger,2012).Yet,


Page 15

they share the feature that their activities, whether for-profit business or venture philanthropy,

produce policy recommendations on the basis of TALIS datawhich in turnmaywell feed into new

productsandservices.Therefore,privatesectorpolicyactorsengage inasymbioticrelationshipwith

OECD,regardlesstheorientationoftheirrecommendations,sincetheysimultaneouslyrelyonpublicly-

paidresearchprograms,suchasTALIS,andhelpto legitimatetheseprogramsbyraisingtheiroverall

profile.Inotherwords,theyhelptosellthebrandofQualityTeacherTMimpliedinTALIS.

ThesymbioticrelationshipislikelytobereinforcedbytheOECD’sinitiativeforannualsummits

oftheglobaleducationindustry(OECD,2014d).Itisremarkablethatthesearemeanttocomplement

theannualInternationalSummitsontheTeachingProfession.

ConcludingRemarks:QualityTeacher™

Webeganthischapterbypointingtothefactthatteachersaroundtheglobehaveincreasinglybeen

placedunderthespotlightregardingthenatureoftheirwork,andparticularlytheformandcontentof

their pedagogical practice. Teachers’matter, it is argued, and fewwoulddisagreewith this. Butwe

maywellaskaboutwhatreally isontheagendasof theOECD,theEuropeanCommissionandother

policyactorsengagedinwhatwecalledtheTALISensemble.

WelookedmorecloselyatthebrandofqualityteacherthatisattheheartoftheOECD’sTALIS

projectandarguedthat theQualityTeacher™pursuedthroughtheprogramme ismeant toendorse

constructivistpedagogyandworkundera flexibleemployment regime.Weshowed that the indices

and items addressing pedagogy and employment status in the first two rounds of TALIS are so

simplistic that survey responses cannot question or contradict these policy preferences, let alone

expose them. Moreover, TALIS is framed by PISA, the most successful enterprise in comparative

educationalresearchever,andTALISsurveyresponsesarehencesubordinatedthePISAassessmentof

studentperformanceasconceivedandbrandedbyOECD.

We unpacked the TALIS ensemble and pointed out that the OECD and the European

Commissionhaveframed,measuredandsoldQualityTeacherTMwiththeirdistinctiveobjectives;that

theglobalteacherunionEIhavelegitimatedtheTALISframingofteachers’workandthepoliciesand

politicssurroundingitonthegloballevel;andthatprivateenterprisesandfoundationsareveryactive

intryingtomakebusinessonthebasisofTALISdata.


Page 16

Asouranalysismakesevident,thesedevelopmentsreflectamajortransformationunderway

aimedatreframingandrescalingwhereandhowdecisionsaremadearoundteachers’pedagogyand

thenatureoftheprofessionmoregenerally.TALIShasbeenlaunchedasamajordatagatheringeffort

aimedatreformingtheteachingprofessionaroundtheworld.Asatechnologyofgoverningteachers

globally,itpromisesparticipatingcountriesawealthofdataforcomparativeresearchaimedathelping

countriescreatemoreeffectiveteachersandmorecompetitiveknowledge-basedeconomies.

Butwe detect a profound contradiction in this tight framing of the quality teacher – in that

thereislittlespacefordiscretion,innovationorrisk–allelementsinworkplacelearningthatarelikely

toleadtohigherlevelsofsociallearning,jobsatisfaction,productivityandsysteminnovation(Lundvall

& Lorenz, 2015; Sahlberg, 2011).Quality Teacher™as currently framed,measuredand sold through

TALISplaceslimitsontheverycapacitiesofteachersitpurportstobeconcernedwith.Therefore,this

particularbrandofteacherprofessionalismislikelytounderminetheverythingithopestoachieve–

moreinnovative,creativeteachersandlearnersfortheknowledgeeconomy.

References

Ball,S.J.(2012).GlobaleducationInc:Newpolicynetworksandtheneo-liberalimaginary.London:Routledge.

Caena,F.(2014).TeacherCompetenceFrameworksinEurope:Policy-as-discourseandpolicy-as-practice.

EuropeanJournalofEducation,49(3),311–331.

Carter,B.,Stevenson,H.,&Passy,R.(2010).IndustrialRelationsinEducation:TransformingtheSchool

Workforce.Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.

Connell,R.(2009).Goodteachersondangerousground:Towardsanewviewofteacherqualityand

professionalism.CriticalStudiesinEducation,50(3),213-229.

CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2000).Presidencyconclusions.LisbonEuropeanCouncil,23and24March2000.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm

CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2005).CouncilConclusionsof24May2005onnewindicatorsineducationand

training.2005/C141/04.Retrievedfromhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52005XG0610(01)&from=EN

CounciloftheEuropeanUnion(2007).Councilconclusionsonacoherentframeworkofindicatorsand

benchmarksformonitoringprogresstowardstheLisbonobjectivesineducationandtraining.2802nd


Page 17

Education,YouthandCultureCouncilmeeting,Brussels,24-25May2007.Retrievedfrom

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/94290.pdf

DirectorateGeneralforEducationandCulture(2014).TheTeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey(TALIS)

2013:MainfindingsfromthesurveyandimplicationsforeducationandtrainingpoliciesinEurope.

Retrievedfromhttp://ec.europa.eu/education/library/reports/2014/talis_en.pdf

EducationFastForward(2014).EFF10:BetterTeachingforBetterLearning.Retrievedfrom

http://www.effdebate.org/debates/previous-debates/eff10-better-teaching-for-better-learning/

EducationInternational(2007).EducationInternationalGuidetoPISA2006.Retrievedfrom

http://download.ei-ie.org/docs/IRISDocuments/Research%20Website%20Documents/2009-00032-01-

E.pdf

EducationInternational(2012).TALIS:EIensuresthatteachers'concernsareconsidered.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/2241

EuropeanCommission(2012).FrameworkforcollaborationbetweentheEuropeanCommissionandtheOECDin

thefieldofeducation.Retrievedfromhttp://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-

2014/vassiliou/documents/20120911-framework-for-collaboration-education-oecd_eac.pdf

EuropeanCommission&EACEA/EURYDICE(2013).KeyDataonTeachersandSchoolLeadersinEurope.2013

Edition.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.

Henry,M.,Rizvi,F.,Lingard,R.,&Taylor,S.(2001).Education,GlobalisationandtheOECD.LondonandNew

York:Routledge.

ILO&UNESCO(1966).RecommendationConcerningtheStatusofTeachers.Retrievedfrom

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0016/001604/160495e.pdf

InternationalTaskforceonTeachersforEducationForAll(2014).TeacherPolicyDevelopmentGuide.Paris:

UNESCO.

Lawn,M.,&Grek,S.(2012).EuropeanizingEducation:Governinganewpolicyspace.Oxford:Symposium.

Lundvall,B.-Å.,&Lorenz,E.(2015).TowardaEuropeanStrategyfortheGlobalisingLearningEconomy.Paper

presentedattheECPR-conferenceinMontreal,August26-29,2015.

MacBeath,J.(2012).FutureofTeachingProfession.Retrievedfromhttp://download.ei-

ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/EI%20Study%20on%20the%20Future%20of%20Teaching%20Profession.pdf

Mahon,R.,&McBride,S.(2009).TheOECDandTransnationalGovernance,Vancouver:UBC.

Meyer,H-D.,&Benavot,A.(Eds.2013).PISA,PowerandPolicy:Theemergenceofglobaleducational

governance.Oxford:Symposium.

Mundy,K.(2007).Globalgovernance,educationalchange.ComparativeEducation,43(3),339-357.

OECD(1965).TeachingPhysicstoday.Paris:OECD.


Page 18

OECD(2005).TeachersMatter:Attracting,DevelopingandRetainingEffectiveTeachers,EducationandTraining

Policy.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oecd.org/education/preschoolandschool/attractingdevelopingandretainingeffectiveteachers-

finalreportteachersmatter.htm

OECD(2009).CreatingEffectiveTeachingandLearningEnvironments:FirstResultsfromTALIS.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/43023606.pdf

OECD(2011).BuildingaHighQualityTeachingProfession:LessonsfromaroundtheWorld.Retrievedfrom

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/background.pdf

OECD(2012).ThesynergiesbetweenTALISandPISA.EDU/EDPC(2012)26.28Nov2012.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=EDU/EDPC(2012)26&docLangu

age=En

OECD(2013).TeachingandLearningInternationalSurveyTALIS2013Conceptualframework.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS%20Conceptual%20Framework_FINAL.pdf

OECD(2014a).TALIS2013Results:Aninternationalperspectiveonteachingandlearning.Retrievedfrom

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en

OECD(2014b).ATeachers’GuidetoTALIS2013.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-

Teachers-Guide.pdf

OECD(2014c).PISA-basedTestforSchools–FAQ.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-based-

test-for-schools-faq.htm

OECD(2014d).Proposalforanannualsummitoftheglobaleducationindustry.EDU/CERI/CD(2014)19.

PresentedintheCERIGoverningBoardOctober30-31,2014.

OECD(2015).On-LineGuidetoOECDIntergovernmentalActivity.Retrievedfrom

http://webnet.oecd.org/oecdgroups/

Olssen,M.(1996).RadicalConstructivismandItsFailings:Anti-realismandIndividualism.BritishJournalof

EducationalStudies,44(3),275–95.

Papadopoulos,G.S.(1994).Education1960-1990:TheOECDPerspective.Paris:OECD.

Rinne,R.,&Ozga,J.(2013).TheOECDandtheGlobalRe-RegulationofTeachers’Work:Knowledge-Based

RegulationToolsandTeachersinFinlandandEngland.InT.Seddon&J.Levin(Eds.),WorldYearbookof

Education2013.Educators,ProfessionalismandPolitics:GlobalTransitions,NationalSpacesand

ProfessionalProjects(pp.97-116).Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.

Robertson,S.L.(2012).Placingteachersinglobalgovernanceagendas.ComparativeEducationReview,56(4),

584-607.


Page 19

Robertson,S.L.(2013).Teachers’Work,Denationalisation,andTransformationsintheFieldofSymbolicControl:

AComparativeAccount.InT.Seddon&J.Levin(Eds.),WorldYearbookofEducation2013.Educators,

ProfessionalismandPolitics:GlobalTransitions,NationalSpacesandProfessionalProjects(pp.77-96).

Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.

Robertson,S.L.,&Dale,R.(2015).Towarda‘CriticalCulturalPoliticalEconomy’AccountoftheGlobalisingof

Education.Globalisation,SocietiesandEducation,13(1),149-170.

Robertson,S.L.,&Sorensen,T.B.(forthcoming).ReframingTeachers’WorkforGlobalCompetitiveness:New

GlobalHierarchiesintheGoverningofEducation.EducationalResearcher.

Robertson,S.L.,&Verger,A.(2012).GoverningeducationthroughPublicPrivatePartnerships.InS.L.Robertson,

K.Mundy,A.Verger,&F.Menashy(Eds.),PublicPrivatePartnershipsinEducation:NewActorsandModes

ofGovernanceinaGlobalizingWorld(pp.21-42).Cheltenham:EdwardElgar.

Sahlberg,P.(2011).FourthWayofFinland.JournalofEducationalChange,12(2),173–185.

Sassen,S.(2003).Globalizationordenationalization?ReviewofInternationalPoliticalEconomy,10(1),1-22.

Scheerens,J.(Ed.2010).Teachers’ProfessionalDevelopmentEuropeininternationalcomparison:Ananalysisof

teachers’professionaldevelopmentbasedontheOECD’sTeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey

(TALIS).Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsoftheEuropeanUnion.Retrievedfrom

http://doc.utwente.nl/92610/1/NC8010244ENC_002.pdf

Schleicher,A.(2015).Schoolsfor21st-CenturyLearners:StrongLeaders,ConfidentTeachers,Innovative

Approaches,InternationalSummitontheTeachingProfession.OECDPublishing.Retrievedfrom

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264231191-en

Sobe,N.W.(2013).TeacherprofessionalizationandtheGlobalizationofSchooling.InT.Seddon&J.Levin(Eds.),

WorldYearbookofEducation2013.Educators,ProfessionalismandPolitics:GlobalTransitions,National

SpacesandProfessionalProjects(pp.42-54).Abingdon,Oxon:Routledge.

Stichweh,R.(2008).TheEigenstructuresofWorldSocietyandtheRegionalCulturesoftheWorld.InI.Rossi

(Ed.),FrontiersofGlobalizationResearch:TheoreticalandMethodologicalApproaches(pp.133-149).New

York:Springer.

Tröhler,D.(2013).TheOECDandColdWarCulture:thinkinghistoricallyaboutPISA.InH-D.Meyer&A.Benavot

(Eds.),PISA,PowerandPolicy:Theemergenceofglobaleducationalgovernance(pp.141-161).Oxford:

Symposium.

Woodward,R.(2009).TheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge.

WorldBank(2012).SABER:SystemsApproachforBetterEducationResults.WhatMattersMostinTeacher

Policies?AFrameworkforBuildingaMoreEffectiveTeachingProfession.Retrievedfrom


Page 20

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1290520949227/SABER-Teachers-

Framework-Updated_June14.2012.pdf


Page 21

Table1ThescopeandpolicythemesofTALIS

TALIS2008 TALIS2013

Scope:

• 10 indices and 43 items in the

teacherquestionnaire


principalquestionnaire

Scope:


teacherquestionnaire


principalquestionnaire

Threemainthemes:

• Schoolleadership

• Appraisal of and feedback to

teachers

• Teaching practices, beliefs and

attitudes

+ Professional development of teachers

as “an important theme” due to

synergies with three main themes and

EuropeanUnioninterest

+ Aspects of other themes: School

climate,divisionofworkingtime,andjob

satisfaction

Fivemainthemes:

• School leadership, includingnew

indicators on distributed/team

leadership

• Appraisal of and feedback to

teachers

• Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs,

attitudesandteachingpractices,

including new indicators on the

profile of student assessment

practices

• Teacher training, including

professional development and

new indicatorson initial teacher

education

• Teachers’ reported feelings of

self-efficacy, their job

satisfaction and the climate in

the schools and classrooms in

whichtheywork

Sources:OECD,2009,pp.21,268-275;OECD,2014a,pp.28,214-221


Page 22

Footnotes

i International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was launched by UNESCO in 1976 to facilitate comparisons of education statistics and indicators across countries on the basis of uniform and internationally agreed definitions. ISCED has since been revised twice. ii Subsequent summits have since taken place in New York (2012), Amsterdam, Netherlands (2013), Wellington, New Zealand (2014) and Banff, Canada (2015).

The OECD program TALIS Tore SORENSEN and Framing, … · 2015-10-26 · TALIS 2013 from outside the...

Documents

Transcript of The OECD program TALIS Tore SORENSEN and Framing, … · 2015-10-26 · TALIS 2013 from outside the...