Teachers’ conceptions of teacher professionalism in England in 2003 and 2006

Abstract

Theoretical and political perspectives on the nature of professionalism in teaching are abundant, but little is known about the views of teachers themselves. We asked primary and secondary school teachers in England what teacher professionalism means to them. We explored what teachers think about professionalism, on what dimensions their thinking varies, and how much it varies. We researched how successful the government had already been, and how successful it would be in the future, in changing teachers’ conceptions of professionalism. Two large‐scale national surveys were conducted, with a longitudinal element. We found that teachers’ thinking about their professionalism may be construed as consisting of an inner core of strong, shared beliefs and commitments; an intermediate set of coherent but contested components of professionalism; and an outer layer of disparate elements which are generally highly disputed and which remain unintegrated into broader ways of thinking.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the many teachers who generously gave their time to contribute to this research. This article incorporates some material from the Teacher Status Project Evidence Base which is available from the Department for Children, Schools and Families website (http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/RRP/u015149/). We would also like to thank other members of the research team for their contributions to the study, especially Mrs Ann Curtis, Project Administrator, for her work in administering the surveys on which this article is based. This research was funded by the Department for Education and Skills.

Shortly before this article was submitted one of the authors, Professor Donald McIntyre, died suddenly and unexpectedly. All his colleagues will remember him with great affection and will sorely miss his commitment to teachers, teaching and teacher education.

Notes

1. The project was directed by Linda Hargreaves.

2. Significantly different but with effect sizes too small to reach the Cohen criterion (Cohen, 1988, p. 26).